"Flemish School" Bacchus: a Jan Van Dalen?

Sotheby's sells on 2 May 2018 in London a "Flemish School, 17th century" Bacchus, estimated at £7,000 to £10,000.

The topic and style remind me of the works by Jan Van Dalen (a painter from Antwerp active ca. 1632-1670). I can find 8 different Bacchus paintings, all of them busts, by Jan Van Dalen online.

The work for sale is e.g. comparable to the above from the Uffizi.

The Laughing Bacchus from the Museum of Budapest is supposed to be a self-portrait.

The above two have perhaps better detail in the anatomy of the body, but the Bacchus from the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna is more similar in that regard.

Perhaps the work for sale is a bit less finished, less polished than the accepted Van Dalen works and should be considered a "Circle of" or something similar, but the relation between the work and the artist seems rather obvious anyway.

Why a £400 set of Old Master Drawings went for £4,000 instead

I regularly encounter interesting prospects, paintings or drawings which have been missed by the auctioneer and are severely undervalued. Soemtimes I list them here, often I share them with one of my contacts to try to buy them. Usually, this doesn't work out as I am not the only one noticing these, and others are less cautious in their estimates.

The latest one was yesterday, 28 March 2017, at Sotheby's. Finding a hidden gem at a small auction is nice, but finding one missed by the Sotheby experts is of course even nicer!

In a collection of "Sixteen Old Master drawings", estimated at £400 to £600, three drawings in particular caught my attention.

The first was an Italian nude, showing great skill, but very heavily damaged, and which I in the end didn't research any further, as it probably was a drawing after one of the great Renaissance artists anyway.

The second was a Flemish drawing in the style of the Antwerp masters of the 17th century, showing considerable skill (but somewhat damaged). It turned out to be a copy after a Van Dyck engraving, depicting Jan Wildens.

But the third one was the one that made for me this lot very interesting and underestimated. A very good and funny drawing of a scene from Don Quixote. It was signed with a "D" upper left, and "Dietri... 1756" lower right.

Some searching led me to another drawing, from the British Museum, from the same year, also from Don Quixote, which was clearly by the same hand and which was given to Christian Wilhelm Ernst Dietrich (also known as Dietricy) (1712-1774), versatile German artist. His drawings usually aren't extremely valuable, but then again they often are preparatory sketches, not the highly attractive finished work we see here.

I can't find any evidence that there ever was a published Don Quixote with these drawings, which would really be the icing on the cake. But even so, having two drawings of the same subject, with the same design of the character (including armour, shield, weapon, donkey, ...) and the same attribution (one by the BM, one on the drawing) makes it fairly certain that this is a genuine Dietrich drawing, and a very good one at that.

So my guess is that this drawing alone is the reason that this lot went for 10 times the estimate, and I hope that whoever bought it truly enjoys it as it is a small gem.

"Elegantly-dressed figures conversing..." at Sotheby's is another "Flemish Charity"

Sotheby's sells on 28 March 2017 a "Flemish School, early 17th century" "Elegantly-dressed figures conversing in front of a building in a landscape", estimated at £3,000 to £5,000.

While they give the transcript of the"moral verse" beneath the painting, any further explanation is missing. Luckily I have discussed this type of painting already twice, in May 2016 and in January 2017.

It is a "Flemish Charity" or "Poor parents, rich children", and as evidenced by the multiple auctions recently this was a fairly common theme for a while in Flemish and Dutch painting, and one of the most common paintings with long textual explanations, existing in multiple compositions with slightly varying text.

This very composition though can be found identical (even the dimensions), though in a worse condition, in the British Royal Collection. The Royal Collection seems slightly better painted, though both are rather primitive, naive works. They are probably by the same artist. The entry there also explains that it is based on an engraving by Bartholomeus Dolendo.

And with that information, I was able to find that engraving in the collections of the Rijksmuseum. It dates to 1590. That version has a text in three languages (French, German and Dutch) and with 4 verses, not the three we get here (the third one is missing here).

The transcription given by Sotheby's has a few small errors, which I'll correct here.

Top text:
Kint nemt waer uus / vaders outheyt / Ende en bedrouft / Hem niet in / Zynen leven / ecclesias[...].
[Ecclesiasticus III] This is a Bible chapter dealing with parents and children, with lines like "Whoever respects a father will in turn be happy with children, the day he prays for help, he will be heard." The text here means
Child see your / fathers old age / and don't disappoint / him in / his life

Bottom text:
 Och lieve kinders g'heeft ons het [should read "Iet" instead of "Het", to rhyme with "overschyet"]/ voor t hulijcx gooet dat wii u gaeven / van tgeen dat u nu overschyet / om ons bedrouft heert te laeven.
Meaning
Oh sweet children give us something / for the marriage goods we gave you / from whatever still remains to you / to sooth our saddeneddd heart

Lieve ouders wij en mogen t niet doen / tis alte dier t sij cost ende cleeren / die kinders costen ons veel te voen / Wij en moghen voor u lien [should be "sien"] niet ontberen.
Meaning
Dear parents we may not do it / it's too expensive either food or clothes / the children cost us too much / we may not deprive them for you

Wie dese leere willen opserveren niet / maer domineren gelijck men hier sal ["Siet", better rhyme and meaning]/ d ouders oneren ende laten int verdriet / Slae ick doot dat een ander ansiet.
Meaning
Who doesn't want to follow this lesson / but dominate as one can see here . shame the parents and let them in sorrow /  I'll smite dead as an example to others

The work for sale is mainly interesting for the iconography, and because it is also nice to see multiple versions of the same painting, which helps to interpret and place them. Artistically, it is a mediocre work and quite badly cracked, although otherwise it is in good condition. It may get the estimated value, as the painting is a nice talking point for whoever gets to display it; but it won't be a sleeper work as the subject isn't that rare and the artist not very interesting.

UPDATE: sold for £5,250, just above the high estimate. Some real sleepers in that auction though, I'll post on a minor sleeper from it tonight.

From 300 Euro to 137 thousand Pounds in 6 months time

In June 2015, I posted a short note about a damaged "German School, 16th century" painting sold in France with an estimate of just 300 Euro. I didn't post it before the auction because I knew someone who was following the auction and tried to buy it, but eventually lost to another bidder when the painting sold for 6,000 Euro instead.

We thought it was by Herri met de Bles, or at least by someone of his close circle.

I missed it the second time round, but still think it is worthwhile to point it out now. In the December 2015 Old Master sale at Sotheby's, the same painting reappeared, cleaned and heavily restored (and with some seemingly incomplete provenance, lacking the sale of earlier the same year). It was indeed said to be by Herri met de Bles, and estimated at £80,000 to £120,000. It eventually sold for £137,000!

While the condition report by Sotheby's mentions the restorations, it doesn't indicate that these were very, very recent, which seems a significant omission (coupled with the omission of the June 2015 auction). No idea if the current owner was pleased or will be pleased when he finds out about this.

Nice to know that we were right, too bad that my fellow art spotter didn't win it though, as that is one heck of a profit to make in six months (even counting the restoration costs).

Sleepers and what happens next: the Sotheby Babel

Sotheby's has in its Old Master sale a "Flemish School, 17th Century" Tower of Babel, estimated at $200,000 to $300,000.

It's a very nice example, not easily placed in the works of a known artist or even closely related to most of the other similar Flemish Babel towers.

It was last sold in October 2014 at Nagel, German auction house. They had estimated it at only 15,000 Euro, but fierce bidding saw it soar to 210,000 Euro. A real sleeper, but slightly more than a year later, it only gets the same estimate as what it sold for two years ago, and without the benefit of being "fresh to the market" (Sotheby's omits the provenance and auction history with a reason, of course). It will be interesting to see if it will sell and if it will make another profit.

UPDATE: sold for $418,000, so about double the previous price and incomparable to the original 15,000 Euro estimate of October 2014!

Master of the Brussels Adoration or Pieter Coecke?

Sotheby's Paris sells on 17 June a "Master of the Brussels Adoration" adoration of the magi, a very nice triptych estimated at 40,000 to 60,000 Euro and worth every cent of it. UPDATE: sold for 50,000 Euro.

It comes from a private collection and used to be attributed to Pieter Coecke van Aelst before it was cleaned.

The confusion is logical: the RKD lists only two works from the Master of the Brussels Adoration, and both have an attribution of "or workshop of Pieter Coecke", so one can wonder if they aren't one and the same after all.

Comparing the two triptychs (Brussels left, Sotheby's right), there are obvious similarities, from the shape of the paintings to the use of architecture, the way trees are painted, or the identical gift beneath the child. Other things differ enough to cast some doubts on the attribution, like the faces (especially of the virgin, who seems to be painted in a much harsher way).

On the other hand, there are also clear similarities with works by or attributed to Coecke. Of course, this can also mean that a number of these works should be reattributed to the Brussels Master, if you believe the attribution of the one for sale to be right...

The closest work I could find to the one for sale now is the "Workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst" adoration from the Rijksmuseum. It is basically identical in all essential parts of the composition (it is more close-up though, and has some added characters and details), and much closer to the one for sale than the Brussels Adoration.

Making the same comparison as above, it is obvious (to me) that the style of painting of the one for sale is much closer to the Rijksmuseum adoration than to the Brussels adoration. Even here, the face of the virgin is painted (restored?) much harsher in the Sotheby version though.

So, it is clear that the painter of the work for sale here is "related" to Coecke, either as a member of his workshop or as a close follower (or even as an example for Coecke). From what I can see (online only, I haven't handled any of these paintings in real life), I would place this painting in the Workshop of Coecke and not with the Master of the Brussels Adoration, but it is hard to be certain and it certainly isn't possible to rule the attribution out.

Despite his name (which is based on the location of his main work in the Museum of Brussels, pictured) the Master of the Brussels Adoration is supposed to have worked in Antwerp in the early 16th century. Attributing another high quality work to this unidentified painter is quite an important event (in the small niche of 16th century Flemish masters, that is), and seeing such a great triptych is a joy in itself, no matter who painted it.

Sotheby's "Antwerp School": Frans Floris or Michiel Coxie?

Sotheby's sells on 4 June 2015 an "Antwerp School, 16th century" Adam and Eve from a private collection in Germany, 139 by 107 cm and estimated at $40,000 to $60,000. For that amount, one could hope for a little more information, as one can fairly easily say a lot more about this painting and the possible artists.

I could find with some online searching 3 other versions of this painting. In the Malmö Konstmuseum is a nice version attributed to Frans Floris I, and dated ca. 1560. It is some 143 by 112 cm (and not 14,3 by 11,2 as Wikimedia Commons mistakenly claims).

Another version, attributed to Michiel Coxie (a regular on this blog the last few weeks), can be found in the Sydney University Museum. The only images I found were from some university publication pdf, and no dimensions were listed.

Finally, the RKD lists a third version, attributed to Coxie (and earlier described as "manner of Frans Floris I"), also without dimensions, which was in the private collection of Dr. Franz Josef Fröhlich, Würzburg. Despite being in a German private collection, it isn't the same as the one for sale now (this one and the Malmö one have a more "decent" Eve, while the one for sale and the Sydney one only provide Adam with a fig leaf).

I don't consider the one for sale to be significantly inferior to the other versions (and the estimated price reflects this), but would be interested to know why Christie's doesn't mention or accept either of the two common attributions and simply chooses "Antwerp School" (correct, but boringly cautious). The estimate seems about right, I can't see this painting making much more, considering the prices genuine and certain Floris or Coxie paintings make. UPDATE: not sold.

"Flemish School" is copy of Pellegrino Tibaldi

At Sotheby's they sell on 29 April in the Old Masters auction a "Flemish School, 17th century", "Venus and Minerva in a landscape", a small (23 by 17) oil on paper estimated at £8,000 to £12,000. UPDATE: sold for £10,000, so either I was mistaken or the buyer didn't read my blog first :-)

This seems a rather ridiculously high price for a mediocre copy of a painting by (circle of) Pellegrino Tibaldi from the late 16th or early 17th century, now in the Rijksmuseum. Perhaps the auctioneers thought it was an original Flemish invention? Anyway, compared to the other things one can buy for this kind of money, it really isn't worth it.

Sotheby's Old Master sales: predictions

Sotheby's and Christie's line up their end-of-January Old Master sales. No real "hidden" treasures, obviously, but lots of nice things. For fun, I'll list some I think are overestimated (and hence will or should fail to sell), and some which are seriously undervalued and should go for a lot more than the estimate, if there is any justice in the art world ;-) Today, from the Sotheby's sales, 5 works I think will fail to sell, and 5 which should exceed their highest estimate (but probably won't, of course).

Overestimated

Lot 6,  Quinten Massys, "The Madonna of the Cherries". For some reason, it doesn't work for me. The Madonna and the child just aren't up to par for what should be a masterpiece (well, at $1,500,000 to $2,000,000, one shouldn't expect an average Massys), even though it is a wonderful composition. It sold in 2006 for nearly $750,000, and that's closer to what I would expect it to be worth now. NOT SOLD

Lot 165, a double-sided drawing by Géricault, estimated at a hefty $200,000 to $300,000. Interesting, obviously, but why would anyone spend more than $30,000 on this? When you can buy something like lot 173, also by Géricault, for $40,000, or many other interesting and good drawings for similar figures in the same auction? SOLD FOR $185,000.

Lot 201, a "Saint Anthony" from the Florentine School, fourth quarter of the 15th century. That's the period and place that gave us Botticelli, Donatello, Ghirlandaio, ... This is basically a second- or third-rate painting, in a poor condition, and with not the most attractive subject. So I have no idea why it is estimated at a hefty $40,000 to $60,000 Euro. Obviously you can't buy anything from these masters for that price, but even in these auctions, there is a lot more value for money to be found if you have 50 thousand dollars to spare. Sold for $31,250.

Lot 231, Flemish School, ca. 1500. While that seems correct, what an utterly boring picture. "Head of a saint", estimated at $18,000 to $25,000. Compared to the only slightly later Nativity I discussed in this post, estimated at only $3,000, or plenty of other Early Netherlandish pictures, I see no redeeming features in this one and no reason for such an inflated estimate. Probably, like with most of these I consider overrated, I'm just missing something... NOT SOLD

Lot 407, Circle of Hugo Van der Goes, "Virgin and Child", estimated at $15,000 to $20,000. Normally, anything resembling a Van der Goes for this money would go in the "underrated" category, even though he is one of the least attractive major Early Netherlandish painters. But I don't see anything that would put this in the "circle of", more in the "very weak imitation of" region. The face of the Virgin has some charm, but not enough to make this worth the estimate. NOT SOLD

Underrated

 Lot 77 , Gerard Seghers, ''Annunciation''. A wonderful picture, oil on copper (large for an on-copper painting, though smaller than the usual majestic panel paintings),  this is valued at only $80,000 to $120,000. One of the best pictures in the auction, but not by one of the canonic names, it should exceed its upper estimate. But considering the prices Seghers usually fetches, the estimate may be well considered and my opinion merely wishful thinking...NOT SOLD

 

Lot 191, Circle of Rubens,"Head of a young woman", estimated at only $5,000 to $7,000. A very attractive drawing, with a not so nice scratch or mark diagonally across the face but otherwise in good condition and very nicely executed. No idea who made it, but it obviously was a very talented draughtsman. Compared to many other drawings in this auction, this is one of the few I'ld really like to own. Sold for $13,750 or nearly twice the highest estimate!

Lot 237, "Virgin and Child enthroned with musical angels", Bruges School, ca. 1500. Estimated at $50,000 to $70,000, this is a lot for an anonymous (not even a notname) work, but you get about the best Early Netherlandish painting you can buy for this money. The only (major) worrying thing is that this was for sale two years ago at the same auction at Sotheby's, then estimated at $80,000 to $120,000, which is what I would consider it worth as well, but the market clearly doesn't agreed then... Sold for $62,500.

Lot 426, Circle of Rubens, "A monk", Estimated as $8,000 to $12,000. Not a sleeper Rubens, but a very nice picture nevertheless, with real character in the portrait. The background is depressing, but the smile of the man makes more than up for this. Compared to the "circle" of Van der Goes above, this one really is worth the label, and is clearly made by a skilled painter. Sold for $11,250.

Lot 455, Workshop of Velazquez, "The buffoon Diego de Acedo, El Prime", estimated at $6,000 to $8,000. If the above Circle of Rubens is underestimated, then what about this Workshop picture? A powerful portrait, with style and vigour, for $6,000? It's a steal, usually for that price you get either rather mediocre paintings, or 19th century or later works, but  rarely such a good work. Yes, it is a partial copy of a famous Velazquez original, but it works as a stand-alone portrait and is painted beautifully. The market clearly agreed, as it sold for $25,000!