"School of Fontainebleau" or Dutch or Flemish School, or Vincent Sellaer?

Sworders, from the UK, sell on 18 April 2018 a "School of Fontainebleau, early 17th century" Ceres the Four Elements, estimated at £15,000 to £25,000.

It is an attractive painting, but the attribution differs from the other versions of the same work one can find. These are clearly the same composition and period, but differ somewhat in style so they may well be by different hands.

Tajan sold in 2012 as lot 48 a good but somewhat different version as "ca. 1570, Follower of Vincent Sellaer", estimated at 20,000 to 30,000 Euro, but it remained unsold. Their description indicates that that panel was sold at Sotheby's New York in 1996 a sa work by the Master "de Flore", an anonymous French artist from ca. 1550.

Another version, much closer to the one at Sworders, was sold at Lempertz in 2010 as "Dutch School, 2nd half 16th century". Estimated at a comparable 18,000 to 22,000 Euro, it sold for an impressive 66,000 Euro instead. It looks to be somewhat superior to the Sworders version.

A similar work was sold at Christie's New York in 2011 as "School of Antwerp, ca. 1600". It fetched $12,500 against an estimate of $5,000 to $7,000.

Finally, Ferri sold in 2012 another "Flemish School, ca. 1560, circle of Vincent Sellaer" copy, in a much worse condition: estimated at 15,000 to 20,000 Euro, it sold for 16,000 Euro.

Considering all this, it seems as if the Sworders version may be off on the French origin, but are fairly spot on with the estimate, and may even be surprised if they follow the Lempertz example. It seems most likely that this is a Flemish composition from the circle of Sellaer, but I haven't found a clear original for this one, nor an engraving which might explain the popularity of this composition. 

"Follower of Jordaens" may be Augustinus Terwesten

English auction house Sworders sells on 16 June a "Follower of Jacob Jordaens" Bathsheba, a very large (167 by 245) but extremely damaged painting estimated at £200 to £300.

The same composition, with more background but missing the small child in the middle, can be found at the invaluable RKD website, where it is attributed to the circle of Augustinus Terwesten I (1664-1711).  However, the RKD one is only 41 by 55 cm, so it seems highly unlikely that the one for sale is a copy after the RKD one. The reverse also seems unlikely, and the smaller one also doesn't look like a study. So I have no idea what the exact relation between the two is, but that they are related is obvious. Does this change the value of the one for sale? Not really, it is too badly damaged and doesn't give the impression of being a potential masterpiece, although it would make a large-scale decorative Flemish Baroque work after restoration. But it is interesting to try to attribute it and find some more information about it! UPDATE: sold for £880!

Simon Marmion? Burgundian portrait

At Sworders, English auction house, they sell on 16 June an "After Jean Malouel (Flemish c. 1365-1415)" portrait of Philippe le Hardi (Philips the Bold) of Burgundy, estimated at £400 to £600.

The question is of course how long after Malouel this was painted. This is a well-known portrait for which the original is lost, but a number of copies are known, most famously one in the Dijon Museum (on loan from the Louvre). The one for sale here is of much lower quality, but has an inscription identifying the sitter as added bonus.

On the painting and on the back, the copy for sale is identified as by Simon Marmion (1425-1489). In the 19th and early 20th century, many primitive French paintings were attributed to Marmion, as one of the few well-known 15th century painters, and with no definitive paintings by him to fix his style once and for all. As he worked for the Burgundian court, a (copy of) a portrait of a Burgundian ruler was a logical candidate to be attributed to him. However, the quality of this copy is much too low to be by Marmion, and it looks more like an anonymous, provincial work. It could well be very old though, and if it is 15th or early 16th century, it should really be worth more than the estimate, more like £2,000 or thereabouts, due to the age and the identity of the sitter, not so much because of purely artistic value. UPDATE: as expected, sold for £3,100 instead of estimated £400!