Not Marten but Frederik van Valckenborch

Ursula Nusser, from Germany, sells on 20 September 2016 an "Atributed to Martin van Valckenborch" Masked ball, estimated at 1,000 Euro.

This fairly unusual subject is absent from the works of Marten van Valckenborch, but is a few times painted by Frederic van Valckenborch though. He was the son of Marten and is not a very important painter, but this is an agreeable painting with an attractive estimate.

Most of his works feature more figures and life, but the style seems comparable. The above is from the RKD, from an art dealer in Oegstgeest, the Netherlands.

"Attributed to Hendrick Aerts" is copy after engraving

Hampel, from Germany, sells on 22 September 2016 an Attributed to Hendrick Aerts, ca. 1575" view of a Gothic Church with people, estimated at 15,000 to 20,000 Euro.

It is a depiction of the interion of the Saint John of Laterans, in Rome. For some reason this work has often been copied, but no oiriginal by Aerts seems to be known. So the question is whether this is the original, or another copy. While it at first glance is a very good version, it falls a bit flat when seen upclose. Further research shows that this is due to the fact that it is closest to the engraving of the original made by Jan van Londerseel around 1600, apart from the praying pope in the front which has simply disappeared in the painting.

Other copies of the painting are usually less close to the engraving, as the above examples show (top one from was for sale at Jean Moust, bottom one painted by Pieter Neeffs the elder).

Looking at details, the engraving is always more precise, a lot clearer about what is being shown, while the painting often only suggests what is there. So the sad conclusion is that this as well isn't the original by Aerts, and most likely not by him at all.

One original by Aerts was sold at Bonham's in 2000 for about the current estimate: but works like this, copies of this work by anonymous  followers of Aerts, have sold for about 5,000 Euro the past few years, and I would estimate this one at the same.

The unpredictability of auctions

Offered in Maastricht on 13-16 June 2014, est. 2,000 to 3,000 Euro: not sold.

Offered at same auction house, 26-29 September 2014, est. 800 to 1,200 Euro: not sold.

Offered at same auction house, 11-14 March 2016, estimate 1,000 to 2,000 Euro: sold for 2,700 Euro.

Now for sale at Hargesheimer, Germany, 24 September 2016: estimate 800 Euro.

Art really isn't an exact science.

UPDATE: sold for 1,700 Euro. Weird...

"16th c. Flemish" is another good copy after Benson or Isenbrant

Hargesheimer, from Germany, sells on 24 September 2016 a "Flemish Master, 16th century" Virgin and Child, a rather large version (107 by 76) on panel estimated at 800 Euro.

I have already blogged about other versions of this very popular work twice (June 2015 and December 2015). This one seems to be considerably better than the first one, which sold for 1,700 Euro.

It can be compared to e.g. the Carrickfergus Madonna, from the Ulster Museum, which is given as anonymous Flemish, early 16th, and has very similar dimensions. The curtains in the work for sale seem to be a later addition, the flowers may be original (I haven't immediately found another example that shows them though). 

While it doesn't look to be an original by Benson or Isenbrandt, it is a good copy, and should easily fetch 2,000 Euro or more.

Meanwhile, at Hampel (also from Germany), you can buy on 22 September 2016 another version, attributed to the School of Isenbrant and of similar dimensions, estimated at 24,000 to 28,000 Euro. While it has a much better background, the Virgin and Child are not really superior to the one at Hargesheimer (e.g; the hands are worse at Hampel), and it seems seriously overpriced to me.

UPDATE: the 800 Euro Hargesheimer one sold for 6,500 Euro, and the 24,000 Euro Hampel one remained unsold. 

Cheap Flemish "Saint Jerome" is based on Titian (plus a copy after Correggio)

Hargesheimer, from Germany, sells on 24 September a "Flemish Master, first half of the 17th century"  Saint Jerome, a 93 by 121 cm large canvas estimated at 400 Euro.

While the work is damaged, it is a well-painted work and an absolute bargain at that price. The Jerome is a close copy of the same saint painted by Titian in 1575, now in the Escorial. The painting for sale is somewhat more line-based and less colour-based than the Titian, and made by a good artist but not by someone of the calibre of the Ventian master. Whether the additions to the left are inventions by the copiist or are evidence that the Titian was originally larger is not clear to me at the moment. The somewhat weird way the lion is cut off in the Titian may point to the latter possibility, which would make this work a lot more interesting (depending on how many copies of the full Titian are still around).

The work for sale could do with a thorough cleaning, a lot is happening in the background that is barely visible anymore (e.g. the two figures in a boat on the left, and a lion at the middle bottom). It should be worth at least 1,000 Euro without even guessing at the artist or knowing the exact relation to the original Titian work.

UPDATE: sold for 800 Euro, double the  estimate.

Oh, and at the same sale there is an "Antwerp Master, middle 17th century" mother and child, a small (31 by 34) but attractive work estimated at only 400 Euro. It turns  out to be a copy after "La Zingarella" by Correggio, a ca. 1517 work now in the National Museum in Naples.

UPDATE: sold for 700 Euro.

"Eva van Marle" is much too weak to be by her

Venduhuis de Eland, from the Netherlands, sells on 15 September (today!)  a double portrait by "Eva van Marle (active ca. 1650)", probably the wings of a triptych, estimated at 2,000 to 3,000 Euro. (More images and the estimate can be found at Lottisimo, but not on the website of the Venduehuis apparently?

This introduced me to Eva van Marle, one of the relatively few 17th century woman painters we know by name and have some work from. She only painted portraits (as far as we know), all of them ca. 1650. So far, this fits relatively well with the work for sale (although if she really only painted portraits, the central panel of the triptych has to have been made by someone else probably). But the quality of the works by her listed at e.g. the RKD is a lot higher than what is presented here, and no other indication of why this is attributed to her is given (signature? Family tradition? A name on the back of the panels?). Comparing the above detail, which shows a third rate painter, with the portraits which are definitely by her and show a very skilled hand, I doubt that the work for sale is by her, and consider the estimate to be way too high.

By the way, they charge a 30% buyer's fee, plus 2% online fee, which is really getting quite absurd (are auctions the only shops where you have to pay more when you buy online?). Why can't auctions simply let you pay whatever you offer, and deduct their costs and profit from what they give to the seller? It seems as if they are deliberately being difficult, which is offputting to many people (and then they wonder why not more people bid at auction probably). 

"Manner of Jean Fouquet" is copy after Fra Angelico

Deutsch, from Vienna, Austria, sells on 27 September 2016 a Lot 009 a "Manner of Jean Fouquet" watercolour on parchment on oak panel Death of a Bishop or Saint, estimated very widely at 600 to 1,800 Euro.

The work has nothing to do with Jean Fouquet and is a close copy after Fra Angelico, the "Death of Saint Nicholas" from the National Gallery of Umbria, in Perugia. It's a work from about 1450, so at least the date was right for Fouquet...

As a probably very recent copy, it's only worth decorative value, if that.