FREE NEWSLETTER
I WAS INTRIGUED WHEN an old Dutch painting attributed to a “follower of Rembrandt” came up for auction near me in Maine late last month. It was a portrait of a young woman wearing an elaborately starched ruff collar, the type of clothing depicted in Golden Age paintings from the 1600s.
The country auction house estimated the painting would fetch $10,000 to $15,000. I couldn’t shake the thought—however fleeting—that this might be the real thing. As it turns out, I wasn’t alone.
Several Rembrandts were unjustly downgraded by art scholars in the 1980s, which has thrown a cloud of uncertainty over the identification of his work. The Allentown Art Museum in Pennsylvania, for example, was given a Rembrandt in 1960 by dime-store magnate Samuel Kress. Years later, a committee of art historians calling themselves the Rembrandt Research Project examined it. The committee concluded it was painted by a pupil who worked alongside Rembrandt in his Amsterdam studio.
In 2018, the museum sent the painting of a young woman to be conserved in New York. The brushwork was too fine to be by the pupil, the restorers concluded. In 2021, the museum proclaimed the painting to be a Rembrant once again.
The errant scholars tended to demote Rembrandts that lacked dramatic flair. Critics of their work, however, say they overlooked the everyday commissions, like the one in Allentown, that Rembrandt accepted to pay his bills.
To my untrained eye, the painting in Maine had a quiet, solemn glow—just like the one in Allentown. I’m a fan of Antiques Roadshow. To me, the painting had the potential to be one of those “oh my God” finds worth a fortune.
Would I gamble on it myself? Only if it were an absolute steal. The day before the sale, I logged on to the auction website. Online bids had already reached $6,500. That’s more than I’d be willing to risk as an armchair art historian.
Others didn’t fold so easily. One man from Florida was so taken by the painting that he showed up at the auction with $60,000 in cash, according to an antique dealer I know. Would his enthusiasm carry the day?
Not even close. When I logged back in after the sale, I saw the painting had sold for $1.41 million, including buyer’s commission, among the highest prices for any artwork auctioned in Maine.
The buyer’s identity is secret. The antiques dealer I talked to believed it went to an investment banker from the United Kingdom, while a television report indicated that the buyer lives in Europe. That’s where an Old Master painting like this one may fetch a premium.
There were at least two clues of the painting’s importance. First, it had a label stuck on its back showing it had been borrowed for an exhibit in 1970 by the Philadelphia Museum of Art. That label said that the painting was by Rembrandt, not a follower. That isn’t proof of its origin, but it shows that curators thought it was important more than 50 years ago.
The second clue was the painting’s previous owners. The auctioneer, Kaja Veilleux, found it in the attic of a house in Camden, Maine, owned by a descendant of the Curtis Publishing fortune. The family, which owned The Saturday Evening Post, were wealthy style setters in the early 20th century. They could afford the best of everything, and spent lavishly on art and trophy homes.
The question remains: Is this painting by Rembrandt or one of his followers? It may take years of study to settle the issue. The market, however, has already offered its opinion.
Ahhhhh, Antiques Road show! I like it, my youngest son doesn’t. 😉
Here’s an interesting YouTube video of a scientific investigation of a painting which has been attributed to Rembrandt:
eastman rembrandt – Google Search
The picture, which was purchased by Kodak founder George Eastman in 1911, hung in his home in Rochester NY. The Eastman House and its contents were willed to the University of Rochester upon Eastman’s death. It was stolen in 1968 and recovered about 9 months later. It now hangs in the Memorial Art Gallery in Rochester, also part of the UofR.
The conclusion: Nothing was found to preclude it being by Rembrandt, but it hasn’t been proven either.
My, very uneducated, opinion: I have seen other, better documented, paintings by Rembrandt and this painting, if an authentic Rembrandt, isn’t one of his masterpieces.
Fascinating article. That’s a beautiful part of Maine.
This falls into the category of we’ll never know. The pigments used, and the canvas, would be the same.
As an art collector, I see many people are willing to pay a lot of a name painting, even if it is terrible. A tiny Renoir, 6 by 4 inches, nothing great, went for $104K plus premium because it’s a Renoir.
My own preference is to buy the best painting by a second or third tier artist, rather than the worst of a famous one.
Camden is a beautiful little seacoast town in Maine.
Trip Recommendation:
Stage 1-Fly into Portland Jetport. Drive 1 3/4 hours to Camden. Partake in a windjammer cruise (we did for our 10th anniversary more than 30 years ago).
Stage 2- Drive another 1 3/4 hours to Bar Harbor (another great seacoast town- but more crowded in the summer) and go to Acadia.
You won’t regret it!
There is an interesting show on YouTube called Perspective where they investigate the authenticity of paintings using high technology to look beneath the layers of paint, analyze the pigments used, etc very interesting and in the end they use a panel of experts to decide.
What’s the motivation behind this group of art historians?
The art historians believed that spurious works were attributed to Rembrandt, and they needed to weed them out. This was partly true, but they also weeded out some real Rembrandts, as one committee member admitted later.