Rembrandt portrait work of master, not pupil, tests reveal
LONDON — Scientific tests have confirmed that a painting donated to Britain's National Trust by a wealthy supporter is a Rembrandt self-portrait worth tens of millions of dollars, the heritage body said on Tuesday.
The portrait of the artist, wearing a cap with a white feather, was long thought to be the work of one of Rembrandt's pupils and was credited as in the “style of” the 17th-century Dutch master.
But last year Ernst van de Wetering, the world's leading Rembrandt expert, declared it genuine. The National Trust said tests on the paint, the signature and the wooden panel all confirm the authenticity of the portrait, painted in 1635, when Rembrandt was 29.
Cambridge University experts analyzed the cell structure of the wooden panel the portrait is painted on — poplar or willow, a type Rembrandt favored — and used X-rays to reveal changes to the composition over time, also typical of the artist. The pigments, including blue mineral azurite and blue cobalt, were consistent with those used by Rembrandt.
‘‘The varnish was so yellow that it was difficult to see how beautifully the portrait had been painted,” said David Taylor, paintings and sculpture curator at the National Trust. “Now you can really see all the flesh tones and other colors, as well as the way in which the paint has been handled — it's now much easier to appreciate it as a Rembrandt.”
The painting was given to the trust in 2010 by the estate of Edna, Lady Samuel of Wych Cross, whose husband was a major collector of Dutch and Flemish art. It hangs in Buckland Abbey in southwest England, former home of 16th-century seafarer Francis Drake.
The painting has been valued at as much as $50 million — but the trust, whose mandate is to safeguard Britain's heritage, is not allowed to sell it.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ISIS’ message of terror heeded in Pakistan, China, Africa
- Hong Kong police warn protesters not to charge buildings
- As Ebola spreads, health care workers take the brunt
- U.S.-led strikes hit IS-held oil sites in Syria
- Netanyahu rebuts claim of genocide, accuses Iran
- 10,000 U.S. troops to stay in Afghanistan as security treaty is finally signed
- Sides reach out to undecided in Hong Kong