Diagnostics helps
Next week at auction, respectively at Christie’s and Sotheby’s, two paintings connected to Rembrandt will be offered: the first, at Christie’s, was recently downgraded to “Follower of Rembrandt” (Christie’s); the second, at Sotheby’s, has had its attribution change from Carel Fabritius to Rembrandt (Sotheby’s).
The Christie’s painting is accompanied by a dendrochronological analysis establishing a post quem date of around 1588, while the use of Baltic oak indicates that the panel predates approximately 1655. These dates align. In this case, the attribution was based primarily on stylistic considerations.
In the case of the painting offered as an autograph Rembrandt, the supporting documentation is much more extensive and includes “classic” scientific analysis techniques: X-rays, infrared reflectography, and materials and painting-technique analyses. These studies not only verified compatibility with Rembrandt’s working methods but also revealed hidden details that helped identify the true subject of the painting, from the Portrait of Titus (Rembrandt’s son) to Saint John on Patmos, for which Titus probably posed himself.
Such re-attributions are not uncommon. For example, in 2023–2024, a painting entitled The Adoration of the Kings returned to auction: until recently, it was catalogued as “Circle of Rembrandt,” i.e., not autograph, but after an eighteen-month study, the auction house presented it as a “recently rediscovered Rembrandt.” This “upgrade” multiplied the estimated value of the work, bringing it into the tens of millions.
However, not all revisions are positive: recently, the Mauritshuis Museum in The Hague — which holds a significant collection of works associated with Rembrandt — downgraded the attribution of three paintings once considered “autograph,” now classifying them as “works from his studio.” Among the reclassified works are, for example, a portrait and several “tronies” (head studies).
Re-attributions to Rembrandt — as well as downgrades from “autograph” to “studio/follower” — continue to be part of the art market reality, highlighting how often authenticity remains uncertain and debated. Especially with Old Masters, incomplete historical documentation and unclear provenance are frequent issues: many paintings catalogued as “follower” or “circle” come from private collections with limited technical study, making it difficult to determine the original author with certainty.
When a painting is attributed to a master (or mistress), economic and collector interest increases significantly, creating a strong temptation. Yet it is crucial to recognize that such attributions, especially those based solely on stylistic criteria, may be subject to future revisions, both positive and negative.
For collectors, scholars, and museums alike, a critical approach is essential: verifying provenance, condition, technical-scientific studies, previous attributions, and sales history.
Next week, we will see what potential buyers think!
