I have a vintage copy of Franz Hals “Baffoon with a Lute”. I would like to estimate the age of this copy.
I have included photos of the stretcher, mounting tacks, back of the canvas, sides of the canvas, and a couple of pictures of the front of the painting.
It was in a frame made in the 1960s, but I think it is older than that. It appears to be in the original stretcher. The mounting tacks are not “blued” and they have rough shaped heads of different sizes. The back of the canvas is not white but has white spots that may suggest it is soiled. The painting does not appear to have been varnished. It is darker than the original “Baffoon” and has slightly less detail. The decoration on the hat is different than the original “Baffoon”.
Any suggestions on how I might date this copy would be appreciated.01 Hals canvas back 1.jpg02 Hals mounting tack side 1.jpg03 Hals mounting tack heads 2.jpg04 Hals front corner and edge.jpg05 Hals front texture of hand 1.jpgBaffoon Front View.jpg
Thank you Matthew.
I suspected the painting was a copy of the “Baffoon” from the Rijksmuseum. I think the “original Baffoon”, was acquired by the Louvre in 1984.
The dark khaki color of the canvas and the characteristics of the tacks suggests to me the copy was made prior to 1940.
Is there a book or class on dating paintings using the characteristics of the canvas and mounting materials?
Thanks for your comments.
My whole purpose is to NOT misrepresent what the painting is. It is a copy of a Leyster copy. Whether it is 10, 50, or 100 years old would be nice to estimate but not critical. Its future is as a decorative arts piece in someones home or office.
I use these projects as an opportunity to learn and all of the comments I get from MITRA members are valuable to me.
Thanks again for your help.
I am very curios about why anyone would pay for a copy of Leyster’s “Baffoon” after it was verified to be a copy of Hals’ “Baffoon” in 1910. I suppose, until Hals’ “Baffoon” was displayed in the Louvre in 1984, Leyster’s “Baffoon” was the only game in town, but I cann’t imagin, of all of the paintings I might want a copy of, I would least want a copy of a painting that I knew to be a copy.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Those of us who are conservators are not to become involved in attribution, dating, or giving conservation treatment suggestions on this forum. Others are welcome to comment if they wish.
I think you will find that it is not a copy after Hals directly, but rather a copy after a copy, by Judith Leyster.
Authenticating and dating artwork requires a whole suite of professional skills, starting with the ability to conduct research and possibly read multiple languages. Unless you are able to establish factual information about the chain of ownership for this piece, you will just be guessing, and in my opinion an amateur guess should not be misrepresented as anything else.
I am a studio artist and not qualified to authenticate or date artwork. I do know, however, that in my studio, the age of stretchers would not be a good indicator of age of completion. I personally have done paintings on antique, salvaged stretchers. At a glance, that fabric looks like typical factory-primed Belgian linen, which is still sold today. (That’s why it has that color.) That the tacks are assorted would also make me think that these are reused materials, and I can see at least 1 empty tack hole from repositioning so I wouldn’t even trust the assumption that the chassis is original to the work- it may have been executed off the stretchers and mounted later- a common practice in overseas painting “factories”.
Because yours is a copy after a Leyster, I wouldn’t waste any more time thinking about the location of the Hals painting on which the original source for the copy was based. If the dimensions are the same as the Leyster, I would at least strongly suspect that it was not painted at the museum, because that would likely have violated policy on copying and photography. If it’s 1:1 it could have been painted from reproduction, at any location where a person could buy or order primed linen.
I would not assume that someone commissioned the copy, although that is certainly possible. Copying paintings in museums was a standard part of an artists training for centuries. This may just have been the version that the painter had access to. On the other hand, once photographic reporductions were available, anything is possible.
Here is a cool chronology of tacks and nails.
Dating grounds and canvas is far more difficult. This first requires chemical analysis or, at least, cross-sectional analysis. Pigment analysis could help, especially if you find zinc or titanium white. The later, if linen and plain weave, would be difficult to differentiate. Cotton duck does not become common until the 20th century. There are certainly Belgian canvases produced today that are very similar to those they produced over 100 years ago.
nails.docx
All of Judith Leyster’s original paintings were, for a long time, misattributed to Frans Hals or her husband, mainly because there was a tendency to assume women were not as capable as men of crafting work of Leyster’s quality.
You could contact your local library and see if they can obtain through inter-library loan a copy of American Artists’ Materials, Vol. II A Guide to Stretchers, Panels, Millboards, and Stencil Marks By Alexander W. Katlan
This might give you some clues.
Sadly, the misattribution of Judith Leyster’s work carried on into the 20th C. until a new generation of scholars brought her work the esteem it deserves
Latest Post: How can I prevent plywood surface checking from damaging paint layer–will paper or sheer fabric work? Our newest member: Jaslyvop Recent Posts Unread Posts
