Have I discovered an Old Master?

PM you can get it valued by experts for a tenner online

https://www.valuemystuff.com/en/home

The frame looks very modern in the photo but it`s possible it was reframed. Good luck

Cheers, Mac.

I know the frame, which I thought looked a bit cheap, is at least 100 years old purely down to my grandparents' memory.  The canvas itself is 300 years plus in my view.

Definitely looks like a Stradivarius to me...

Once only offer: it's yours for a flat million.

i've come across what i think is some Van Dijk art

is this worth anything?

http://bit.ly/1IUfGtg

I've just found an image online of a 1632 Van Dyck self-portrait that is very similar indeed to my painting.  Just waiting for the moderators to approve it and I'll post it up on here.

Fake or Fortune? TV Series with Philip Mould on rediscovering lost paintings. The Van Dyck episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Hy-iRyAn4

Might be worth a watch to see what the experts look for.

It definitely looks like a portrait of Van Dyck. His self portrait sold for 10 million and hangs in the National Gallery.

Good luck PM

Thank you, gentlemen.

Here's the 1632 Van Dyck self portrait.

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

If you look closely, the hair is parted at the wrong side.

Here is a better likeness PM

http://www.npg.org.uk/support/how-your-support-has-helped/van-dyck.php

Thanks, Mac.  I dare not dream it is a Van Dyck really, of course, but it doesn't half look like him and it definitely is several hundred years old.

If you look closely, the hair is parted at the wrong side.

It's a self-portrait. His hair will be parted on the wrong side because he's looking in a fecking mirror... duh!

This is what makes Chit Chat the place it is. Forget the Deep Web - this is where its at!!!

Where else could you find a bloke posting a photo of what looks like a genuinely valuable picture on a forum to obtain the opinions of the various p**s takers / comedians.

I for one hope its worth millions!! (although the frame does look a bit Ikea circa 2007).

Good luck mate.

1.01 PM has knocked that up in his garage over the past week or so.

Many thanks, Mr Bucket.

Its an unusual Collar looking up loads of  artists nothing resembling that type of collar at all.

You've rumbled me, Dan.  Although it's a few years since I've sported a fine head of hair like that!

You`re well named Clouseau - the other side from the fecking original ... DUH!

I think its his night gown Pumpy.

As you can tell from the angle of the painting, he did it lying down which suggests he may have been in bed...

Good evening, Pumpy.

It reminded me of the puritan style, Matthew Hopkins and the like.

Damp attic or damp safety deposit box in Hatton Garden?

The good news is that he is known to have done quite a few self portraits, 3 commissions in Britain alone.

Hi PM, its a difficult one, I would say probably post 1650 but what do I know.


It well could be Thommo, unusual to paint in that attire I would have thought.
What your hoping for is a painter from the Golden Age who may be more renowned as a landscape artist & this is a long lost self portrait, though if that's the case it may be difficult to actually prove who it is.

Would it be premature to peruse the Aston Martin catalogue do you think?

If you hang on a minute I'll post Fiona Bruces mobile number.

Shes a decent sort who will steer you in the right direction!

my guess is unknown artist estimate £40 - £80.

£40 million?

Its old & I would be surprised if its not worth something worthwhile, considering its come via a wealthy family.

I'm of a similar mind, Pumpy. 

When it came to me I was reasonably confident it was worth a few thousand (because of its known provenance) and then I noticed its resemblance to Van Dyck and started to get excited.

I'll buy a 1% share for £5.

It's definitely been in an attic for a very long time, that much I can guarantee, and more than likely in the possession of my family for a couple of hundred years before that.

Well, that's a start, Dan!

Well I have had a look through the archives & Carel de Moor is a possible outsider

why did he paint it sideways loses alot of its value imo

It's sideways because denmark is further east, by the time you get to australia they are upside down.

Lateral thinking would be to check any will for a mention, and deep lateral thinking would be to check older wills from previous generations for a mention, if they still exist.

Right way up, hope you don't mind pokermonster.

Many thanks for the advice, gentlemen.  And your handiwork, Darren!

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

A real shame it's in such poor condition, if restored I hope it would take on some of the lustre of the authenticated portrait.

I think though you're maybe forgetting something in that unless I'm misreading things you're looking for an artist who it is OF, my understanding is that mostly artists were commisioned to paint the commisioner or an important person.

So if it's been in your family for generations and they are of old money, my first guess would be it's perhaps of say your great-great-great(x10)-grandfather or uncle or something.

And if it's in poor condition, is it just dirty varnish that could be cleaned up? Oils are AFAIK varnished over as otherwise they dry up and crack and flake and so on. (Don't clean it yourself).

I don't think it's of an artist himself, you can't see his arm reaching out and selfie sticks were only invented a couple of years ago.

It looks a lot like my uncle Alice.

Alas, JC, its problems go beyond removing the dirt, some areas are flaking and damaged.  The good news being that the face is largely okay.

Good point regards it being a family member, too, but it really does closely resemble a Van Dyck self-portrait to my eye.

Does Boggle still post these days?  If memory serves, he was quite the art aficionado.

Velasquez and Foinavon are the top guys

Pity he has got 2 ears.

the bottom of the painting (below the shoulder)suggests its a woman by the shape, as if there is a bust there by following the line of the clothing.

though the moustache is concerning :)

the shoulder also doesn't look quite right its too thick above the lining of clothing and the back looks too big.

In comparison the 2nd painting looks more well proportioned.

But I hope im wrong and its worth a good few quid

It's the damage making it appear disproportionate on screen, M01, in the flesh it looks good.  He's wearing some sort of voluminous cloak with his arm raised slightly.

If it's worth a fortune I'll organise a Betfair poker tournament, open only to the contributors on this thread!

The collar is quite odd, very plain, it makes me think almost like he might be a religious person.

The collar is puritanical to my eye, very much in keeping with the mid seventeenth century.

on the back of the painting is there any marks or stickers?

If its been in an art exhibition they often have some kind of sticker on the back even with a year or something on it.

No, nothing, it's covered by some very old and crispy paper which I would have to rip off if I wanted to investigate further.

yeah poker can you post a pic of the back , I bought a framed and glazed  watercolour  its a landscape a year or so ago and although not signed on the front ,it has some notes on the back in pencil, david cox junior , ilooked him up on the net and he is a quite prominent Victorian artist ! his works don't go for megabucks but I only paid peanuts for it at a carboot ,good luck with yours pokerm

Yes, I'll post up a picture of the back.  It will be in a few days I'm afraid, I'm not at home at the moment.

Owner of potential "Old Master" seeks expert advice on a betting forum.  Why don't you just pop it into your local auction house, or better if you think it "good", to one of the London salerooms.  Advice is free you know!, and likely to be a little more reliable than on here.

Indeed, Blackbarn, I did say I would be doing just that a little earlier in the thread.  Posted its likeness on here purely for interest and a bit of a chat.

That frame isn't very old at all, so don't get your hopes up.

The frame might not be original, Crags, but it is still at least 100 years old without doubt.  And I'm reasonably sure the painting itself is 300 years plus.

no need for an auction house. Im sure we will figure it out between ourselves

Just making sure, Poker!!.  You will get silly advice though, as crags post illustrates.

It's not beyond reason that the frame is actually 370 years old, some of those early works were in very plain settings.

Where do you live, can you wait a month or two? :)
Antiques Roadshow valuation days
http://www.bbc.co.uk/showsandtours/beonashow/antiques

We'll be watching out for you, please remember to wear a "Free CallMeATaxi" T shirt.

I wonder what those faint stripes are on the frame?  Hadn't noticed them before, it looks like it has been strapped up in something at one time.

People on here don't appreciate proper humour

I live in Devon most of the year, JC.

Agree you need to take it to a valuer Pokermonster.
It looks as if it has been painted by a professional artist but more than that one would be guessing.

"Thursday 11 June     The Royal William Yard, Plymouth, Devon"

Thanks very much, JC.

what are the dimensions?

and have you compared them to van dyck's other works?

I personally would try and get a look under the paper at the back. That's where possible clues may be hidden. As long as you don't damage the canvass I would have thought its ok. But again before you do just check that it is ok.

Just 2 months ago today.

Wear the T Shirt. Or "JC's Word Brought Me Here". We'll know what it means

What are the dimensions?

Well, as I mentioned, the painting is not to hand at the moment but I'll guess at approximately 30 inches by 20 inches.

Poker, by all means give maleuk the largely irrelevant dimensions he requests, but do NOT under any circumstances touch the paper (or backing) before having the picture professionally assessed.

It would be  nice to read in the paper that a chit chatter has discovered
an old master, even if it was by an unknown 'school of Van D'  artist it
would still be worth a few k

Don't worry, Blackbarn, I'd already made up my mind not to touch it.  Thanks for the kind advice though, sir.  The paper is carefully attached and, although obviously very old, crispy and frayed around the edges, it's in not too bad a condition.

Here a 1627 work by Jan Lievens showing a similar style of collar.

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

I hope you hit the jackpot PM, I really do, but remember thousands from middle class and upper class families got their portraits painted back then as there were no cameras. Unless it`s a painting of a famous person or done by a prominent artist it won`t be worth a significant amount.

Yes, wise words, Mac.  It's extremely unlikely to be a lost Van Dyck self-portrait I know, but one can always hope.

My favourite artist is Robert Lenkiewicz, I saw him once in a Plymouth pub.  He was undoubtedly a tortured soul, but I believe his work will one day be considered up there with the greats.

look in business directory for your nearest saleroom, phone them up and ask for an appraisal, it wont cost anything and

you are under no obligation to sell..good luck.

POKERDANE, you are right about LENKIEWICZ, not everyones cup of tea but his works already sell for many thousands of pounds.

Bumped to the top for Valesquez.

Give me a few mins. to read through this...

Many thanks for your time, sir.

have you found out anything about it?

No, not yet, sir.  I'm going to take it up to London when I get the chance.

ok good luck with it and let us know the outcome.

Will do.  Many thanks.

Poker - given that it came from your minted grandparents' estate, etc...well, obviously that's a good thing.

I'd be surprised if it's a Van **** - it's more likely to be a student copy. Are there any Van Dykes in public museums in Denmark? It looks a bit crude to me, like it's been painted with brown varnishes...So perhaps an art student did a copy in a museum, on his travels, like...it used to be very common for students to obtain permission to copy Old Master paintings in museums.

Maybe you could e-mail the Statens Museum for Kunst - National Gallery of Denmark?

http://www.smk.dk/en/

Will post more in a few minutes...

Many thanks, Velasquez, much appreciated.  I was keeping my fingers crossed you were going to come back and say something like "Good God, it's the lost Van Dyck Sir Henry!"

I'm afraid I do not know about any Van Dyck portraits in Denmark, I'll do a bit of research online.  No doubt you are correct about the copy, although it does have the look of something very old.

Anyway, I wouldn't let it go until you've investigated it thoroughly...perhaps someone in your family was an aspiring artist? You read about people being caught out all the time, even the so called experts. There was the recent case of a guy buying a lost Courbet painting for a couple of thousand in a Paris junk or antique shop...and it's worth millions...as I say, don't be in a hurry to let it go...

The e-mail address of SMK is on the Copenhagen museum website...maybe they can shed some light on it...

Many thanks for your kind advice, sir.

I see they have "Portrait of Cornelis van Poelenburgh" in the museum, as part of the Royal Collection, so at least Van D*ke made it to Denmark!

I live in hope, then!

it's definitely a late portrait of Jenner the elder

more about his life here:
http://tinyurl.com/na5fls8

Early Dick Van ****.

fk me no expense was spired on the frame

nice oil portrait story.... undervalued and market price found its level....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3056299/Tiny-oil-painting-kept-attic-years-thought-worth-just-300-sold-120-000.html