Captain Wiliam Locker is up for auction, the claim is that it is an original copy by Stuart of his own original. He did make copies....

Captain William Locker was active in the British naval service beginning in 1746, served with distinction in the 1860s, married an Admiral's daughter, and was promoted to captain in 1768.  He took command of different frigates and during this period one of his lieutenants was the nineteen year old Horatio Nelson.  Locker's teachings had a lasting effect on Nelson.

Locker continued to serve England during times of conflict with France and Spain. In 1793 he was appointed lieutenant-governor of Greenwich Hospital.

From Lawrence Park:

London c 1785, Canvas 34 x 30 inches.  Half length, turned three quarters to the left, with his  brown eyes directed to the  spectator.  His sparse white hair is tied in a queue bow, and he wears a naval uniform coat of dark blue  with white facings and gold braid and buttons, and a white stock.  The plain  background is dark brown.

FROM:  

National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London, Greenwich Hospital Collection

This one is considered and known as an original Gilbert Stuart.

****

Now up for auction at "Freeman's" on April 25 is, a stated original Stuart COPY of this portrait by the master, for 25,000. to 35,000. USD : seen just below.

Notes on this portrait indicate that according to tradition, Stuart painted this copy of his portrait of Captain Locker at the request of Locker's daughter.  Stuart's original work of 1785 is in the collection of the Maritime Art Museum, Greenwich, as seen above.  Lawrence Park does not mention a copy of this painting by Gilbert Stuart; he would have mentioned an original Stuart copy if there was one...

The provenance states:

"From the family collection of a Philadelphia Gentleman."

The copy is too good for me to determine whether it is an original Stuart or not.  We know he made copies of his Washington portrait.  Unfortunately he never signed his portraits.

Wait there is ANOTHER copy! This one is at the Nelson Society.  Here the portrait is definitely a la Stuart, but the clouds are again different and the painting is not attributed to Stuart.

Captain William Locker was famous in his time.  These portraits are all excellent in providing us a likeness of the captain.

The portrait below is interesting as it shows Cap Locker at an older age.  The painter is not known.

From my favorite (living) portrait painter.... her comments on this particular post I agree with completely.  

Jeanne wrote "I just came across your April 18 blog post.  What a magnificent painting that first one is.  Absolutely wonderful.  It reminds me of your own Stuart in its strength.  The other two are a mystery. They are Stuart-like yet much weaker in execution.  What seems odd to me is that the faces are so exactly alike that the second and third almost could be traced from the original, yet the coloring is very different -- it  makes the sitter look much older.  The backgrounds are not typical for him either, I don't think.  Darn that man for never signing anything."

MORE FROM JEANNE: 

Rereading your post, Park's description [see Lawrence Park description above] seems not to fit any of the three portraits of William Locker:

Both of the portrais in which Locker is shown in uniform have sky backgrounds.  In the portrait with the brown background, he was not in uniform.  Makes you wonder whether Park was relying on secondhand information.  Or there is a fourth painting, or the one in the Maritime Museum was overpainted.

The portrait of Locker as an older man was by Lemuel Francis Abbott-- there is an interesting wikipedia article about him.

To me the coloring of the painting in the Maritime Museum looks more like Abbott's work.

****

Perhaps the painting seen and described by Lawrence Park....is missing?  We are LOOKING FOR A NAVAL UNIFORM & a PLAIN BROWN BACKGROUND !

I wonder if the Maritime Museum portrait is an original Stuart.  Usually his men have ruddy cheeks, the coloring is so drab!

****

Fine copies of Stuart are also floating about; Mrs Luke White and her Son, Lawrence Park thought the copy he was looking at was original

Gilbert was in Dublin for nearly six years (1787-93).  As a reminder he had left America to find his fortune in London (and escape the War of Independence) arriving in 1775 nearly destitute and without friends or patrons.  {It is possible that Stuart had thought he had found a rich patron in Dublin, the Duke of Rutland, but the Duke died about a month after Stuart's arrival.}  It is thought that Luke White was among his first sitters in Dublin.  Elizabeth was his first wife, she bore him seven children.

On Oct 5 the Stuart portrait of Mrs Luke White and her son was auctioned at the Doyle Auction House of New York.  

A portrait Of Mrs. White is listed in Lawrence Park; #903

*************from the Park Volume
MRS. LUKE WHITE d. 1799
AND HER SON

Elizabeth de la Maziere, of Dublin, Ireland.  In 1781 she married Luke White.  According to family tradition, the boy in this double-portrait is her fourth and youngest son, Henry (1798-1873) who was created Baron Annaly in 1863, in which case the picture was painted later than 1790, but it is imossible to establish this with certainty, as a living descendent expresses the opinion that the child might be her second son, Samuel.

Dublin, c.1790. Shown at half-length, Mrs. White is seated, turned half-way to the right, with her hazel eyes directed at the spectator. She has a wealth of hair, powdered gray, and she is dressed in a white dress, with a pale yellow silk shawl over her shoulders and arms.  A black velvet ribbon encircles her neck.  On her lap she holds her small boy, who has long, blond har and whose gray eyes are directed at the spectator.  He presses his head to his mother's cheek, is turned half-way to the left, and puts his left hand on his mother's shoulder.  He is dressed in a white dress with large ruffled collar and a pink sash.  The background shows trees, sketched in brown, to the left and above the figures, and a distant landscape of hills and sky in blue and yellowish-pink at the right.
     This double-portrait has the same history as the companion picture of Luke White by Stuart.  It is now owned by Henry Reinhardt & Son, NY.
The present Lord Annaly owns a copy of this picture, and another copy was sold at the auction of Lord Massy's belongings in 1916 to a furniture dealer.  Who painted these copies is unknown.

************************

This is the portrait of Mrs.White auctioned on Oct 5 

Thus, Lawrence Park indicates that there exists in fact 3 portraits of Mrs. Luke and her son (note that this one does not have the landscape touches mentioned by Park).  Lawrence clearly thought that the one he was looking at was the original.... but the auction house declares that the portrait it auctioned on Oct 5, was a copy, BY STUART, of the original Stuart! (thus an original Stuart)
This is getting confusing~

From Doyle Auction House:
**
Provenance:
By descent in the White family in Ireland
Scott & Fowles, NY, acquired from the above, 1920
Ehrich Galleries, NY, 1930
Mrs. James B. Higgin, NY, acquired from the above
Wildenstein and Newhouse Gallery, NY, by 1932
Leroy Ireland, acquired at auction, c 1940
Ernest Closuit, Fort Worth, TX, acquired from the above, 1944
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, acquired from the above, 1959
Morton Kornreich, Harrison, NY, c 1980

A label on the back of the auctioned portrait describes the work and identifies Wildenstein/Newhouse as part of the provenance, and indicates that the other related portrait is at the Toledo Museum of Art.

A portrait described by Lawrence Park (no.903) as the original from which Stuart painted the present work, presently in the permanent collection of the Toledo Museum of Art, is now believed to be a copy.  It appears that the location of the original double portrait is unknown.

**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, to my eye, the portrait that was auctioned, looks to be a Stuart original.  But, where is the ...original original...? The #903 portrait from Park (see below) shows hands that are perfect; Stuart did not particularly like doing hands....But, if it is not a Stuart, it is a beautiful, magnificent copy, at least the black and white image.  And Park was convinced apparently that it was original.

The person who would know the authenticity of these portraits would be Carrie Barratt, who has the most up-to-date accounting of all Stuart portraits.  But looks to me like Doyle House auctioned a genuine Stuart. A reputable auction house would give the most latest accurate information on a portrait. Lawrence Park shows an unfinished portrait of these two, #904, which must be considered the original, then Stuart used this unfinished portrait to complete the final painting.  Apparently this unfinished portrait has not been located.

***********

#903 Mrs. Like White and her Son in the Lawrence Park Volumes (my photograph)

This portrait is "AFTER" Stuart

but ....Park thought it was original.

The Stuart portrait of Mrs White was sold for $43,750.00.   The estimate was $20,000.- $40,000.

Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis (nee Sally Foster) & ....Jeanne's fascinating project, to paint the gt grandaughter of Phoebe Meeker in the style of Gilbert Stuart

Carrie [b. Martin] Cory was born in 1862 in New Jersey.  Her father was Thomas Mulford Martin, grandfather was John Ludlum Martin and grandmother Mary [Brookfield] Martin; the mother of Mary Brookfield was Phoebe Meeker, twin sister of my Samuel Meeker.  Thus Phoebe Meeker was the great grandmother of Carrie.  Carrie is MY gt grandmother. {Thereby is the Provenance of the Samuel Meeker painting.}
Carrie moved to Fresno Ca after she married Lewis Cory who was born in San Jose Ca in 1861. The two were formally married in New York City in Oct of 1882.  The Cory family was established in New Jersey before later descendents (Dr. Ben Cory) took the trek across the plains and established his practice in the Pueblo of San Jose in late 1847 (just before gold was discovered).
Now one of my readers has begun an exciting project, after seeing photos of my gt grandmother (scroll down to see the photos, and click here for more on Carrie.)  She is attempting to paint this descendant of the Meeker twins in the style of Gilbert Stuart.  What a fascinating idea, and this piece of artwork will be posted when it is finished!  Just below is the latest email from Jeanne, who provides technical details about the work in progress.  For those of you who love GS, or who love portrait painting for that matter, read on!
At the end of this post, you can view the GS portrait of Sally [Foster] Otis that Jeanne references.  It is truely the work of a master. Stuart painted other Otis family members so I will post more information and other portraits of her family in the near future.
For me, this project is a special one; and I can only point to my Gilbert Stuart blog, for having a reader bless my ancestor with a portrait.  I'm sure that Carrie would be highly pleased.  Her life as a housewife [albeit wealthy housewife] in Fresno Ca was probably not as exciting as the life of the Meeker twins in early Philadelphia at the turn of the century.  Although Fresno at the time was supposed to be the next San Francisco.... 

FROM JEANNE:

Just thought I'd send an update on the progress with Carrie's portrait. I think you may be surprised, as I am, at how her appearance is developing. The face is well along, although not glazed yet, and she looks somewhat different than I had expected. I wanted to explain a bit about why that is the case.

Although Stuart would have used the "sight-size" method of developing his likenesses, we don't have the luxury of Carrie sitting in person. What we have is two somewhat blurry photos (they are still a whole lot better than similar photos from my own family). In a case like this, the way I get a likeness is to enlarge the photo(s) to full size and make a careful tracing on clear acetate. I transfer the outline to the painting surface, which in this case is a gessoed panel. I keep the acetate tracing taped to the side of the panel during painting so I can periodically flip it over the painting to check for accuracy. So I know that Carrie's image is a true one.

The photo I traced was the hatless one, because it shows her forehead and hair. When that photo was enlarged, it was just barely possible to locate and draw the correct contours of her eyes, especially the lower lids. What initially appeared to be outer edges of her lower eyelids in the photo are actually their shadows. The eyelids themselves are shaped as you would expect from their appearance in the other photo. In addition, she had very excellent bone structure with a strong brow ridge. My older daughter has the same feature, and when she is photographed outside in bright sunlight, her eyebrows disappear. That is what happened to the outer portions of Carrie's brows in the first photo, so I did have to shape them as they appear in the second photo. Between those two refinements to the photo, her appearance is somewhat different than you will have expected. I think she looks quite pretty.

As I had mentioned in earlier email, the light source in the photo was not as perfect as I had originally thought. Looking through Stuart's work (and that of other artists too, like Reynolds for example), I have discovered that nearly all of them have the light source on the "near" side of the subject's face, illuminating the shape of the nose so that the shadow of the nose is on the "far" side of the face. Among the few exceptions to this in Stuart;s work are his Jefferson portraits. So I had to find a Stuart painting with a female sitter to use as a model for the shading on Carrie's face. There are not many good closeup photos of Stuart's portraits, which is sort of odd I think. But I did find the portrait of Sally Otis at the Reynolda House website, and I am using that as a guide for shading and color. 

As you can guess, I am having a lot of fun with it all, and learning a few tricks as well. Today, I'm going to start on the lace blouse, which will probably bring its own challenges.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jeanne mentions the Stuart portrait of Sally Otis, so I thought it would be interesting to include her portrait in this post.  The portrait descended through family members, and was acquired by the Reynolda House from Vose Galleries in Boston in 1967.

courtesy of Reynolda House 

Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis

1770-1836

FROM LAWRENCE PARK VOL

Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis 1770-1836

She was Sally, daughter of William and Grace (Spear) Foster of Boston.  She married, in 1790, Harrison Gray Otis.

Boston c.1809. Panel, 32 x26 in.  Half-length, life-size, seated in an Empire armchair, upholstered in blue damask, upholstered in blue damask, her body turned three-quarters left, her head nearly three-quarters, and her brown eyes directed to the spectator.  Her brown hair is parted with small curls on the forehead and in front of the ears and done high on her head, with a small jeweled pin showing.  She wears a simple white muslin dress, low-necked, high-waisted, and with very short, slightly puffed sleeves.  Her waist is confined by a narrow white girdle fastened in front with an oval gold pin.  Over her right shoulder is a light reddish-brown India shawl with embroidered design, which falls upon her lap, and surrounding her, appears behind her left arm and lies upon the chair arm.  About the upper left arm is a chased gold amulet.  She sits with her body slightly inclined forward, with her hands lying lightly clasped in her lap.  The backround is of dark tones of greenish-browns and grays.  A close inspection of the background shows indistinctly the head of a child which has been painted out.  In addition to this visible evidence, there is documentary evidence that when first painted Mrs. Otis was shown holding her son, Alleyne Otis (1807-1873), in her arms.  This evidence is given by a letter written to Mrs. Charles Davis of Boston to her mother, Mrs. Benjamin Bussey, under date of Oct. 13, 1809, referring to a visit which she had made a few days before to Stuart’s studio. “Mrs. Otis’s picture is as perfect as it can be.  She is taken with her younger son in her arms and a most beautiful one it is.  I asked Mr. Stuart how it was possible to get a correct likeness of children, who are always in motion.  ‘I shoot flying,’ was the answer.”  Of this picture Mr. Charles Henry Hart wrote: “Its dignified and graceful pose and its delicate and pure color make it one of the painter’s great achievements.”

***

More evidence that Ruggles is a Stuart! and two other possible Stuarts...?

When determining if a portrait is in fact done by our master Gilbert Stuart, particularly when it is not mentioned in the Lawrence Park volumes (a set of 4 large books two of which provide black and white photographs of the portraits and two which give written descriptions and short bios), it helps to cement the attribution when the evidence piles up.
On April 27 I did a post on the individual Ruggles Whiting [click on this link], a writer [Elisha L. President Dover Historical society] wrote to me that he thought this portrait was a genuine Stuart.  I also thought it to be a genuine Stuart.

Elisha has found a copy of the will, and this portrait is mentioned as being "taken by Gilbert Stuart" [note the language, similar to photography].  This can be considered solid evidence!

"In researching Ruggles Whiting I recently found a copy of his will, written in 1816 and probated in 1827.  Page 3 contains the following statement:

“It is my will, and I do hereby give and bequeath to my beloved son Lucius R. Whiting my library, charts, globes, my wardrobe including my watch and all wearing apparel, my chess board and best set of chessmen, my portrait of myself taken by Gilbert Stuart Esq., my portrait of Ralph I. Reed, taken by the same artist before his decease, and all my sporting apparatus of every kind.”

Elisha points out that this will indicates that Ruggles owned another Stuart, and indeed a third Stuart. From the will: "“It is my will and I give and bequeath to the Government of the United States, my original portrait of Jacob Perkins Esquire of Newburyport, the great mechanical inventor, taken by Gilbert Stuart Esq. the celebrated American artist, to be placed in such part of the National Buildings, in the City of Washington, as the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States for the time being shall order and direct.”

Thus there should be a Stuart portrait of "Ralph Reed", and of "Jacob Perkins".  I will investigate this further~
The fact that Ruggles now seems to own THREE Stuart portraits, also is indirect evidence that the Ruggles portrait is a genuine Stuart, as Elisha pointed out in his note to me.
Thankyou, super sleuthing!
Also of note...this merchant was intellectual (library, globes, chess) and atheletic!
 

Parents of Lovely Lydia Smith, a fortune begins in the commercial rail industry. Mr. & Mrs. Barney Smith

Mr. and Mrs. Barney Smith

Barney Smith: 1763-1828 of Taunton, Massachusetts [Stuart, Boston c. 1825]

Mrs. Barney Smith: 1755-1843 of Scituate, Massachusetts [Stuart, Boston 1817]

On April 27th of 2015 I did a post on Lovely Lydia Smith, who is one of the more beautiful ladies who was painted by our master.  From the Lawrence Park Volumes:

A daughter of Barney and Ann (Otis) Smith of Boston.  Her parents, her brother, Henry Barney Smith, her sister, Mrs. George Alexander Otis, and her uncle and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Abiel Smith, were all painted by Stuart. [Stuart often painted numerous members of one family, this was also considered as evidence that my Meeker was painted by Stuart, as his cousin William Meeker's portrait is included in the Park Volumes.]

To continue to read more about lovely Lydia, click on the link above.

This post presents the parents of Lydia, Mr. and Mrs. Barney Smith. Mr. Barney Smith was a wealthy importer of English goods, and is also known for having purchased the estate of Royal Governor Hutchinson (last royal Gov. of Massachusetts) in 1812, known as Unquety. The house presented an impressive Greek Revival style architecture, built overlooking Boston Harbor.[This Governor remained loyal to the royal authorities and was forced to leave the new world with nothing, thus it can be surmised that Barney got a good deal from this situation.] Barney seems to have been involved in a new means of transport, the commercial railway. He was one of 4 directors on the newly formed co. Granite Railway in 1826, the first company to have a commercial contract to carry freight by rail. The railyway moved freight, particularly stone.

From The History of Milton 1640- 1877 [editor Albert Teele pp 134-5]
Mr. Smith was of medium size, of fine form, with light complexion, and a profusion of silky hair of the purest white; his usual dress was a blue broadcloth with bright buttons, and a buff vest.  His manners were graceful and pleasant. His kind feelings and ample means prompted him to do so much for the benefit of the community around him, and particularly to his neighbors less fortunate than himself, both in health and sickness, that he was universally beloved and respected while living, and his death which ocurred in 1828, was a public loss to the neighborhood.

NOTE the signs in the painting that this individual was a merchant [similarly to my Meeker]...he is holding papers.  A contract possibly?  The formulaic style for painting "holding the contract" is very typical, where the paper(s) is held in place between the thumb and index finger. The customer would have paid more for the painting, to include the hand and paper.

Ruggles Whiting...did he sit for Stuart? Yes or no? and lovely Lydia Smith....

A reader wrote me: Beth, I am in the process of becoming more familiar with Gilbert Stuart and have very much enjoyed your blog. It occurs to me that you may find the attached photo of interest and I would appreciate any thoughts that you might care to offer.  The portrait is not signed, but was displayed at the MFA in Boston many years ago (1917 to be precise) as the work of Stuart.  It was at the time in the possession of the subject's great granddaughter who, in all likelihood, bequeathed it to the Dover Historical Society which has owned it for many years (I'm presently pulling together the provenance and will know the story of the acquisition in due course.)  The subject is Ruggles Whiting, a Boston merchant born in Dover, MA in 1779 and died in Boston or Dover 1827.  

My thanks in advance for your thoughts and my apologies for the rather poor quality of my photo.

Elisha L. President Dover Historical society

****

I looked at this oil that Elisha sent me.  Having tried to photograph my own Stuart numerous times, I sympathized with the glare in the lower right corner, throwing some of the light from the flash into the photograph.  Did I mind?............!!

****& my response below****

Dear Elisha,

Ruggles is not in the Lawrence Park volumes, which is not particularly significant as my Meeker was not either.

It is a beautiful portrait, and has all the particular and  stunning Stuart features characteristic of a Stuart portrait--...as he used to say.... his portraits did not need his signature because the entire portrait itself would be the signature!  My Samuel Meeker was born in 1763, which made him about 40 when he was painted.  Ruggles looks to me to be in his early 30ies--which means possibly Stuart did his portrait somewhere around 1809 (say Ruggles is at age 30)--well within the years that Stuart was painting well (see portrait of Lydia Smith done in 1808-10) .

Ruggles has a receding hairline, but no grey whatsoever, does not have the darker bags under the eyes that my Meeker has...which makes me think he is around 30 or so.  The  translucent skin tones are pure Stuart, and the paler forehead was a common feature, since the men were often outdoors on horseback wearing a hat (the cheeks in contrast receiving lots of sun).  The sitter chose a less expensive portrait, which did not include a background, or hand or any kind of prop.  Stuart would have surely tried to persuade Mr. Whiting to choose a background that he often used for merchants (like Meeker) which would have him holding a paper, indicating a ledger of some sort, and the chair with sky/drapery in the background.  (Samuel Meeker's cousin William Meeker was a business partner of Samuel but also chose the less expensive format for his portrait, which makes me think that Samuel was the "CEO".)  Stuart was in Boston from 1805 to 1828.

This portrait looks to me to be a genuine Stuart.  Thanks so much for sending the photo of your portrait!  It is worthy of a great display location, along with the story of the sitter.  I have found that a Stuart portrait by itself, without the story of the sitter, deprives the viewer of the full scope of Stuart's magnificent talent, as well as a small dose of our history.  The provenance also lends interest to a Stuart painting. Can I post Mr Ruggles Whiting on my blog?

Thanks again,

Beth 

***

Now for the portrait of lovely Lydia, who sat for our master approx in the same time frame, in Boston. (This lovely portrait I mention in the response above). She would have been only 7 years younger than dear Ruggles.  Most likely the Whitings knew the Smiths. Stay in tune for more information on Ruggles, and the Smith family.

Lydia Smith

Daughter of Barney Smith, educated in the female arts in France, the portrait shows her skill in artful clothing (simple white muslin gown with empire waist, the daring fashion set by the Empress Josephine, wife of Napoleon), indulging in the proper pastime for young ladies of wealth and culture, drawing and music (see piano in left corner.)  Her jewels also portray elegant simplicity, a string of choker length pearls with a hanging gold pendant.  Lydia studied at the school for young ladies established by famed Mme Campan (who learned the arts at the court of Versailles), where she studied French, music, and art; at one point two of Napoleon’s sisters attended the famous school. This would have been a most prestigious, and of course the best preparatory education for any young girl whose principle aim was to attract a worthy suitor.

Lydia found her future husband in London in 1811, widower Jonathan Russell who became the US minister to Sweden. Perhaps her strong determination to excel became more of an end in itself, as she was aged 31 by the time of the marriage.  Russell was a widower, with four children.

Miss Lydia Smith 

{from the Lawrence Park Volumes}

1786-1859

A daughter of Barney and Ann (Otis) Smith of Boston.  Her parents, her brother, Henry Barney Smith, her sister, Mrs. George Alexander Otis, and her uncle and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Abiel Smith, were all painted by Stuart.  She and her brother passed their early life in France and England, and she attended in Paris the school of Madame Campan.  Later she studied art in England under the instruction of Benjamin West, who gave her his palette, which is still preserved in the family.  She became, in 1817 in Boston, the second wife of Honorable Jonathan Russell (1771-1832) of Boston, who had a distinguished diplomatic career as charge d'affairs at Paris and London, and as one of the commissioners in 1814 to negotiate and conclude the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain at Ghent.  From 1814 to 1818 he represented the United States as minister plenipotentiary to Sweden, and the first year of Mrs. Russell’s married life was probably passed in Sweden.  In 1818 they returned permanently to America and settled in Mendon, Massachusetts, where he represented that district in Congress from 1821 to 1825.  Soon after he removed to Milton, Massachusetts, where he died, and where his widow survived him for nearly thirty years.

Boston, c 1807 (the date has been determined to be two to three years later). Panel, 32 1/8 x 28 ¾. Life-size, half-length, seated in a gilt Empire armchair, with her body in profile, her head three-quarters left, and brown eyes to spectator.  Her coloring is brilliant, her dark brown hair is parted and brushed smooth with the exception of a long ringlet in front of her ear.  Before her is a desk which supports the top of a portfolio resting on her lap.  On the cover of the portfolio is a sheet of paper upon which Miss Smith is drawing, and in her right hand she holds a porte crayon, while with her left she steadies the portfolio. She wears a very simple and attractive white muslin dress, low-necked and short-sleeved, and over her right shoulder is thrown a pale mauve scarf with gold threads.  About her neck is a necklace of small pearls. In the pearly-toned background appears the wall of a room on which, at the left side of the picture, are two pilasters. 

 ***

The MASTER portrait painter and a copyist; Dr. William Thornton, a man for all seasons! Now you can compare

Norma wrote, to ask whether I thought her portrait (shown below) was an original Stuart.  Take a look at it .... what do you think ....?
It had all the same characteristics of a Stuart...........!

HERE is why Stuart is considered a master portrait painter.

**********************************

Norma: I bought this painting at an auction years ago—just discovered it was William Thornton.  Mine is the same size as is in the Nat. Gallery of Art and is quite old.  I was wondering if it was painted by Stuart? 

Me: Thanks for your message.  The picture does look old, and the style of the portrait is very clearly G. Stuart.  But the quality doesn't seem to be present; the body looks odd...and it would help if I could have a clearer vision of the face.  But from this vantage point it looks like a novice painter painted a portrait using Stuart's style!  Ask yourself if you are super impressed with the quality of the face... Beth 

Norma: I am super impressed by the whole painting.  Why would anyone at that time want a picture of Thornton? I thought Stuart wanted to improve the painting.

Thankyou for responding.

Hi Norma, Re: Why would anyone at that time want a picture of Thornton?? I checked the Park volumes and there is a Dr. William Thornton,..... Dr William Thornton lived from 1761-1828.  Your painting does not match accurately the Stuart painting of Thornton that is in the volumes, but there is enough resemblance to make me think that the artist, whoever it was, was doing another portrait of the doctor in the Stuart style.  The body in your portrait is too 'shallow', the lips too full. I will post your picture on my blog if that is ok, and put Dr W Thornton from the volumes on it too so you can compare.  [from original Stuart] the body is much fuller, the lips are thinner, there is a less "painted" look of the face.  I note that the info on the Dr. says that he was aminiature painter, and "copied some of Stuart's portraits.".....
Super interesting!  But it is clearly not an original Stuart~but a copy so old is very cool.
Beth 

Norma: I am sure you are right- just wanted to make sure it wasn't valuable.  You can tell it is very old.  Won't bother you anymore and thanks so much Thornton designed our US Capitol.

**************************************

done by the sitter himself Dr. William Thornton?

From Lawrence Park V II
Doctor William Thornton 1761-1828
William Thornton was of Quaker parentage and born on the Island of Jost Van Dyke, West Indies.  He studied medicine in Edinburgh but was also an accomplished architect and artist as well.  He designed the Philadelphia Library Building erected in 1790.  In 1794 he became Commissioner of Public Buildings in Washington DC, and in 1800 he drew the first plans for the United States Capitol Building.  He also assisted Thomas Jefferson with the plans for the University of Virginia buildings.  Col John Tayloe's Octagon House was built after his plans.  From 1802 until his death he was the first Chief of the Patent Office.  He also invented a flutter-wheel steamboat and accused Robert Fulton of having wrongfully deprived him of it.  As a miniature painter he was above the average and copied some of Stuart's portraits.  In 1790 he married Anna Maria Brodeau, daughter of Mrs. Ann Brodeau.

Portrait of Dr. William Thornton, Washington 1804

National Gallery of Art

**

A Stuart is auctioned, but is this William Brownlow the real Stuart?

I noticed a Gilbert Stuart portrait "The Right Honorable William Brownlow" was sold recently at auction at Sotheby's--my first question these days is "IS IT GENUINE?"  Now, I am not a titled expert.  But if one compares this portrait to the excellence of the portrait of Meeker, a question as to authenticity might be raised.  Does this portrait nail the likeness of Brownlow, or does it have an "artistic" look?  Could it in fact be a copy?
The estimate sale price was $15,000 to $25,000. and it sold for $27,500.00
Thus one should be certain that the artwork is genuine, and one would think that Sotheby's would know a copy from the real thing. OR. Might Sotheby's be interested more.... in a sale?  How much research does an auction house carry out on a particular artwork...

The portrait of Brownlow indeed is listed in the Lawrence Park volumes, with his image (however only in black and white.)  A swift comparison shows that the portraits are the same.

PROVENANCE (as provided by Sotheby's)
Sale: Heritage Auctions, Dallas, November 11, 2009, lot 66013
Acquired at the above sale by the present owner

The Right Honorable William Brownlow (1726-1794) 
by Gilbert Stuart c.1790 Dublin

FROM LAWRENCE PARK:
Dublin, c 1790.  Half-length, seated half-way to the right in an armchair upholstered in red.  His gray-blue eyes are directed to the spectator.  He wears a very dark blue velvet coat, a pale yellow figured or embroidered waistcoat, a white neckcloth and ruffled shirt.  His wig is powdered.  His right hand, holding a letter, is resting on a table covered with a soft gray-blue cloth.  The plain background is the color of dark oak.

A son of William Brownlow of County Armagh, Ireland, by his wife, Lady Elizabeth Hamilton, daughter of James, Sixth Earl of Abercorn.  In 1754 he married first, Judith Letitia Meredyth of Newtown, Meath; in 1765 he married, second, Catherine, daughter of Roger Hall of Mount Hall, Downshire, Ireland.  He was a Member of Parliament for County Armagh.  His grandson, Charles Brownlow (1795-1847) was, in 1839, created Baron Lurgan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The image in Park matches that which was auctioned, as far as I can tell.  But, if one compares the style of portrait between Brownlow and Meeker, Meeker appears to be so unbelievably accurate, to be almost a photograph. (My mother's dog Sammy used to look up at the portrait of Meeker and bark in the light of the setting sun!)  Possibly however Stuart DID have a different style in his earlier years in Dublin? But take a look at Aaron Burr, painted ca. 1794.

Aaron Burr by Gilbert Stuart ca. 1794

This is more of a Meeker style, not a Brownlow style.
And where is a more accurate provenance (history of ownership of the painting) of "Brownlow"?  Why is it lacking so substantially?  Where is the info that this portrait was, in the early 1900s, in the possession of Lord Lurgan of Brownlow House in Ireland (provided by Park)?

Reading Park more closely I found the following:


"A replica (or copy?) of this portrait is owned by Viscount de Vesci."

Monthly pick: Matilda Stoughton [de Jaudenes y Nebot] has big dreams and marries a minor Spanish attaché; the portrait by Gilbert Stuart

1794 Matilda in silks, diamonds, pearls, & snowflake piochas (hairpins) 

At age 16, in 1794, Matilda Stoughton was the dutiful daughter and married a man of great prospects; or so it was thought at the time.  Officially recognizing the United States government under George Washington in Philadelphia, Charles IV of Spain sent an ambassador with two trade attachés, one of which was Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot.  The two trade attachés carried on negotiations with regard to Spanish Louisiana, navigation on the Mississippi river, trade with Cuba, amongst other issues. [Spanish and U.S. negotiators concluded the Treaty of San Lorenzo, also known as Pinckney’s Treaty, on October 27, 1795. The treaty was an important diplomatic success for the United States. It resolved territorial disputes between the two countries and granted American ships the right to free navigation of the Mississippi River as well as duty-free transport through the port of New Orleans, then under Spanish control. Prior to the treaty, the western and southern borders of the United States had been a source of tension between Spain and the United States.]

 Marrying the Spanish Consul’s daughter allowed Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot to stay in the United States where he surely happily envisioned being able to stay as a permanently ensconced envoy of Spain (like his father-in-law).  But by 1796, charged with corruption, he was sent back home where he returned to his family’s ancestral estate, a vineyard near Palma, Majorca.  Matilda had surely imagined a more illustrious outcome of the marriage.  But at least the two had their Stuart portraits which were commissioned for the occasion of their wedding.  Which is why the two are remembered today. 

FROM LAWRENCE PARK

Louisa Carolina Matilda Stoughton was the second daughter of Don Juan (John) Stoughton who, for thirty years previous to his death in 1820 in his 76^th year, was the Spanish Consul in Boston.  He was prominent in the establishment of the first Roman Catholic Cathedral in the United States, erected in Boston. Esther Fletcher, whose death in 1789 is noticed in a contemporary Boston newspaper, and who was the mother of his daughter Louisa, was either Stoughton’s first or second wife.  Louisa Carolina Matilda was well known in Boston, in her youth, for her beauty.  In 1794 she married Don Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot.

New York, 1794. ....Her dress is of white flowered silk, finished at the neck with a dainty fichu edged with lace.  Her luxuriant hair is powdered and a coronet-shaped headdress with two tall feathers is set on top of her head in the center.  Nestling in her hair, at the base of the headdress, are clusters of jewels.  Jewels are in her ears, around her neck, on her dress, and at her wrists.  By her side is a table, with a red velevet cover, on which are two leather-bound books, one open as though she had been reading.  Her hands are in her lap and she holds a closed fan.  A brownish-pink curtain is draped in the background, showing clouds and a sky of blue and pink at the right. In the upper left-hand corner under a coat of arms is the following inscription: “Dona Matilde Stoughton de Jaudenes-Esposa de Don Josef de Jaudenes y Nebot Comisario Ordenador de Los Reales Exercitos de Su Magestad Catholica y su Ministro Embiado cerca de los Estados Unidos de America.  Nacio en la Ciudad de Nueva-York en los Estados Unidos el 11 de Enero de 1778.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The two were married in New York, and there Josef commissioned their two portraits to be done by Stuart.  Was he in love, or did he only wish to advance his career? “Scholars have described him as a “dandy and spendthrift,” a “swarthy Spanish provocateur,” “arrogant,” “slippery,” “shifty,” and even “cruel.”   

(From the Met book Gilbert Stuart [from Albert Ten Eyck Gardner, “Fragment of a Lost Monument,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, n.s.6 March 1948, p 190] p 125), 

Next; Josef's portrait.

the War of 1812 (two hundred years ago this year) & a Meeker perishes

Two hundred years ago, America declared war on Britain. The reasons were many...the wartime atmosphere in Europe (Napoleon was wreaking his havoc) led to British seizure of American ships, more often than not forcing American sailors into the British navy, and the severe restrictions imposed by the British on American trade with France... In June 1812 James Madison became the first U.S. president to ask Congress to declare war.
Samuel Meeker at this time was 49. For many years before the outbreak of the war, Samuel Meeker was engaged in the trade/wholesale/retail business; his second firm was located at #20 South Front Street in Philadelphia and was called Meeker Denman & Co. comprising Samuel himself, his first cousin William Meeker, and brother-in-law Samuel Denman.
click on image below for a larger view
~The authenticity of Samuel Meeker as a work by Gilbert Stuart was further confirmed when I learned that his cousin William’s portrait was listed in the Lawrence Park volumes.~

William Meeker by Gilbert Stuart

[most likely c. 1803 as arrangement, hair, clothing are very similar to Samuel Meeker and the firm had received a large loan at this time ]The following information comes from an auction house, 2009;

PROVENANCE: From a fine Sudbury, MA home. CONDITION: Very good, restored, relined with inpainting. [In my opinion, the restorative touch-up work botched Stuart's portrait in a very major way. The portrait did not sell at auction.]

From Lawrence Park; William Meeker
“The present owner of this portrait was told at the time of its purchase that William Meeker was a member of the London firm of Meeker & Denman, shipping agents, and that he died en route to New Orleans in 1812. [slightly inaccurate, the firm was out of Philadelphia]
Canvas 28 x 23 inches.Bust, half-way to the right, with his light brown eyes directed to the spectator. His brown hair is brushed back, with curls in the neck, and tied with a black queue bow. He wears a dark blue, or blue-black, coat with small brass buttons; a very high white neckcloth and a ruffled shirt, with a bit of a white waistcoat showing. His complexion is ruddy and he wears small side-whiskers. The background is plain, of greenish-olive tones, becoming warm brown in the lower right corner.

New Orleans had been aquired with the Louisiana Purchase 9 years before, was an important and principal port since the American Revolution for importing and exporting—imported goods were warehoused and then distributed up the vast Mississippi river. William was the agent in England for the firm, selling goods sent from Philadelphia and purchasing items to be shipped back. As he died at sea en route to New Orleans in 1812, one might surmise that perhaps he was returning home with one of his shipments, and perished in a skirmish at sea. The region was targeted by the British and was attacked in a final battle in 1815, although a peace treaty was already in place. William Meeker never married.

they seem authentic...Mr and Mrs Schermerhorn, for a (very) reasonable price!

Mr. and Mrs. Schermerhorn attributed to Gilbert Stuart c. 1825

Cowan's October 8 Fall Fine and Decorative Art Auction (Cincinnati) offered two Stuart portraits, Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius Schermerhorn. Now how is this..the estimate was only $1,000 - $2,000 and starting bid for $500.!
The Price Realized: $10,575.00. (Something is odd about the pricing here, Chinese artifacts are definitely the hot items in the auction circuit!)

The description was given:
Attributed to Gilbert Stuart (American, 1755-1828), ca 1825, includes two unsigned portraits of Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius Schermerhorn, both housed in decorative gilt and gesso frame; 32.5 x 25.5 in.

A New York sea captain, Mr. Schermerhorn became a successful merchant in the newly independent United States. Born in 1756 in the colonies, he died in 1826, shortly after this portrait was probably painted. Cornelius is shown in a three-quarter pose, seated in a mahogany Grecian chair against a swag of red drapery with blue gray sky in the background. The companion portrait of Mrs. Schermerhorn depicts her seated in a heavier gilt Grecian chair with red upholstery.

There was no other information offered on the portraits. If the portraits were done in 1825, then Mr. Schermerhorn would be 70 years old. Neither he nor his wife look to be much past 60, I am sceptical of the date given to the portraits (c. 1825). The pair are not in the Lawrence Park volumes, nor in (George) Mason. Gilbert Stuart, if in fact he completed these portraits in 1825, passed away 3 years later (1828)--and he certainly spent much time on some of the accents in these portraits, such as the shawl with the rose border. Unusual, since Gibby did not like to focus on much of anything except for the face. The hands are very well done as well. hmmmm.

I did some sleuthing on Mr. Schermerhorn and found this (courtesy Schermerhorn Genealogy and Family Chronicles):

Cornelius I. Schermerhorn lived at Schodack Landing, N. Y. He was a merchant and large land and vessel owner, several of his vessels being engaged in trade with the East Indies. In 1793 he was a Lieutenant in his father's regiment. In 1798 he was Captain of Light Infantry in Brig. Gen. Henry K. Van Rensselaer's Rensselaer Co. Brigade. 1798-1800 he was Adjutant in Col. Nicholas Staat's Rensselaer Co. Regiment. March 30, 1803, he was commissioned as Major and on March 12, 1810, as Lieutenant Colonel, and April 3, 1812, as Colonel of the 43rd Regiment, 8th Brigade, Third Division of the New York Militia under command of Brigadier-General Jacob A. Fort and Major General Henry Livingston. Colonel Schermerhorn served on the frontier with his regiment during the war of 1812.
Cornelius I. Schermerhorn held the office of assessor in Schodack in 1795, and from 1800 to 1809 was supervisor of the village. In 1808, 1809, 1810, 1811 and 1818 he was a member of the New York State Assembly, and during that service he way prominently identified with the plans for the inauguration of the Erie Canal.

A characterization from the pen of a grandson, reads as follows:
"My grandfather, Col. Cornelius I. Schermerhorn lived in the house which still stands (1905) a little north of the village of Schodack Landing and quite near the bank of the river. It is said that this house was built about 1760 with bricks brought from Holland. It is an excellent type of the better class of houses of the Dutch settlers. My grandfather in many respects resembled his father, though less domineering in character. He was silent and reserved and like his father a leader among the men with whom he was associated. Through his business ability he added materially to the property left him by his father, and at the time of his death in 1828, he owned nearly all the farms in the vicinity of the village. He had in addition large vessel interests, part of which was engaged in trade with China and the East.
His wife Elizabeth Monden, was an exceedingly bright, vivacious woman, with a highly developed religious nature. She was a descendent of Heer Johannes La Montagne, vice-director of the West Indies Co., at Fort Orange, Albany, from 1659 to 1664. The family was of Huguenot origin, emigrating from Holland about the middle of the 17th century. The name became changed to Monden, Monton, Munden."

With regard to authenticity Cowan's Auctions provides these words: Cowan's Auctions makes limited warranty concerning the authenticity of any lot for a period of 21 days following the sale. If a buyer is not satisfied that the item purchased is genuine, they may, at their expense, obtain the opinion of two mutually agreed upon recognized experts in the field of the disputed item. If these experts determine the item is not genuine, the buyer's sole remedy under the auctioneer's warranty shall be the rescission of the sale and refund of the original price paid for the item.

Also: Cowan's Auctions, Inc. assumes no responsibility for correct descriptions or defects in any lot, and makes no warranty in connection therewith.

Praise from a Philadelphian! (& sources for research) & ...I am registering Samuel Meeker with the Smithsonian!

Samuel Meeker, the portrait, was most likely not discovered by Lawrence Park when he was assembling the works of Stuart, as the portrait was taken before his time to California by my late ancestors (the marriage of Carrie Martin of Rahway NJ to Lewis Cory of Fresno, Ca, see provenance). Somehow it seems Samuel belongs in Philadelphia, but, here in California he is, and here he will stay! At least I am bringing his story to light, he would be proud and happy about that! My ancestors who brought him here would be happy with my research, for they thought he was “Major Samuel Meeker” painted by Peale. To have the accurate story is a worthy aim is it not? I have been doing these postings for two years now, with various input from different people. But this particular letter sent to me by email just a few days ago...I appreciate so much! A real Philadelphian, praising my work! Thank you.

And today was special. I am sending in the forms on this portrait to the Smithsonian so that they may register Meeker in their INVENTORY OF AMERICAN PAINTINGS.

The letter now follows:

Hello!

Are you the author of the blog -- GilbertStuart.blogspot.com? I sure hope so. It's a fabulous and an amazing narrative of Philadelphia history!
I applaud your discipline and focus and strategy for exploring your family's heritage.
Who am I? I am a Philadelphian and am well-connected with many cultural heritage organizations and research centers. Indeed, I am forwarding your blog link to them, and encourage you to connect with them as well, as they have the resources and original documentation to serve your endeavor.
Many of these organizations are quickly digitizing their collections, so it might be easier to do more on-line research oforiginal material.
The next time you visit Philadelphia, try to visit these places. They are most helpful and receptive to serious scholars. Many of these research centers are FREE. The Historical Society of PA is the only one, I believe, that charges research fees. Best wishes for the New Year!

Anita Mc K.

1) John Van Horn, Director, The Library Company
http://www.librarycompany.org/about/services.htm
2) Stephen Girard/Girard College and Estate
No doubt your ancestor had many interactions with Girard. Girard College has all of Stephen Girard's records (all of them -- in the thousands) on microfilm at Founders Hall at the College, including correspondence, diaries, bank statements, business records, etc
http://www.ushistory.org/people/girard.htm
See "museum collections" and "archival collections" at this link below:
http://www.girardcollege.com/4398_9771410572/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=50725
3) The McNeil Center at University of PA might connect you with academic scholars who have information about your ancestors. http://www.mceas.org/intro.htm
4) Independence Seaport Museum "archives and library" http://www.phillyseaport.org/Museum_Library.shtml
5) Philadelphia Athenaeum. This museum may have information about your ancestor's homes in Philadelphia. BTW its current exhibit "William Birch: Picturing The American Scene" runs through Jan 11, 2011.
6) The Philadelphia Historic Commission may have materials and photos of the Meeker home in today's Fairmount Park. http://www.phila.gov/historical/contact.html
7) For historic photos check: http://www.brynmawr.edu/iconog/frdr.html
The Philadelphia Free Library Photo collection ... some of the oldest photos of Phila landmarks, homes, businesses, that your ancestor would have known.
http://libwww.freelibrary.org/hip/HIPSearchItem.cfm?searchKey=8153119119&ItemID=pdcc00030
http://libwww.library.phila.gov/hip/HIPLst.cfm?collection=pdcl
http://jeffline.jefferson.edu/archives/phdil/phdil.html
Phillyhistory.org Thousands of photographs of Philadelphia dating from the late 1800s onwards from the city archives and the Athenaeum of Philadelphia. http://www.phillyhistory.org/PhotoArchive/Search.aspx

Mrs. Andrew Sigourney (the random monthly pick)

Mrs. Andrew Sigourney
Gilbert Stuart, Boston c.1820

copied from Lawrence Park volume IV

from Lawrence Park:
Mrs. Andrew Sigourney
1765-1843

She was Elizabeth, daughter of Henry Howell Williams (q.v.) of Roxbury and Noddle’s Island, Massachusetts, by his wife, Elizabeth Bell. She married in 1797 Andrew Sigourney (1766-1820) of Boston.

Boston, c. 1820. She is shown nearly half-length, seated, slightly turned to the left, with her gray-blue eyes gazing at the spectator, in an Empire armchair upholstered in a figured stuff of brownish-green tones. Upon her head, which is tipped slightly forward, is a large turban of white dotted muslin, beneath which is a mass of tight curls of dark brown hair covering her temples and the sides of her forehead. Her face is thin, with delicate features and high cheek bones, and her complexion is pink and fair. The right ear does not show, but in her left is an earring of two carnelians, one hung above the other, and both encircled with small pearls. Her black silk, long-sleeved dress is open at the throat, and edged with black silk ruffles, while the neck opening is filled in with a white starched ruffled fichu. A red shawl, fallen from her shoulders, surrounds her. The hands are not shown. The background is plain and of amber-tones.

In full color!

I was not able to find much about this self-confident looking lady. Her husband seems to have been active as a Freemason, and involved with the Boston theatre. Note that this portrait was done some 17 years after Meeker's, Stuart has simplified the background (no drapery, sky) and dropped the hands. Makes (dollars &) sense, since I don't think he liked to paint hands.

Most widely held works by Andrew Sigourney
Constitution of the Grand Lodge of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. : Adopted anno lucis by Freemasons( Book )1 edition published in 1811 in English and held by 1 library worldwide
Receipt book of Andrew Sigourney, 1803-1811 by Andrew Sigourney in English and held by 1 library worldwide Account book with hand written notices dated and signed by Andrew, Daniel or Elisha Sigourney stating that they received the rent for the lobby of the Boston Theatre. The rent by paid by Stephen North from 1803 to 1809 and by Eben Oliver from 1809 to 1811.

~

Mrs. TIMOTHY PICKERING (the random monthly pick)

Rebecca White, aka Mrs. Timothy Pickering, was born in England and came over to this country in 1765 at age 11. Eleven years later (1776) she married Col. Timothy Pickering~a graduate of Harvard in 1763, admitted to the bar in 1768, & joined Washington's army in 1777. This prominent gentleman was Secretary of War in 1795, and was a Massachusetts state senator from 1803-1811.

The couple had 10 children, 8 sons and the two youngest were daughters.

"THERE is no more beautiful example of Stuart's skill than this portrait of Mrs. Timothy Pickering, painted between 1816 and 1818. Mrs. Pickering is represented seated in so natural an attitude that there is no suggestion of being "posed." Her black silk gown with folds of soft muslin about the throat, her cap of the same sheer material, trimmed with lace, and the ermine-bordered mantle of a delicious shade of old rose color which has fallen from her shoulders, are all painted with a care and finish seldom bestowed by Stuart upon the accessories of his portraits, while on the finely modeled face with its delicate flesh-tones his brush has evidently lingered with loving touch."

Masters in Art; a series of illustrated monographs. Bates and Guild Co, Boston 1906. p 37

From Lawrence Park:

Boston. Begun in 1816 and finished in 1818. Half-length, seated slightly to the right, in a carved gilded Empire chair, with her brown eyes to the spectator. Her hair is completely hidden by a white lace-trimmed handkerchief worn as a turban. She wears a black silk dress with a white muslin kerchief open at the throat, showing a necklace of pearls, and fastened with a lozenge-shaped ruby pin; an old rose velvet cloak trimmed with ermine surrounds her body and lies in folds on her lap, where it is held by her right hand, on the third finger of which is a gold ring. The backgound is plain, of greenish-brown and gray tones, with a narrow pilaster showing at the right.

Stuart's "Astor" is demoted to "Gentleman" ! (trickery in the world of art?)

GILBERT STUART

PORTRAIT OF A GENTLEMAN

On May 9 2009 I posted an entry on Stuart's portrait of John Jacob Astor, about to be autioned at Soetheby's, with an estimated fetching price of only $75,000-$100,000 ("For a trifling sum of money)".

It turns out that the identification of this particular sitter as an "Astor" was done without the blessings of the professionals. The above portrait was identifed as John Jacob Astor "based only" on its similarity to another existant portrait of Mr. Astor! It seems to me that Soetheby's is supposed to check out the authenticity of each piece that comes under its hammer, and in fact perhaps that is what happened in this case. This "Portrait of a Gentleman", which the above portrait is now more humbly termed, is now once again up for grabs at auction, but at a much more modest price.

Explanation courtesy of Soetheby's;

CATALOGUE NOTE

This portrait by Gilbert Stuart had been previously identified as a portrait of John Jacob Astor, the first multimillionaire in American history. Gilbert Stuart was commissioned to paint Astor's portrait and according to Lawrence Park, the Gilbert Stuart scholar who published the 1926 four volume catalogue raisonné, he painted two versions (numbers 37 and 38 in Park's catalogue). Mr. Park identifies number 37 as the portrait that was purchased in 1909 through Charles Henry Hart for the collection of The Brook, a prominent men's club in New York City. Number 38 in Park is listed as the 2nd portrait of Astor, and the likeness Astor himself enjoyed. This portrait still remains in the Astor family today and was the subject of several lithographs after the painting. The present portrait was identified as a portrait of Astor based on its similarity to the portrait at The Brook. Further research at the Frick Art Library suggests that this portrait, and another portrait in the collection of the Van Cortlandt family, are both of a Mr. Badcock. The present work was formerly in the collection of a General Brigadier Badcock so it is possible that it descended in the family of the sitter.

Now, this portrait is currently only estimated to bring 40,000 - 60,000 USD.

Gee, too bad for the owners. Please NOTE here the importance of establishing a failsafe providence, or ownership history, of a Stuart portrait. This would have aided a quick determination of who the sitter is.


It should be added that a current expert on Gilbert Stuart, Ellen Miles (National Portrait Gallery), helped to rectify this minor misunderstanding.