Samuel Meeker's cousin and business partner: More on Wm Parsons Meeker. He was indeed married!

William Parsons Meeker, also a sitter for Gilbert Stuart 

I have been in touch with a descedent of Samuel's cousin and business partner William Parsons Meeker. William handled the business side of things in England, organizing items to be shipped from London to Philadelphia ["dry goods and hardware"], to be retailed to Philly customers. My thought is that he went back and forth (probably rarely, how often did retail businessmen from America sail between London and Philadelphia, the hazardous trip could take anywhere from 1 1/2 to 3 months), did he carry on two lives? It seems that William met his demise, at sea as a younger man, during the War of 1812 with England.  As an American, he perhaps was no longer welcome in England. It was a tragic time for both nations, negatively impacting the economies of both countries (in particular import/export, through shipping). Here is more information on William Meeker from my "distant" cousin. More input is welcome at any time, from you Meekers out there. It was thought that he was unmarried, but that has been shown to be false.

Terry's discovery that an ancestor of hers was painted by Stuart was exciting, 

as it would be to anyone!

She, like me, delved into the STORIES of our Meeker ancestry. Terry wrote the excerpt below.

Regarding the Gilbert Stuart blog by Elizabeth Ahrens:

I read and felt your excitement in 2008 at finding the portrait of your ancestor Samuel Meeker (1763-1831) painted by non other than Gilbert Stuart in 1803. As an Australian, I needed to read about Stuart to appreciate the artist’s following in America. Seemingly, his greatness was evident and his artistic merits were in part due to the nature of many of his clientele – The ‘wealthy and/or famous’.

My own excitement arose when I read that Samuel’s cousin, William Parsons Meeker (1769-1812) was also painted by Stuart and there it was, William’s portrait right in front of my eyes. I have to admit that it wasn’t the greatness of the artist nor the attributes of many of the sitters that aroused my emotions. You see, William was my 3-x great grandfather. I had done a lot of background reading about the Meekers in America, starting with the progenitor William (Goodman) Meeker who arrived there about 1635. Samuel and William were descendants (and first cousins) of William (Goodman) Meeker. 

William’s parents were Matthias (1744-1832) and Jane Parsons (1746-1814). Matthias Meeker was famous in his own right. He, Rev. J. Arsdalen and Matthias Denman organised residents of Springfield, NJ to discuss how to help those people who were seeking refuge from Yellow fever. That particular epidemic killed 5000 Philadelphians. It was decided to offer asylum and a hospital to those who were affected.

A sentence written by Elizabeth Ahrens on her blog related to Gilbert Stuart caught my eye; ‘William Parson Meeker, he never married’.  It wasn’t the first time that I had seen this statement about William. I have written a biography of my family’s history. In it, I have shown that William did in fact marry during his time spent working as a merchant in England in the early 1800s. 

William’s portrait presents a handsome young man, yet, apparently, Stuart never beautified his sitters. It’s easy to understand then then why an English lady, named Elizabeth Vandenbrant would find Mr. William Parsons Meeker an attractive gentleman, fall in love, and marry him, and then have his child in January 1810.

One has to ask why is William presented as a childless bachelor in death (1812); and how do I know otherwise? We can assume that Willian hadn’t told anyone ‘back home’ that he had married or fathered a son. Do we know if he actually travelled ‘back home’? To date, there isn’t any evidence suggest that he did so.

Likewise, we haven’t found a specific marriage record for William. However, there is ample documentation to support our proposal that he and Elizabeth married. Parish baptismal records show William and Elizabeth Meeker as parents for a son.

When their son married in 1836, he and his wife Charlotte Callan made William Parson a grandfather for 11 children. From those 11 children then are descendants such as myself, settled throughout the globe.

William Parsons and Samuel Denman (based in America) were declared bankrupt in London in 1808. Dividends due to creditors were still being played out in court when he died in 1812. Perhaps he was returning home to sort out his financial difficulties when he died at sea in 1812?

There’s plenty more to William Parson Meeker’s story as presented by Dr. Terry Joyce PhD (Australia) and Pam Prior (England).

Correspondence:   doctor.terry60@yahoo.gov.au

It is Sad ....when.... [portrait of Elizabeth Hammond Dorsey]

It is very sad, when a Gilbert Stuart portrait leaves the family to which it belongs.

I am faced with that question as well.... will my daughter appreciate my Stuart portrait of Samuel Meeker, does it fit with "millenial decor" in any way at all?  The Meeker portrait belongs, perhaps, in old colonial homes of PA, where it might sit with other portraits of the same time period, in a special place on a special wall....where the family can point to past portraits of their family ancestry!  Or it belongs in the Philadelphia Museum of Finance. Where it can be admired, and be part of the financial history of this nation.

Is this what has happened to the portrait of Mrs. Hammond Dorsey? That she does not fit with the family decor?  This portrait is to be auctioned later this week, at Bonhams. It is an oil on panel, and the provenance is from the sitter by descent to the present owner.  

The sitter is beautiful, but note that Stuart does not make her nose less hooked.  The master painter refused to beutify his sitters. Stuart also painted Elizabeth's father who was Secretary of War in George Washington's administration. Pickering won election to represent Massachusetts in the United States Senate in 1803. Elizabeth (1793-1819) and Hammond Dorsey (1790-1823) were married in Baltimore in 1815. The Dorsey family was a prominent plantation family of MD, Hammond Dorsey was born on the "manorial estate" of "Belmont" built in 1738, where his father grew up. Unfortunately a sister inherited the estate. But the father owned many estates and Hammond inherited wealth. "The lands of Caleb Dorsey on Curtis Creek were later found to contain valuable deposits of iron ore which were expooited and became the nucleus for the affluence of this branch of the Dorsey family." It seems Elizabeth died at a young age, the pair had one daughter born in October 1818.  The daughter Mary inherited the family wealth, and married a first cousin.

Mrs. Elizabeth Hammond Dorsey is seated three-quarter-length, in a white dress with an ermine-trimmed robe,  the portrait was possibly commissioned by the sitter's brother. They were the children of Senator Timothy Pickering (1745-1829).

Mrs. Elizabeth Hammond Dorsey

Gilbert Stuart  

Can you help determine if this was painted by Gilbert Stuart?

I received this question with a photo of a portrait.

My answer; Do you know the history of the painting (how it passed into your hands). Do you know who it is?
These are the #1 questions that one should know.  The majority of Stuart paintings are known and have been catalogued and if not in the catalogues (such as Lawrence Park volumes) & found at a later time, the portrait is added to the list known by the Stuart experts (such as my Meeker painting).  As a Stuart portrait commanded a high sum of money, his sitters were generally from the upper classes; those who could afford his prices and who were often well-known in society (elite society being rather more closed and rarified in these early days).  Stuart was famous during his lifetime, having painted commissions of George Washington, etc.  These portraits would be handed down from generation to generation and treasured by the family, hanging in a place of prominence.
Knowing who the sitter is in a portrait is evidence of the portrait being handed down.  It also can provide a time line of when the portrait was done, also a clue to whether the portrait is a Stuart.
The portrait above is a very good portrait, so I was very interested in the answer to my two questions.

However, I had already determined that this portrait was not a Stuart.  It is a magnificent portrait.  It shows a female half turned to the viewer sitting in an upholstered round backed chair, with no embellishment to her looks (Stuart famously did not beautify female looks often leading to disgruntlement).  The flashes and dashes of color bring out the accents in her clothing, which could be from the time of Stuart or thereabouts.  The background surrounding the sitter is a simple dark blend.  However as Stuart once claimed "a portrait of mine is my signature."  This portrait does not have his signature, neither figuratively nor literally (he did not sign his portraits.)  The flesh tones do not shine with Stuart's deft touch, the overall impression is flatness of color.  The second arm of the sitter in this portrait is not convincing, it has an oddness. Stuart had a formula for pricing.  If the portrait included one arm and hand, the hand usually was holding something that indicated a clue as to the sitter's profession or interest.  This portrait with the extra effort would be more expensive.  Meeker is holding some papers, indicating his profession as a merchant.

The writer's answer confirmed my thoughts for the most part.  "I had just picked it up at an outdoor flea market this morning.  I know nothing about it.  The seller had cleaned out a local estate, but knew nothing of the prior owners."

Thus the identity of this woman, once important enough in the family to have a great portrait of herself done, is now lost to her descendents.  If she had been a Stuart, she would be hanging proudly either in a great residence, or a museum.  But our writer has a fine portrait, a great piece of art.  Does anyone know who she is?

***   

Fascinating, fine & finished; the Stuart portrait of Joseph Brant. Could there be another as of yet undiscovered Stuart portrait of this most famous native North American?

During the American Revolutionary war, American native Indian populations were forced to chose sides between the Americans and the British. Joseph Brant (1743-1807), also known by his Mohawk name of Thayendanegea, became one of the most well known American Native military and political leaders of his time.  Brant chose to side with the British, who promised to protect Indian lands from American settlers who were pushing deeper and deeper into Indian Territory.

Through his intellectual ability, charm and opportunity (his sister was the consort of Sir William Johnson the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs), Brant rose through the British military ranks—becoming a prominent leader of Indian forces allied to the British in a number of  critical Revolutionary war fights.

At the same time through his social abilities and elegant language skills he rose to social prominence in English society. In London to lobby for the protection of Mohawk lands in North America, he was presented at court to George III.  He became an instant celebrity and received reassurances of protection for his peoples and their lands. His portraits were commissioned by the British aristocracy.  Although he seems to have worn “Anglo clothing” in his daily life, he adopted “Indian dress” in his portraits (full Iroquois chieftain garb, in one portrait by George Romney holding a tomahawk).   

From Gilbert Stuart, The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Carrie Rebora Barratt and Ellen G. Miles p 71 on the portrait of Brant commissioned by the Duke of Northumberland:

“Stuart gave Brant a fully modeled visage projecting the strong characterization for which he had become so well known. The limpid eyes, strong nose, resolute mouth, and slightly flaccid jawline describe a man of intelligent determination capable of conciliatory debate. The clothing maintains his nationality and his dignity; over his open collar shirt a cape of small joined silver rings encircles his shoulders, a wide sliver armband is on his right biceps, and four silver bracelets are on his exposed right wrist.  …. The silver ornamentation conveys his high rank; some of it was costume embellishment, but most pieces would have been ceremonial gifts. Tied around his neck he wears the gorget from George III on a blue satin ribbon and hanging below that, a medallion portrait of the king in an imposing brass locket.  He is, by Stuart’s brush, the exemplification of the savage and noble, an Iroquois statesman ornamented by the British.”

Joseph Brant by Gilbert Stuart 1786

   23 1/2 x 24 in     oil on canvas

The Northumberland Estates, Alnwick Castle,

Collection of the Duke of Northumberland

A reader of this blog has sent a photo of a portrait of J. Brant (above), and asks if it might be an original Stuart.  He lists a few reasons why he thinks it might be.

"I am sending you some images of Joseph Brant that I would appreciate you looking at.  I came across your blog while researching this painting.  I do realize that he is the most painted and copied native in the world but I do feel there is a possibilty it could be by Stuart.

• bought at auction in Paris Ontario (next town to Brantford)
• on panel which I've heard he did if it was going to Upper Canada due to conditions
• Label on back from framing co. operated from 1886 to 1891 in Leeds England
• it is 11 1/2 by 14"
• I believe I see blue shades in the skin

****

This would be a copy of a portrait of Brant, 30 x 25, now held at the Fenimore Art Mueseum, Cooperstown, N.Y (thought to be an original).  Could his be a Stuart original copy, the reader wants to explore the possibility.....

My take, with the help of my portraitist consultant.

This portrait is definitely a copy of the Stuart portrait now at the Fenimore Art Museum (considered to be original, in my opinion it does not look to be a Stuart original. This portrait is not currently used by the experts when discussing Stuart's portrait of Brant).  But is it an original copy done by Stuart himself?  He is known to have made copies of his own portraits.
 The fact that it was sold in a town near Brantford is not special, as Brant was able to settle his people in this area after the British loss to the American rebels.  The town was named in honor of this most celebrated warrior/diplomat.  But Stuart was the reigning king of portraits (then and now), and to make a copy of his style & of a portrait done by him would be common.

• the first significant clue when determining whether a portrait is done by Stuart (he did not sign his portraits) is the famed Stuart coloring and rendering of the skin tones.  When comparing the two portraits above, the facial coloring of my reader's portrait is flat and one-dimensional without any demonstration of Stuart's ability to create the brilliant translucence and transparent hues in the skin tones.  The reader's portrait seems to be a predominantly orangish color, but that could be the photography.
• Stuart also uses dashes of this translucence in other more minor features; such as in buttons, lace, or in the case of the Northumberland Stuart portrait above, the "joined silver rings", and in the other ornaments decorating the warrior. The copyist makes a stab at a similar effort without much success.
• in the words of my consultant "the painter copied the picture without understanding the anatomy of the face."  The facial structure is squattish, flat and disproportionate.
• Stuart did make copies of his originals.  The most famous of his numerous copies are those of George Washington; this was a means to make more money on a portrait that was highly in demand at the time.  Although Brant was a well-known figure, he was celebrated only in England and not in America where he was seen as a vicious enemy--thus negating the theory that Stuart would make copies of this portrait in order to increase his income.  The size of this portrait is not in keeping with Stuart practice. The copies that Stuart produced were eerily similar to the original, in style, content, and size.  He sold them for an exorbitant price.

Conclusion: This portrait sent by my reader is a nice/very good.... but amateur copy.

***

Portrait of Joseph Brant 1776 by George Romney, oil on canvas, 50 x 39 in.
The National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa
In his right hand is the tomahawk. The Earl of Warwick commissioned this portrait.

For more posts on BRANT click here
and here ---(at this time I thought that my Stuart portrait was of 
"Major Samuel Meeker" who in fact is known to have skirmished with Brant.)
***

there is an update to the ownership of this portrait:  it was sold in July of 2014

"BY ORDER OF THE 12TH DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND AND THE TRUSTEES OF THE NORTHUMBERLAND ESTATES":

Gilbert Stuart---PORTRAIT OF THE MOHAWK CHIEFTAIN THAYENDANEGEA, KNOWN AS JOSEPH BRANT   (1742–1807)

Estimate1,000,000 — 1,500,000 

LOT SOLD. 4,114,500 GBP 

PROVENANCE 

Commissioned in 1786 by Hugh Percy, 2nd Duke of Northumberland (1742-1817);

By descent to his son, Hugh Percy, 3rd Duke of Northumberland (1785–1847);

By inheritance to his brother, Algernon Percy, 4th Duke of Northumberland (1792–1865);

By inheritance to his cousin, George Percy, 5th Duke of Northumberland (1778–1867);

By descent to his son, Algernon George Percy, 6th Duke of Northumberland (1810–1899);

By descent to his son, Henry George Percy, 7th Duke of Northumberland (1846–1918);

By descent to his son Alan Ian Percy, 8th Duke of Northumberland (1880–1930), who married Helen Gordon-Lennox (1886–1965), daughter of Charles Gordon-Lennox, 7th Duke of Richmond;

By descent to their second son, Hugh Algernon Percy (1914–1988), who succeeded his brother, the 9th Duke, as 10th Duke of Northumberland in 1940, after he was killed in action whilst serving with the Grenadier Guards during the retreat to Dunkirk;

By descent to his son, Henry Alan Walter Richard Percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland (1953–1995);

By inheritance to his brother, Ralph George Algernon Percy, 12th and present Duke of Northumberland (b. 1956), the current owner.

A Previously-Unpublished Gilbert Stuart Portrait of Emily, Duchess of Leinster

(this post is pressented by Jeanne Grimsby)
Gilbert Stuart was born in Rhode Island in 1755 and moved to Scotland in 1771 at the age of 16 to study with Cosmo Alexander. Following the death of Alexander, Stuart returned to Rhode Island in 1773. He moved to England in 1775. There, he developed a successful career but was plagued by financial difficulties that caused him to flee to Ireland in 1787. He remained in Ireland until 1793, when he again fled mounting debt and returned to the United States. During his time in Ireland, he painted these portraits of the Second Duke of Leinster, and of the Dukes’s mother, the Dowager Duchess of Leinster.

In 1787, the year he arrived in Ireland, Stuart painted this portrait of William Robert Fitzgerald, Second Duke of Leinster, wearing the Order of Saint Patrick:

Formerly the property of the Montclair Art Museum, it was sold in 2010 to benefit the Acquisition Endowment Fund.

Stuart’s Portrait of Emily, Duchess of Leinster 

Five years after painting his portrait of the Second Duke of Leinster, Stuart painted this previously-unpublished portrait of his mother. Emily [Lady Emilia Mary Lennox], the Dowager Duchess of Leinster was a woman whose life was even more eventful than Stuart’s own. Born in 1731, Emily was the second of the famous Lennox sisters, daughters of Charles Lennox, Second Duke of Richmond, and illegitimately descended from King Charles II of England. At fifteen, she married James FitzGerald, Earl of Kildare, and went to live in Ireland. The marriage was a happy one despite Lord Kildare's constant infidelities, and the couple had nineteen children. After the death of Lord Kildare in 1773, the Duchess caused a sensation by marrying her children's tutor, William Ogilvie, with whom she had begun an affair some years earlier. Ogilvie was the natural father of her youngest son from her first marriage. A further three children were born to them after their marriage. Twelve of her 22 children predeceased her. She died on 27 March 1814 in Grosvenor Square, London.

The simple background includes the suggestion of a chair with red damask upholstery. The sitter’s hands are summarily indicated as a pinkish blur in the lower left. The supposed date of c.1792 begs the question of Stuart’s completion of the costume and background, as he left many unfinished portraits behind when he fled from Ireland in 1793. However, the cursory nature of the work in those areas would seem to suggest that Stuart completed this painting himself.

Until 1952, this painting was in the collection at Oakly Park, Celbridge, Co Kildare, once the home of Sarah Lennox, Emily’s sister. It was sold in 1952 by Tormeys Auction Rooms Dublin in an estate dispersal. The painting descended in the family of the purchaser until about 2002. It was bought from a London dealer by the current owner.

***

a portrait of a young Lady EMILY LENNOX

artist unknown

[The Stuart portraits mentioned here are not listed in the Lawrence Park volumes.  However, Edward, Lord Fitzgerald (1763-1798) is. Stuart often painted extended family members. The portrait of young Edward depicts a dashing modern young man.  He is also a son of Emily. Watch for this upcoming post!] 

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!

****

Attributed Gilbert Stuart, 1756-1828. Portrait of a seated lady.

This portrait, attributed to Gilbert Stuart, was sold at auction (William Bunch Auctions) this month.  The estimated price was $4000.00 to $6000.00.  It only sold for $1300.00.  Can a genuine Stuart sell for such a minimal price?  Is it genuine?  The description for the portrait also includes: "Signed in pencil along with pencil sketch on back." Highly unusual, and suspect.
The provenance, "from the estate of former PA William W. Scranton." is also sketchy. My opinion on the authenticity of the portrait all things considered?
It has the style of a Stuart and is a beautiful portrait, but does not have the exquisite Stuart flair. Stuart exclaimed that his signature was the entire portrait itself.... hmmmm.  I do not think it is genuine.
But I could be wrong!

Is Janet's portrait of Washington by GS? portraits of George Washington (and Meeker) &.... When Stuart was Really Interested in a male face...

See post previous to this, for backgound on Janet's portrait of President George Washington.
After leaving America to make a name for himself in London and Dublin (1775-1793), Stuart returned and for the rest of his life painted in New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC, spending his last days in Boston. He left NY for Philadelphia with the express intent to paint George Washington in person.  Philadelphia, when he arrived in 1794, was the temporary capital of the US from 1790 to 1800.  Besides his by now well established reputation as a fine portrait painter, through familial contacts he was well placed to move among the elite economic and political circles.  A letter of introduction to the President from John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States, a Founding Father) led to an invitation to visit.
Stuart painted only three portraits with live sittings, painting afterwards at least 100 replications of these works.  Most are based on the Athenaeum portrait, called The Athenaeum.  This unfinished work (which also includes wife Martha in a separate portrait) is one of Stuart's most celebrated portraits, although unfinished.
Stuart painted Washington in 1795 when the Pres. was 63.
Stuart asked permission to keep The Athenaeum to fulfill commissions for replicas (providing a steady income--and not requiring the President to sit for any commissioned portraits, which the President did not like to do.) The President saw the advantage for Stuart in keeping the original and thought it a great idea for the artist to keep it.
In the post just previous to this one, Janet asked about whether her portrait of George Washington might be a Gilbert Stuart.  So now you, the reader, knows that the majority of portraits of GW painted by Stuart were based on The Athenaeum.
Thus, an answer to this question would be to present portraits here, and let you decide. Some easy things to look for: The age of Janet's portrait seems to be within the realm of possibility, as does the background of reddish brown curtain sweeping over the shoulder.  The detail photo depicting the neckcloth appears to distort the chin somewhat, that should be discounted (ie a bad photo).  The costume is correct; but does the neckcloth itself show the bright swerving dashes of alternating dark and light characteristic to GS's treatment of the jabot ( ruffle on the front of the shirt.)?  A common GS detail is a light spray of white on the shoulder of the jacket (for his earlier male portraits when men wore their hair in this style) indicating some of the powder which has floated off the hair.  The proportionality of the facial features in Janet's portrait seems to be correct. All in all her portrait captures the likeness of Washington and is a fine portrait.  But.......IS the portrait by the MASTER?                                                              

                                     Below Samuel Meeker's portrait from the Philadelphia period

"But when he was really interested in a male face, he painted with that compound of insight, sympathy, and scientific detachment which is the ideal of modern biographers."  On Desperate Seas by James Thomas Flexner  ---A BIOGRAPHY of Gilbert Stuart

One might ask, was Stuart interested in the person of Samuel Meeker?  Can you see Meeker's personality? Does the portrait somehow reflect a calm personality, wisdom, kindness?  

How does the master acheive that?!                                         

     the unfinished Athenaeum, kept by the artist until his death to make additional GW portraits

The Gibbs-Channing-Avery Portrait at the MET

Janet's unsigned George Washington portrait.

• Skin hues are not subtle and lack the renowned inner vibrancy, flesh tints and transition areas are rough without use of the creamy, subtle light dark shading, & masterful coloring 
• the hair/jabot without characteristic dashes of brilliant structure, shoulders seem disproportionately thin, the portrait lacks the typical Stuart "photographic likeness", enabling the viewer to study the sitter's personality
• lips/chin lack firm realism, as does the shadowing of the beard (see Meeker)   
• As I wrote Janet, the portrait is decisively NOT a Stuart.   

Here is another example of a portrait that may or may have been done by Stuart.
With comments from the expert

for Stuart's pigments and paint application click here

A NEW BIO OF GEORGE WASHINGTON
"George Washington: The Wonder of the Age" by John Rhodehamel 
"This sympathetic, though not uncritical, account of the first president's journey from minor Tidewater gentry to mythic statesman is crisply written, admirably concise and never superficial.  As a brief acount of Washington's life, it is unlikely to be surpassed for many years." review by F. Bordewich

Is this portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart??

Our master is known for his portraits of George Washington; thanks to this we can have a vivid image of what our most famous American, our Founding Father, looked like.  Of course you all know that Washington had a set of false teeth after suffering from bad dental health for years, so this had the effect of molding the shape of his lips...Note that he is never depicted smiling.  Washington was inaugurated for his first term as President in 1789.
Being President, certainly Washington would be the subject of many portraits of the day.  And our Gibby did not sign his works.  Can it be easily discerned which are true Stuart portraits?  Can we abide by Stuart's "stated" signature, that the portrait in its entirety is his signature?

Janet has sent me photos of a portrait along with a note containing a bit of background:
"My husband and I own a very early oil painting of George Washington.  We have owned it for many many years.  My husband purchased it from an art dealer in Massachusetts I am guessing 20-30 years ago.  He is almost 85 so not exactly sure.  We are not familiar with art other than a few that we have owned for our own enjoyment.  If I send you a picture of it can you give me any information about it? It is not signed.  I recently tried to find out about early oil paintings by Gilbert Stuart.  It would be a miracle if it were by him.  It is wonderful and we do love it! Please let me know if you are willing to take a look at it....I read you told a man to send you a picture to verify IF it could be by Gilbert Stuart...."

MY ANSWER AND MORE ABOUT STUART'S WASHINGTON PORTRAITS IN THE NEXT POST
the unsigned portrait in its frame, detail of the face, and detail of the neckcloth





Here is another George Washington, is it by Gilbert Stuart? for a post on this Click on this link:
If there are other portraits of G.W., please send them (photos) to me bethjena at gmail

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.

Regarding authenticity, the difference between "by" and "after" Gilbert Stuart when considering a purchase of a Stuart portrait

Those of you thinking of investing in a masterpiece by Gilbert Stuart, perhaps by auction, pay close attention to the wording which describes the portrait.  Also the price range is an indication of authenticity.  Authenticity of Stuart portraits is always an issue of importance to consider, as he never signed his portraits.  He considered the entire portrait as his signature.

If the wording includes "after", this indicates that the portrait is a copy of the Stuart style.

Gilbert Stuart was the rage at the time he was engaging in his art, thus his style of portrait painting became popular (unless of course the sitters wished to have a more flattering image!). People also respected the Stuart style because the artist was actually earning money from his artwork...a novelty indeed.

Here is an example of a fine portrait. 

This is James Barton, founder of Milford, PA's Cold Spring Water Company

Starting price at auction for this painting is $2000.00

Although it has many seemingly authentic Stuart touches, do you think it is "by" or "after"?

Naturally the most important aspect to consider when viewing a portrait... when the question of authenticity comes up.  Does the portrait jump off the canvas?  Is it so beautifully realistic that it looks like a photograph? So true-to-life that you feel you could cup his face in your hands, begin to talk to him?

This portrait is "after" Stuart.

*

Stuart's Pigments and Paint Application continued (2nd part)

SEGMENTS FROM:
American Painters on Technique: the Colonial Period to 1860, "Gilbert Stuart: the First American Old Master": Mayer, Lance, and Gay Myers; Los Angeles, J Paul Getty Museum, 2011

Stuart also had opinions about Titian and Rubens that may have influenced his own method of applying paint.  In sharp contrast to painters who loved the mellowness and deep tone of Titian's paintings, Stuart believed that "Titian's works were not by any means so well blended when they left the esel...Rubens...must have discovered more tinting, or separate tints, or distinctiness, than others did, and that, as time mellowed and incorporated the tints, he (Rubens) resolved not only to keep his colours still more distinct against the ravages of time, but to follow his own impetuous disposition with spirited touches." [Dickinson "Remarks" 2.]

One odditity in the layout of Stuart's palette, as reported in three different accounts,[Jouette 1816] is that the color blue was placed farthest to the right, next to the thumbhole.  This position of honor (nearest to the hand that holds the paintbrush) was traditionally given to the white pigment and is shown that way in most other palettes of all periods.  It is tempting to think that Stuart had a special reason for placing his blue in this prominent position--he loved to commingle bluish strokes with his flesh to imitate the effect of blue veins under the skin.  But this unusual arrangement is contradicted by five other accounts that have him placing the blue more conventionally on the other (left) side of the palette,[Dunlap 1834] so it is possible that Stuart sometimes arranged his palette this way, and sometimes not.

Stuart's principal blue pigment (and in some accounts the only one) was Antwerp blue.  Unfortunately, this is an imprecise term, and we cannot say exactly what "Antwerp blue" meant in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.  By the middle of the nineteenth century, the term had come to mean a weaker variety of Prussian blue, but modern authorities point out that in earlier times colormen may have also sold completely different copper-based pigments--or even mixtures of pigments--under the name Antwerp blue.[Harley 1982] During Stuart's lifetime, the finest and most permanent blue color was known to be ultramarine, but it was extremely expensive (the much cheaper artificial ultramarine becoming available only after the artist's death in 1828). The expense of ultramarine helps explain some of the slightly confusing explanations of various observers about Stuart's use of blue pigments.  Jouette said Stuart "uses no ultramarine but keeps it by him." [Jouette 1816]  Jocelyn gave the most complete explanation: "though he [Stuart] preferred Antwerp blue to all other ordinary blues, he would doubtless have used Ultramarine...but for the expense, and especially the trouble & uncertainty of procuring it." The final word on this matter should be given to Stuart himself, who would probably have been impatient with the discussion: "I can produce what I wish from these colours, nor can any man say whether or not I put into my faces ultramarine.  Colouring is at best a matter of fancy & taste." [Jouette 1816]

Stuart did not change his palette very much during the time when there are good records of his colors..........TO BE CONTINUED...



     

Stuart's Pigments and Paint Application

SEGMENTS FROM:
American Painters on Technique: the Colonial Period to 1860, "Gilbert Stuart: the First American Old Master": Mayer, Lance, and Gay Myers; Los Angeles, J Paul Getty Museum, 2011

In 3 parts:
In spite of {Benjamin} West's statement that "it is of no use to steal Stuart's colors [if you want to paint as he does you must steal his eyes]", American painters were extremely curious to know which pigments Stuart used to achieve his dazzling effects.  As a result, we probably know more about his pigments than about those of any other early American painter.
The most remarkable thing about Stuart's colors is that they are not very remarkable.  Portrait painting can be done (and has been done for centuries) with relatively few pigments.  In fact, all contemporary observers agreed that Stuart used a limited number of pigments and mixtures on his palette.  It was traditional for a painter to place dabs of pure colors around the edge of the palette (usually beginning with white next to the thumbhole and proceeding left to the darker pigments) and also to place some premixed "tints" in the area below this row.  Stuart apparently placed seven or eight pure pigments and nine or ten premixed tints on his palette, which is fewer than many other artists whose palette arrangements have been recorded.  For instance, Thomas Bardwell, in his 1756 book, recommended twelve pure colors and twelve mixed tints for portraits.  In the early nineteenth century, some writers recommended up to sixty-six mixed tints! Jocelyn's description of Stuart's actual wooden palette took a gentle poke at artists who thought that a large number of mixed tints would help them; he said Stuart's "pallet-board" was "smaller than the large pallets affected by some lesser artists."
A limited number of pigments and mixtures makes sense given Stuart's style of painting, and in fact it was his method of applying his paints that was unique, rather than the nature of his pigments.  In the use of his palette and the application of his paints, Stuart was nearly the opposite of Copely, who was said to have spent hours premixing the exact tint with his palette knife for every flesh tone and shadow.  Stuart, by comparison, "condemned the practice of mixing a colour on a knife, and comparing it with whatever was to be imitated.---'Good flesh colouring,' he said, 'partook of all colours, not mixed, so as to be combined in one tint, but shining through each other, like the blood through the natural skin.'  Stuart could not endure Copely's laboured flesh, which he compared to tanned leather."
Suart used, in Jouett's words, "chopping" strokes of distinct colors to give the effect of translucent flesh, thereby avoiding the leathery look that he disliked in Copely's work.  Jouett also reported Stuart's advice to "keep your colours as separate as you can.  No blending, tis destruction to clear and beautiful effect."  Others noticed this as well; John Cogdell, after describing how Stuart combined different colors, added: "Tho this is not done on his pallette but only as they are wanted with the pencil.  Mr. Stewart lays one tint over another." In a detailed account of Stuart's method, Obadiah Dickinson described how a portrait became more distinct as it progressed; "Mr. Steward endeavours in the first sitting to give the appearance of the person at 20 yards distant and in each succeeding sitting to advance its effect nearer until it be completed at 2 yards distance."  But Dickinson noted that even in final touches, Stuart advised; "What you do in the shadows over the glazing must be finished if possible with a single touch or you will spoil the beauty of your work."

Stuart also had opinions about Titian and Rubens that may have influenced his own method of applying paint............ TO BE CONTINUED

Samuel Meeker 1763-1831 a merchant in Philadelphia

Progress on the portrait in the Stuart style, and a question for the experts! & insight into how Stuart painted

Jeanne Grimsby is painting the portrait of my gt grandmother Carrie [Martin] Cory, gt grandaughter of the twin sister of Samuel Meeker, following as much as possible the style of Gilbert Stuart.  As a reminder, Samuel Meeker gifted Phoebe, his twin sister, the Gilbert Stuart portrait of himself to celebrate their 40ieth birthday.  I am sure there was a fancy dance ball at their Schuylkill estate, Fountain Green on this occasion. (click on the link for more information, or also enter into the search box on right.)  I have written Jeanne that I am certain Carrie would have been so thrilled with this project!

Now for the big news, a question for the experts in fact.

Was Gilbert Stuart left-handed?  As far as I know, this has not been discussed as a possibility.

It is amazing that with this project, Jeanne has proposed this insight!

Below is the latest communication and report on the progress of the portrait, with insights into how Stuart {might have} painted~

Jeanne has so kindly offered me the painting, I feel like this is a replay of what happened when the twins turned 40 years old...... but with only a slight variation...

Thank you Jeanne, for such a wonderful, amazing project!

A [dizzying] Summary: Phoebe Meeker marries Job Brookfield (second marriage), daughter Mary Brookfield (b. 1804-after 1856) m. John Ludlum Martin (b.1796-1856), son Thomas Mulford Martin (b.1831-1917) m. Mary C. Ayers & has 3 daughters Carolyn (Carrie)(b.1862-1937), Jane and Emma. Carrie inherited the painting as her two sisters were childless. The GS portrait comes to Ca. Carrie's son Benjamin Hyde Cory is my grandfather, he passed in 1983. His daughter Carolyn Cory Ahrens is still with me, my mother.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~note to me from Jeanne~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Today was another productive painting day. The result of using the portrait of Sally Otis, with her smooth, pale complexion,  as a model for color and shading was that Carrie was looking about 18. So today's task was to age her a bit. Now she looks in her 40s, which I think is correct for her hair and dress style. I resisted the temptation to put some gray in her hair, although the photo seems to show some unruly gray hairs sticking out at her temples. If you would prefer that I add that detail, let me know.

Today was also my first attempt ever at painting a lace jabot, and I think it turned out well for the first time. I think I would have to paint a few more portraits in Stuart's style to really assimilate it all. The jabot is from his John Adams portrait, as is the blue velvet jacket she is now wearing. In reality, she probably would have removed her jacket when sitting for her portrait, but I thought just having a white blouse occupy such a large area of the picture would be a distraction, so she has a jacket on.

Stuart was a very "loose" painter, very modern in his approach. In his Adams portrait. the canvas shows through in places. Because I didn't see that in the beginning, my painting is a bit overworked, especially in the background. I have also used the background from the Adams portrait (the National Gallery has a great downloadable high-resolution image of it). The background is a shaded brown, a great way to use up the brown paint left on the palette at the end of the day. Brown paint dries very quickly, so there is no keeping it for the next day. If you look at the background of the Adams portrait you can see that it is not all one color - it is painted in sort of cloud-like forms. That is done using a long-handled bristle brush, and sort of scrubbing the paint on using your whole arm - which brings me to today's discovery - that Stuart was left-handed. If you look at the background of the Adams portrait you can see curved shapes made by a left-handed painter. I tried to duplicate them, and couldn't because I am right-handed. Similarly there have been other places where I have had difficulty painting certain things the same way because Stuart painted them left-handedly. 

Anyway - I expect to finish the painting in the next couple of weeks.  I'll send you another photo when it is done. After that, it will need to dry thoroughly before it can be varnished. That will be at least another 3 months. If you like it and want me to send it to you, the earliest I could ship it out would be mid to late August. 

Jeanne