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.

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

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.

*

Did Gilbert Stuart paint the pastel of George Washington? & ATTENTION an upcoming GS exhibition!

A reader wrote me:
Beth I saw your 2011 posting regarding a possible G. Stuart and wanted to run my story by you.
We have had a pastel portrait of GW in our family for unknown generations. It is relatively rudimentary compared with Gilbert Stuarts works, has an odd nose, and, again, is in pastel.  It is unsigned, but has in block lettering "G C Stuart" and "1795" in the bottom corner as well as "George Washington" and "1795" to the right of the bust.  Some other, less defined writing and another 1795 is below on the right.
It is definitely old by the look of the canvas, and my mother has by marriage connections to John Janney.  She has authenticated Washington and Lee items in her estate.
That said, but I question if it is a G C Stuart as it is pastel, has G C Stuart on it, and shows a much younger GW than appeared in contemporary portraits of him around 1796.
Would like your thoughts, and have attached a photo.
Blessings,
Steve Be**si
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What did I write back, yes or no?  and why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Steve,
Thankyou for your note! Again I would like to remind my readers, and you, that I am not an expert, meaning I am not a titled art historian.  For genuine authentication one should consult well-known experts in the field! That being said, let me give you my opinion on your very nice pastel. As you describe it yourself, the pastel is relatively "rudimentary".  It is "not signed" which is typical of Stuart's works, he said once that his signature was the entirety of the painting itself--He would never have placed his name in block letters on any of his works.
It is important to note that our master either did not finish a painting, or the portraits were finished masterpieces.  I have not heard or seen of any work that was not a masterpiece and an outstanding likeness of the sitter...even some of his unfinished paintings have the glimmers of his mastery.  Commonly he did not finish a painting if something the sitter did or said was irritating, or there was disagreement on the price, or the female was too accurately depicted (displeasing the female sitter who wanted and expected to see something beautiful.)
The Stuart portraits are so accurate that they almost look like a photograph--so any work that hints at only 2 dimensions, is not likely to be a Stuart.  Your pastel of GW is rather inaccurate; when considering the nose as you mentioned, the lips/mouth...GS definitely had a consistent way of drawing GW's mouth, which emphasized the protrusion of his lips due to his false teeth.  Comparing this to GS's GW portraits, one could not easily tell they are of the same person.
Your pastel MAY be from the correct time period, it is hard for me to say.  Frame experts can look at the frame, other experts can tell the approx age of the paint and canvas, etc.  It looks to be in the style of GS, so it could have originated in that period.
But I can say with certitude, that this work would not have been done by our master.  it is still lovely and it is always an honor to have an image of Washington, no matter whether it is a Gilbert Stuart or not!

NOTIFICATION OF AN UPCOMING EXHIBITION OF STUART WORKS AT BOWDOIN COLLEGE
http://www.bowdoin.edu/art-museum/exhibitions/2015/gilbert-stuart-boston-brunswick.shtml

Gilbert Stuart: From Boston to Brunswick

July 9, 2015 - January 3, 2016
Markell Gallery

This exhibition brings together a selection of oil paintings by Gilbert Stuart (1755–1828) from the Museum’s collection, including his famous portraits of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The preeminent portraitist of the early republic, Stuart created fashionable likenesses of the period’s most important political, military, and social figures. Each of works included in the exhibition was completed after Stuart’s move to Boston in 1805. Collectively, they provide insight into the artist’s relationship with other artists and collectors in the region, including members of the Bowdoin family.

My last word on this post, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, treasury secretary under Pres. George Washington, SHOULD NOT BE taken off the $10.00 bill.  Gimme a break. That is an outrage, and a lowering the bar of the education in this nation.  Everyone should know of, and about, Alexander Hamilton.

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. 

 ***

Are these Gilbert Stuart portraits? & a comparison to Mrs. Yates

Pamela sent me an email with two images.
"See attached; I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. According to the family story passed down with the photos, the female portrait is of an American woman that was famous for being captured by the Indians. I think she either gave birth while in captivity, or shortly after she escaped.  My memory is not clear and I may do some family history research to see exactly who they are and how they relate. Let me know what you think."  Pamela

 Dear Pamela, it is my opinion that these two portraits are not done by the American master portrait painter Gilbert Stuart.  They do not seem to carry the hallmark excellence of a Stuart portrait; in addition to have no provenance history (history of ownership through the generations) or certain knowledge of who they are, is generally not a good basis to think that they are Stuarts!  Of course my family did not know that mine was a Stuart either, but it was known that the artist "was someone famous". And importantly, it is recorded that Stuart had painted another Meeker. Generally Stuart painted portraits of the rich and famous, mainly because they were the ones who could give him "bread", or in other words, pay good money for the portraits. What he charged at the time was what might be considered "extremely expensive"'--For example, collection of monies were taken up to commission Stuart portraits of George Washington.  He often knew the sitter, through elite social or family connections.  Always I tell my readers to keep in mind that portrait painting was very common as in this time period there was no other way to record a likeness.  Art, portrait painting, was taken up by one and all!    Here I have included the masterful portrait of Catherine Brass Yates by Stuart.

Compare the photographic quality and intensity, the naturalism of the Staurt portrait of this lady; she is about the same age as your portrait of the female.  The manipulation of the silver pigment, the different strategies for portraying the different materials! Husband Yates had an importing business, was a member of the New York State Chamber of Commerce.  He imported such things as flour sugar and rum--running a typical business triangle between NY, the West Indies and Britain. Catherine, daughter of a shoemaker, is dressed in precious fabrics, her sewing indicates that she was just as industrious as her husband.

So Pamela, write back when you have discovered more about the identity of the individuals in your portraits! I will do a follow-up story!

Catherine Brass Yates by Gilbert Start c.1793 National Gallery of Art

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."

To check for authenticity of a Stuart? Similarity! Samuel Gatliff, the rise and fall of a Philadelphia merchant

Not as much is known about Samuel Gatliff (1773/74-1806) as is known about his pretty wife Elizabeth (painted by Stuart)~ her father represented Virginia in Congress (also painted by Stuart). Her grandfather C. Braxton was a prominent Virginia planter, politician, and signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Gatliff was a partner in a wool manufacturing firm in England before making his way to Philadelphia and marrying Elizabeth there.  Clearly he offered good prospects since he was able to marry a woman from the social elite of the city.  The couple had 4 children, and were able to live not far from Samuel Meeker on the banks of the Schuylkill which indicates wealth (or at least the show of it~I have not figured out where exactly but it seems to have been on the east bank) He is listed as a merchant at 124 Spruce St. in Philadelphia city directories 1798-1803, advertising “thirty bales of stuffs” for sale in 1803 in the Gazette of the United States...Elizabeth’s circle of friends included Eleanor Parke Custis (G. Washington’s grand-daughter).

A problem in determining the authenticity of a Stuart is that he did not sign his portraits.  When asking oneself, is this portrait by Stuart?  Check first of all for...SIMILARITY.
I have picked the image of Gatliff to show the remarkable similarities between this portrait and Meeker's.  Stuart seemed to like to have his 'merchants' hold papers which most likely indicate bills of lading or some kind of trade correspondence.  They are dressed very similarly in a fashionable way, similar pose (seated at a table covered with a red cloth) turned slightly to the right with face looking at the viewer, similar size (3/4 length), similar accents (red velvet chair.) Perhaps Meeker paid a bit more for the curtain/sky background, also a sitter could probably choose to pay a bit more for the papers. The perfect men of commerce.  Merchant Gatliff has rather pointy and pale features, perhaps even by this time his health was suffering (note the difference in posture between Gatliff and Meeker)... 

c. 1798 Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts

Yet as prominently as Gatliff displayed his "success" (living in a villa on the Schuylkill, Stuart portrait with more expensive add-ons) which was also important to inspire trust, this also shows that he seems to have extended his credit too widely. His trading practice began to wobble.  The business partner of Gatliff's, still in Yorkshire England, was obliged to leave England and travel to Philadelphia in the effort to right the problems now apparently causing substantial financial distress (from this partner we know that the Gatliffs lived on the Schuylkill river bank) but this friend was unable to help, accused Gatliff of financial misconduct, and the business partners dissolved the friendship and business ties were cut.  Gatliff did not have time to prove that he had any talent or the ability to shed debt, he died 3 years later at the young age of 32 (consumption?), and Elizabeth went with her four girls to live with her father in Va.

When determining the authenticity of a Stuart, besides checking Stuart's style and similarities to your portrait, check whether other relatives were done by Stuart; he often painted an extended circle of relatives.  (Meeker's first cousin William P Meeker was painted by GS. He had neither papers, nor sky, nor chair.)

Next: the portrait of Elizabeth Gatliff and child.

George Washington portrait: an authentic Gilbert Stuart? & a Stuart doggie and his collar

Elizabeth,

Hello - I was wondering if you could help me out here. I just purchased this oil painting of George Washington and the seller did not know who the artist was. In fact, neither did I until I looked closely at the signature. From my research Gilbert Stuart did not sign his artwork which leads me to believe this is not authentic. However, from what I can tell I do know the painting is a true oil painting and not a print and it is very old. The owner said he got it from an estate sale and estimated it from 1870-1890. The canvas on the back is very old and brown from age.

My questions are: could this be a Gilbert Stuart? I highly doubt, but if it's not what's more interesting is why would someone sign his name to pass it off? the painting is of very good quality so I assume the original artist was someone who was very talented too. I just find it very interesting how many hands this could have passed through with either knowing it was unauthentic or who's put the signature there etc. Were his paintings counterfeit a lot in the late 1800's? Sorry I am rambling, just curious to understand this painting more...

Thanks,
Tony

Hello Tony~Thanks for your message, when I have a bit more time I will more closely inspect (try to enlarge) your graphics. 

But a few points here:

My portrait of Meeker was painted in 1803 when Stuart was in his 40s.  He was born in 1755, so Stuart's working years were much previous to the dates of 1870-1890 which were suggested by the previous owner of your painting (which shows that he knew nothing about Stuart).

Stuart painted 75 head and shoulder replicas of his Athenaeum portrait of Washington (the famous portraits have names), download this portrait and compare it to your image....if there are differences this would be the major clue/evidence that the work is not by Stuart.  Stuart was absolutely meticulous about nailing the image of the sitter.

Go to the portrait of George Thomas John Nugent and look at this portrait closely, for this is one of the portraits that Stuart signed.  If he did sign a portrait, it was often in a whimsical way so his signature on this portrait was on the dog's collar. Here you can see an authentic signature, with the G formed in a different way, your signature has no semblance to the authentic one...most likely your portrait artist's own whimsical idea!

But thanks for sending the graphics~

Again I am not an expert ie decorated with doctorate title~however I think your doubts were in the right direction.  As for counterfeiting, one can be sure, esp in the 1800s when memories of Stuart's fame were even more pronounced and the style more coveted, that this was prevalent.

Elizabeth

Gilbert Stuart's portrait of George Thomas John Nugent 1789-90

signed on the dog's collar G. Stuart

UCLA Hammer Museum, LA:

The Armand Hammer Collection, Gift of the Armand Hammer Foundation

detail collar on the cutie dog