Is this a portrait by Gilbert Stuart?

 INQUIRY FROM AN ART TEAM FROM OVERSEAS

I received an inquiry which included photos of a portrait, likely of George Washington. The email was entitled;"Inquiry regarding authentication of a Gilbert Stuart Artwork."  The implication of the title of the message is that the sender considered the portrait to be by Gilbert Stuart, and wished for confirmation. In the four images that were included, one was the back of the portrait which showed "G. Stuart, 1795". I have included three of the images.

The message read: I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out regaarding a painting in my possession that is believed to be by Gilbert Stuart. At this state, I would like to kindly ask if you could provide your expertise in determining whether the piece is authentic. Please let me know if you require photographs, documentation, or any additional information to assist with the evaluation. Your guidance will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. 

My response; 

Hello 

This is not a Gilbert Stuart portrait. It appears to be a relatively rough portrait of George Washington; it shows none of the stylistic hallmarks of a Stuart portrait, at any point in his career. Stuart has a number of portraits of Washington, which have a look that can be instantly recognized. The signature on the back is not his signature, he did not sign his portraits. Thank you for your inquiry. 

Selling this portrait as a Gilbert Stuart would be inadvisable.

Elizabeth

Please feel free to send me any portrait you believe may be by Gilbert Stuart. If I am unsure of its authenticity, I will consult further with the leading experts on the artist.

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.

An excellent portrait which the bird(s) had no proper regard for... Was Gilbert Stuart the artist? and other questions.

Marsha wrote me:
I got your information off the internet and I am hoping that you may be able to help me.  My family has a portrait that was painted long ago of a family member.  This painting was supposedly done by Gilbert Stuart (according to family documentation).  It is in need of restoration (original frame also) but we were wondering what we need to do to get it authenticated and repaired.  The damage is bird poo from a bird that got into the storage area.  The frame has been previously repaired but needs to be again.  I believe the family member was a Hamilton or a Stuart (no relation to Gilbert).  I do not have the documentation with me--my mother has it with her in Texas.  But if you can help I am sure I can obtain the information.  Thank you for trying!

Dear Marsha, first of all I extend my sympathy for the unfortunate damage caused by the birdie that the portrait has sustained! On the serious side, the portrait is truly excellent, by a very talented portrait artist. The artist aimed for a genuine likeness it seems, which was always a primary goal of Stuart's work.  There was never any embellishment to a woman's face, even if elderly.  Obviously to determine whether a work is by Stuart, the first step is to offer whatever documentation you have; what is the woman's name? Her birth and death date? In this way the Lawrence Park Volumes could be checked, to see if she or any other relatives are listed there.  Do you have a provenance (history of the ownership)?
Amusingly, the spots of birdie poo almost look like the flourishes of brilliant whites Stuart often used, for example to highlight the lace of a neck-cloth or of a woman's ribbon (see previous post.)  The frame indicates wealth. However although I think the portrait is excellent, I do not think it was by Gilbert Stuart. The accents are not right, the clothing looks to me to be from a slightly later time period, the style of painting does not conform to GS.  Now one thing I did with my GS portrait was take it to the de Young museum in San Francisco, where a couple of conservationists took some precious time out to not only admire 'the handsome guy' but also to subject it to ultraviolet light (taking an Impressionist painting off the easel).  This is a free service, at least by this museum, for people like you who think that they may have a valuable piece.  Such a service in fact is important, because there are SURELY significant pieces out there, and the owners may not know it.  Call your local museum and ask if they are interested in looking at your portrait and tell them what you know about it.
So see if you can find out from your mother what the woman's name is, and I will check the Park volumes and other sources to see if her family name pops up.  When you talk to (or email) the individuals at the museum, they can advise you as to restoration. And to all of my readers, please check the portraits in your attic to make sure they are protected from the critters!
Elizabeth

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

**

More on Sophie v La Roche, friend of Goethe, on her trip to London where she meets Gilbert Stuart; she writes that this portrait artist was criticised....why?

Sophie v. La Roche (1730- 1807)

Sophie, daughter of a German doctor, had the typical female education (of the upper class) with emphasis on language, art and literature, music and maintenance of household.  After making her formal debut into society, she was betrothed to Italian Giovanni Ludovico Bianconi, which broke apart over religious differences.  She then was engaged to the famed German poet, writer and philosopher Christoph Martin Wieland but this relationship did not survive geographical distance.  In 1753 she married Georg Michael Frank La Roche, secretary and estate manager of a state minister.  Of 8 children 5 survived to adulthood. In the 1760s Sohpie was a court lady at the duke’s castle of Warhausen—she had access to a large library, and helped with court correspondence (written in French).  Later the family having moved to Coblenz, Sophie carried on a literary salon, mentioned by Goethe.

Perhaps Sophie’s biggest claim to fame is being known as one of the first female authors of a novel (quite unacceptable in those days): Die Geschichte des Frauleins von Sternheim.
Sophie v. La Roche travelled to London accompanied by her son Carl, age 20. 

Portrait of Sophie v La Roche by Georg Oswald May, 1776

From her diary of the trip on SEPT 13, 1786; she and Carl visit the most famed artists of the day

   "An extraordinary day!  Pictures by Reynolds, Gainsborough, West, and Stuart; then to Green, the engraver’s. To my mind, in the homes of these men the English character glistens like the gold they employ for the encouragement and reward of diligence in art; the numerous orders and the artists’ prosperity are evidence of this.  Lovely homes, apartments hung with pictures by famous old masters, bronze and marble ornaments—these are one’s first impressions; then at Reynold’s, through a passage full of half-finished pictures, one enters a room lit from above, and where the quantity and beauty of the pictures heaped up there, as if conjured by a magic wand in their myriad forms and fascinating rhythms, leave one quite dumbfounded.  This is no exaggeration, for they are piled against each other in threes and fours.  Sir Joshua Reynolds was in the country, which disappointed me, as I should have liked to make his personal acquaintance and judge of his manner; for a clever man quite recently maintained ’that the works of painters and sculptors always reveal qualities of their own personality, in the same way as poets and moralists always put their main affections into the title role, with the strongest light thrown on to them.’

   I do not know whether this remark has any foundation, or whether I was prejudiced by the specious tone of the utterance, but I thought I saw some truth in it, as once a painter, who had very strong features, was criticised in all his really good and finished portraits for ‘making a credible likeness and beautiful picture with features too strong.’ " ...