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?

***   

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!

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.

Determining a genuine Gilbert Stuart portrait is not always easy!

It is well-known that Stuart did not sign his paintings, he felt that a portrait of his WAS the signature! I received a mail, from someone who wanted to know if I thought that the portrait of his ancestor was a Stuart.

"I think I have a Gilbert Stuart portrait of my ancestor David Bradlee. He lived in Boston and was the son of a Boston Tea Party participant. See the attached portrait and let me know what you think."

I wrote back:

"Hi Ted, Thanks for sending me your note! My inclination is to say that it is not a Stuart. However, what also helps in the determination (since Stuart didn't sign his pics) is more factual information, did any other individual in his social, familial, or business circle have their portrait done by the master that you know of? Stuart moved to Boston in 1805...can you place how old your ancestor is (do you know family lines) and does this jive with dates? I am not an expert. But looks to me like the touches that make a Stuart a Stuart are missing, could have been done in 'that prevailing style'... but in general its safer to say that it is not, than it is! Where is the portrait now? I recommend that you beef up the information on your ancestor, be able to determine the ownership through the generations, point out how your ancestor was able to afford the master. My ancestor started a bank, got the first loan of $30,000. and owned a villa, his cousin was also painted by Stuart! Its those kind of clues that can help clinch the deal, on top of the quality of the piece. Then send the photo to one of the experts on Stuart such as Miles, Barratt, and GOOD LUCK !

Beth

Samuel Meeker, a financier in 1797 (age 34), how simple it was then...

A law passed in Congress July 1790 that established Philadelphia as the interim capital, and all government offices began to straggle over to Pennsylvania, from Manhattan. At this time Alexander Hamilton, as treasury secretary, was chieftain of the biggest government department.

William Simmons was an accountant in the War Department and clerk in the Treasury Department Auditors Office. As such, he would have been in intimate contact with Alexander Hamilton, discussing pay, finance, and accounting & performing duties such as payroll of the military, dispensing checks for which the government was obliged (ie for the construction of a military frigate), settling compensations, pensions, salaries, accounts etc. As a small example, in April of 1794, Henry Knox wrote Simmons requesting an estimate of monthly expenses so that officers could receive ‘subsistance on the first day of the month rather than the last day.’ Mr. Simmons was the chief accountant through the war of 1812.

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

Wilmington, Delaware, 20 Oct 1797

Wm Simmons, Esq.

Sir,

Enclosed is X's draft on James McHenry Esq. at ten days eight (?) * Five hundred dollars in favor of X which I beg you to accept, and return to me by post ***

Your obed(ient) Ser(vant)

Sam(uel) Meeker

An (easy) telltale clue, to identify a Gilbert Stuart portrait!

As mentioned in the last entry, Jane Stuart is quoted as saying, "In his work there is no appearance of labor, but everything that he did showed force and energy--so long as he kept to the head. When that was completed his enthusiasm seems to have abated. With some notable exceptions, the other parts of his pictures were painted but indifferently..." Besides drapery, surely Gilbert Stuart could have spent more time on the... HANDS ! But in fact, can this rather sloppy negligence, next to a sublime likeness of a face in the same portrait, be considered part of his signature (which he left only very seldom)? 'When asked why he did not put his name or initials, to mark his pictures, he said, "I mark them all over." ' (William Dunlap p218).

Clever!

detail hand from Samuel Meeker

another example of sloppy hands

Mrs. Edward Stow
by Gilbert Stuart 1802-3 Columbus Museum

From Lawrence Park:

Mrs. Edward Stow (1771-1835)

Anna Brewer, daughter of John and Sarah (Brewer) Peck of Boston. In 1793 she married Edward Stow.

Bordentown, New Jersey, 1802-3. Panel 29 1/8 x 23 1/2 inches. She is shown half-length, seated, three-quarters left, on a sofa covered with red leather and studded with brass-headed nails. Her brown eyes are directed to the spectator, and her brown hair is dressed high on her head with an ornament of flowers, and ringlets on her forehead and temples. She wears a high-waisted, low-necked, short-sleeved, white gown, with a white fichu. A pearl necklace and pearl drop-ear-rings. A parti-colored shawl is falling from her shoulder; her right hand rests on arm of sofa, interlocking fingers with the left hand. In the background is a red curtain, drawn back at left, showing blue sky and clouds.

Note that Anna's husband Edward Stow was also painted by GS; finding this particular portrait, and its remarkable similarities to the portrait of Samuel Meeker, convinced me that I had finally found the right artist! [see entries 2/27/09 & 3/6/09] Note that Gibby also painted Edward's hands with the utmost of indifference.... although the portrait of his wife shows more than the average of interesting detail outside of the face. The Stows and Stuarts were good friends.

Why did the master not paint hands, or draperies, with the same exquisite care as the face? One primary reason is that speed meant more income; Stuart was always struggling with debt. For one thing, he had 12 children!

Dolly Madison's sister Anna & Gibby's nose

billowing drapery as background in Anna's portrait

In the last two posts we learned that First Lady Dolly Madison saved the Stuart portrait of George Washington; she escaped before the British captured her in the war of 1812, not only with the celebrated portrait but also with the founding documents of our country, including the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution that her husband, James Madison, had been responsible for writing.

Pictured above is the drapery in the Gilbert Stuart portrait of Anna Payne; eleven years younger than her sister Dolley, Anna Payne (1779–1832) sat for Stuart about the time of her marriage to Richard Cutts, congressman from Massachusetts. She and Stuart reportedly enjoyed her sittings and discussed his belief that the nose was the telling feature of the face. He then mischievously formed the billowing curtain behind her — (as you have by now figured out, a fixture in portraits of the time)—into a caricature of his own profile.

Anna Payne Cutts by Gilbert Stuart 1804
The White House

from George Mason p.140; “’On the day when I was sitting to him the second time,’ said Mr. Binney, ‘I said to Stuart, ‘What do you consider the most characteristic feature of the face? You have already shown me that the eyes are not; and we know from sculpture, in which the eyes are not; and we know from sculputre, in which the eyes are wanting, the same thing.’ Stuart just pressed the end of his pencil against the tip of his nose, distorting it oddly. ‘Ah, I see, I see,’ cried Mr. Binney."

Dolly Madison is ushered to the White House door

“Stuart is all the rage…”

Dolly, widowed at age 25 with two children upon the sudden death of her first husband from the yellow fever epidemic which swept through the new capital of the United States, met 38 yr old James Madison in Philadelphia in 1794 after having moved there to be with her Quaker family. They were married soon afterwards.

Her parents were strict members of the “Society of Friends”. The young Dolly: “… was wondrously fair. Her mother, who would not permit her to wear jewels, taught her to take care of her complexion. She was sent to school with long gloves on her hands and arms, a close sunbonnet and a white linen mask on her face; in fact it is plain to see that in many ways great attention was bestowed upon the outward as well as the inward graces of the young Friend.” (Life and Letters of Dolly Madison by A. C. Clark, W F Roberts Co, Washington DC 1914; p 13, a quote by Harriet T. Upton.) Just before meeting with Madison; she wrote her friend Mrs. Lee, saying, “Dear friend, thou must come to me. Aaron Burr says that the ‘great little Madison’ has asked to be brought to see me this evening.” She was dressed in a mulberry-colored satin, with a silk tulle kerchief over her neck, and on her head an exquisitely dainty little cap, from which an occasional uncropped curl would escape. In this first interview, at her own house, she captured the heart of the recluse book-worm, Madison… always thought to be an irreclaimable old bachelor.” (Memoirs and Letters of Dolly Madison by Dolley Madison, Lucia Beverly Cutts, Houghton, Mifflin &Co. Boston and NY, 1887, p 15)

Dolly Payne Todd Madison (1768-1849) , 1804 by Gilbert Stuart;

White House Collection

At the time of this portrait of his wife in 1804, James Madison was secretary of state under President Thomas Jefferson, and was elected our 4th President in 1809. Dolly held the FIRST Inaugural Ball, and Washington had never seen such a grand affair! The attendees came from all over the Nation, riding their carriages over muddy and bumpy roads. At this time, James was 54, and Dolly a lovely 41. As First Lady from 1809 to 1817, Dolly was a sparkling asset, using her natural charm, wit, and formidable social skills while hosting numerous lavish entertainments and special occasions at the Executive Mansion. Surely with her trademark costly Parisian gowns (NOTE the empire-waist style as popularized by Josephine), elaborate feathered turbans, wit, charm and intelligence, she rivalled Napoleon’s Josephine in the realm of queenly graciousness on the world stage!

Dolly gained fame in 1812 by saving Gilbert Stuart's portrait of George Washington from being burned by the British in the War of 1812. “Our kind friend, Mr. Carroll, has come to hasten my departure, and in a very bad humor with me, because I insist on waiting until the large picture of General Washington is secured, and it requires to be unscrewed from the wall. This process was found too tedious for these perilous moments; I have ordered the frame to be broken, and the canvas taken out. It is done! and the precious portrait placed in the hands of two gentlemen of New York, for safe keeping.”

~

Why is Dolly being ushered out of the White House? Answer will be in the following post! (or click here)

~

PS on an artistic note, click on the portrait of Dolly for a closer look at the piece of material draped over her right arm & right-hand lower corner. There are characteristic swift swishes of Stuart's brush (creating a superb depiction of her shawl) and something to look for ...in addition to the skill of drawing the 'likeness of the head'... as "his signature." Wondrous. One can also clearly note the stark similarities in arrangement to the portrait of Samuel Meeker, both portraits done in approx the same time period.

~

Another journey to attribute a family portrait to Gilbert Stuart

Earlier this month, I received a note from a person I did not know, congratulating me on my discovery and attribution of the Gilbert Stuart portrait Samuel Meeker. My interest was piqued, I wrote back and asked, "Who are you? What is your story?" As it turns out David McCann has been on a strikingly similar path to mine ~ the family possesses an ancestral portrait passed down through the generations, no signature, yet bearing remarkable signs of being a GS portrait. The female sitter Catherine Wister Miles was born in 1742 to a prominent Philadelphian family well-known to the artist, who painted more than one Wister family member. Even more exciting, a portrait of the husband of Catherine, Samuel Miles, is attributed to Gilbert Stuart and is presently housed in the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington. However, the two paintings were not painted at the same time, at some point they were separated, and the portrait of Samuel Miles has enjoyed the attribution to Gilbert Stuart whereas the portrait of Catherine has not. David, a lover of history, ancestral sleuthing, and as fascinated as I am by the genius of Gilbert Stuart, has made it his mission to gain admission from the experts that the portrait of his ancestor, Catherine Wister Miles, can be attributed to Gilbert Stuart. Here is his story.

My journey of discovery was equally as exciting and, if you would like, I would be happy to share my bibliography with you. The portraits I have attached are of Philadelphia's Samuel Miles and his wife Catherine. The 1802 Stuart portrait of Samuel Miles is housed in the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington; the other - of Catherine - in Akron, Ohio. .....So - as to my journey ... well, it is almost like a quest for the Holy Grail - taking me up and down the east coast - meeting with the "experts" and finding more and more information to support my claim. From New York City - Philadelphia and the American Philosophical Society; Winterthur, Delaware and the Downs Collection Library; Washington and the Corcoran Gallery and the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. It can be a lonely investigative trek, Beth, very lonely - but your portrait has that classic Gilbert Stuart portrait style for men. The women, on the other hand, he did so differently. And therein has been my challenge - but I have not been deterred by what many of the "experts" have had to say. Some say "yes"; others are non-committal - and then there are the naysayers. I have been more intrigued by the history of the woman.....

Catherine Wister Miles (1742-1797) c. 1796
Catherine Wister fell in love with a young soldier of Welsh origin named Samuel Miles, who had seen active service in the French and Indian war and had successfully raised himself from a private to the rank of captain in His Majesty's Service. However John Wister, father of Catherine, considered the young man unsuitable to ask for the hand of his daughter as the Captain did not measure up to the necessary financial and social standards, and, he was not of the Quaker faith. Marriages were definitly not to be defined by love! Samuel Miles had returned to Philadelphia a war hero beaming with pride and resplendent in full regalia and red and gold uniform – Catherine showed her willful determination and strength even at this young age and determined, the young couple were married in February 1761 without parental blessing. Not an auspicious beginning, but eventually Mr. Wister forgave his daughter and backed his son-in-law in the wine and rum trade.

More on Catherine's story, and the attribution, in the next post~ And if you have a similar tale, write me, this is our history and we are proud of it!
~

How do I know my portrait "Samuel Meeker" is authentic, without...

detail collar

George Thomas John Nugent; 1789-90 by Gilbert Stuart; UCLA Hammer Museum Los Angeles

a signature, or date!

An unsigned/undated painting? ...The Portrait had neither. Allowing my family members to consider the portrait of Samuel Meeker to be a quaint, old-fashioned piece of nonsense that my mother's dog barked at, taking second place (in my mom's tiny sitting room) to the Japanese gold-blocked screen above the antique Japanese tonsu (in the living room).

This is the reason that Samuel Meeker was so easily misattributed, somewhere along the line by a family member, to the wrong painter. It is a reason for why it took me so long to figure out the identity of the artist. But as it turns out, the very fact that there is NO signature on the painting, is a piece of evidence that it WAS painted by Gilbert Stuart. Because in fact he rarely signed/dated his work. "When asked why he did not put his name or initials, to mark his pictures, he said 'I mark them all over.' " from William Dunlap. Gilbert Stuart was so self-confident that he simply felt that his work needed no signature, the evidence was drawn all over the work!

However, a signature is not enough. Naturally a signature can be forged. More evidence to follow, stay tuned!

Sometimes Gilbert Stuart included his signature, mostly in a whimsical fashion. In the above image, his signature can be found on the dog's collar!... a 'g' followed by "Stuart"...

I quote info about the above portrait of George Nugent from Gilbert Stuart Barratt and Miles p 91, cause it is a fun read; "George Thomas John Nugent was born July 17, 1785, and his costume suggests that he was about five when he sat for Stuart. He wears a modified skeleton suit, the outfit designed for a young fellow recently breeched from his petticoats but not yet of age to wear proper gentlemen's clothing. His fall-front knee breeches of cream-colored silk with red topstiching button over the lower edge of his scarlet jacket, making a one-piece suit in reasonable facsimile of adult style. The linen shirt, with knife-pleated frilled muslin collar was at the hight of fashion, worn open and spread wide over the coat. To top it off, Stuart's tiny subject wears an enormous black hat, of the so-called Gainsborough or Marlborough type, with large crown and wide brim made of taffeta or beaver, and trimmed with ostrich plumes. The style derived from French ladies' riding hats of the 1770s and came into vogue for children in England during the 1780s."

The little boy, BTW is holding a cloth, because the Newfoundland breed drools a lot.

Confusion continues on the attribution

Even armed with my digital print out of Edward S. by Gilbert Stuart (see 2/27/09 "I knew...then..."), my confusion continued to reign on the identity of the artist who painted Samuel Meeker. After the editor of the Peale papers stated my portrait was not by CW Peale (see 3/4/09 "Misattribution"), I was still not convinced that the portrait was by Stuart, for there was the Problem of the Timeline. At left one can see on my 'Stow worksheet' the doodle "gone from Am[erica] went to England"-that refers to Stuart. & "timing is off!"
So I next turned to John Trumbull as the possible painter. In fact, the portrait of George Washington...was not Totally Dissimilar.....??

It did not occur to me that I was CHASING the WRONG Samuel Meeker.

John Trumbull, George Washington; 1780; courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art

John Trumbull The Signing of the Declaration of Independence;1817; at US Capitol Building