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

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

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

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

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

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



     

Stuart's Pigments and Paint Application

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

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

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

Samuel Meeker 1763-1831 a merchant in Philadelphia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeanne

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

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

FROM JEANNE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

courtesy of Reynolda House 

Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis

1770-1836

FROM LAWRENCE PARK VOL

Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis 1770-1836

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

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

***

I am honored at this request; my great grandmother Carrie and her similarity to my Samuel Meeker portrait. My answer? Yes, of course.

I received an interesting email, see below.  Carrie [Martin] Cory, my great-grandmother, brought the Samuel Meeker portrait to California from New Jersey.  The portrait was passed to her through her father (Thomas Mulford Martin), both direct descendents of Phoebe Meeker (twin of Samuel who received the portrait as a gift on their 40ieth birthday.)  For more on Carrie's story and provenance of the painting, click here.   My great-grandfather Lewis Cory and wife Carrie Cory are of course in the history of provenance of the Meeker painting, as I am, now.

Does Carrie have an incredible resemblance to Samuel Meeker?  I say, yes!  It is simply astonishing.

After marrying Lewis, Carrie left New Jersey, to live in Fresno California.  Lewis was one of the first practicing attorneys there having received his law degree from Columbia.  She received the portrait because there was no male sibling, and her two sisters remained childless.
Phoebe Meeker was Carrie's great-grandmother.  Carrie is my great-grandmother.

Good morning,

Just looking through your blog again for a Gilbert Stuart boost for my day, observing his use of color on foreheads, cheeks, and eyes, which I think is the most obvious characteristic that we notice first when looking at a possible Stuart. 

The photo of Carrie Martin in your post from June 24, 2014 struck me as being lit and composed very much as Stuart would have set up a sitter for having a portrait done. The main difference I think is that her head is not turned quite as much as Stuart would have done, so her eyes are then turned more to look directly at the photographer. 

Which brings me to a question that you will probably think is odd. What would you say to the idea of a painting of Carrie in Stuart's style? I am an (amateur) artist - you can check out a few of my pieces on facebook - and doing a painting in Stuart's technique would be tremendous fun and great practice for me. I am not suggesting that you commission a work. It is just an idea that intrigues me, but I would not use your photograph for such a purpose without your permission.

If you are OK with the idea, I'll go ahead, though at a somewhat smaller size than Stuart would have done. Would you be able to tell me what color Carrie's hair and eyes probably were? In the photo, her hair looks light brown or auburn and her eyes look possibly light blue. 

Please let me know what you think.

Jeanne Grimsby

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

Yes Carrie's hair would have been auburn, and quite possibly her eyes were blue.  Her son (my grandfather Benjamin Hyde Cory) had blue eyes, as does my mother Carolyn [Cory] Ahrens. Ben and his daughter (my mom) are also in the provenance of the painting; another amazing story!  Although Ben could have inherited his blue eyes from Lewis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. and Mrs. Barney Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

My aunt, a Stanford University Campus 'queen', and direct descendant of Samuel Meeker's twin Phoebe Meeker

REMINDER--Samuel gifted his expensive/exquisite/illustrious Stuart portrait to his twin sister, all logical deductions point to the portrait being given to Phoebe on their 40ieth birthday.  It would have been the occasion for a ball given at their country estate, Fountain Green (click on link) on the Schuylkill river.  This would certainly not have been an ordinary birthday party! If these two could have looked down into the crystal ball and seen the future, they'd be proud.

My aunt Edelen (and my mom) are direct descendants of Phoebe Meeker 

Phoebe Meeker (1763-?) m. Job Brookfield

Mary Brookfield (1804- after 1856) m. John Ludlum Martin

Thomas Mulford Martin (1831-1917) m. Mary Ayers

Carrie Ayers Martin (1862-1937) m. Lewis Lincoln Cory (portrait brought to Ca) (click on link for a photograph of Carrie to view similarities to Samuel Meeker portrait)

Benjamin Hyde Cory (1896-1983) m. Susan Leavitt (my grandparents Susie and Pops) (click on link for a photograph of Ben to view similarities to Samuel Meeker portrait)

 Ben and Susie had two daughters

Edelen and Carolyn Cory (click on link for a photograph of mom) 

(My aunt and mom both graduated from Stanford University; 
currently Edelen lives in Menlo Park Ca and my mom in Santa Cruz Ca)

Lovely Edelen was voted campus queen at Stanford University in 1951. This photograph took up a full page in the yearbook, the "Stanford Quad 1951"

The icon to the left became politically incorrect.  How I remember it though!

Was she signing out for a date?

Happy moms day to Edelen and my mom Carolyn!

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. 

 ***

many pardons for neglecting my most favorite portrait master of all time...

Writing the history of other past ancestors has taken up much of my time, (with more to come).  You can find my book (with two other authors) on Amazon. Yet rest assured that my love of GS and his sitters, remains unabated.  Look for more posts in the year ahead!

From Medicine Man to Medical Doctor

The Medical History of Early Santa Clara Valley

Elizabeth Ahrens-Kley

Gerald Trobough

Michael Shea

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

Santa Clara County of course is home of the famed Silicon Valley here in California.

You can find more information on my gt gt grandfather Benjamin Cory MD in this blog, and in my essay online which won first place in the essay contest sponsored by the "California Pioneers of Santa Clara County" 

June 2011

Just a reminder, it was the Doctor's son, my gt grandfather Lewis Lincoln Cory born in San Jose California 1861, who married a girl from Rahway NJ.  Carrie [Marin] Cory, {click on link to the left to see the image of my gt grandmother Carrie, gt grandaughter of Phoebe Meeeker who received the GS portrait from her twin brother Samuel; the genetics in the facial similarity between Carrie and the portrait are amazing; a demonstration of the skill of GS} brought the GS portrait of Samuel Meeker to California from NJ due to this marriage and the fact that she had two sons and 3 daughters and her two Martin sisters had no children.  Due to this unusual "travelling" from the east to west coast, the portrait was lost to those who were attempting to locate and document all GS portraits.

What a twist of fate, that Samuel Meeker is now with me, his fine and fascinating history fully explored.

To see Carrie Cory's position in the line of provenance, click here.

Samuel Meeker was a "good gentleman" as described by the Wall St Journal today!

Apparently Philadelphia is incurring a shortage of Calvary soldiers, our military activities have depleted the ranks!  My 'good gentleman' ancestor Samuel Meeker of course participated in this Calvary; remember he was an exceptional horse rider, housing his horses at his country villa Fountain Green, and who was a member of the Gloucester Fox Hunting Club (according to the article, a source for members of the Cavalry).  All indications are that he was adept and vigorously active socially, it has been my own speculation that he threw a wonderful ball at his villa on his 40ieth birthday--most likely gifting the GS portrait to his twin sister during this bash.  It didn't hurt that my ancestor is good looking.  He and his sister were surely coveted guests at any social gathering!

more on the Gloucester Fox Hunting Club
“ The Gloucester Fox-Hunting Club—This pleasant association was composed of many highly respectable gentlemen, resident chiefly in Philadelphia…Elegant society was then comparatively limited; while the city Friend could give a delightful repast, the country Friend could promise good sport from horses, dogs, and a fox.  In 1800 there were about forty members, and it flourished until 1818, when Captain Charles Ross, the last master-spirit, died, and with him the club ceased to exist… 

The hunts usually lasted from one to five or six hours, and sometimes even for eight or ten hours. 

Usually about one-half of the club were habitual or efficient hunters.  Among the most enterprising and leading members were—Mr. Morris, president, and Messrs ….Davies, Price, Denman, …Humphreys, Harrison, S. Meeker…”

Annals of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania: being a collection of memoirs by John Watson published Parry and M’Millan 1879 Philadelphia  pps 158-9

more on the Volunteer Regiment of Cavalry:

Samuel Meeker was the Lieutenant Commandant of "The Troop of VOLUNTEER GREENS" of the Third Troop Philadelphia City Cavalry.  The year was 1810, and war with the mother country was looming on the horizon. "...the air was electrified with the military spirit...all felt war was speedily approaching..." from THE SECOND TROOP PHILADELPHIA CITY CAVALRY by  W.A. Newman Dorland 1903

from the article "Philadelphia is Looking for a few Good Gentlemen" by M M Phillips Oct 15, 2014

"What Spc. Connell dreaded, however, was the horse-riding requirement, a fear put to the test when the soldiers gathered for a steeplechase at a trooper's horse farm in West Chester, Pa.  A highlight of the day was the cavalry skills competition, in which the troopers practiced attacking a watermelon with a saber.

      The expert riders, such as Sgt. Llewellyn Hunt, the descendeant of French generals and a student at Sciences Po in Paris, cantered past the post where the watermelon was mounted, slicing it neatly in two.

       Spc. Connell, who had never ridden before, was helped into the saddle of an easygoing horse, who ambled toward the enemy fruit.  Spc. Connell took a mighty swing and nicked off a piece as he knocked the melon to the ground.

     After Spc. Connell dismounted, the other troopers initiated him into one final cavalry tradtion: Opening a bottle of champagne with a saber...."

Meeker would have not have approved such LOW SKILLS as not being able to slice a watermelon in half, as well as the limited number of volunteers to this special Cavalry, .....but the final tradition....would have secured the pleasure of his evening!!

Carolyn (Carrie) Ayers Martin, direct descendant of Samuel Meeker's twin sister Phoebe Meeker

my great grandmother Carrie Marin m. Lewis L. Cory (b. San Jose, Ca settled in Fresno, Ca)

born 23 Feb 1862 Rahway, NJ
d.16 Mar 1937 Fresno, Ca

Carrie was the Jersey maiden who brought the portrait of Samuel Meeker to California.  (Carrie had two sisters with no children, so she inherited the portrait.)  Her father was Thomas Mulford Martin, his mother was Mary Brookfield who was the daughter of Phoebe Meeker.
Phoebe Meeker was the twin sister of Samuel Meeker, sitter in the portrait.  Through logic and events, I have deduced that Samuel gifted his portrait by Stuart to his twin sister on their 40ieth birthday.  Most likely at a celebration/ball at their country estate on the Schuylkill, Fountain Green.

NOTE THE SIMILARITY of Carrie's lips to the shape of Samuel's mouth.  The shape of the face, the cheekbones, the chin...  Astonishingly distinctive!  This not only offers validation of the family provenance, but also of Stuart's amazing ability to nail the image of the sitter.

*

*

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

Meeker Coat of Arms

Taken from the booklet "The Meeker Family of early New Jersey" by Leroy J. Meeker 

Capitol Printing Co, Charleston, W.VA.1973

**

Samuel Meeker now joins, officially, the history of American finance! A bold, energetic smart merchant plays a role in commerce at the turn of the century in early America.

FINANCIAL HISTORY 

The Magazine of the Museum of American Finance
(in association with the Smithsonian Institution)  

Issue 106/ Spring 2013

"To have one's portrait painted by the eminent American artist Gilbert Stuart (1755-1828) signaled arrival at the pinnacle of social and economic success.  Famously described by First Lady Dolley Madison as being "all the rage", the artist was celebrated for his superlative portraits of Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.  But who was Stuart subject Samuel Meeker, and how was he able to commisssion the foremost painter of his time?"

by Elizabeth Ahrens-Kley

Samuel Meeker Merchant of Philadelphia

*