Rembrandt's lost twin? scholars confirm authenticity of uk portrait

For nearly four centuries, a portrait in a UK collection has been relegated to the status of a mere workshop copy of a Rembrandt. Now, a leading scholar has definitively declared it a genuine work by the master, reigniting debate and prompting a re-evaluation of countless paintings.

Hidden in plain sight: the old man with a gold chain

The discovery centers on two nearly identical portraits, both titled “Old Man with a Gold Chain” and dated to the early 1630s. One, owned by the Art Institute of Chicago, has long been accepted as authentic. The other, held by Sir Francis Newman, was previously dismissed as a copy.

Gary Schwartz, a renowned Rembrandt expert, argues both paintings were created directly by Rembrandt, not by a pupil. His assessment hinges on the nuanced brushwork and the apparent lack of corrections typically found in student work. “If Rembrandt had a customer for a replica of his attractive Old Man, what would be the most effective and efficient way of making it? Assigning it to a pupil, whose work would have to be corrected – and the Newman painting shows no sign of corrections – or re-enacting the steps he had just taken, when they were still fresh in mind and hand? Surely the latter makes more sense,” Schwartz told the Guardian.

X-ray and infrared imaging of the Chicago portrait revealed subtle adjustments to the subject’s costume. These details are absent in the Newman version, lending further weight to Schwartz’s assertion. A study by the Hamilton Kerr Institute at the University of Cambridge confirmed the UK painting's canvas and pigments matched those used by Rembrandt and his studio, including a distinct oil-bound, double-ground layer.

The Newman painting’s history is also significant. Purchased in 1898 by Sir Francis Newman’s great-grandfather from London’s Agnews for a substantial sum, it was already considered a genuine Rembrandt at the time. However, art historian Wilhelm Bode later labeled it a “clever reproduction” when the UK portrait surfaced in 1912. A 1952 exhibition at the Royal Academy in London even listed the Newman version as an original Rembrandt, a designation swiftly corrected by experts.

The difference between the two paintings is subtle, but telling. While the UK portrait’s eyelashes were meticulously created with tiny brushstrokes, those in the Chicago version were achieved by scratching through wet paint to reveal a lighter hue beneath. Yet, the Cambridge study found the UK version’s materials to be consistent with Rembrandt’s known practices.

Newman, who has long been ambivalent about the painting’s true nature, has always enjoyed the mystery. “My view is it’s always been a mystery. I’ve enjoyed the mystery because it meant I could enjoy it on the wall… and not have the responsibility of its potential importance,” he said. If confirmed, the painting will ultimately reside in a museum.

Schwartz’s findings, detailed in his upcoming talk at the National Gallery in London, represent a significant challenge to established scholarship. It’s a re-examination of Rembrandt’s process, and a stark reminder that even the most accepted narratives in art history can be overturned by meticulous investigation.

The revelation serves as a potent reminder of the enduring power of visual analysis and the persistent allure of uncovering hidden truths within the art world.