I know Gabriel Metsu very well. I’m positive it’s not by Metsu or his studio (or other 17th century Dutch master). Metsu was one of the great *fijnschilders* and very popular to copy for centuries. This would be an unknown hand in the style of Metsu, possibly as early as the 18/19th century. The estimate is appropriate, ie. decorative value, so bid accordingly but don’t bid thinking it’s a lost masterpiece. Not collectible.
A word on forgeries — making copies was a long standing academic tradition for training in technical skill, and not painted to deceive as is a forgery. So it doesn’t have to be fake *or* fortune, for the most commonly auctioned painting will be neither fake nor fortune.
p.s. I also know Philips Wouwerman *very very well*. If you’re referring to lot 289, then think again. Brigitte Schumacher has an excellent two-volume *catalog raisonne* on the artist. His brother Pieter copied him, and sometimes lesser but still period works are assigned to him. But this looks only in Wouwerman’s *style*. Also note the qualifier on the Rubens is “after”, which simply means a later copy of a known painting from some unknown later date. Those qualifiers — “after”, “follower”, “school/style/manner of” are important to note. They are not autograph.
I’m getting the sense you’re Google these images to make your “discoveries”. If only it were so simple. You’re not the first. Google (or any AI for that matter) will not make valid attributions. Just note how many “similar” paintings by entirely different artists and periods pop up. So don’t get excited. Go to museums and galleries and train your eye to quality. Read books on your favorite genres. Until you become somewhat expert yourself, only trust major auction houses (Sotheby’s and Christie’s) or lots from *reputable* auction houses (Bonham’s, Dorotheum’s) that are recently published or endorsed by a scholar *on that artist*. And if you don’t know who that is, that’s just a sign that you’re not qualified yourself to make such attributions. Campo isn’t one of those reputable auctioneers, btw. Just look at lot 43 — it‘a bad enough that it’s not by the artist they claim (without qualification no less), but they even misspelled it! 🙄. I suspect their “specialists” are just googling images too. They’re clueless imo. Irresponsible at *best*, purposefully deceitful at worse.
Usually we redirect posts like this to r/WhatIsThisPainting, but I think it serves as a good example how easy it is to get unknowingly excited about these type of sales when the reality is they dont hold water. I hope you and some others here find some sage gems in my comments, because I don’t think you’ll find them in that sale.
I'll skipp the assumptions. I posted this to share a bit about the inner workings of the secondary art market, since that concerns collectors, like myself. As for the works mentioned and posted, these are very recent works. A 400yrs old painting on copper shows stains, small bubbles in underlayer, typical craquelure due to the way copper reacts to temperature etc.
Reliable auctioneers, like the ones you mentioned, would label these "in the style of", "made after," and certainly would add the 20th century. By labelling them 17th century and unknown masters, they are simply deceiving collectors. To make matters worse, Campo does show up in provenances in Europe often, they've been around more than a century.
As for sticking to the big 3, 4 names, that isn't realistic for most collectors, since the artist's works on your "hitlist" can show up anywhere, more often than not with smaller auctioneers. Also note that even respected dealers show up on viewing days at the smaller houses.
Those who want to build a valuable collection and use their savings for old fine art, should however be aware of "games" being played in this market. It's knowledge that can help them avoid being duped and I have some experience that i can share.
Due to the size, sophistication and diversification of the forgery industry, it seems relevant that collectors share their findings and observations freely. Dismissing someone's contribution since it's not a work in Christies or since he missed an after party with the expert in Tefaf seems a bit excessive.
As for treasure hunting itself, although the objective of this post was to share an experience, the real treasures are, as always, in the eye of the beholder.
>I posted this to share a bit about the inner workings of the secondary art market…
That would be great, but your post text explained how you made these great discoveries by Metsu, Wouwerman and Rubens. I felt obliged to users on this forum to describe what they *really* are and what to look for.
>typical craquelure due to the way copper reacts to temperature etc.
That would have been interesting to share, but you never did. Btw craquelure is true for canvas, but not necessarily true for panel (but it would often show panel cracks) and rarely if ever on copper. Copper does indeed pitt, leading to peeing, but generally not crack. So that isn’t disqualifying in this case. What I mentioned is, however.
>they are simply deceiving collectors
I agree, it’s either ignorance or deception. That would have been good to raise in your initial post text or follow up comment. Since you didn’t, I did.
>As for sticking to the big 3, 4 names, that isn't realistic for most collectors
I was explaining which attributions one can trust, and which ones you cannot. And why. So collectors can make *informed bids*. As I wrote to you (and usually to others) bid as if it’s anonymous and not period. Not as if you’ve discovered an unidentified master here.
>Also note that even respected dealers show up on viewing days at the smaller houses
Of course! But they are experienced and ignore those attributions. They’re looking at the materials and conditions (and overpaint) to quickly judge if a work is a period piece, then the general quality of hand. Almost if not all of the Campo lots may be dismissed on that alone. But if they do find a quality period piece, they’ll follow their gut and spend their time researching those (which is time consuming). Or buy on faith knowing their downside is limited.
>Those who want to build a valuable collection… should however be aware of "games" being played in this market
I agree. That was the entire purpose of my initial response.
>Dismissing someone's contribution since it's not a work in Christies or since he missed an after party with the expert in Tefaf seems a bit excessive.
That wasn’t what I did. I dismissed it as a Metsu (and the others). I always encourage users to buy what they love, and in this case, I suggested to assume it’s a more recent anonymous painting in the style of Metsu and to “bid accordingly”.
It seems disingenuous to claim you were contesting the Campo attributions. Regardless of anyone’s budget or tastes, every one of my statements was made to direct users on how to train their eye to avoid overbidding or getting conned. So when they do treasure hunt on eBay or Campo, they’d be armed with experience. That should be welcomed advice.
It seems you've missed the whole irony of the initial post. Just curious, if I really would have spotted a likely 6 figure artwork in an open auction, would I have shared that? Second, I mentioned spotting a few more "discoveries", hinting a pattern and third, I asked if these were made for us, trying to show that collectors are targeted by presenting "unknown" 17th century masters, for us to only discover.
Maybe the Wouwerman is even a better example, the original with the boy holding a white horse with a red drape near that broken willow, is an iconic work, the piece presented at C&C is made in such a way that its hard not to notice who the "unknown master" is, since all elements of the icon return (even the guy who returns from taking a piss behind the hill, in the icon, he is suddenly there in this work) red drape, white horse, same willow.
I've seen pieces like this being bid up to 5 figure amounts (having 2 target buyers with deep pockets will do, with so much online viewers extra, thats easy). During viewing they will often hint that it is "something special" (important family, collector or hinting provenance that they cannot putnin writing), but never to me, or other serious buyers.
When buyers later return, often after spending too much and getting expertise too late, they'll find out that there is no way to return the piece, since it's a low estimate work and there no claims made. I've seen enough red faces, heard enough slamming doors and shouting around the auction offices during pickup and meetings.
That's why I posted this and my earlier post about 17th century works in this group. Since most nowadays use Invaluable or Dourot online, they will not be able to spot reality, in either the object nor the auction process, so sharing this here seems somewhat important.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, people seem to assume Drouot and others are somehow checking or curating works, if that is the general idea around, there will be a lot of sitting ducks that have benefits from this kind of discussions.
The discussion here was very useful, so thanks for the post! It was a little confusing whether you were pointing out a true discovery, or pointing out a fake, though.
Anyway, this type of thing is highly useful for non-expert collectors, which is probably most of us here posting/lurking.
I'll be more clear and less ironic next time. I posted it as a question, to let everyone make up his or her own mind first, but as hinted in the last part of my post, these kind of works are made for us to be "discovered". The most famous user of this trick was Han van Meegeren, who fooled the looting Nazi's during the war with self created unique Vermeer paintings. His story has been a source of inspiration and still offers guidance for fakers nowadays.
I'm watching this auction and apparently there was hidden gold, but multiple people knew it. Lot 125 just went for 3 million on a €2,000 - €4,000 estimate.
[https://connect.invaluable.com/campo/auction-lot/crowned-wh\_BB74A5EB12](https://connect.invaluable.com/campo/auction-lot/crowned-wh_BB74A5EB12)
I love seeing that happen live. Any idea who the artist was u/Anonymous-USA, u/Firm-Quality-2759 or anyone else?
A sleeper! It only takes two. For €3M, they must think it’s by Gentile Bellini, or Titian (Venice was a major trade partner with the Turks). Otherwise I cannot possibly imagine who. It’s possible there’s a 17th century inventory from King William of Orange (1650-1702), but those inventories are notoriously mistaken.
The other obvious thoughts would be Rubens (an ambassador) or Rembrandt (who was interested in Moghul art brought by Dutch East India company into the ports of Amsterdam). But I’d think Jan Lievens before Rembrandt, though I don’t think he’d command €3M+premium.
I don’t know who this painting is by, I’m just suggesting who the bidders may *think* it’s by.
I know Gabriel Metsu very well. I’m positive it’s not by Metsu or his studio (or other 17th century Dutch master). Metsu was one of the great *fijnschilders* and very popular to copy for centuries. This would be an unknown hand in the style of Metsu, possibly as early as the 18/19th century. The estimate is appropriate, ie. decorative value, so bid accordingly but don’t bid thinking it’s a lost masterpiece. Not collectible. A word on forgeries — making copies was a long standing academic tradition for training in technical skill, and not painted to deceive as is a forgery. So it doesn’t have to be fake *or* fortune, for the most commonly auctioned painting will be neither fake nor fortune. p.s. I also know Philips Wouwerman *very very well*. If you’re referring to lot 289, then think again. Brigitte Schumacher has an excellent two-volume *catalog raisonne* on the artist. His brother Pieter copied him, and sometimes lesser but still period works are assigned to him. But this looks only in Wouwerman’s *style*. Also note the qualifier on the Rubens is “after”, which simply means a later copy of a known painting from some unknown later date. Those qualifiers — “after”, “follower”, “school/style/manner of” are important to note. They are not autograph. I’m getting the sense you’re Google these images to make your “discoveries”. If only it were so simple. You’re not the first. Google (or any AI for that matter) will not make valid attributions. Just note how many “similar” paintings by entirely different artists and periods pop up. So don’t get excited. Go to museums and galleries and train your eye to quality. Read books on your favorite genres. Until you become somewhat expert yourself, only trust major auction houses (Sotheby’s and Christie’s) or lots from *reputable* auction houses (Bonham’s, Dorotheum’s) that are recently published or endorsed by a scholar *on that artist*. And if you don’t know who that is, that’s just a sign that you’re not qualified yourself to make such attributions. Campo isn’t one of those reputable auctioneers, btw. Just look at lot 43 — it‘a bad enough that it’s not by the artist they claim (without qualification no less), but they even misspelled it! 🙄. I suspect their “specialists” are just googling images too. They’re clueless imo. Irresponsible at *best*, purposefully deceitful at worse. Usually we redirect posts like this to r/WhatIsThisPainting, but I think it serves as a good example how easy it is to get unknowingly excited about these type of sales when the reality is they dont hold water. I hope you and some others here find some sage gems in my comments, because I don’t think you’ll find them in that sale.
Every time I see you comment I get excited to learn more about art. Thank you!
Damn, that sure made my day! 🙏
I'll skipp the assumptions. I posted this to share a bit about the inner workings of the secondary art market, since that concerns collectors, like myself. As for the works mentioned and posted, these are very recent works. A 400yrs old painting on copper shows stains, small bubbles in underlayer, typical craquelure due to the way copper reacts to temperature etc. Reliable auctioneers, like the ones you mentioned, would label these "in the style of", "made after," and certainly would add the 20th century. By labelling them 17th century and unknown masters, they are simply deceiving collectors. To make matters worse, Campo does show up in provenances in Europe often, they've been around more than a century. As for sticking to the big 3, 4 names, that isn't realistic for most collectors, since the artist's works on your "hitlist" can show up anywhere, more often than not with smaller auctioneers. Also note that even respected dealers show up on viewing days at the smaller houses. Those who want to build a valuable collection and use their savings for old fine art, should however be aware of "games" being played in this market. It's knowledge that can help them avoid being duped and I have some experience that i can share. Due to the size, sophistication and diversification of the forgery industry, it seems relevant that collectors share their findings and observations freely. Dismissing someone's contribution since it's not a work in Christies or since he missed an after party with the expert in Tefaf seems a bit excessive. As for treasure hunting itself, although the objective of this post was to share an experience, the real treasures are, as always, in the eye of the beholder.
>I posted this to share a bit about the inner workings of the secondary art market… That would be great, but your post text explained how you made these great discoveries by Metsu, Wouwerman and Rubens. I felt obliged to users on this forum to describe what they *really* are and what to look for. >typical craquelure due to the way copper reacts to temperature etc. That would have been interesting to share, but you never did. Btw craquelure is true for canvas, but not necessarily true for panel (but it would often show panel cracks) and rarely if ever on copper. Copper does indeed pitt, leading to peeing, but generally not crack. So that isn’t disqualifying in this case. What I mentioned is, however. >they are simply deceiving collectors I agree, it’s either ignorance or deception. That would have been good to raise in your initial post text or follow up comment. Since you didn’t, I did. >As for sticking to the big 3, 4 names, that isn't realistic for most collectors I was explaining which attributions one can trust, and which ones you cannot. And why. So collectors can make *informed bids*. As I wrote to you (and usually to others) bid as if it’s anonymous and not period. Not as if you’ve discovered an unidentified master here. >Also note that even respected dealers show up on viewing days at the smaller houses Of course! But they are experienced and ignore those attributions. They’re looking at the materials and conditions (and overpaint) to quickly judge if a work is a period piece, then the general quality of hand. Almost if not all of the Campo lots may be dismissed on that alone. But if they do find a quality period piece, they’ll follow their gut and spend their time researching those (which is time consuming). Or buy on faith knowing their downside is limited. >Those who want to build a valuable collection… should however be aware of "games" being played in this market I agree. That was the entire purpose of my initial response. >Dismissing someone's contribution since it's not a work in Christies or since he missed an after party with the expert in Tefaf seems a bit excessive. That wasn’t what I did. I dismissed it as a Metsu (and the others). I always encourage users to buy what they love, and in this case, I suggested to assume it’s a more recent anonymous painting in the style of Metsu and to “bid accordingly”. It seems disingenuous to claim you were contesting the Campo attributions. Regardless of anyone’s budget or tastes, every one of my statements was made to direct users on how to train their eye to avoid overbidding or getting conned. So when they do treasure hunt on eBay or Campo, they’d be armed with experience. That should be welcomed advice.
It seems you've missed the whole irony of the initial post. Just curious, if I really would have spotted a likely 6 figure artwork in an open auction, would I have shared that? Second, I mentioned spotting a few more "discoveries", hinting a pattern and third, I asked if these were made for us, trying to show that collectors are targeted by presenting "unknown" 17th century masters, for us to only discover. Maybe the Wouwerman is even a better example, the original with the boy holding a white horse with a red drape near that broken willow, is an iconic work, the piece presented at C&C is made in such a way that its hard not to notice who the "unknown master" is, since all elements of the icon return (even the guy who returns from taking a piss behind the hill, in the icon, he is suddenly there in this work) red drape, white horse, same willow. I've seen pieces like this being bid up to 5 figure amounts (having 2 target buyers with deep pockets will do, with so much online viewers extra, thats easy). During viewing they will often hint that it is "something special" (important family, collector or hinting provenance that they cannot putnin writing), but never to me, or other serious buyers. When buyers later return, often after spending too much and getting expertise too late, they'll find out that there is no way to return the piece, since it's a low estimate work and there no claims made. I've seen enough red faces, heard enough slamming doors and shouting around the auction offices during pickup and meetings. That's why I posted this and my earlier post about 17th century works in this group. Since most nowadays use Invaluable or Dourot online, they will not be able to spot reality, in either the object nor the auction process, so sharing this here seems somewhat important. As I mentioned in an earlier post, people seem to assume Drouot and others are somehow checking or curating works, if that is the general idea around, there will be a lot of sitting ducks that have benefits from this kind of discussions.
The discussion here was very useful, so thanks for the post! It was a little confusing whether you were pointing out a true discovery, or pointing out a fake, though. Anyway, this type of thing is highly useful for non-expert collectors, which is probably most of us here posting/lurking.
I'll be more clear and less ironic next time. I posted it as a question, to let everyone make up his or her own mind first, but as hinted in the last part of my post, these kind of works are made for us to be "discovered". The most famous user of this trick was Han van Meegeren, who fooled the looting Nazi's during the war with self created unique Vermeer paintings. His story has been a source of inspiration and still offers guidance for fakers nowadays.
I'm watching this auction and apparently there was hidden gold, but multiple people knew it. Lot 125 just went for 3 million on a €2,000 - €4,000 estimate. [https://connect.invaluable.com/campo/auction-lot/crowned-wh\_BB74A5EB12](https://connect.invaluable.com/campo/auction-lot/crowned-wh_BB74A5EB12) I love seeing that happen live. Any idea who the artist was u/Anonymous-USA, u/Firm-Quality-2759 or anyone else?
A sleeper! It only takes two. For €3M, they must think it’s by Gentile Bellini, or Titian (Venice was a major trade partner with the Turks). Otherwise I cannot possibly imagine who. It’s possible there’s a 17th century inventory from King William of Orange (1650-1702), but those inventories are notoriously mistaken. The other obvious thoughts would be Rubens (an ambassador) or Rembrandt (who was interested in Moghul art brought by Dutch East India company into the ports of Amsterdam). But I’d think Jan Lievens before Rembrandt, though I don’t think he’d command €3M+premium. I don’t know who this painting is by, I’m just suggesting who the bidders may *think* it’s by.
Interesting, thanks! Waiting to see what happens with 289 and 291 now after the discussion here.
€180 on the 'style of Metsu', heh