Rembrandt's lost twin: is uk portrait a master fake?

For nearly four centuries, a portrait hanging in a UK collection was considered little more than a workshop copy of a Rembrandt. Now, a leading Rembrandt scholar argues both paintings are the work of the 17th-century master, a revelation that could rewrite art history.

New analysis suggests paintings are by rembrandt

The two near-lifesize portraits, both titled “Old Man with a Gold Chain” and dated to the early 1630s, depict an older man adorned with a gold chain and plumed hat. The Art Institute of Chicago owns the accepted version, painted on a wooden panel. The other, smaller canvas, loaned from Cambridge entrepreneur Sir Francis Newman, was long dismissed as a studio creation. But Gary Schwartz, a renowned Rembrandt expert, contends both works are original Rembrandts – a claim that challenges established art historical consensus.

Schwartz’s analysis, published in a forthcoming talk at the National Gallery in London, centers on the quality of the brushwork and historical context. He points to a common practice among Dutch masters of the period: creating replicas of their own successful paintings. “If Rembrandt had a customer for this ‘attractive Old Man,’ what would be the most efficient way to fulfill the demand?” Schwartz asks. “Assigning it to a pupil, whose work would have required correction, or re-enacting the steps he had already taken?” He posits the latter, given the apparent lack of corrections in the Newman painting, as the more logical approach. The level of detail, particularly in the canvas and pigment analysis, supports this assertion.

X-ray and infrared imaging of the Chicago portrait revealed underdrawings indicative of adjustments to the subject's costume – alterations absent in the Newman version, a detail Schwartz finds compelling. While the Art Institute of Chicago’s own analysis, including pigment matching and oil-bound layering, initially suggested a workshop copy, Schwartz argues that the evidence points to a deliberate, skillful creation by Rembrandt himself.

The Newman painting’s history is itself intriguing. Purchased in 1898 from London's Agnews for a significant sum, it was once considered a genuine Rembrandt, but was later deemed a “clever reproduction” by the influential German art historian Wilhelm Bode in 1912. A 1952 exhibition at the Royal Academy in London labeled it a Rembrandt original, a designation later questioned by Dutch art historians.

The discovery hinges on subtle differences. While both portraits share striking similarities, closer examination revealed variations in the technique used to render the eyelashes – tiny, light-colored brushstrokes in the UK version versus scratched-out dark paint in the Chicago painting. However, a study by the Hamilton Kerr Institute confirmed the UK version’s canvas and pigments matched those used by Rembrandt and his workshop, revealing a double-ground layer common in his works from 1632 and 1633.

Sir Francis Newman, who has long viewed the painting as a mystery, says he’s enjoyed the ambiguity.