Reevaluation of Old Man with a Gold Chain Portraits
A portrait held in a UK collection, long regarded as a workshop copy of a nearly identical painting by Rembrandt, has been identified by a leading scholar as an original work by the 17th-century Dutch master himself.
Both paintings, titled Old Man with a Gold Chain and dated to the early 1630s, depict a near-lifesize image of an elderly man adorned with a gold chain and a plumed hat.
For the first time in nearly four centuries, the two portraits have been reunited by the Art Institute of Chicago, which owns the panel painting.
The other portrait, slightly smaller and painted on canvas, is loaned by Sir Francis Newman, a Cambridge-based entrepreneur, and has traditionally been labeled as a “copy” produced by an artist from Rembrandt’s workshop.
However, the scholar has concluded that both paintings are by Rembrandt. He cited the exceptional quality of the brushwork and noted that many Dutch artists of the period created replicas of their own works.
In 1699, a French near-contemporary of Rembrandt remarked:
“There is hardly any painter [in the Netherlands] who did not repeat one of his works because he liked it, or because someone asked him to make one exactly the same.”
The expert told :
“It’s just whether or not we will aim to accept that Rembrandt did it. I find it very exciting. It opens up all sorts of possibilities for looking again at many paintings.”
He further explained:
“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. This assumption accounts for the outstanding quality of the canvas.”
X-ray and infrared imaging of the panel painting revealed underdrawings, including adjustments to the man’s costume. Such corrections were absent from the canvas version, the scholar noted:
“If it were a pupil doing it, he would have made slips that the master will have wanted to correct. This one is so exact.”
Newman’s great-grandfather purchased the canvas painting as a Rembrandt in 1898 from the London gallery Agnews for a significant sum.
“So it really was taken very seriously at that time,” the scholar said. However, when the panel painting surfaced in 1912, the canvas version was dismissed by the noted German art historian Wilhelm Bode, who described it as “a clever reproduction.”
The expert, who is scheduled to deliver a lecture on Dutch painting at the National Gallery in London, has authored numerous books on Rembrandt and Dutch art, including a recent volume in Thames & Hudson’s World of Art series.
He criticized Bode’s assessment, stating:
“He offered no serious reasoning for his contention.”
The Newman canvas painting has been publicly exhibited only once before, in 1952, at the Royal Academy in London. The scholar recalled:
“In the catalogue, they called it a Rembrandt original. But experts who visited the exhibition corrected this and, in the Burlington [magazine], there was an article by a leading Dutch art historian who said, this is a studio copy.”
Although many details appeared similar in both works, close examination by researchers in Chicago revealed differences. For example, the eyelashes in the UK painting were created with tiny brushstrokes of light-colored paint, whereas those in the Chicago painting were made by scratching through dark paint while still wet to reveal lighter paint beneath.
A study by the Hamilton Kerr Institute at the University of Cambridge found that the canvas and pigments of the UK version matched those used by Rembrandt and his studio. It also identified the same oil-bound, double-ground layer found in eight Rembrandt paintings dated 1632 and 1633.
The Art Institute of Chicago stated that after reviewing infrared scans, X-rays, and pigment analysis, differences between the two works suggested the UK version was a workshop reproduction. However, they acknowledged that “the conversation about the purpose and authorship of these copies continues to evolve.”
When asked whether he had always believed the painting to be a Rembrandt, Newman said:
“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 added that if it is confirmed as a Rembrandt, the painting will be donated to a museum.
