The Mauritshuis recently presented the results of its research on three paintings in its collection that have once been purchased as Rembrandts, but which have been strongly called into question: Portrait of Rembrandt with a Gorget (ca. 1629), Study of an Old Man (ca. 1655-1660) and ‘Tronie’ of an Old Man (ca. 1630). All three were subjected to close examination at the museum’s conservation workshop, where conservation work was also performed on two of them. The research revealed a wealth of new information, including on the attribution of the paintings.
The Mauritshuis is devoting a presentation in the museum to the project, entitled Rembrandt?, which can be seen in room 10 until 13 July 2025.
Rembrandt van Rijn (studio copy), Portrait of Rembrandt (1606-1669) with a Gorget, ca. 1629
Portrait of Rembrandt with a Gorget
Portrait of Rembrandt with a Gorget was acquired by Stadtholder William V in 1768. For years, the painting was regarded as an absolute highlight of Rembrandt’s oeuvre, a self-portrait painted at a young age. A second version of the painting is housed at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg. Until 25 years ago, that painting was believed to have been a copy. It all started with the discovery of an underdrawing beneath the paint layers . Nothing like that had ever been seen before in a work by Rembrandt. This prompted further investigation, and it was eventually found that this piece is the copy, and the painting in Nuremberg turned out to be the original by Rembrandt himself. Now, the painting has been restored and re-examined, and the conclusion that the version of the Mauritshuis is a copy was confirmed.
Rembrandt (studio), Study of an Old Man, ca. 1655-60
Study of an Old Man
For many years, there were doubts about who painted Study of an Old Man (ca. 1655-1660). The poor condition of the piece, with lots of discoloured overpainting, kept its secrets hidden. But it has now been examined and restored for the Rembrandt? project.
The interesting thing is that the painting features a signature, Rembrandt f [‘Rembrandt fecit’, ‘made by Rembrandt ‘], that is almost certainly genuine. It was applied when the paint was still wet, and the handwriting is definitely Rembrandt’s. However, in the seventeenth century it was not unusual for a master to sign the work of a student (which meant it was more likely to sell).
Now that conservation work has been performed on the painting, experts have concluded that the execution of the painting is not convincing. In paintings by Rembrandt, every brushstroke is just right, but that is not the case here. The work appears ‘awkward’, as if a student had done their best to imitate the master. The eyes are patchy, and the nose is not clearly defined. In the lower layers, there are thick lines along the man’s chin, a correction in the painting process. It may have been Rembrandt himself correcting the work of his student. The conclusion is that his work was made by someone employed by Rembrandt.
Rembrandt van Rijn (?), ‘Tronie’ of an Old Man, ca. 1630
Mauritshuis, The Hague
‘Tronie’ of an Old Man
The experts also had doubts about ‘Tronie’ of an Old Man (ca. 1630). In the past, some have attributed it to Rembrandt, only for this to be called into question later. The research has shown that the panel on which the character study (or ‘tronie’) is painted is from the same tree as two paintings we know to have been painted by Rembrandt. So it is highly likely that this panel was painted at Rembrandt’s studio.
An x-ray revealed that the painter made changes during the painting process. This does not usually happen in a copy. The brushwork is somewhat coarse, the red highlights in the man’s eye are not usually seen in ‘real’ Rembrandts, and the brushstrokes are imprecise, but there are elements that are high-quality, such as the convincing way the cap is positioned on the man’s head. The background turned out to have been overpainted with paint that Rembrandt did not use in this early period. The overpainted background cannot, however, be removed using current techniques, so it is not possible to draw any definitive conclusions. The provisional conclusion is that this could be by a student or employee of Rembrandt’s, or by the master himself.