© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 2 of 12

Self-Portrait

1643

Govaert Flinck(Kleve 1615 – 1660 Amsterdam)oil on panel
73.1 x 53.5 cm
signed and dated in brown paint along left sideof narrow horizontally oriented lower plank:“G.flinck.f.1643”
GF-103Currently on view at: The National Museum ofChina, Beijing

How To Cite
Van Tuinen, Ilona. "Self-Portrait." In The Leiden Collection Catalogue. Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.
New York, 2017.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/.
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 3 of 12

With a posture and expression that exude status and youthful self-

Comparative Figures

confidence, Govaert Flinck painted himself in 1643, at age twenty-eight,
facing slightly to the right with his right arm leaning on a brown ledge andhis eyes directed straight at the viewer. He wears a gold-trimmed velvet
mantle over a low-cut jerkin, and a white, high-collared vest whose frillededges are visible below his neck and at his wrist. His shoulder-length,
ginger-colored hair flows out from under his velvet beret. Around his neck,partially concealed by his mantle, hangs a chain.

Fig 1. Detail of Govaert
Flinck, GF-103, showing the
brocade and collar

Flinck’s assuredness of execution is comparable to that of his appearance.
He modeled the face with bold, patchy brushstrokes, while accenting his
proper right cheek and the rim of his nose with pink highlights. He provided
a warm, rich tone for the hair, the moustache, and the area around his
proper left eye by allowing the ocher-colored ground to remain exposed.
Flinck executed the brocaded trim of his mantle with bravura, generously
dappling the upper right shoulder with yellow and white highlights, while
merely outlining the shaded areas of trim in yellow, with only an occasional
additional highlight (fig 1).
At the time Flinck executed this painting, he had been an independent
artist for about eight years and already had enjoyed considerable successas a portrait painter in Amsterdam. In contrast to Rembrandt van Rijn
(1606–69), with whom he had studied around 1634–35, Flinck painted
only two autonomous self-portraits in his career: this one and one dated

Fig 2. Govaert Flinck, SelfPortrait in Uniform, 1643, black
chalk and gray wash on paper,
255 x 180 mm, Stiftung Weimarer
Klassik und Kunstsammlungen,Weimar, inv. KK 4947

1639 in the National Gallery, London.[1] He also drew his self-portrait in
1643 (fig 2).[2] As scholars have frequently noted, Flinck based hiscompelling 1643 Self-Portrait on two of Rembrandt’s self-portraits: his
etched Self-Portrait Leaning on a Stone Sill of 1639 (fig 3) and his painted
1640 Self-Portrait at the Age of 34 at the National Gallery, London (fig4).[3] Rembrandt’s iconic and highly innovative self-portraits, which also
inspired several self-portraits by other Rembrandt students, show him
leaning on a wall with one arm and looking directly at the viewer.[4] In
creating these works, Rembrandt drew inspiration from Raphael’s Portraitof Baldassare Castiglione of ca. 1514–15 and Titian’s Portrait ofGerolamo (?) Barbarigo of ca. 1510, both of which were in Amsterdam in
1639 in the collection of Alfonzo Lopez.[5] Nevertheless, in each instance,
Rembrandt portrayed himself in fanciful early sixteenth-century Northern
European fashion, known to him through the prints by Lucas van Leyden(1494–1533)

andAlbrecht

Dürer(1471–1528),

among

Fig 3. Rembrandt van Rijn, SelfPortrait Leaning on a Stone Sill,
1639, etching, 200 x 164 mm,
British Museum, London, Malcolm
Collection, inv. PD
1895-9-15-411, © Trustees of the
British Museum

others.[6]© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 4 of 12

Rembrandt thus firmly placed himself in a tradition of great local andinternational artists. As a newly established painter, Flinck was no doubt
drawn to his master’s models for their bold self-representation.
Flinck based the diagonal slant of his beret on Rembrandt’s etched selfportrait, but, following Rembrandt’s painting, he positioned himself facing
right. As in the master’s self-portraits, Flinck portrayed himself wearing ashirt with conspicuous frills and a jerkin, both which reflect early sixteenthcentury fashion.[7] Unlike Rembrandt, however, he did not depict himself
wearing a cross hanging from the gold chain around his neck. Such across would have been anathema to Flinck who, in the early 1640s, had
important contacts among the Amsterdam Anabaptist elite. He would later
become a member of the Remonstrant community.[8]Fig 4. Rembrandt van Rijn, SelfPortrait at Age 34, 1640, oil oncanvas, 102 x 80 cm, National
Gallery, London, inv. no.
NG672, © National Gallery,
London / Art Resource, NY

When the painting was auctioned at Christie’s in London in 1943, it waspresented with a presumed pendant, which was separated after theauction, and emerged from a private Munich collection in 2015 (fig 5).[9]The pair was attributed to Rembrandt, one thought to be a self-portrait andthe other a portrait of his wife, Saskia.[10] After the 1943 auction, Flinck’s
signature was discovered on the present painting during a conservation
treatment, and in 1953 it was exhibited in London as a Portrait ofRembrandt by Flinck.[11] In 1980 Bas Dudok van Heel recognized Flinck’s
likeness by comparing the image to the artist’s self-portrait in his 1648
group portrait Civic Guardsmen of the Company of Captain Joan
[12]

Huydecoper and Lieutenant Frans van Waveren .

He also identified thefemale sitter in the presumed pendant as Flinck’s wife, Ingetje Thovelingh

Fig 5. Govaert Flinck, Portrait of a
Woman (Ingetje Thovelingh?), ca.
1645, oil on panel, 71 x 52 cm,
formerly private collection, Munich(ca. 1620–51), whom the artist married in 1645. Since the female portrait
is no longer considered to be an intended pendant of the present painting,the identification of Flinck’s wife no longer seems plausible.[13]The painting today looks quite different than it did in 1985, when it was
auctioned at Sotheby’s in London.[14] At that time Flinck’s mantle and beretwere black. When the painting was restored in 1986–87, the uppermost
black layer was determined to be a later addition and it was removed,
leaving the burgundy undermodeling over a freely executed black sketchthat is visible today.[15] Subsequently, when Dutch conservator Peter
Hermesdorf examined the painting in 1988, he concluded that the mantle
and beret were “unfinished.”[16] However, since the brocade, which lies on

Fig 6. X-radiograph of GF-103

top of the mantle, is quite finished in appearance, and since traces of black© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 5 of 12

paint are visible under the brocade, it seems unlikely that the painting is
unfinished. This conclusion is further reinforced by the finished state of theface and hair. Hence, it is quite likely that the mantle and beret wereoriginally black, and that this paint layer was removed at some earlier
date.[17]Many questions also surround the character of the painting’s panel
support, which consists of four planks of Baltic oak, three vertically grained
planks and one horizontally grained plank across the bottom of thepainting (fig 6). A fundamental question, which has not been satisfactorily
resolved, is whether the bottom, horizontal plank, which extends theparapet on which the sitter’s arm rests, was original to Flinck’s
composition or added later. A copy of the painting, which was with theLondon art dealer Ronald Cook in the mid-1970s, and which depicts thesitter with a black beret and black mantle, does not include this lower
portion of the painting (fig 7).[18] This fact, along with some technicalFig 7. After Govaert Flinck, SelfPortrait of Govaert Flinck,
unknown date, oil on panel, 69.8 x
52 cm, formerly with Ronald
Cook, London, 1975 (photo: takenfrom an RKD (Rijksbureau voor
Kunsthistorische
Documentatie/Netherlands
Institute for Art History) photo
mount)

evidence, seems to suggest that the horizontal plank was not part of theoriginal panel construction.[19] On the other hand, the signature and date,
which are on this lower portion of the painting, appear to be old and areconsistent with those on Flinck’s 1643 drawing Self-Portrait in
Uniform (see (fig 2)).
Another question about the panel support concerns its arched top. The
copy of the painting has a rectangular format, which was also the originalformat of the Rembrandt self-portraits that inspired Flinck when making
this work.[20] Hence, it seems probable that the arched top was a later
revision to the painting. At the time the painting’s shape was changed, thebackground was apparently overpainted.[21] The current greenish layer,
which covers a more freely brushed background paint, extends over the
curved upper edge of the panel.[22]Regardless of the painting’s complex and confusing display of various
paint stages and later additions, the areas around Flinck’s face, shirt, andbrocaded trim demonstrate his impressive abilities as an artist. Moreover,the lush, fluid undermodeling in the beret and mantle provide a uniqueinsight into his painting practice.
-Ilona van Tuinen© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 6 of 12

Endnotes
1. Self-Portrait Aged 24, 1639, oil on panel, 65.8 x 54.4 cm, signed and dated, bottom right, “G.
Flinck 1639,” National Gallery, London, inv. NG4068.
2. See Werner Sumowski, Drawings of the Rembrandt School , 10 vols. (New York, 1979–92),
4:1896–97, no. 867.
3. This observation has already been made in Rembrandt’s Influence in the 17th Century (Exh.
cat. London, Matthiesen Gallery) (London, 1953), 32, no. 33. See also David Bomford, ed.,Rembrandt: Art in the Making (Exh. cat. London, National Gallery) (London, 1988), 82.
4. For a Self-Portrait by Ferdinand Bol in the Leiden Collection inspired after these same
Rembrandt compositions, see FB-107.
5. Titian, Portrait of Gerolamo (?) Barbarigo , ca. 1510, oil on canvas, 81.2 x 66.3 cm, National
Gallery, London, inv. NG1944 (thought in Rembrandt’s time to be a portrait of the poet
Lodovico Ariosto). Raphael, Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, ca. 1514–15, oil on canvas,
82 x 67 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris, inv. 611. See Peter Schatborn, “Rembrandt: SelfPortrait Leaning on a Stone Wall,” in Rembrandt by Himself, ed. Christopher White andQuentin Buvelot (Exh. cat. London, National Gallery; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (London and
The Hague, 1999–2000), 170–72, no. 53.
6. For an in-depth discussion of the clothing in Rembrandt’s 1639 and 1640 self-portraits, seeMarieke de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings(Amsterdam, 2006), esp. 175–79.
7. See Marieke de Winkel, Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings(Amsterdam, 2006), 176: this type of jerkin was called a paltrock; the smockwork and frills at
the neck of the shirt were typical of fashion during the first thirty years of the sixteenth
century.
8. For Flinck’s Anabaptist clients and his own joining of the Remonstrant community in 1651,
the year in which his wife died, see the artist’s biography in this catalogue. For the
discussion of chains in Rembrandt’s self-portraits, see Marieke de Winkel, Fashion andFancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings (Amsterdam, 2006), 168–69. De
Winkel notes that chains worn around the shoulders were part of the “historicizing costumethat was based on fashionable dress at the beginning of the sixteenth century.”
9. See the auction catalogue of Sotheby’s London, 9 December 2015, no. 31. The female
portrait was exhibited in 1992, when it was with a private Swedish collector. See Bo
Lundström, “Govert Flinck: Dam i fantasidräkt,” in Rembrandt och hans tid, ed. Görel CavalliBjörkman (Exh. cat. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum) (Stockholm, 1992), 258, no. 87.
10. See the auction catalogue of Christie’s London, 16 July 1943, nos. 106–7.
© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 7 of 12

11. See the note provided by Noortman Master Paintings, on file at the Leiden Collection, in
which they mention a restoration after the 1943 auction. It is not known where and by whom
this restoration took place, but it must have taken place between 1943 and 1953, the year inwhich the painting was exhibited as being by Flinck. See Rembrandt’s Influence in the
17th Century (Exh. cat. London, Matthiesen Gallery) (London, 1953), no. 33.
12. Civic Guardsmen of the Company of Captain Joan Huydecoper and Lieutenant Frans van
Waveren, 1648, oil on canvas, 265 x 513 cm, Amsterdam Museum, inv. no. SA 7318. See
Bas Dudok van Heel, “Enkele portretten à l’antique door Rembrandt, Bol, Flinck en Backer,”
Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 32 (1980): 216 n. 7.
13. See the discussion in the auction catalogue of Sotheby’s London, 9 December 2015, no. 31.
14. See the sales catalogue, Sotheby’s, London, 11 December 1985, no. 62.
15. The painting was acquired by Colnaghi at a sale at Sotheby’s, London, on 11 December
1985, no. 62. At the time of the auction, the mantle and beret were still black. In early 1987,
while the painting was with Colnaghi, it was restored by Robert Shepherd, who noted thatthe black paint extended over areas of paint loss and was soluble. Toward the end of therestoration, conservation scientist Nicholas Eastaugh was called in to examine the painting
to take selective paint samples. My thanks to Tim Warner Johnson at Colnaghi forforwarding to me, in November 2011, Eastaugh’s report, dated 10 February 1987; to Simon
Howell at RMS Shepherd Associates (Shepherd Conservation Ltd.) in Wimbledon forsending me Robert Shepherd’s full report, dated 31 July 1986, along with an X-radiograph,infrared image, and three photographs taken before and after cleaning; and to Nicholas
Eastaugh for communicating his thoughts in November 2011. Both reports and thephotographs are on file at the Leiden Collection.
16. Thanks to Eddy Schavemaker, e-mail correspondence in November 2011, for informing methat the painting had been examined by Hermesdorf in 1988 while with Noortman Old
Master Paintings. Thanks to Tom van der Molen for consulting Hermesdorf’s (incomplete)restoration report at the RKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie/Netherlands
Institute for Art History), and for making note of Hermesdorf’s letter to Noortman, dated 23
December 1988, stating: “Het bijzondere van dit schilderij is, dat het niet voltooid werd, metname in de mantel en de baret.”
17. It is not possible to determine when this black layer was removed, although certainly prior to
its restoration in 1986–87 (see note 13). Another possibility is that some or all of the black
paint that was removed in 1986–87 was, in fact, original.
18. This copy after Flinck’s Self-Portrait was with the London art dealer Ronald Cook in 1975.
Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler in vier Bänden , 6 vols. (Landau,
1983), 6:3608, wrote in his “Corrigenda et Addenda” that the present Self-Portrait was withart dealer Bruno Meissner in Zurich after the 1985 auction at Sotheby’s, where, during a very
careful restoration, all the paint came off the panel. Sumowski suggested that the painting© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 8 of 12

was a nineteenth-century copy and that the original is still missing. Sumowski most likely
confused the present painting with the Cook painting, as the Leiden Collection Self-Portrait
was never with Bruno Meissner. Some years earlier, Sumowski had listed the Cook copy inhis discussion of the Self-Portrait, and described it as having a straight top. See Sumowski,
2:1035, no. 680, 1112. See also Ariane van Suchtelen, “Govert Flinck: Self-Portrait Aged
24,” in Rembrandt by Himself, ed. Christopher White and Quentin Buvelot (Exh. cat. London,
National Gallery; The Hague, Mauritshuis) (London and The Hague, 1990), 254 n. 310, who
adopts Sumowski’s suggestion that Flinck’s original Self-Portrait was destroyed.
19. See the reports by Robert Shepherd, dated 31 July 1986, and Nicholas Eastaugh, dated 10
February 1987, on file at The Leiden Collection. Eastaugh noted that the pigment samples
taken from the horizontal plank were inconsistent with those taken from the rest of thepainting. It is, however, not clear whether later retouching plays a role in these results. See
also the Technical Summary for this work, in which Annette Rupprecht notes that the paint of
the sleeve that extends onto the horizontal panel demonstrates a different kind oftransparency in the infrared than the paint above the join. Dendrochronological analysis of
the painting has not clarified this problem. The painting was researched by Peter Klein,
report dated 16 September 1988, and by Ian Tyers, report dated November 2012, copies ofwhich are on file at The Leiden Collection. Both Klein and Tyers dated the youngest year ringof the middle plank of the three vertical boards of the main panel to 1627. Tyers did notanalyze the bottom strip due to the horizontal grain (too few year rings). Based on thesignature and date, Klein suggested that the bottom part was added within at most five yearsof 1643.
20. For a discussion of the change in format of the canvas with Rembrandt’s 1640 self-portraitfrom rectangular to arched, see David Bomford, ed., “Rembrandt: Self-Portrait at the Age of34,” in Rembrandt: Art in the Making (Exh. cat. London, National Gallery) (London, 1988),
82.
21. According to the report of conservation scientist Nicholas Eastaugh, dated 10 February
1987, on file at the Leiden Collection. Eastaugh writes that the upper layer is definitely not
original since it is “continuous with various alterations such as the black areas, but the lower
layer appears to be early.” Eastaugh also writes that the ruff and shirt frill “extend […] overclear areas of paint loss” and concluded that these areas are not original. Annette
Rupprecht, however, did not find any evidence of this during visual examination of the ruff
under magnification and under UV light. Indeed, the handling of the paint in the areas ofwhite, for example, the shirt, appears to be entirely comparable to the handling of the paint in
the undoubtedly original areas of the face and hair.
22. John Twilley, independent conservation scientist in Hawthorne, New York, noted that theedges of the upper part of the panel are jagged. He also noted the curved lines above and to
the right of Flinck’s head, which extend to the upper edge of the panel and suggest that the© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 9 of 12

format may in fact once have been taller. See the notes dated 1 December 2011 by thepresent author of a meeting held at the Leiden Collection on 18 November 2011, kept on fileat the Leiden Collection, and the X-radiograph. See also the Technical Summary by Annette
Rupprecht, who notes that it is unclear whether these curved lines were made in the groundor the lower paint layers. The lines, which appear to have been applied with a blunt object ora finger, do not correspond to any elements in the background in its current state.

Provenance
Sir Berkeley Digby George Sheffield (1876–1946), 6th Baronet, Nomanby Hall, Flixborough,
Lincolnshire (sale, Christie’s, London, 16 July 1943, no. 106, as a Self-Portrait byRembrandt [to Edward Speelman, London for £315]).
Sir Charles Clore (1904–79), London (his sale, Sotheby’s, London, 11 December 1985, no.
62 [to Colnaghi, London; Noortman Gallery, Maastricht and London, 1988]).
Private collection, The Netherlands [Noortman Gallery, Maastricht and London, 2007].
From whom acquired by the present owner in 2007.

Exhibition History
London, Matthiesen Gallery, “Rembrandt’s Influence in the 17th Century,” 20 February–2
April 1953, no. 33 [lent by a private collector (Sir Charles Clore?)].
Charlottesville, The University of Virginia, The Fralin Museum of Art, “A Portrait of the Artist,
1525–1825,” 30 January–7 June 2015 [lent by the present owner].
Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve, “Govert Flinck–Reflecting History,” 4 October 2015–17
January 2016, no. 12 [lent by the present owner].
Beijing, National Museum of China, “Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection,” 17 June–3 September 2017 [lent by the present owner].

References
Rembrandt’s Influence in the 17th Century . Exh. cat. London, Matthiesen Gallery. London,
1953, 32, no. 33.
© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 10 of 12

MacLaren, N. The Dutch School. National Gallery Catalogues. London, 1960, 321–22 n. 7.
Van Hall, H. Portretten van Nederlandse Beeldende Kunstenaars . Amsterdam, 1963,
273–74, no. 112.
Von Moltke, J. W. Govaert Flinck (1615–1660). Amsterdam, 1965, 26, 157, no. 434, plate
48.
Linnik, Irina. Gollandskaia zhivopisʹ XVII veka i problemy atributskii kartin . Leningrad, 1980,
127, fig. 163.
Dudok van Heel, S. A. C. “Enkele portretten à l’antique door Rembrandt, Bol, Flinck en
Backer.” Kroniek van het Rembrandthuis 32 (1980): 6.
Dudok van Heel, S. A. C. “Het Schilderhuis van Govert Flinck en de kunsthandel van
Uylenburgh aan de Lauriergracht te Amsterdam.” Jaarboek Amstelodamum 74 (1982): 72.
Bruyn, J. “Boekbespreking A. Blankert, Ferdinand Bol (1616–1680), Rembrandt’s Pupil ,Doornspijk 1982.” Oud-Holland 97 (1983): 216 n. 7.
Sumowski, Werner. Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler in vier Bänden . 6 vols. Landau, 1983,
2:1035, no. 680, 1112; 6:3608.
Bomford, David, ed. Rembrandt: Art in the Making . Exh. cat. London, National Gallery.
London, 1988, 82.
Lundström, Bo. “Govert Flinck: Dam i fantasidräkt.” In Rembrandt och Hans Tid. Edited byGörel Cavalli-Björkman. Exh. cat. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum. Stockholm, 1992, 258, fig.
87a.
Chong, Alan, and Wieseman, Marjorie. “De figuurschilderkunst in Dordrecht.” In De
Zichtbaere Werelt: Schilderkunst uit de Gouden Eeuw in Hollands oudste stad. Edited byPeter Marijnissen. Exh. cat. Dordrecht, Dordrechts Museum. Zwolle, 1992, 29 n. 51.
Van Suchtelen, Ariane. “Govert Flinck: Self-Portrait Aged 24.” In Rembrandt byHimself. Edited by Christopher White and Quentin Buvelot. Exh. cat. London, National
Gallery; The Hague, Mauritshuis. London and The Hague, 1999–2000, 254, n. 310.
Van der Molen, Tom. “How Nature Fears the Painter Who Gave Life to His Canvases:
Poems on the Life and Work of Govert Flinck.” In Govert Flinck–Reflecting History. Editedby Tom van der Molen and Valentina Vlasic. Exh. cat. Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve,
2015, 38.
Gottwald, Franziska. “Tronies in Govert Flinck’s Oeuvre–Fantasy Portrayal versus Mimetic
Representation.” In Govert Flinck–Reflecting History. Edited by Tom van der Molen andValentina Vlasic. Exh. cat. Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve, 2015, 55, 59.
Van der Molen, Tom, and Vlasic, Valentina. Govert Flinck–Reflecting History. Exh. cat.
Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve, 2015, 97, 132, no. 12.
Vlasic, Valentina. “Focus Flinck: Observations on the Collection’s History, the Oeuvre andthe Exhibition.” In Govert Flinck–Reflecting History. Edited by Tom van der Molen and© 2017 The Leiden CollectionSelf-Portrait
Page 11 of 12

Valentina Vlasic. Exh. cat. Kleve, Museum Kurhaus Kleve. Kleve, 2015, 93.

Technical Summary
The support is a composite panel composed of four planks of Baltic oak: three vertically grainedand vertically oriented planks that form a rectangular shape with an arched upper edge and one
narrow horizontally grained and horizontally oriented rectangular plank attached to the lower
edges of the three vertical planks.[1] Fine diagonal tool marks along the composite panel reverse
indicate it was thinned prior to being cradled. Traces of a horizontal bevel remain along the lower
edge of the outer two vertical planks, where they join the horizontal plank. There is one label but
no wax collection seals, import stamps, stencils, or panel maker’s marks.
A light-colored ground has been thinly and evenly applied. A series of semicircular archedshapes inscribed into the ground or lower paint layers above and to the right of the figure’s head
do not relate to the plain green background.
During a 1987 restoration treatment in London, the black paint along the figure’s jacket and cap
was found to be soluble and removed. A red transparent underlayer, applied with loose
brushwork in a sketchy manner allowing the light-colored ground to show through, was revealed.
In contrast, the figure’s face is executed with opaque paint with a high level of finish, and areasof detail along the brocade border of the jacket’s edge have been applied in low impasto.
In 1988, scientific analysis of the green paint along the plain background determined it was
restoration. Additional analysis of paint cross-sections taken from the horizontally oriented lower
plank, which bears a “G.flinck.f.1643” signature and date in brown paint along the left side,suggested the paint was not a part of the original structure of the painting. Dendrochronology
undertaken at the time concluded the earliest use date of the central vertical plank is 1638 and amore plausible first use date is 1642. It was reasoned that since the lower horizontal plank bears
the signature and a 1643 date, the lower plank was either part of the original composite panel orapplied at most five years later.[2]No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers. The
images reveal that the red paint along the elbow and sleeve on the narrow horizontally oriented
lower plank does not have the same transparency as the red paint along the sleeve on thevertically oriented plank above the panel join. In the X-radiograph, the figure’s proper left arm
appears to have been shifted closer to the torso during the paint stage.
The painting has not undergone conservation treatment since its acquisition in 2007. The
painting is in a good state of preservation. It is presented with a combination of exposed
underlayers and restoration, and may be an unfinished work.

Technical Summary Endnotes© 2017 The Leiden CollectionPowered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Self-Portrait
Page 12 of 12

1. The identification of wood is based on dendrochronology reports by Peter Klein, dated 16
September 1988, and Ian Tyers, dated November 2012.
2. According to the GF-103 technical report by Nicholas Eastaugh, dated 10 February 1987,
and Peter Klein’s dendrochronology report of 1988.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection