after a little more searching via google i now finally realise that the crude reproduction published by fremont barnes is actually of the painting discussed by robinson and illustrated by him in b w on page i have not discovered where the painting is now it is however available in variable colour on at least two internet sites here and here what is odd is that fremont barnes has reversed the sense in his reproduction which confused me for a while on page robinson states that he has little doubt that this is the version kirkall used kirkall's mezzotint is in the reverse sense of the original it is perfectly obvious that although this original may not have been painted by the younger van de velde and certainly not by the elder it was equally certainly not painted by peter monamy this is a very disagreeable and unpleasant discussion i realise that your inadequate research is being exposed and i'm sorry it upsets you i recommend that you take a good look at robinson's opus he is far more reliable than the sources you quote and that includes callender who perpetrated a number of incredible howlers in his writings