Support: The panel was constructed from two planks of vertically-grained oak, with the left plank measuring 33 cm wide and the right only 2 cm. Dendrochronological analysis of the panel suggested an earliest possible creation date of 1512 with a more plausible date of 1518 onwards.[1] The wood originated in the Baltic region. Dendrochronology also revealed that the wood came from the same tree as that used for the
Portrait of a Merchant by Jan Gossart (National Gallery, Washington, 1967.4.1).
At some point before entering The Met’s collection, the reverse of the panel was planed down, and a cradle attached. The panel now measures 9 mm thick on average. All four edges of the panel have been planed somewhat, likely during the cradling process. As noted above, the left plank is substantially wider than the narrow plank on the right; however, this disparity does not appear to be the result of any significant re-sizing of the panel.[2] Traces of a bevel are evident on the reverse of the original panel, with less remaining on the reverse of the right side, suggesting that the right plank was marginally wider originally.
Preparation: The panel was coated with a chalk-containing white ground, followed by a lead white priming layer.[3] Infrared reflectography revealed a cursory underdrawing that laid out the basic facial elements and the position of the figure.[4] The underdrawing has a hard crumbly appearance, particularly evident along the left edge of the hat (see fig. 4 above).
Paint Layers: Gossart’s mastery of fine details is on display in this polished portrait. He has described the tiny features around the eyes with astounding precision, including the narrow shadow cast by the upper eyelid and the hint of a highlight on the lower lid (fig. 7). Fleshtones were softly blended, so that individual brushstrokes are usually not discernible with the exception of the minute strokes used to paint the sitter’s stubble. Gossart’s attention to detail extended to the costume where he picked out the hairs of fur at the lining of the robe and the fine points around the white collar. Yet, the pattern of the brocade on the sitter’s proper right sleeve does not exactly follow the folds, flattening the illusion somewhat.
Gossart made one minor alteration to the painting: he initially planned to position the man’s collar slightly higher but did not fully paint it before shifting the collar down, as can be seen in the x-radiograph (fig. 3) and the infrared reflectogram. The initial contour of the collar is somewhat visible as a pentiment.
The paint layers are generally in good condition although there is some evidence of pigment degradation in the man’s blue coat, discussed below, and the dark glazes in his hand are somewhat rubbed. Changes in refractive index due to the normal aging of the paint film have altered the contrast in the dark vest and patterned sleeve, making details difficult to read.
The man’s coat displays a mottled ashy appearance that is likely attributable to material changes in the paint. Under the microscope, the shadows displayed a glassy, blanched appearance, suggesting the presence of a faded red lake pigment. A microscopic cross-section sample was removed adjacent to an area of loss near the bottom of the painting and high-powered microscopic examination combined with Raman spectroscopy identified the pigments used to paint the blue overcoat.[5] Atop the white preparatory layers, the artist applied a paint comprised of a finely divided carbon black and red lake pigments. The upper paint layer was found to be a mixture of ultramarine blue and a red lake pigment with a slightly larger particle size than the red lake used in the lower layer. Examination with high magnification revealed that the red lake in the uppermost layer had begun to fade, with pigment particles towards the top of the layer displaying the most fading, although very large red lake particles retained their color to a greater degree regardless of location within the paint film. While some of the ultramarine particles had a characteristic bright blue hue, others had a grey, translucent appearance. It appears that the ultramarine has lost its color unevenly within this paint layer, contributing to the mottled appearance of the man’s coat. Similar fading of red lake and ultramarine blue paints has been documented in other paintings associated with Gossaert, including a
Virgin and Child in The Met’s collection (
17.190.17) and a
Virgin and Child in a private collection in New York.
Karen Thomas 2009; adapted by Sophie Scully 2024
[1] Wood identification and dendrochronological analysis completed by Dr. Peter Klein, Universität Hamburg, report dated July 27, 2007. The report can be found in the files of the Department of Paintings Conservation. “The youngest heartwood ring was formed out in the year 1501. Regarding the sapwood statistic of Eastern Europe an earliest felling date can be derived for the year 1510, more plausible is a felling date between 1514..1516….1520 +x. With a minimum of 2 years for seasoning an earliest creation of the painting is possible from 1512 upwards. Under the assumption of a median of 15 sapwood rings, a creation is plausible from 1518 upwards.”
[2] Observations about wood construction and later interventions made by Alan Miller, Conservator, and Kristin Holder, Assistant Conservator, July 2024.
[3] Analysis with Raman spectroscopy of a microscopic paint sample was completed by Dr. Silvia Centeno, Research Scientist, Department of Scientific Research; a full report can be found in the conservation file.
[4] Infrared reflectography was acquired with a Merlin Indigo InGaAs near-infrared camera fitted with a StingRay macro lens customized for the wavelengths covered by the camera, 0.9 to 1.7 microns, 2008.
[5] Raman spectroscopy completed by Dr. Silvia Centeno, Research Scientist, Department of Scientific Research.