HomeBookCommentsAuthorBookMarksCD and TapeSpeakerStoreToy BrokerContactAnna's ProjectAnna's SongAnna's TV Video
 
●   Rare Dutch lost Old Master Oil Painting Dated 1633   ●


   
Netherlands

                                      
Lost Old Master oil Painting, Little Anna,1633                                           Seated Woman Holding a Fan,1648-50
              
Frans Hals (1584-1666)                                                                              Frans Hals (1584-1666)
             Anonymous Owner, Texas                                                                  Taft Museum of Art, Cincinnati, Ohio
     Oil on wood panel, 27.178 x 19.05 cm                                                           Oil on canvas, 109.5 x 82.5 cm
 

Research Analysis
Prepared by GloTag® Press
copyright 2006

Little Anna (1633)

Glotag® Press was commissioned to research this rare old painting, because there have been many opinions as to whether or not it was a later copy of the Taft Museum of Art's Seated Woman holding a Fan (1648-50). Even Frans Hals' monogram had been questioned.  There are experts in every science. Some experts are quick to judge, and sometimes accidentally miss the call.  In the Art World, this is not uncommon, as our research has indicated.  Glotag® Press spent two  years, and thousands of dollars to solve this Art World mystery.  One of the most important finds that came out of the project is that the research team  was able to determine the names of the sitters in at least four of Frans Hals' 1600s paintings.  That is like discovering who the sitter was for the Mona Lisa! 

►►►Soon to be released is the true story of little Anna and her travels.   Anna's Song, The Young Girl Thought to be a Queen, Cries from the Grave, GloTag® Press, 2006 . It is a story of rejection, intrigue, murder, politics, war, gold, greed, sex, and, for a while, she was thought to be Royalty.

********

Exhibit #1, Face comparison:

In the comparison of Little Anna (1633), and the Seated Woman Holding  a Fan, (1648-50), referred to in this report as (Big Anna), the two paintings are very similar, but have some very important aspects that are totally different.

●Little Anna is about 9 to 12 years old, and Big Anna is about 23 to 27 years old.
●This accounts for the difference in the dates of 1633, on Little Anna’s portrait, and 1648-50 estimated date on Big Anna’s portrait.

                      
Little
Anna (1633)                                       Big Anna (1648-50)

                                          
                                                                
          Seated Woman Holding a Fan
                                                                                                       Taft Museum of Art, Cincinnati, Ohio

********

Exhibit #2 The Monogram:

Over his lifetime, Hals varied his monogram much like many artists. We have observed different variations of his monogram.

The letters in the monogram are so small in Little Anna’s portrait, it appears the tip of his brush put too much cap on the left of the first F. It definitely has the middle protrusion of the F towards the stylized H.

In some of Hals’ monograms, he failed to connect the F to the H. Our study shows that on his FH or FHF monograms, he did the horizontal top and bottom of the letters, then he put in the vertical part. His last stroke was to connect the F to the H. He often did not connect the F and the H.

It appeared that the importance and social status of the sitter often determined the perfection of the monogram.  (see analysis at end of report)
       

********

Exhibit #3 The Chair:

●Little Anna’s chair is quite obvious, and is shown on both sides of Little Anna.

●The chair is not shown in the Taft Pendant Portrait of Big Anna.

Two reasons: Our research team believes that, as an older young lady, she may have felt that the chair, and its design, was not in vogue. The painting at the Taft may have been altered, after it arrived at the Taft’s Collection. It could also have been done at one of the dealers, after the Talbot’s sale.

             Little Anna (1633)                                        Big Anna (1648-50)

                                   

********

Exhibit #4 The Hands and Jewelry:

●It was the custom, in some circles, at the time, that a grown woman’s hand jewelry most commonly consisted of just two rings.

●Little Anna has only (1) one ring, and Big Anna has (2) two rings.

Big Anna definitely shows a gold bracelet on her right wrist, and on Little Anna’s right wrist, we see a green ribbon.

●Little Anna shows a green bow.

●Big Anna shows a silver metallic bow.

                           Little Anna (1633)                                       Big Anna (1648-50)

                    
Exhibit #5 The Dress:    Right Sleeve  Left Sleeve:  See above photographs

●The inner part of the right sleeve is light colored on Little Anna’s portrait, and on the inner part of the Taft’s Pendant Portrait, the sleeve shows definite shadowing to emphasize the hands. This may have been done by Hals, or may have been the result of the painter who altered the Taft Pendants.

●The lace on Little Anna’s left sleeve shows Hals’ patented treatment of lace. The Pendant Portrait shows more of a closed effect, and is a totally different style of lace.

●Little Anna’s left sleeve shows Hals’ painting characteristics of black, soft folded material. This is less evident in the Pendant Portrait.

********

Lower Under-dress:

●The lower part of Little Anna’s under-dress shows a completely different pattern from that of Big Anna’s dress.

This is an indication of completely different materials and style.

●Big Anna’s under-dress shows a more rich color, in line with the gold thread work on her bodice.

The dresses are similar, but definitely two different styles.

                       Little Anna (1633)                                   Big Anna (1648-50)

                    

********

Exhibit #6 The Bodice:

Little Anna’s bodice, compared to the Pendant Portrait, again is totally different, yet similar in style.

Little Anna’s bodice shows distinctive red and green stone or thread work.

Big Anna’s bodice is primarily heavy gold thread.
 

                                      Little Anna (1633)                                           Big Anna (1648-50)

               
  
                       

         ********         
     
Exhibit #7 The Bonnet:

●The hairpiece or bonnet on Little Anna shows Hals’ three dimensional effect at the peak at her forehead.

Big Anna has a flat or silkboard style bonnet that contains a hint of black lace on the top of the left forehead.

In Little Anna’s headpiece, one can see the excellent work of Hals’ techniques in detail, showing the see-through lace, with the black ribs flowing back to cover her hair bun. This is not seen in the Pendant Portrait.

 

                           Little Anna, 1633                                     Big Anna, 1648-50
                                        

       Exhibit #8 The Metal Buttons on the Bonnet:   See pictures above

The gold metallic buttons on Little Anna’s bonnet show the super fine detail that is a Frans Hals trademark, shown in many of his paintings.

●The buttons appear to go completely around the bun.

●Little Anna's hair is very light, and shows to darken with age.

●The gold and pearl earrings for Little Anna and Big Anna appear to be the same.

A lady likes to keep her nice gold earrings for special occasions.

Exhibit #9 The White Shawl: See above picture

●Little Anna’s shawl: there is less starch in the fold at the back of the neck. This shows Hals' techniques of using lights and darks to project softness.

********

Exhibit #10 The Lips:

●On little Anna’s portrait, the lips are painted to appear that they are that of a child.

●On the Pendant Portrait, they are that of a grown up young lady.

The research team calls this another example of the Frans Hals magic.

Little Anna, 1633                                 Big Anna, 1648-50

                                      

********

Exhibit #11 Sir Edward John Poynter’s Label on the back:

Sir Edward knew Little Anna was a Frans Hals portrait. He labeled her, and encased her in a Glass Front Frame. She was removed from the frame in 1979, by Mr. Anonymous Owner. He then saw the label on the back and Hals’ monogram, on the front. At that time, he took the painting to Christie’s and Sotheby’s, in New York. They were impressed enough to want to keep it for further examination. He said he would just keep it in his possession. They then told him to contact Mr. Seymour Slive. He did. He has since lost the paperwork from that correspondence.


 

********

Handwriting analysis of Sir Edward John Poynter’s label:

There have been concerns that the signature of Sir Poynter was incorrect, because at the end of his name, the -r- was seen as an -n-.

With the study of the n’s at the end of the other words on the label, (born, Mechlin, in, in), it is definite that the letter at the end of his signature is an -r-.

Each word studied that ended with an -n- had a definite upswing after the -n- was completed. This characteristic is not present at the end of his signature.

One source that spoke of what happened at the Talbot’s sale (1909) indicated that it was Sir Edward John Poynter who recommended that the National Gallery of Art, London, purchase The Family Group. It is highly unlikely that there was another person there by the name of E.J.Poynten.

********

■   We found no record of little Anna’s appearance in San Francisco, in 1964. See attached  provenance.

■   Portrait field…………………………….. 27.178 x 19.05 cm, 10.7 x 7.5 inches

■   Outside dimensions of frame……………..28.194 x 20.82cm, 11.1 x 8.2 inches

■   Back of the frame material width ……………… 1.397 cm, .550 inches

■   Front of the frame material width……………… 1.016 cm, .40 inch

■   The wood panel, as seen on the back, has a grain that runs vertical.

■   The wood panel on the back is beveled.

■   Sir Edward Poynter’s label on the back: 4.445 x 12.954 cm, 1.75 x 5.10 inch

■   Ultraviolet light test shows no new alterations or new paint.

********

Analysis for Frans Hals’s monogram on Little Anna:

Hals varied his mark through out his career, except for those portraits where the sitters were of prominence. This practice is most generally the case, but does not hold true one hundred percent of the time.

Being a painter myself, I have changed my monogram many, many times. This must be a characteristic of artists.

On the portrait of little Anna, to understand him better, we might step into Hals’ shoes, and see his mood upon the completion of her painting.

Over the years, his sixes generally stayed the same, except for those of high profile sitter’s portraits. The sixes and threes and other numbers on those portraits are more of a formal Gothic style. On many of his other paintings, the sixes are painted with a faster, one (1), and sometimes two (2) stroke approach. These types of sixes have had little change, much like the formal Gothic letters for his high dollar customers.

At times, it appears that on Hals’ FH monogram, he would lay in the top and then the bottom of the F, and then the top and bottom of ˝ of the H. This is not always the case. Sometimes, he would not put a base on either the H or the F. He would then lay in the vertical leg of the F and then the H. Then he would load his brush, and would attach the F to the leg of the ˝ H. After that, he would often put a vertical touch at the right of the top of the F.

If you are not a painter, it might be hard to understand the situation of working with a fine bristle, ultra small tip brush, and trying to paint with any consistency.

In little Anna’s monogram, he followed his normal procedure, except he appeared to have painted the monogram in a hurry. We can see that the paint on the brush was not full, and may have been a little dry, when he made his first move to put the top part of the F in his monogram. That would have been his first stroke in painting his monogram. After making that first stroke, he had to reload his brush. This move must have been a distraction, because he put a base on neither the F or the H.

It appears that his next move was to make the two vertical lines. Next, he loaded his brush, and then made the attempt to connect the F to the H. There is a blob of paint at the beginning of the stroke to connect the F to the H. There was too much paint on the brush. When he saw the blob, he hesitated, and did not make the complete connection, as he generally did.

After the F and the H, he laid in the date. He laid in the one and then the six, (16) first. He then laid in the thirty-three (33) on the other side. It is apparent that, in his haste, he overloaded the brush again, on the beginning of both number threes (3’s). One can see the heavy blob type mass at the top of each number. It is definitely Frans Hals’s monogram, 16 FH 33.

After he made the date, he was proud of his work, so he ended the monogram with a significant finishing point, by painting a nice big dot (●) to the right of the last three (3) in the date, 1633.

He was done. This big dot (●) was a significant close. I have done similar things. Having been there, I can imagine what he was thinking. It is always nice to finish a painting. I never go back when I have signed a painting and mess with the signature. I am sure Frans Hals never did. He was the type of man that pretty much stood his ground when he thought he was right.

More often than not, when a painter starts to paint his monogram, he does not like to alter it or touch it up. Whatever falls on the canvas, falls.

********

Conclusion of the GloTag® Press Research Team

Little Anna had Frans Hals paint her first portrait in 1633. She was about 10 to 12 years old. She liked the portrait so much, when she was ready for a grown-up portrait, in 1648-50, she requested the same pose, same type, but with a newer style dress. She wanted no chair to show. She wanted her gold bracelet and extra ring to show. She wanted a different color tie, new shawl, a new, stylish bonnet, and a more modern adult dress, showing new lace trim.

Basically she wanted the same style portrait, with a new modern grown-up look.

It is the conclusion of the research team that the Little Anna’s first portrait was left with Mr. Hals for use as a guide for the second portrait, Seated Woman Holding a Fan, in order for him to make those requested changes.

Upon the initial viewing of the two portraits, one might assume that they are the same portrait, one being the original, and another being the copy. We have provided for the reader of this report the comparison of various parts of the portraits, and they definitely show that these are two different portraits, done by the same artist, fifteen years apart.

It would be foolish to try to copy a portrait, and paint the sitter with completely different jewelry, bonnet, dress, chair, shawl, bow, lace and a date fifteen years prior to the one copied. It is not logical.

The only thing that appears to be constant is the fan, the pose, and the earrings. One portrait is that of a plump child; the other is a mature young lady.

It is the conclusion of the research team, along with other selected experts, that Frans Hals painted both portraits.

********

ANNA, 1633

BY FRANS HALS, 1584-1666

ANNA’S  PROVENANCE, WITH *SUPPOSITION

"ANNA" is the name given to the Lost Frans Hals painting, by researchers,

Tom and Judy Ray, GloTag®Press 2006.

"Known" means the viewer knew the artist, the origin of the painting, and possibly the name of the sitters.

Before 1634. Anna, painted by Frans Hals, 1633, Haarlem, Holland (Anna is known)

Before 1648. Through Frans Hals, to be used in the painting of Portrait of Seated Woman Holding a Fan, Haarlem, Holland, 1648 (Anna is known). Frans Hals had to have Anna’s portrait in his possession, before or during 1648, to paint Anna’s pendant portrait. In the 1633 and the 1648-50 pendant portrait, her dress and pose are similar, but not identical. Her face on the 1633 portrait shows her to be about 10 to 12 years old. The pendant portrait shows her age to be about 22 to 26. Her bonnet appears to be identical, but when examined closely, is totally different. Her bodice is quite different, but has similar characteristics. The 1648-50 portrait shows that she has an extra new ring on her left hand and a new gold bracelet on her right hand.

        Gap: SUPPOSITION: Upon Anna’s death, the painting of Anna stayed with pendant portraits, Seated Woman Holding a Fan (1648-50), and Seated Man Holding a Hat (1648-50), and The Family Group, owned by heirs of Anna. (Anna is known)

        Gap: SUPPOSITION: Sold by Anna’s heirs to collector, or dealer, or given to King George III of England for his Buckingham House. He purchased the house to be the Royal retreat, in 1762, for Queen Charlotte. (Anna is known)

        Gap: SUPPOSITION: Before 1763, King George III of England. Anna, Seated Woman Holding a Fan, and Seated Man Holding a Hat, and Frans Hals’ The Family Group were together in the Buckingham House Sale. (The Family Group was at that sale. Documented, The National Gallery in London, England, Provenance on The Family Group. The 1763 Buckingham House Sale, 24-25 February 1763 (first day, lot 69), 25˝ gns.) The owner of the Buckingham House, in 1763, was King George III.

        Gap: SUPPOSITION: Before 1883, *James, Fourth lord Talbot of Malahide, Dublin, Ireland, (1805 to 1883). (Anna is known) Anna traveled to Malahide Castle from the Buckingham House sale along with Hals’ pendant portraits of Seated Woman Holding a Fan, and Seated Man Holding a Hat, and The Family Group.

        Gap: SUPPOSITION: Before 1908, *Richard, fifth lord Talbot of Malahide, Dublin, Ireland. (Anna is known) Richard inherited Anna, along with pendant portraits, Seated Woman Holding a Fan, and Seated Man Holding a Hat, and Frans Hals’ The Family Group. The pendant portraits are now in the Taft Museum, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

        Gap: SUPPOSITION: Before 1909, Through Ayerst H. Buttery, London or John and Edward Tracy, Dublin: picture cleaners, restorers and liners. Richard, fifth lord Talbot of Malahide released paintings from the castle to be cleaned and restored for the sale. All Paintings were insured by Lloyds of London. (Documented, Bodleian Library, Oxford University Library.)

►Before 1909, Sir Edward J. Poynter. (Anna is known) Label on the back, stating that it is a Frans Hals. Anna had to be in the hands of Sir Poynter to have acquired the label on the back that he signed. SUPPOSITION: A possible gift form lord Talbot for Poynter’s assistance at lord Talbot’s art sale, in London, 1908. Sir Poynter very well may have purchased Anna at the sale.

Anna’s transformation

from (Being Known) to (Lost and Being Unknown)

        Gap: SUPPOSITION: Anna became lost and unknown to the general public, and was known only to Sir Edward J. Poynter, because he completely encased her portrait in a frame with a glass front, in 1908. The monogram and date by Frans Hals, on the front of the portrait, could not be seen. The label on the back could not be seen. We can only guess at the reasoning of Poynter’s actions. Maybe he really appreciated Hals’ work, and wanted to protect this treasure.

        Gap: SUPPOSITION: Anna traveled from Sir Poynter’s estate to his heirs, or she may have just been sold upon his death, in 1919, to liquidate his estate. (Anna is unknown)

Before 1978, Gifford, art collector/dealer, San Antonio, Texas. Anna was purchased in Europe, and brought to San Antonio, by Gifford. (Anna is unknown)

1978, Through Central Texas art dealer, "R", anonymous, retired. (Anna is unknown)

1978, San Antonio art collector, "J", anonymous. (Anna is unknown)

I979 to present, Anna was sold back to the Central Texas art dealer, "R". Anna was still (unknown), then finally (known), after the art dealer "R" removed the painting from the glass-front frame in 1979, and discovered the monogram, date, and Poynter’s label. She has been in a safe-deposit box since 1979, hidden from the public.

ANNA IS NOW KNOWN, AND NO LONGER LOST.

NOTE: The only logical conclusion as to how Anna could have traveled to Malahide Castle in Ireland, and to lord Talbot’s art collection, is along with the pendant portraits, and The Family Group as a group purchase from a senior Talbot’s travels to King George III’s sale, at the Buckingham House, in 1763.

  • See Provenance of the pendant portraits, Seated Woman Holding a Fan, and Seated Man Holding a Hat, and The Family Group, all of which are Hals paintings. Tom and Judy Ray, senior researchers on Hals’ 1633 Little Anna painting, conclude that The Family Group is a family portrait of Issac Abrahamsz Massa’s family, and Anna is the eldest child. They contend that the pendant paintings at the Taft Museum of Art, in Ohio, are portraits of her and her brother, not her husband, as claimed by the Taft Museum.

* SUPPOSITION: An educated guess by the researchers, based on extrapolation and speculation.

Research Information Contributors:

The Bexar County Chief Medical Examiners Department, (2006)

McNay Art Institute of San Antonio, Texas, (1980)

The Witte Museum of San Antonio, Texas, (1980)

Absolutely Digital Lab of San Antonio, (2006)

Ultraviolet Light Specialist, Bandera County, (2006)

Genealogy Researchers, Bandera County, (2006)

Exhibition Catalog, Frans Hals, National Gallery of Art,
Washington, D.C. edited by Seymour Slive, (1989)

Genealogy, GloTag®Press Research Team, (2006)

Jewelry Manufacturer, Mr. Juan Cholla, Lakehills, Texas, (2006)

Forensics, True Crime Scene Investigations by
Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu, Barns and Noble, Inc. publishers, (2000)

Mr. Anonymous Owner, Texas
********

Contact: Tom Ray
P.O.Box 538
Lakehills, Texas 78063
830-612-3625

e-Mail
gtpress@texas.net
                                          http://www.GloTagPress.com