Lot 233
  • 233

Gilliam Dandoy

Estimate
8,000 - 12,000 USD
Log in to view results
bidding is closed

Description

  • Gilliam Dandoy
  • Still life with oysters, grapes, lemons, peaches, and cherries
  • signed and dated lower left:  G. Dandoÿ Anº 165(1 or 4 ?)
  • oil on panel

Provenance

Sale, London, Sotheby's, 28 April 1965, lot 151 (as dated 1652).

Literature

E. Greindl, Les peintres flamands de nature morte au 17me siècle, Sterrebeek 1983, p. 345, cat. no. 1, under Dandoy (no date given);
A. van der Willigen and F.G. Meijer, A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life Painters Working in Oils 1525-1725, Leiden 2003, p. 71 (as dated 1652).

Condition

The panel is flat, cradled, beveled, and made from three pieces of wood brought together by two horizontal joins. There is some retouching along the joins, but it does not extend more than a centimeter away from the join, and this is to be expected. Otherwise there are almost zero retouches. There is a crack at the left edge along the lower join, The varnish has discolored over time and the surface could respond well from a light clean, after which the colors would brighten. Overall in good state and nice condition. In a carved wood and faux tortoise shell frame.
In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective qualified opinion.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOGUE.

Catalogue Note

A photograph from 1965 in the files of the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, The Hague clearly shows the date on this painting as 1652.  However, subsequent cleaning appears to have removed what was an incorrect restoration.  Fred Meijer of the RKD suggests that an argument can be made for a date of 1654, since the first and last digits of the date differ substantially.