Netherlandish School, early 16th Century

With Galerie Henri Durandy, Paris, by 1924;
With Galerie Van Diemen & Co., Dusseldorf and Berlin 1926-28;
With Dr. E. Plietzsch, Berlin; 1931;
With Lillienfeld Gallery, New York, 1931;
George and Dorothea Halpert, California;
Gift of George and Dorothea Halpert to The Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, (acc. no. C1993.132.1).

San Diego, CA, Fine Arts Gallery of San Diego, Exhibition of Paintings: Italian, Flemish Dutch, German, French and English, February 1-15, 1928, no. 9 (as by Joos van Cleve).

W. Valentiner, in Kunstspiegel, March 8, 1927 (as by Joos van Cleve);
Die Gartenlaube, May 19, 1927, reproduced in color (as by Joos van Cleve);
M. J. Friedländer, Early Netherlandish Painting, New York 1972, vol. IXa, p. 70, no. 103, reproduced plate 111 (as by Joos van Cleve);
D. Vanwijnsberghe et al, Autour de La Madeleine Renders, Un Aspect de l'Histoire des Collections, de la Restauration et de la Contrefaçon en Belgique dans la Première Moitié du XXe Siècle, Brussels 2008, p. 257, cat. no. 202, reproduced (as by Joos van Cleve; documented as in the studio of Joseph Van der Veken where it was heavily restored).

The following condition report has been provided by Simon Parkes of Simon Parkes Art Conservation, Inc. 502 East 74th St. New York, NY 212-734-3920, simonparkes@msn.com , an independent restorer who is not an employee of Sotheby's. This painting was originally painted on paper which was subsequently mounted onto an oak panel which has been cradled. The surface and paint layer are stable. There is one slightly visible horizontal crease running through the middle of the picture. The painting has been fairly recently restored and with a fresh coat of varnish could be hung in its current condition. The restoration to this portrait has been accurately applied and, we think, presents a perfectly sufficient finish to the painting. This restoration should probably remain. Under ultraviolet light one can see small spots of restoration and a few glazes throughout the picture which have been added to eliminate losses and signs of abrasion. If these restorations were removed the question remains: is there another, earlier campaign of restoration beneath which is not as visible under ultraviolet light? While the face and lighter colors generally seem to represent an original paint layer with restorations that are visible under ultraviolet light, in the hair it is more than likely that some of the strands of hair have been augmented and these restorations do not show under ultraviolet light. We also feel it is possible that there are other restorations in the dark coat and in the background which are also not fully revealed under ultraviolet light. However, this is an original work of art from the period. There is no evidence in my mind that this is a later painting and although there is a fairly substantial amount of retouching here and there, it has been well applied and the picture can still easily be appreciated and is ready to hang in its current state.
"This lot is offered for sale subject to Sotheby's Conditions of Business, which are available on request and printed in Sotheby's sale catalogues. The independent reports contained in this document are provided for prospective bidders' information only and without warranty by Sotheby's or the Seller."