For nearly four centuries, a portrait of an older man with a gold chain and plumed hat has been relegated to the status of a workshop copy, a skilled imitation of a masterpiece by Rembrandt van Rijn. Now, a leading scholar argues that the painting, currently held in a private UK collection, is not a copy at all, but a genuine operate by the Dutch master himself. The re-evaluation, spearheaded by Rembrandt expert Gary Schwartz, comes as the two strikingly similar paintings – the confirmed Rembrandt from the Art Institute of Chicago and the newly attributed work – are reunited for the first time in centuries.
The debate centers on “Old Man with a Gold Chain,” a subject Rembrandt revisited in the early 1630s. The Chicago painting, executed on a wood panel, has long been considered the original. But Schwartz contends that Rembrandt didn’t simply oversee the creation of copies; he often *recreated* his own successful compositions, essentially painting a second version with his own hand. This practice, he notes, was not uncommon among 17th-century Dutch artists, responding to both artistic inclination and client demand.
The painting in the UK collection, owned by Cambridge-based entrepreneur Sir Francis Newman, has a documented history stretching back to 1898, when it was purchased by Newman’s great-grandfather from the prominent London art dealer Agnews as a genuine Rembrandt. While initially accepted as such, its status was downgraded in 1912 by German art historian Wilhelm Bode, who dismissed it as a “clever reproduction” after the Chicago version came to light. The recent re-examination, however, challenges that long-held assessment.
A Master’s Hand, or a Skilled Apprentice?
Schwartz’s argument isn’t based on a single revelation, but a convergence of evidence. He points to the exceptional quality of the brushwork in the Newman painting, arguing it surpasses what would typically be expected from a studio assistant. “If Rembrandt had a customer for a replica of his attractive Old Man, what would be the most effective and efficient way of making it?” Schwartz posited, according to reporting in The Guardian. “Assigning it to a pupil, whose work would have to be corrected – and the Newman painting shows no sign of corrections – or re-enacting the steps he had just taken, when they were still fresh in mind and hand? Surely the latter makes more sense.”
Technical analysis further supports Schwartz’s claim. X-ray and infrared imaging of the Chicago painting revealed underdrawing showing adjustments made during the painting process – evidence of a work in progress. Crucially, the canvas version lacks these corrections. This suggests, Schwartz argues, that the Newman painting wasn’t a copy *of* the Chicago version, but rather a simultaneous creation, executed with the same precision and confidence.
The Practice of Replication in the Dutch Golden Age
The idea of Rembrandt creating multiple versions of the same composition isn’t unprecedented. Art historians have long known that artists of the Dutch Golden Age frequently produced replicas, often fulfilling specific requests from patrons. A contemporary of Rembrandt, writing in 1699, observed that Dutch painters routinely repeated their work, either because they enjoyed it or because of direct commissions: “There is hardly any painter [in the Netherlands] who did not repeat one of his works because he liked it, or because someone asked him to create one exactly the same.”
This practice complicates traditional notions of artistic originality. Was the goal to create a unique, irreplaceable object, or to satisfy a demand for a beloved image? Schwartz’s research suggests that for Rembrandt, it was often both. He wasn’t simply delegating work to his studio; he was actively involved in the creation of multiple versions, ensuring a consistent level of quality and artistic vision.
Technical Evidence and Historical Context
Further bolstering the case for the Newman painting’s authenticity is a study conducted by the Hamilton Kerr Institute at the University of Cambridge. The study found that the canvas and pigments used in the UK version closely match those employed by Rembrandt and his studio. Importantly, the canvas also exhibits the same oil-bound, double-ground layer found in eight other paintings definitively attributed to Rembrandt from 1632 and 1633.
However, the Art Institute of Chicago, which owns the panel version, acknowledges the ongoing debate. After reviewing infrared scans, X-rays, and pigment analysis, the institute maintains that differences between the two works suggest the UK version is a workshop reproduction, but concedes that “the conversation about the purpose and authorship of these copies continues to evolve.”
The Newman painting has a limited exhibition history, appearing only once before, in 1952 at the Royal Academy in London. Initially cataloged as a Rembrandt original, it was later reclassified as a studio copy following scrutiny from visiting experts, as documented in the Burlington Magazine.
What’s Next for the Painting?
Sir Francis Newman, the current owner of the painting, has expressed a willingness to relinquish ownership if the attribution to Rembrandt is definitively confirmed. “My view is it’s always been a mystery,” Newman said. “I’ve enjoyed the mystery because it meant I could enjoy it on the wall … and not have the responsibility of its potential importance.” If authenticated, the painting would likely find a home in a museum, allowing wider public access to a potentially newly discovered Rembrandt.
Gary Schwartz will present his findings in a talk on Dutch painting at the National Gallery in London on March 30, 2026. The presentation is expected to further fuel the discussion surrounding the painting’s authorship and contribute to a broader re-evaluation of Rembrandt’s workshop practices. The art world will be watching closely as this centuries-old mystery unfolds, potentially rewriting our understanding of one of history’s greatest masters.
The debate surrounding “Old Man with a Gold Chain” highlights the complexities of art attribution and the ongoing process of historical discovery. As new technologies and research methods emerge, long-held assumptions are constantly challenged, offering fresh perspectives on the works of the past. The conversation surrounding Rembrandt’s potential authorship of this painting is far from over, and further investigation will be crucial in reaching a definitive conclusion.
What are your thoughts on this potential rediscovery? Share your comments below, and please share this article with anyone who might find it compelling.
