Misattribution Musical Chairs (Various Artists)
What's your favorite Joseph Whiting Stock portrait? Maybe his charming niece and nephew? How about the one he painted after his death?
The girl on the left was sold as “Attributed to Joseph Whiting Stock (American, 1815-1855)” with much pomp and circumstance. It provides some wonderful catalog copy analyzing Stock’s difficulty with perspective, which I’m still very fond of, even if the attribution is dead wrong. Pun not intended.
Guess what: the auction record for the identical companion portrait, the girl on the right, surfaced recently.
Look at that — a pair of sisters! Let’s read the catalog text…
Portrait of Achsah E. M. Connelly Age Nine. c. 1864. … Provenance: By family descent of friends of the sitter to the consignor. [Author’s note: here is Achsah’s genealogical record. Her identically dressed sister is probably Narcissa. They were from Pennsylvania.]
A Pennsylvania portrait painted in 1864… by Joseph Whiting Stock, of Massachusetts, who died in 1855.
With the exception of Stock's signature, this portrait bears all the signature characteristics of him.
Not so fast.
When I started this article, I set out to see how many misattributed artists I could link from one to the next - A mislabeled as B; B hiding under a C attribution; C sold as D…and so on and so forth. Here are the results. I think you will find it very enlightening.
(Green text indicates a correct or plausible attribution. Red text indicates a probable error.)
Let’s have a look at a few other “Whiting Stocks.” How about this charming boy (left)? Never mind, that’s a Samuel P. Howes (right). Compare those 1839 and 1863 Howes (Howeses?) for proof.
And yet, as the “Stock” catalog text points out:
Attribution in 1983 by Juliette Tomlinson, director of CT Valley Historical Museum.
Tomlinson did a tremendous job rounding up the paintings in Stock’s own journal, but when expanding the scope of his oeuvre, it’s hit-or-miss. Luckily, Samuel P. Howes is easy to spot, like this lady (left), and this other one (right) — oh, wait, that’s supposedly an “Erastus Salisbury Field”.
I’ll admit: before that sale, I messaged the seller and informed them of that lady’s overwhelming Howesness. They listened, and Invaluable updated accordingly. Sadly, Mutualart has not, so she’ll be a “Field” forever. Same goes for this man (left) - an obvious Milton Hopkins, just like the signed Rev. Jon Hovey (right). You’d think. But the gentleman on the left was inexplicably sold as a “Field.”
Here’s a real “Milton Hopkins” (left)! No, that’s just a late Noah North (right).
Here’s another “Noah North” (left)! No, that’s a “Joseph Goodhue Chandler” (right) — no, wait.
I was fortunate enough to acquire the lady on the left recently. And guess what: these aren’t by Noah North, and they’re not by Chandler. They’re both Peckham. It all comes back to Peckham. Every single post. You know what you signed up for.
Speaking of Peckham: this charming double portrait (below, left) slipped into the old “Peckham” file ages ago. But it’s no Peckham. Both artists are wrong. This mysterious painter (below, right) bears quite a few incorrect names, including “Orlando Hand Bears”… but the actual painter is the “Tweedy-Bird Limner” (!) Named for the matching sister portraits of Miss Eliza (Bird) Tweedy and Mary Louisa Bird, this artist is still anonymous. But, as limner names go, you can’t do much better than Tweedy-Bird.
One thing is certain: Tweedy-Bird is not the same hand as Mr. Hand Bears. Neither is this fine lady (left), sold as “Bears,” who stands a strong chance to be a James S. Hathaway* (right). I love Hathaway’s paintings (as I’ve written about.) They just look at you a certain way. They know your secrets.
*(I reserve the right to be wrong about this attribution. But only this one. She’s either by Hathaway or C.S. Jones, a NY artist. Who’s that? I have no idea… Yet.)
EDIT: That didn't take long; his name is Cyrenus Jones, NY/PA, 1818-1885. Jury's still out on whether he painted the lady above.)
Hathaway’s child portraits (left) are irresistibly charming, and unmistakable — unless you’d rather sell a “Joseph Whiting Stock” (right). This, too, is not 100% certain - only one legitimate Hathaway child portrait has ever come up for sale - but that's no Stock. Not a chance.
Inexplicably, this little girl (left), and her brother, were also both sold as alleged “Whiting Stocks”, too — despite bearing a near-identical likeness to a work inscribed J. Goodale (right).
“Goodale” may or may not have anything to do with the artist Ira Chaffee Goodell. But the next young lady (below, left), mistakenly sold as “Joseph Goodall,” was confirmed as a Goodell portrait by the experts Mike and Suzy Payne. The other lady (below, right) was sold as “Ammi Phillips,” but the portrait depicts Ira Chaffee Goodell’s own sister-in-law!
The catalog text claims:
The presented portraits are convincingly in the hand of Phillips, one of the most significant folk painters of the 19th century.
I doubt it!
The rightful correction, presenting Asa and Cynthia Goodell as the work of Ira Goodell, appears in the Paynes’ 2015 article (read it here). But it’s shocking how boldly the catalog text sells a blatant error, and in such detail, too.
Phillips was working in Connecticut and Massachusetts during the late 1830s, and probably painted the portraits in late 1836 or early 1837 when Asahel was age 26 and Cynthia was around age 21… The women from this period [“Kent Period” by Phillips] are especially distinct, having long necks, triangular-shaped shoulders, and dark dresses with contrasting collars or bonnets. Mrs. Goodell’s portrait is a strong example of the period.
It’s hard to get worse than that. To most audiences, it’s completely convincing. But it’s far from alone. Lurking in the domain of “Ammi Phillips,” we can also find a listing for the “Soft Faces Painter,” aka the Winter Limner (left), one more new artist I've been trying to identify. And, of course, there’s another Winter Limner portrait (right) sold as “Zedekiah Belknap.” Why not? Anything goes.
The Winter Limner “Ammi Phillips” catalog text really bends over backwards on the false justification, too. (It even cites the Windsor chair. Everyone had that chair!) But, again, a word to the wise: a seller that’s trying too hard is often the least credible. See above.
For a refresher, here’s a real Belknap (left), the author Frances Elizabeth (Chase) Swift as a young girl. But she looks awfully similar to this mislabeled “Prior-Hamblin School” (right). How did that happen?
The Prior-Hamblin School, as a historic and stylistic grouping, is pretty easy to spot. (It did not include Belknap.) Known for flat colors and straightforward styles, the Prior-Hamblins are constantly mixed up for each other — like this musically inclined boy (right), sold as “William Matthew Prior,” actually a William W. Kennedy…
Incidentally, Candy Cane Kid #1 was just offered at Sotheby’s, originally listed as “Robert Deacon Peckham” again. Thankfully, a quick email sorted it out. I know the artist by a different name: the “Candy Cane Painter.” They didn’t put that part in the listing. Not enough dignity, probably, but I’ve heard worse. Always felt bad for the “Long Neck Artist.” (Update: probably due to condition, the Candy Cane Kid passed.)
Speaking of Peckham, let’s look at the so-called “Peckham pastels.” How can the Dean children (left) be “Deacon Robert Peckham,” and the matching Dean parents (right) be “William M.S. Doyle?” Well, they can’t. There’s an entirely different artist at work - the “Dean Limner.” Yes, another new one. (Special thanks to David Schorsch, and Mike and Suzy Payne, on the Dean problem.)
You know what aren’t Doyles, either? The pair of pastels depicting Elias and Sophronia Trafton (left), dubbed the work of “William M.S. Doyle” back in the 1950s at the Fruitlands Museum. They’re actually by the pastelist James Martin (right). (Special thanks to Michael Rothberg for the tip on the Martin mix-up.) Clara Endicott Sears, founder of Fruitlands, did a great many favors for the world of folk art study. That attribution wasn't one of them.
James Martins (left) are hiding everywhere — like this attribution to fellow pastelist Micah Williams (right). An honest mistake, no doubt. But James Martin portraits are very recognizable. Most have colorful, dramatic backgrounds. And they usually look totally miserable.
From the annals of misfiled “Micah Williams,” we can pick out another Dean Limner (left), and cross-match with an alleged “Peckham” (right). It’s a very distinctive pastel technique, charmingly stylized – you can’t miss it. And yet.
Lucky for Peckham, when it comes to oil paintings, he has slightly fewer misattributions than most. But there are some whoppers in the depths of the archives, like this “Deacon Robert Peckham” (left), an obvious Erastus Salisbury Field (right). How?
Let’s go wandering through the Fields again (left)… and here’s a Sanford Mason (right). It’s nice to see a new name in the mix, isn’t it?
Here’s another Sanford Mason (left), and yet another cute little kid (right), a clear match — sold as a “Joseph Goodhue Chandler.” Chandler’s child portraits were masterful, but they didn’t look like this.
Here’s another Chandler (left)— no wait, that’s J.H. Keeley (right)! AKA John H. Keeley. He's been mistakenly masquerading as “I.H. Keeley” and “Isaac H. Keeley.” Yes, his actual name is wrong. By now, this level of error shouldn’t shock you. More on that later.
Here’s another adorable signed Keeley (left)… and a near-identical little girl (right). I don’t have to tell you by now that this isn’t a “Joseph Whiting Stock,” do I? It shouldn’t be “Attributed To,” not even “Manner Of.” I do believe the “Manner” and “Style” terminology has its place – but only when there’s a real similarity. Not just, “I know this is the name of a folk artist.”
I went to the painting store and they were out of Stock.
All too often, both Josephs have the same mistakes. Remember our newfound Tweedy-Bird Limner? You will. Here’s the later, more polished “Whiting Stock” edition (left), and the earlier, simpler “Chandler” edition (right). Collect them all.
Anything can be a Chandler if you want it to, as long as it has a cute little kid. Case in point: here’s another “Chandler” (left) beside a pair of suspiciously similar siblings (right) — a signed work by Jonas Welch Holman.
How charming, let’s go look at another Holman (left). Wait - that’s no Holman at all! That’s a Lyman Parks, best known for his Portrait of Mrs. Wilkinson (right).
Here’s another fabulous Lyman Parks portrait, Esther Whelpley Martling (left). Let’s place her alongside her daughter-in-law, Elizabeth Acker Martling (right). It’s a match! But she was sold as a “Holman,” too. How does this keep happening?
Even while poking holes in the Holman repertoire, it’s easy to add to his oeuvre. (Read more about the Holman-Parks havoc here.) Look how simple it is to compare to a Holman (left) and confirm this… “Joseph Goodhue Chandler” (right). Again!
Don’t worry, we’re almost done.
One more supposed “Chandler” (left) for good measure… and would you look at that? We’re back where we started: that questionably misattributed “Joseph Whiting Stock” portrait (right), painted nine years after he met his tragic end.
I could keep going. But this way madness lies. I think you get the point.
Let it be a cautionary tale: read before you buy, and don’t believe what you read. You might notice that I haven’t singled out any auction house to blame for this. How could I? It’s universal. Inescapable, ubiquitous, and monstrously hard to correct. Still, it’s worth trying.
The antidote is to learn from signed and solidly authentic examples of artists’ works. (NB: I'm currently working on a wiki database of exactly that.) Each auction-house misattribution enables another one, which is how this happens. But it’s not unfixable. One aspect of American folk art is especially lucky: the monetary value of these paintings depends far more on their intrinsic quality than the name attached to them.
But the painters still deserve the correct names on their works. And collectors deserve that, too. There's work to be done.
- - -
If you’re curious: total count - 32 connections, 29 artists, 65 paintings. Thanks for enduring this with me!
Special extra thanks to Suzy Payne for answering my Goodell questions, and Michael Rothberg for checking over my attributions. Thanks again to Michael Payne and David Schorsch for input throughout the research process.
BONUS ROUNDS: Sold as “Joseph Goodhue Chandler” (left), actually Isaac Wetherby (right).
Sold as “Ethan Allen Greenwood” (left), actually Zedekiah Belknap (right). (A curious situation where there seems to be a verso inscription, which does say “Greenwood”, but in another photo it also says “C. Harding” slightly below. Perhaps an autograph collection?)
Sold as “Joseph Goodhue Chandler” (left), actually Thomas Wilder (right). Twice!
These artists didn’t have enough errors (yet) to qualify for the misattribution chain. Lucky them!
(Obligatory postscript, at the suggestion of others: I am now available for painting research consultations. emilyesser1@gmail.com)
