Featured Trying to find info on an old wood panel painting.

From wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant's_mark

When the East India Company was chartered by Elizabeth I, Queen of England in 1600 it was still customary for each merchant or Company of Merchant Adventurers to have a distinguishing mark which included the "Sign of Four" and served as a trademark. The East India Company's mark was made up from a '+', a '4' and the initials EIC.

This mark forms the central emblem displayed on the Scinde Dawk postage stamps. Also, it was a central motif of the East India Company's coinage.

 

My brother and I have been trying to find the mark on the seal for the past 5 years. It’s exhausting, lol. Especially when you don’t really know where to look.

 

It's already a fascinating topic and I just learned about it.

 

I feel this painting is a copy of an earlier painting. Stylistically the work is school of or after Poussin, but doesn't look to me like it's from the hand of a master. I'd say an oldish copy, but a copy nevertheless ...however still has some value as an old copy.

I'm basing my judgement not only on competency but on the board itself.
It has signs of "old" with pit saw, adze marks and colour etc., however, IMHO the edges and corners of the panel are much too "clean" and "tidy" to have been around for centuries. In my experience, paintings of great age have been framed or handled several times over their lifetimes and the reverse will show the marks of handling, rehanging, reframing etc.

If there is a frame, it would be interesting to see that and see whether the nail marks on the back of the panel match the positions on the frame.

If it is a 19thc. European copy, as I suggest, likely the panel is from an old piece of furniture.

There are exceptions of course, but this has been my experience.

 

Ahh, yes the shape. The appraiser at the Antiques Roadshow thought the painting was most likely damaged and was later cut so it could still be hung. Thus no signature.

 

No, I don't think that was the case. This is the complete painting IMHO.

If the painting had been cut down, cutting those heavy edge bevels on the reverse would have meant the picture would have had to be face down on a bench and likely damaged through the heavy tooling required to effect the deep cuts. In reality no-one cutting down an old master would bother to do the bevels - plus - the oxidation of the oak is the same tone as the rest of the reverse hence - same period.

 

SIDE BAR: For others new to the "sign of four," French author René Guénon has a chapter on it in his "Symbols of Sacred Science" -- I've found a free copy in English at archive.org, but it's not searchable. Relevant topic starts on page 273 (by the book's page numbering system:

https://archive.org/stream/reneguen...iversal language of sacred science#page/n273/

There are some formatting issues with that document and frankly, I'm finding the PDF easier to manage:

https://ia801305.us.archive.org/30/... The universal language of sacred science.pdf

 

Thank you, I’ll check it out.

 

Well anything is possible, that’s why I shared it here. All my life I’ve wondered about this painting.
As you can see, the panel sat in the frame next to the wood. There is glass in front, and it now has a cardboard back my father had made to replace the frame backing because it was ripped/damaged.

 

@Jeanette Torello , I hope you don't mind, I'm going to post a copy of the info you added to the initial message -- it's for everyone who has already read the thread and might miss the addition of the info (I just happened to catch it because I went back to look at the pics):

"I took the painting to an Antiques Roadshow, but it was the end of the day by the time it was seen and we were rushed. We were told the wood panel was definitely from as early as the 16th century and that it was a common wood used among Flemish painters. It was not thought to be a reproduction, and there wasn’t enough time to investigate the seal. We were told to def do more research and to have it restored.
Dimensions are 21 x 16 1/2"

 

Will return to the painting shortly but got fascinated by the device on the seal. Following from the first Pinterest link gets a very accessible article:

https://fameorshame.com/

Have not looked at links for sacred science yet, but guessing it will also raise connections with both Christian & alchemical symbolism.

I only knew 'Sign of Four' from the Sherlock Holmes story. How interesting this is!

 

@moreotherstuff

 

Haven't finished reading it, but worth the read when looking to the Sign of Four

from: The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
The Carvings and Inscriptions on the Kirkyard Monuments of the Scottish Lowlands; particularly in Perth, Fife, Angus, Mearns, and Lothian. (pp 280-457)
Christison, D

https://archaeologydataservice.ac.u...52-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_036/36_280_463.pdf

 

Looking at the reverse again, at the top of the panel, do these marks reveal a lighter oak colour? Are they deep or recent scratches?

 

From that article:

 

Thanks.

 

I don’t know when those scratches were made, they were there when I first took it out of the glass 5 or so years ago. They’re deep like a chip maybe. I have a feeling that when my ggfather died, my mother’s uncle went through everything and probably opened the painting to see if anything was hidden. Who knows how he treated it, thinking it wasn’t of value with no signature. It’s all speculation at this point as my parents are both deceased.

 

This dark brown on the wood just looks like dark brown stain on a piece of veneer over another piece of wood that may or may not be stained a lighter color of brown. I think the irregular shape of the painting means it's entirely possible it was cut and the back was stained afterwards.