Canadian Auction House Reveals Mystery of Hudson's Bay Art Collection

The art world is no stranger to intrigue and mystery, but few stories combine history, artistry, and the thrill of discovery quite like that of a remarkable painting linked to the Hudson’s Bay Company. As a Canadian auction house delved deeper into a seemingly ordinary portrait, they unearthed a narrative that transcends time and geography, revealing layers of significance tied to one of Canada’s most storied institutions.

The fascinating journey of a historical painting

At Heffel Fine Art Auction House, anticipation was high as they prepared to auction off an array of artworks from the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), the oldest corporation in Canada. Among the treasures was an oil painting estimated to date back to around 1665, portraying Prince Rupert, an English Civil War commander who served as the first governor of HBC.

Prince Rupert’s legacy is substantial, as his influence helped shape much of what is now Canada. The painting depicted him in a dramatic pose, donned in a heavy coat and breastplate, a baton in one hand and a sword in the other, set against a backdrop of violent battle. Initially credited to the renowned studio of Anthony van Dyck, a famed Flemish portraitist, the painting soon sparked doubts among Heffel’s staff as bidding commenced last November.

The auction house, known for its commitment to authenticity and integrity in art sales, decided to investigate further into the portrait’s origins and artistic attribution. What began as a routine auction turned into an investigative journey akin to that of modern detectives.

Unraveling the art attribution mystery

When Heffel staff first viewed the Prince Rupert painting, it was valued between $4,000 and $6,000, a modest estimate for a piece with such historical significance. However, the quality of the work prompted the team to reconsider its initial attribution. They speculated whether the painting was indeed a studio piece, which would imply that it was produced by assistants under van Dyck’s direction. The implications of this classification were significant, as works attributed directly to a master artist typically command far higher prices.

To ensure the painting’s credibility, David Heffel, the auction house president, made the decision to temporarily withdraw it from the auction block. He enlisted the help of art historians, including David Franklin, an expert in Renaissance and Baroque art, to assess the piece’s authenticity.

Franklin’s analysis revealed striking differences in brushwork that suggested a higher caliber of artistry than what was typical of a studio piece. He noted that the painting's spontaneous and audacious technique was not characteristic of assistants, further deepening the mystery surrounding its creation.

Evidence and historical records

In their quest to uncover the painting's true origins, the researchers scoured historical documents, libraries, and archives. Their investigation led them to discover an 1821 letter from HBC’s secretary, which claimed that the painting was by van Dyck and had been gifted to the company upon its establishment in 1670. This assertion marked the beginning of a complex journey into the painting’s past.

Subsequent findings included documentation from a 1932 exhibition in London, where the painting was credited to Jacob Huysmans, another Flemish artist. Yet, reviews from that time pointed to the work’s characteristics aligning more closely with those of Peter Lely, a prominent portraitist who served King Charles II.

By the late 1930s, evidence had emerged discrediting the attribution to van Dyck, suggesting that Lely was indeed the artist behind the work. This raised questions about whether HBC had been aware of this reevaluation and why they had not updated the painting’s attribution, considering Lely’s works are typically valued more highly than those of a studio nature.

Noteworthy artistic lineage and connections

Franklin’s essay for Heffel noted that the attribution to Lely “should never have been in doubt,” especially given the existence of a later version of the portrait in Italy, which art historians have deemed a “fully autograph” piece. This term refers to works that are entirely painted by the artist without the involvement of assistants.

The painting held by HBC displayed distinctive characteristics that further supported the Lely attribution:

• Brushwork that exhibited a raw, unrefined quality, indicative of Lely’s style.
• Details in the hair and face that a copyist would typically refine, but this version retained visible imperfections.
• A unique application of bituminous patches, suggesting a more personal touch than what assistants would usually provide.

This evidence, alongside the historical connections to Prince Rupert and the Hudson’s Bay Company, made for a compelling case to reattribute the painting.

The emotional significance of recovery

Upon concluding their investigation, Heffel and his team decided to officially attribute the painting to Peter Lely. David Franklin expressed an emotional connection to the work, stating that it felt as if they had established a direct kinship with a seventeenth-century artist. The recovery of such an object for Canadian art carries a profound sense of pride and significance.

Heffel compared the experience to winning a championship, highlighting the rarity of correcting a centuries-old attribution such as this. The painting's journey has opened new avenues for investigation and discovery in the art world, highlighting the importance of rigorous scholarship in maintaining the integrity of art history.

Upcoming auction and market expectations

The reattributed portrait of Prince Rupert is set to be auctioned on May 21, during Heffel’s semi-annual sale. It will be the sole piece from HBC in this auction, with an estimated value of up to $150,000. Historically, auction estimates are conservative, and pieces often fetch much higher prices than anticipated.

For instance, a similar painting attributed to the school of Peter Lely fetched $15,000, significantly more than its estimated value of $6,000. Given the grandeur and historical significance of the Prince Rupert portrait, Heffel anticipates substantial interest from collectors and institutions alike.

The broader implications of this discovery

This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing need for diligence in the field of art history. As new works are continually discovered and the potential for fraud looms large, the ability to correct long-standing attributions is a rare and valuable achievement. David Heffel articulated the significance of this journey, noting that it provided an unprecedented opportunity to delve deeply into the past.

As the art world evolves, the story of the Prince Rupert painting highlights the intricate relationships between history, artistry, and the ever-changing landscape of art valuation. The path taken to uncover the true creator of this portrait is not just a tale of one painting but a reflection of the ongoing quest for understanding in the realm of art.