Peter Lely Appraisal

Sir Peter Lely (1618–1680) dominated English portraiture in the decades after Van Dyck. His images of Restoration courtiers—the “Windsor Beauties,” admiralty heroes, and aristocrats in satin and pearls—set the look of the era. For owners, dealers, and collectors, appraising works by Lely and his circle requires a blend of connoisseurship, technical understanding, and market awareness. This guide explains how to identify, evaluate, and document portraits by Lely, his studio, and his followers, and how those distinctions affect value.

Who Was Peter Lely and Why His Portraits Matter

• Background: Dutch-born, trained in the Netherlands, Lely settled in England c. 1641. He became Principal Painter to Charles II and led a prolific workshop.
• Hallmark subjects: Courtiers, naval commanders, and aristocratic families. Two emblematic series—the “Windsor Beauties” (ladies of the court) and the “Flagmen of Lowestoft” (naval officers)—define his style.
• Enduring appeal: Lely codified the Restoration portrait: soft, idealized features; heavy-lidded eyes; luminous skin tones; and opulent draperies set against a column, swagged curtain, and dusk landscape.
• Market presence: Autograph portraits are keenly collected; high-quality studio works remain accessible; followers and later copies are common.

Understanding Lely’s workshop is key. He often painted the head from life while studio assistants executed hair, draperies, hands, and backgrounds. Multiple versions of the same sitter were produced, and body types were reused. This division of labor underpins the attribution terminology you’ll see in catalogues and appraisals.

How to Identify a Peter Lely: Autograph, Studio, Follower

Attribution language (ranked from strongest to weakest):

• Peter Lely: The expert judges it to be by Lely’s own hand (typically the head, sometimes more).
• Peter Lely and Studio: Lely painted the head; studio handled significant portions of the rest.
• Studio of Peter Lely: Produced in his workshop, not by Lely himself.
• Circle of Peter Lely: By a contemporary closely associated with Lely, not necessarily in the studio.
• Follower of/Manner of/After Peter Lely: By a later artist emulating Lely; “after” often indicates a copy of a known composition.

Visual cues consistent with autograph involvement:

• Heads: Subtle wet-in-wet blending in flesh; luminous half-tones; restrained but decisive highlights on the nose and lower lip; distinctive almond-shaped, heavy-lidded eyes with small, crisp catchlights; a defined cupid’s bow; and lifelike modeling of the eye sockets and chin.
• Hair: Varied treatment—Lely’s own hand often shows more differentiation and glints within the ringlets, rather than uniform ribbons of brown.
• Hands: When by Lely, long, elegant fingers and convincing bony structure; studio hands can be schematic and less anatomically convincing.
• Drapery: Lely’s highlights articulate satin with economy; studio passages may have repetitive, formulaic folds and flatter modeling.

Common misattributions and how to separate them:

• Godfrey Kneller (post-1680): Crisper drawing, cooler tonal range, and more bravura brushwork; costumes and wigs tend toward 1690s fashion. The “kit-cat” 30 x 25 in format is heavily associated with Kneller’s later work.
• Mary Beale (active 1660s–90s): Warm palettes, more textural brushwork in hair and drapery, often slightly smaller, intimate portraits; strong sense of individuality in faces.
• John Greenhill (d. 1676): Energetic, sometimes impulsive handling; fine portraits that can be confused with Lely but with freer brushwork.

Copying from prints: Mezzotints after Lely (by engravers such as Isaac Beckett and Richard Tompson) were hugely popular. Later oils often copy these prints and will be reversed relative to the original painting. If your painting matches a mezzotint’s orientation rather than the prototype, it may be a print-derived copy.

Materials, Technique, and Condition Clues

Supports and grounds:

• Typically oil on canvas; panel is unusual for mature work.
• Warm reddish-brown ground layers are common, giving flesh a characteristic warmth.
• Standard sizes vary: head-and-shoulders and half-length often around 29–30 x 24–25 in; three-quarter length around 50 x 40 in; full-lengths considerably larger.

Pigments and paint handling:

• Flesh: lead white, vermilion, and lakes for glazes; fine wet-in-wet transitions; subtle impasto on highlights.
• Blues: smalt was frequently used; it can discolor to a grayish tone, affecting drapery and shadows.
• Blacks: bone/charcoal black; shadows often transparent and can show abrasion first.
• Varnish: natural resins that tend to yellow over time.

Typical condition issues:

• Old relinings (sometimes multiple); wax relining from the 20th century is common.
• Abrasion in darker passages and hair; overcleaning can flatten flesh modeling.
• Discolored varnish masking original color balance.
• Smalt degradation causing unexpected graying in blues and shadows.
• Tenting and cupping paint; stretcher bar cracks.
• Later overpaint, especially around faces and hands, to “refresh” the portrait.

Labels, inscriptions, and frames:

• 18th–19th-century collector labels or wax seals on the stretcher can be meaningful; note exact text and placement.
• Old hand-written sitter identifications on the canvas or frame are suggestive but must be verified; titles often changed with marriage.
• Frames: carved and gilded English frames, sometimes called Sunderland or Maratta types, can be period-appropriate but are often 18th-century replacements. A frame alone does not authenticate a picture.

Technical examination:

• Infrared reflectography may reveal preliminary sketching; X-radiography can show changes (pentimenti), original tacking margins, and relining history.
• Cross-sections and pigment analysis can support a 17th-century date.
• Canvas weave mapping can reveal if two canvases came from the same bolt (not uncommon with studio replicas).

Signatures:

• Lely rarely signed his portraits. Apparent signatures are often later additions. Treat any signature with caution and corroborate with stylistic and technical evidence.

What Drives Value: Subject, Size, Quality, Provenance

Market value for Lely and his circle hinges on a matrix of factors:

• Attribution strength:

  • Autograph or “Lely and Studio” heads command the highest prices.
  • “Studio of” and “Circle of” remain desirable but at a discount.
  • “Follower of” and “After” are significantly lower, though decorative scale and presence can still be attractive.

• Subject:

  • Named sitters with historical significance (royalty, admirals, prominent courtiers) are the most sought-after.
  • Unidentified sitters reduce value but can still be strong if the quality and condition are high.

• Scale and format:

  • Full-length portraits are the most valuable, followed by three-quarter length, then half-length/head-and-shoulders.
  • Pairs (marriage portraits) and family groups carry premiums.

• Quality:

  • Lely’s hand in the head and hands raises value.
  • Superior drapery, convincing anatomy, and refined facial modeling correlate with higher prices.

• Condition and conservation:

  • Intact, lightly cleaned surfaces with original color balance are prized.
  • Overcleaning, heavy abrasion, crude overpaint, and invasive relinings diminish value.
  • Professional, well-documented conservation supports value.

• Provenance and literature:

  • Continuous ownership history, especially through notable collections or country houses, elevates value.
  • Inclusion in scholarly literature or exhibitions adds credibility and demand.

• Drawings and prints:

  • Lely’s red-and-black chalk portrait drawings (true period works) are collectible, particularly with sitter identification and good condition.
  • Mezzotints after Lely have a separate print market; values depend on state, rarity, and condition, not on painting prices.

Indicative ranges (highly variable by market and date):

• Autograph head-and-shoulders or half-length: mid-five to low-six figures.
• Three-quarter length: higher multiples; full-lengths can reach seven figures for prime subjects.
• Studio of: low-to-mid five figures, sometimes more for large, impressive works.
• Follower/After: low four to low five figures depending on scale and decorative quality.
• Chalk portrait drawings: low-to-mid five figures for prime examples; lesser sheets lower.

Research and Documentation: Building a Case

Thorough documentation enhances both attribution confidence and value:

• Measurements: Record canvas size unframed and framed, to the millimeter, noting any extensions or reductions.
• Photographs: High-resolution images in daylight-balanced lighting; details of head, hands, signatures/inscriptions, damages, verso, and frame.
• Verso evidence: Photograph labels, seals, stencil numbers, old inscriptions, and canvas structure.
• Literature and exhibition history: Search for mention in collection catalogues, exhibition catalogues, and sitter genealogies. Note any earlier attributions or labels naming painter or sitter.
• Comparative images: Identify related versions of the sitter or composition. Note orientation (original vs print reversal).
• Technical reports: If available, include conservation reports, IRR, X-ray, and pigment findings.
• Legal/export considerations: Major works in the UK or EU may require export licenses; factor this into timeline and valuation strategy.

For sitter identification:

• Start with costume and hairstyle dating (e.g., loose, off-shoulder chemise and pearls are mid-1660s; towering wigs and later bodices point post-1680).
• Cross-check heraldic devices on frames or labels with family histories.
• Compare facial features to documented portraits of candidates from the same family line.

Selling, Insurance, and Appraisal Types

Choose appraisal type according to purpose:

• Insurance (replacement) value: Typically the highest; reflects cost to replace with a like example in a retail setting.
• Fair market value: Used for tax and estate purposes; reflects price between willing buyer and seller in the current market.
• Auction estimates: Reflect likely sale range in competitive bidding; can differ from retail and insurance values.

Selling routes:

• Auction: Old Master departments can position autograph or strong studio works effectively; ensure pre-sale condition treatment and a well-researched catalogue essay.
• Private sale: Useful for top-tier portraits and when confidentiality or speed is important.
• Dealer consignment: Offers exposure and retail pricing but entails commissions and time.

Preparation:

• Obtain a current condition report and consider careful, reversible conservation (e.g., varnish reduction) to improve legibility without over-restoring.
• Assemble provenance and research in a concise dossier.
• Discuss reserve levels and marketing images with the chosen venue.

A Practical Checklist for Owners

• Record:
  • Exact unframed and framed dimensions; stretcher and frame construction details.
  • Full suite of high-res images (front, angled raking light, back, details, labels, frame).
• Observe:
  • Flesh modeling quality, eye and mouth detailing, and the handling of hands.
  • Drapery highlights—crisp and economical vs repetitive and flat.
  • Orientation relative to known mezzotints (watch for reversals).
• Inspect condition:
  • Look for abrasion in darks, craquelure patterns, signs of relining, discolored varnish, and overpaint.
  • Note smalt degradation (unexpected graying in blues/shadows).
• Verify:
  • Any signatures (rare) and inscriptions; treat with skepticism until corroborated.
  • Sitter identifications against costume/hair dating and family histories.
• Document provenance:
  • Collect bills of sale, inventory entries, exhibition history, and any scholarly references.
• Consult:
  • An Old Master specialist for attribution; a conservator for condition.
  • Consider technical imaging (IRR/X-ray) for complex cases.
• Decide strategy:
  • Choose appraisal type (insurance vs fair market).
  • Plan conservation and selling venue based on advice and goals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How can I quickly tell if my portrait might be by Peter Lely? A: Start with the head. Look for softly blended flesh, heavy-lidded almond eyes with crisp catchlights, a defined cupid’s bow, and nuanced modeling of the eye sockets and chin. Then assess whether hands and drapery feel more formulaic (suggesting studio involvement). Compare orientation and details with known compositions and watch for reversals that indicate copying from prints.

Q: Does an unidentified sitter ruin the value? A: Not necessarily. A high-quality portrait with clear autograph involvement can still perform strongly. However, a named, historically significant sitter adds a premium. Research can sometimes restore an identity through costume dating, heraldry, and family provenance.

Q: My painting has been relined and heavily varnished. Is that a deal-breaker? A: Relining is common in 17th-century canvases and not inherently negative. Excessive abrasion, crude overpaint, or irreversible treatments do reduce value. A skilled conservator can often improve appearance by reducing discolored varnish and addressing past overpaint.

Q: Are prints “after Lely” valuable? A: Mezzotints and line engravings after Lely form a distinct collecting area. Value depends on the specific print, state, rarity, margin condition, and impression quality. They are generally far less valuable than paintings but can be desirable and historically important.

Q: Should I clean the painting before appraisal or sale? A: No, not without professional guidance. A reputable conservator and specialist should first assess whether cleaning will safely reveal quality or risk exposing losses. Thoughtful, reversible conservation can help value; ill-advised cleaning can harm it.

By combining stylistic analysis, technical evidence, and solid documentation, you can position a Lely-era portrait accurately in the market—whether it proves to be by Lely himself, his studio, or a later follower—and make informed decisions about conservation, valuation, and sale.