Portrait Of Inigo Jones After Sir Anthony Van Dyck

The phrase “Portrait of Inigo Jones after Sir Anthony Van Dyck” surfaces frequently in auction catalogues, collection notes, and estate inventories. It signals a work—most often a print or a later oil copy—deriving from Van Dyck’s celebrated likeness of Inigo Jones (1573–1652), the pioneering English architect of the Stuart court. For collectors and appraisers, understanding what “after Van Dyck” actually means, which variants exist, and how they are valued is essential. This guide describes the chief types you’re likely to encounter, how to sort early impressions from later reproductions, and what to look for when assessing quality, authenticity, and condition.

What Collectors Mean by “After Van Dyck”

• After: A work made by another hand based on Van Dyck’s composition. In prints, this often means an engraving executed by a specialist printmaker using Van Dyck’s drawing or painting as the model. In paintings, it denotes a copy of Van Dyck’s design, not by Van Dyck himself.

• Studio of: Produced in Van Dyck’s studio, possibly with participation from assistants and sometimes with finishing touches by Van Dyck. For this subject, “studio of” is less commonly used because the best-known image is primarily disseminated through prints.

• Circle of / Follower of: Made in the period close to Van Dyck, or by a later artist working in his manner. This language can appear in catalogue entries for oil copies of the Jones portrait.

• Reproductive print: A print made (often decades or centuries later) to reproduce Van Dyck’s composition for a new audience. These can be 17th-century engravings issued within Van Dyck’s “Iconography” tradition, or 18th–19th-century re-engravings, mezzotints, stipples, or photomechanical facsimiles.

In practical appraisal terms, “after Van Dyck” spans a spectrum from early, scarce prints closely tied to Van Dyck’s circle to later commercial reproductions. The closer the work stands to the 17th-century matrix—by date, technique, and quality—the stronger the market response.

The Van Dyck Prototype: What To Look For

The most authoritative likeness of Inigo Jones associated with Van Dyck is known from the “Iconography,” a celebrated 17th-century portrait print series after Van Dyck’s designs. Several engravers realized these portraits after Van Dyck’s drawn or painted prototypes. For Inigo Jones, collectors most often encounter a bust-length portrait set within an oval, showing Jones three-quarter to the viewer’s left or right, in dark attire with a plain or modest collar, and the neat moustache and tufted beard fashionable at the Caroline court.

Key visual markers:

• Format: Bust-length or half-length, frequently in an oval or within a rectangular frame line. Some oil copies expand the format to three-quarter length.
• Costume: Dark, understated clothing with a band collar rather than elaborate lace; a sober, intellectual presentation befitting an architect.
• Inscription: Early prints often bear a Latinized caption (e.g., “Inigo Iones” using “I” for “J”), sometimes noting his court role as architect. Credits such as “Ant. van Dyck delin.” (drawn by) and “sculpsit” (engraved by) may appear.
• Physiognomy: High forehead, pronounced brow, and composed gaze. Early engravings render the hair and beard with fine, directional hatching; later reproductions tend to have more generalized, decorative linework.

There are painted versions and later oil copies that amplify the setting or add attributes—documents, compasses, or architectural plans—to underscore Jones’s profession. While attractive, those enhancements are not consistent across early sources, and their presence alone does not indicate an early date.

Variants and Media You’ll Encounter

• Seventeenth-century engravings after Van Dyck:

  • Plate size commonly around folio format; visible platemark just outside the image.
  • Printed on laid paper with chain lines; watermarks such as a foolscap or Strasbourg lily are consistent with 17th-century papers (though exact watermarks vary).
  • Inscriptions may include engraver credits (for example, noted engravers of Van Dyck portraits include Robert van Voerst, Paulus Pontius, and Wenceslaus Hollar, among others). Lettering styles and the presence/absence of publisher’s addresses or privilege statements define different “states” of a plate.

• Later 18th–19th-century reproductive prints:

  • May be on wove paper (introduced mid-18th century), lacking prominent chain lines.
  • Techniques include mezzotint, stipple, line engraving, and later photomechanical processes. Mezzotints often show velvety blacks and soft transitions; stipple prints use dotted modeling in the face.
  • Borders can be wide with decorative scripts; some include biographical text panels.

• Oil paintings “after Van Dyck”:

  • 17th-century copies: Often on canvas, with a warm-toned ground and age-consistent craquelure; scale varies from cabinet to half-length. Quality of flesh modeling and the handling of hair are good diagnostic areas—look for confident transitions and crisp drawing around features.
  • 18th–19th-century copies: Paint surface may be smoother or more uniform; dark passages can appear glassy or bituminous in later 19th-century works. Many 18th-century canvases were relined; look for a second backing canvas and flattened texture.
  • Spurious signatures: Genuine Van Dyck signatures are rare; a bold “Ant. van Dyck” signature on a Jones portrait is generally suspect.

• Drawings:

  • Chalk or pencil copies after the print are not uncommon in 18th–19th-century albums. Paper type, mount style, and inscriptions help in dating.

• Photomechanical reproductions:

  • Late 19th–early 20th century collotypes or halftone plates, sometimes neatly framed and mistaken for engravings at a glance. Under magnification, dot patterns reveal the process.

Each category has its own market logic. Early engraved impressions and well-painted 17th-century oil copies command the most attention; later prints and decorative oils are more modestly valued but remain desirable to collectors of architectural portraiture.

Authentication, Provenance, and Documentation

• Print states and impressions:

  • Early states may lack publisher addresses or show crisp, burr-like line quality; later states can have added text, reworked shadows, or soft, worn lines.
  • Paper: Laid paper with visible chain lines suggests pre-1750 origins. Wove paper implies later printing. A watermark, when present and legible, is a strong clue but must be read with caution.
  • Plate wear: Weakening of fine hatching around eyes and hair is typical of later pulls. A rich, inky impression with clean margins is preferred.

• Painted copies:

  • Pigment and ground: Period pigments (e.g., lead white, earth colors) and grounds are consistent with 17th–18th-century practice. Modern titanium white or bright synthetic pigments signal later work or restoration.
  • Supports: Canvas was standard in England and Flanders by Van Dyck’s time; panel is less common for a copy of this subject but not impossible. Reline edges, patching, and stretcher replacements speak to conservation history rather than authorship.
  • Comparative analysis: Compare facial proportions, ear placement, and collar construction with known early prints. High-quality copies maintain logical anatomy and delicate transitions at the eyelids and mouth corners.

• Signatures and inscriptions:

  • In prints, “Ant. van Dyck delin.” indicates the designer, not the printmaker. The engraver’s name (“sculpsit”) identifies the hand that made the plate. In paintings, an ostentatious signature is a red flag, especially if it sits atop later varnish.

• Provenance:

  • Old inventory labels, exhibition tickets, and dealer stock numbers can materially affect value. Frames, too, carry clues: a period English “Lely” or early Palladian frame can add context (though frames are often replaced).
  • Documentation to seek: Old sale catalogues, collection notes, early mount inscriptions, and references to standard print catalogues (for example, entries in major museum catalogues or the New Hollstein) strengthen attribution.

• Expert opinion:

  • For important examples, conservation analysis (UV light, X-ray, pigment testing) and a specialist’s written opinion are warranted, particularly when significant value turns on date and authorship.

Appraising Value: What Drives Price

• Medium hierarchy:

  • Early 17th-century engraved impressions after Van Dyck’s design (especially desirable states and printers) typically sit at the top of the print market for this subject.
  • Competent 17th-century oil copies can achieve strong results, while 18th–19th-century oils are generally more modest but can still be appealing to collectors of architectural portraiture.
  • Later reproductive prints (18th–19th century) occupy a decorative tier, with exceptions for particularly fine mezzotints or rare publishers.

• Quality of impression or paint handling:

  • Prints: Dark, velvety blacks, crisp linework, and generous margins improve desirability. Toning, trimmed margins, and stains impair value.
  • Paintings: Lively, nuanced faces and hands (if present) are critical. Mechanical or dry handling depresses value even with age.

• Condition:

  • Prints: Tears, losses, heavy foxing, acid burn from mounts, and backing with non-archival materials reduce estimates. Professional conservation can help but may not fully restore market value.
  • Paintings: Overcleaning, abrasion in the face, intrusive overpaint, and structural issues (canvas tears, panel splits) weigh heavily. Sensitive restoration, stable supports, and a serviceable period frame help.

• Provenance and exhibition history:

  • Pieces with documented early ownership, scholarly citations, or institutional exhibition history outperform anonymous examples.

• Scale and presentation:

  • Larger, commanding oils fare better than small decorative copies. Among prints, wide original margins and attractive early mounts are pluses.

• Market comparables:

  • Across the last decade, auction prices for this subject have ranged widely. As a broad guide, later decorative prints can be in the low hundreds, strong 18th-century impressions in the mid-hundreds to low thousands, and early 17th-century impressions or particularly fine oil copies moving into the low to mid-five figures. Exceptional examples exceed these ranges. Condition and state are decisive.

Expect fluctuations based on overall demand for Van Dyck-related material and the cyclical appetite for architectural portrait subjects.

Practical Checklist for Owners and Buyers

• Identify the medium:

  • Is it an engraved print on laid paper, a mezzotint on wove paper, an oil on canvas, or a drawing? Use magnification to confirm technique.

• Check paper or support:

  • Prints: Look for chain lines and watermarks; measure the platemark; note margin width. Paintings: Inspect the canvas weave, lining, stretcher type, and ground color.

• Read the inscriptions:

  • Transcribe titles, credits (delin./sculpsit), and any Latinized forms (“Iones”). Note publishers and addresses; these help determine state and date.

• Assess condition honestly:

  • Prints: Foxing, staining, abrasions, skinning, creases, and trimming. Paintings: Craquelure pattern, paint losses, overcleaning, and old restorations visible under UV.

• Compare to authoritative models:

  • Check facial proportions, collar design, and the oval framing against known early examples. Inconsistent anatomy or modernized details suggest later or freer copies.

• Be cautious with signatures:

  • A painted “Van Dyck” signature on this subject is almost always a later addition. Treat it as decorative unless proven otherwise.

• Document provenance:

  • Photograph labels, inscriptions, and frame backboards. Keep invoices and previous cataloguing, however modest.

• Get expert input for significant pieces:

  • For potentially early prints (fine early state) or 17th-century oils, seek a specialist’s opinion and, if appropriate, technical analysis.

• Plan care and presentation:

  • Prints: Museum-quality matting, UV-filter glazing, and climate control. Paintings: Stable environment (avoid heat sources), periodic condition checks, and only trained conservator interventions.

• Record dimensions accurately:

  • Note image size, platemark, and sheet size for prints; sight size and stretcher size for paintings.

FAQ

Q: Does “after Van Dyck” mean it’s a fake? A: No. “After” denotes a legitimate work based on Van Dyck’s composition, made by another hand. Many such works are period and collectible, especially early engravings and well-executed 17th-century oil copies.

Q: How can I tell if my print is 17th-century? A: Look for laid paper with chain lines, a clear platemark, and early lettering conventions. The presence of an engraver’s name and absence of later publisher information often indicate an early state. A specialist can confirm by comparing to known states.

Q: Why is “Inigo Iones” spelled with an “I”? A: Early modern Latinized inscriptions often used “I” for “J.” It’s typical, not a spelling error, and consistent with 17th-century practice.

Q: My painting has a Van Dyck signature. Is it real? A: Van Dyck seldom signed works, and on this subject a painted signature is usually an addition. Attribution rests on quality, technique, and period features, not signatures. Seek expert assessment.

Q: Should I clean or reframe before selling? A: Not without advice. Overcleaning can permanently diminish value, and replacing a period frame can be counterproductive. Have a conservator and a specialist advise on the most value-positive steps.