The Hand of a Master?

From the beginning I have to preface this by admitting that I am self appointed expert on Rembrandt's works and painting techniques. But I should think that my opinion is just as valid as anyone else who has studied his work inside and out for many years. But don't take my word for it, I'll give you the opportunity to judge for yourself. On my website, www.memoreejoelle.org, you can find many copies I've painted from Rembrandt. These studies and research compiled from various sources are the basis for which I will compare a few paintings I've come across, one of which I just don't believe was painted by Rembrandt himself, though it is largely considered to be by his hand.

Consider this (Rembrandt) self portrait as St. Paul (1661) on the left. From a first glance at the composition and the gestural, descriptive brush strokes, it appears to fit the criteria quite well. But upon closer examination, and consideration alongside several other self-portraits, I find some inconsistencies, which I'll point out.


First, the subtle changes from light to shadow which we see on the middle(1662) and bottom(1658) are not quite so subtle on the top. This is a subtle difference which is not very well conveyed by the photo on the bottom, but can be seen in the original in the Frick collection which I have visited many times. Secondly, there is a much greater accuracy of draughtsmanship in the second and third portraits, as well as a more consistent use of the brushstrokes to describe the shape or form of the head. In the first these expressive strokes appear more arbitrary. Third, the idea of the shape of the head (or the form sense) is different. In other words, whoever painted St. Paul has a different understanding of the anatomy and shape of the skull than the other two. To be specific I'll point out the exact regions I mean. In the portrait at the top, the superciliary arches above the eyes and the shape of the forehead are inconsistent with the other two. The zygomatic (cheek) bones protrude less in the first in relation to the plane of the temples. Also, the maxilla (upper lip) is shortened and the mandible is slightly more square. All of these are relatively consistent in most other self portraits known to be painted by Rembrandt.
The Kenwood self portrait in the middle was painted at least at the same time or a year later than the one on the top, so we know that he wasn't just simply loosing his faculties. In fact, his paintings continue to be consistent up until his death in 1669. There have been dating methods performed on this painting, however, and the fibers and pigments are consistent with the period and geography, so my assumption is that this was painted by one of his students. Regardless of all these elements, it was still a master of some facility who painted this portrait, and I for one feel that it should not be devalued even if it is not a Rembrandt.
-Richard T. Scott