Jan van Goyen (1596-1656)?

[roman99]

Your opinion?

Board oil.

Size: 30 x 25 cm

Bottom left is a monogram, but I can not read it and there are figures - 16

Thank you in advance!

[Игорь Гурьев]

I have the impression that this is based on the 18-19 age Dutch 17th.
Though why would a 18- 19th century, it was necessary to write on the board ...

Strange and everywhere onaya board shines as if there is no ground was not.

Washed away ?
Valid.
But oddly washed out .

In Jan van Goyen , too, so the reception was when the board is translucent.

... In general , the further you look, the more I like this veshchichki .
Maybe all of the 17th century?
But do not believe that ...

[roman99]

Many thanks to Igor, for your opinion.

I offer to buy it, and I'm in doubt.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от roman99

I offer to buy it, and I'm in doubt.

This is not it.

Добавлено через 16 минут
And this is it: ....

Добавлено через 27 минут

Сообщение от Igor Guryev

Though why would a 18-19th century, it was necessary to write on the board ...

To pass for the 17th.

Added after 4 minutes

Сообщение от Igor Guryev

Strange and everywhere onaya board shines as if there is no ground was not.

Washed away ?
Valid.
But oddly washed out .

In Jan van Goyen , too, so the reception was when the board is translucent.

It is not only " welcome" , but the result of aging pattern. I thoroughly that's another topic [/URL].

[Тютчев]

And this is it: ....

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Igor Guryev

Though why would a 18- 19th century, it was necessary to write on the board ...

To pass for the 17th. Common.

Added after 4 minutes

Сообщение от Igor Guryev

Strange and everywhere onaya board shines as if there is no ground was not.

Washed away ?
Valid.
But oddly washed out .

In Jan van Goyen , too, so the reception was when the board is translucent.

This is not just a "reception ", but the result of the aging pattern. I thoroughly that's another topic [/URL].

[Балагур]

Сообщение от Igor Guryev

I have the impression that this is based on the 18-19 century Dutch 17th.
Though why would a 18- 19th century, it was necessary to write on the board ...

Strange and everywhere onaya board shines as if there is no ground was not.

Washed away ?
Valid.
But oddly washed out .

In Jan van Goyen , too, so the reception was when the board is translucent.

... In general , the further you look, the more I like this veshchichki .
Maybe all of the 17th century?
But do not believe that ...

You pay attention to the painting - the sky is not registered , just smeared , that smears are not only because of the translucent. No soil , cursive - spotting ! To bullshit pictures should be able to draw a little bit . IMHO.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Balagur

You note on the painting - the sky is not registered , just smeared , that smears are not only because of the translucent. No soil , cursive - spotting ! To bullshit pictures should be able to draw a little bit . IMHO .

Are you saying that the picture I posted in this thread is not the work of Jan van Goyen ? Or something I did not understand? < - ~ 3 ~ ->

[Балагур]

Сообщение от Tyutchev

Are you saying that the picture I posted in this thread is not the work of Jan van Goyen?
Or something I did not understand?
<- ~ 3 ~ ->

Sorry, I'm talking about the picture presented by roman99


But, in both craquelure not see.
It's weird.

Replace quote.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Balagur

Sorry, I'm talking about the picture provided by the roman99

Thank you , now clear.

[color="#666686 " ]Added after 3 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Balagur

But, in both craquelure not see. This is strange .

go here [/URL]. There, I wrote in detail about the technique of the painters of the 17th century. Of the writing is clear why no craquelure.