24 x 53. Christie, 9 May 1927, Lot 250, as by T.Luny. Said, Nov 2005, to be signed Monamy: can this be true? Click on picture for Dover. These two pictures, or photographs of pictures, are so alike that at first glance I thought they must be the same painting, before and after cleaning. However, apart from the obvious variations in the skies, there may be a few other small differences, notably the angle of the ship's roll to starboard. Or could all the differences be caused by photographic distortion? The next pair seem similar in their colour variation. The right hand version appears to have been scanned in from F.Gordon Roe's rather deplorable book, surprisingly published in 1947. This painting struck me as a highly unusual, not to say suspiciously improbable Monamy the first time I saw its splendid photographic reproduction. Having now spent some week or so in the enigmatic company of Thomas Leemans, I would be most happy to donate this picture to him. I am beginning to suspect that Mr Leemans was quite a busy bee during the second half of the C18th, and I wonder why he only signed one of his paintings. See here. This painting, 32¾ x 37½, attributed to Monamy and auctioned at Sotheby's 26th November, 1975, lot 119, has been said to represent Admiral Sir George Rooke returning from Cadiz, 1702; from which the aficionado is at liberty to draw a variety of conclusions. Perhaps the yacht and the flagship can be identified by their sterns. The flagship has been called the Royal Sovereign. Above is a picture which has purported to be an oil painting by Monamy for at least the last 25 years. In fact it is the product of some mysterious reproductive process, as anyone hoping to give it a restorative face-lift will find out. more anomalies mail cichw-0@cichw.net |