1. Dirt.
    March 10, 2009 @ 2:01 pm

    i think you’re onto something here. the similarities in the eyes may be enough reason to write off the differences in the nose. very interesting…


  2. Mark
    March 10, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

    Hi, Jeff. I must say, yesterday, I was certainly weighing the possibility that this “new Shakespeare” portrait was actually a de Vere portrait. Hell, it’d certainly be in my own best interest. I wrote a book about de Vere and Shakespeare.

    But before you go any further, please take a look here. I suspect you’ll agree that the “new Shakespeare” is actually a very old and familiar Jacobean authorial face: Sir Thomas Overbury.

    Not to say, of course, that Overbury has anything to do with the authorship question. Just that a present-day Overbury portrait owner (whether by conscious decision or not) has … as it were… willed sober judgment aside.


  3. RUDHI-Daily
    March 10, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

    Hi;interesting question; maybe the same modell in different ages, for different painters?


  4. DPinksen
    March 10, 2009 @ 11:51 pm


    I have to question Stanley Wells’ timing, and his tone, in making this announcement. An habitually conservative scholar, Wells’ sudden and effusive support for this portrait is out of character.

    Perhaps it has something to do with the imminent release of Anne Henderson’s “Battle of Wills”, a documentary which explores the Canadian Sanders portrait’s claim as the ‘only authentic portrait of Shakespeare painted in his lifetime’. This is exactly the claim made by Wells of this latest contender, the Cobbes portrait.

    This coincidence calls the timing – and uncharacteristic ado – of Wells’ announcement into question. There’s a lot at stake here, and Wells may be using this announcement as a pre-emptive strike against the claims made by the Sanders film.


  5. Jeff Hayes
    March 11, 2009 @ 5:04 am

    Right Dirt, especially considering the dissimilarities between the noses in the actual de Vere paintings.


  6. Jeff Hayes
    March 11, 2009 @ 5:12 am

    Oh hi Mark – I listened to your podcasts last year.

    That is indeed interesting. One of the things that made me pause before writing the post was the grounds on which the Cobbe portrait was being claimed/authenticated as Shakespearean.

    That said; I’m certainly no expert on the topic and never going to become one, but decided to toss in my visual observation as is. I’m in the ideal position of not having to take and defend a stance 🙂

    Keep up the interesting work!


  7. Jeff Hayes
    March 11, 2009 @ 5:24 am

    Hi Daryl,

    Also interesting. I’m totally out of my depth with regards to these specifics, so I can’t respond beyond what I said above RE grounds for authentication of the portrait, but thank you for commenting. I will have a look around your site.


  8. Jeff Hayes
    March 11, 2009 @ 5:36 am

    Hi Rudhi; that is certainly one possible interpretation. One thing that struck me was the unnatural modeling of the nose in “B”; that’s a charicature nose, not a nose carefully observed from life. If you tried to make an idealized, composite painting from “A” and “C”, turning the subject into a younger man, you might get something like “B” as a result.

    I obviously can’t say that this is what happened, but I could imagine a scenario in which Client X commissions a portrait of his dear, recently departed Friend Y, and the artist bases his work on 2 existing paintings of Friend Y. It could be…

    In any case, “A” and “C”, for all their crudeness (especially “A”), feel like they’re painted from life, whereas “B” does not feel that way to me. All I have to go on here is my gut reaction as a practicing artist.


  9. RUDHI-Daily
    March 11, 2009 @ 8:43 pm

    Hi Jeff, I Understand and agree… Your new cheese-picture is nearly smelling also .-)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *