Template:Did you know nominations/Pendant portraits of Maerten Soolmans and Oopjen Coppit


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Pendant portraits of Maerten Soolmans and Oopjen Coppit

 * ... that in September 2015, two pendant portraits (pictured) broke a record for the most expensive pair of pendant wedding portraits ever, and individually the most expensive works by Rembrandt?



Created by Jane023 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. Regarding the title: It is unclear why you're calling them "pendant portraits", as they are full-length portraits. I didn't see that term in the sources. Perhaps just "Portraits" would suffice? Regarding the hook facts, these need to be stated and cited in the article. The first fact, that it broke a record for the most expensive pair of pendant wedding portraits ever, doesn't appear in the article. The second fact, that the purchase price broke a record for the most expensive works by Rembrandt, appears in the article but not in the source. No QPQ necessary for nominator with less than 5 DYKs. Image is PD. Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, thanks for your comments! The word "pendant" in the case of paintings refers to the fact that the paintings form a pair (a "painting series", but not a larger series than 2) and are meant to hang together. The supporting articles about the paintings individually quote the expert Hofstede de Groot who refers to them explicitly as pendants of each other. Though the word "pendant" may be missing from the current sources in this article, I don't see a need to include a specific reference for this word, as it is so common in this context. The NYtimes source does say that the only comparable Rembrandt is the Aristotle which sold for $2.3 million in 1961. That makes it a pretty safe bet to say this is the most expensive pair and the most paid individually. Not sure what else you can compare it to. This is also the only entry in the List of most expensive paintings, which I linked to. Without access to insurance premiums we can't show the actual market value of others (though I imagine the reason these have appeared on the market in March is due to this enormously expensive show of Late Rembrandt in the Rijksmuseum this year. Jane (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Jane is quite correct. Article is good to go, although I wouldnt mention "record-breaking" in the lead image, which also could be enlarged. Symbol confirmed.svg Ceoil (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thank you for your input,, but it is inappropriate to take over another editor's review and approve the article before I could even respond. I hope to respond to Jane shortly. Yoninah (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , OK, I understand now what "pendant portraits" are. But I don't see the proper inline cites in place. Would you mind pointing out where it says in the article that the sale broke a record for the most expensive pair of pendant wedding portraits ever, and which source you're citing? And would you point out where it says in footnote 1, The Guardian source that you're citing, where it broke a record for the most expensive works by Rembrandt? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Added source that mentions that when the "portrait of Catrina Hooghsaet sold earlier this year, it was a record price for the artist. However, three weeks ago, in an unusual move, the Rijksmuseum and the Louvre in Paris agreed jointly to buy a pair of Rembrandt portraits of Maerten Soolmans and his wife Oopjen Coppit (1634) from the Eric de Rothschild collection, for €160m for the pair". Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for adding sources for the record-breaking Rembrandt part. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers Yoninah - this has made headlines in a lot of the trade mags in last weeks. More available. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks for adding those (quite interesting) references! I moved the NYTimes article ref up too. Yoninah, I think that indeed the Catrina Hooghsaet (1657) portrait and its proposed price of 50 million euros is proof enough that Oopjen's portrait is the most expensive female portrait by Rembrandt, but again, it is more the fact that these Rembrandts don't come on the market at all, and certainly not as a pair. That fact in and of itself means it is a record, since the art market in general has exploded since the 1980s and there have been no Rembrandt wedding pendants sold together since that time. Let me know if you want me to expand it a bit about the Catrina Hooghsaet portrait (could use its own article!) -- I am especially intrigued to read that it came on the market after being lent out to the Rijksmuseum, which just goes to prove my theory that the insurance premiums have gone up so high that it is maybe getting too expensive to hold such paintings if you don't have the paying public to help with the costs of ownership. Jane (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * forgot to mention that in general portraits of women are cheaper than portraits of men, and so the pendants are probably valued at 100/60 rather than 80/80 but we will never know for sure, and the Hooghsaet price helps with that. Jane (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jane, the DYK rules specifically state that any facts mentioned in the hook must be sourced. Without sources, your conclusions are considered OR. You have adequately sourced the record-breaking Rembrandt part, but not the most expensive pair of pendant wedding portraits ever part. Would you like to shorten the hook so we can pass this?
 * ALT1: ... that in September 2015, two pendant portraits (pictured) broke a record for the most expensive works by Rembrandt ever sold? Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that in September 2015, the portraits of Maerten Soolmans and Oopjen Coppit (pictured) broke the record as the most expensive works by Rembrandt sold at auction? Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could go with either one of those! Meanwhile, I have already been moving on and just created Portrait of Catharina Hooghsaet. Now it's done I see I have to go write her bio too, as I find her quite a fascinating woman besides just the portrait after reading her biography - she managed to achieve a divorce without giving up her wealth and more importantly, was *not* shunned by the Mennonites (which generally happened whenever women left their husbands in those days). Jane (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Great, thanks. Let's go with Ceoil's ALT2, which is more precise. Since I only shortened the original hook for my ALT1 suggestion, I'm going ahead and approving this. ALT2 hook ref verified and cited inline. ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Jane (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the Portrait of Catharina Hooghsaet article. Have been following that drama via Last chance to buy £35m Rembrandt. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oooh the plot thickens! Thanks for that - I guess then that the Rijksmuseum is in fact the mystery overseas buyer probably. Of course it's great for Amsterdam if all these Rembrandts come home to roost, but personally I like the idea of them spread all over the place. And sources on the inside tell me that these old paintings can stand ages of neglect hanging on castle walls with no specific room temperature controls or any of the things top museums claim. Jane (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)