RKD STUDIES

In 1940, the Dutch art historian and art dealer Albert Heppner (1900-1945) published a foundational article on brands and stamps on the reverses of paintings and emphasized their importance for the study of early modern art [1].¹ He argued that young art historians, often without a collection to care for, were unaware of the wealth of information found on the reverse of paintings – crucial for understanding artworks and their genesis. Heppner urged the field to turn the paintings around and carefully examine their backsides for brands and other types of stamps. In the decades since, several art historians and conservators have responded to Heppner’s appeal, increasingly recognizing the importance of compiling and systematizing knowledge of these marks.²

The reverse sides of paintings often preserve information from earlier periods, offering valuable insights into the production of the support, past attributions, the identification of sitters and iconographies and the provenance of the object. Because the reverse is inseparably linked to the painted image, any notes – whether written, stamped, or affixed – are anchored directly to the work. Such markings typically remained with the object for long periods and were accessible only to a limited circle. Interest in the backs of paintings emerged from a broader concern with the material properties of artworks, first evident in the late nineteenth century and more prominent in art-historical literature by the mid-twentieth century. This focus also inspired exhibitions dedicated to reverses, such as Vinterstuen på Vrangen (1987),³ Het ‘gelijk’ van de achterkant (1999),⁴ Seitenwechsel. Gemälderückseiten und ihre Geheimnisse (2006),⁵ Back to front (2018),⁶ On the reverse (2023),⁷ and Verso. Tales from the other side (2025).⁸ Today, collection catalogues routinely include a section on the material characteristics of each object, while museum and auction websites increasingly present images of both the front and reverse of paintings, further reflecting the growing appreciation of these often-overlooked surfaces.

1 Marks illustrated by Albert Heppner, 1940

My engagement with this field began in the early 1980s during the dismantling of part of the Winter Room at Rosenborg Castle in Copenhagen, a royal chamber decorated with 95 panel paintings installed in the wainscoting around 1620. On the reverses of many of these panels, marks of Antwerp panel makers and brands from the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke were found. This discovery revealed that most of the paintings in the royal chamber had been imported from Antwerp for the decorative scheme. It also demonstrated the variety of techniques employed by panel makers: in addition to stamped marks, some monograms were written in red crayon or chiselled directly into the wood [2-3].⁹ These findings led to extensive correspondence and collaboration with the late Belgian art historian and monument conservator, Jan van Damme (1957-2021), whose archival research provided crucial historical context.¹⁰

Over the past forty years, I have examined the reverses of thousands of paintings in museum collections and private hands, seeking marks, inscriptions, and brands and aiming to understand their context. These investigations have taken place in, among others, the Mauritshuis in The Hague, the Statens Museum for Kunst in Copenhagen, the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm, the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Dijon, Arras, and Valenciennes, and the Hungarian National Gallery in Budapest. In the 1980s, Małgorzata Schuster-Gawłowska worked on a similar endeavour recording marks in Polish collections, which I have included in my dataset.¹¹ Museum colleagues, art dealers and auction houses have likewise contributed to this effort by notifying me of markings on paintings in their collections, stocks and sales.

In this RKD Study, I bring together these four decades of research and reassess earlier results. It presents and contextualizes the data gathered during this period on marks and brands found on a Flemish and Dutch paintings on panel and copper. To date, this includes a total of 1,245 Antwerp panel paintings, of which 877 bear a panel maker’s monogram and 494 are branded by the Guild of Saint Luke with the city arms of Antwerp – two hands above a castle with three towers. Within this corpus, 24 documented marks of Antwerp panel makers are represented, dating from the 1590s to 1658, and 12 branding irons used by representatives of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke between 1600 and the 1650s have been identified. This Study further presents the marks of six individual Antwerp copper plate makers, recorded on 172 copper plates. A few of these plates also bear the monogram of the assay master of the Guild of Saint Eligius, the guild for silversmiths, goldsmiths, and related trades. Moreover, for the first time, I also present ten individual marks that occur on Northern Netherlandish panels, which may be attributed to panel makers active in the Dutch Republic.

Together, these findings form the foundation of the Marks on Art: Painting database, to which this Study is directly linked. The database currently reflects a significant portion of the collected findings and will continue to grow as new data and discoveries emerge. This Study not only consolidates the accumulated information on marks, inscriptions, and brands but also illustrates how these often-hidden traces provide essential insights into artistic production and material practices in the early modern Low Countries.  

2
Hallmark of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke and clover-mark of the panel maker Michiel Claessen

3
Mark of the panel maker Guilliam Aertssen in red crayon (visible in UV-light)