RKD STUDIES

The petition’s list of panel makers associated with the Guild of Saint Luke in 1617 and their marks remains the foundation of our knowledge of Antwerp panel makers.¹ To date, marks of ten of these twenty-two panel makers have been identified on panel paintings. In addition, marks have been recorded of other panel makers active both before and after 1617, some of whom have been identified through archival sources, particularly De Liggeren, the registers of the Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke.² The catalogue in Appendix 1A presents the marks of twenty-four identified Antwerp panel makers alongside a number of as yet unattributed monograms and signs.

The panel maker’s marks recorded on Antwerp panels show considerable variation in form and technique. The most common are punch marks, impressed into the reverse with small, engraved iron tools, often forming ligatured monograms. These allowed makers to identify their work efficiently and to comply with the 1617 ordinance requiring panels to be marked. A smaller group of panels bears carved or incised monograms, cut directly into the wood, or marks written in red or black chalk. These are generally regarded as earlier forms of identification, predating the widespread adoption of punch marks, as in the case of Guilliam Aertssen’s hand-chiselled monogram on The penitent Saint Jerome in the wilderness [1] and red chalk monogram on Joachim Beuckelaer’s Market scene with Ecce Homo [2]. Besides from Aertssen, handwritten marks are known from two panel makers that are closely connected to him – Jan van Haecht II (c. 1561–1621/27) and his apprentice Hans van Herentals (d. 1624) – and likely reflect specific workshop practices.³

Among the corpus of marked panels, a limited number of panel makers dominate: Guiliam Gabron, Michiel Vrient, Michiel Claessens, Guilliam Aertssen, and Lambrecht Steens together account for roughly seventy percent of known marked panels. This concentration, however, reflects only those paintings that have survived and entered major collections or the art market, where documentation and research are more readily available. As such, the data is inevitably somewhat biased toward higher-end works deemed worth preserving. Nonetheless, paintings traded through minor auction houses have in recent years been subjected to increasing scholarly attention, facilitated in particular by the growing availability of digital platforms providing images of panel reverses.

1
Guilliam Aertssen’s incised mark

2
‘GA’ in red crayon (Guilliam Aertssen or his father Cornelis Aertssen?)