A 19th-century still life ‘in the manner of’ Edwaert Collier, estimated at €300–500, sold for a €30,000 hammer price at Lyon Enchères on 5 September. A small copper attributed to a follower of Bartholomeus Breenbergh rose from €400–600 to €9,000 in the same sale. The prices do not prove any new attributions. But somewhere between the estimate and the hammer price, several bidders decided that the catalogue might not be telling the whole story.
Lot 73 was a small painting on oak panel measuring just 14 by 21.5 centimetres. No major name in the catalogue, no impressive provenance and no optimistic estimate. Lyon Enchères described it as Dutch School, 19th century, dans le goût de Edouard Collier, in the manner of Edwaert Collier. Estimate: €300–500. The hammer fell at €30,000.[1]
It is the kind of result that temporarily seems to throw the entire cataloguing into question. Sixty times the high estimate for a small painting that was offered not as a Collier, not as studio of Collier, not even as a period follower, but explicitly as a 19th-century work in his manner. And it was not the only strange result that afternoon.
A few hours earlier, an even smaller work had come up for sale: Tobie et l’Ange, measuring 12 by 16.5 centimetres and painted in oil on copper. The auction house placed it in the Roman School of the 17th century and catalogued it as by a follower of Bartholomeus Breenbergh. Estimate: €400–600. Here too, the catalogue price barely survived contact with the bidders. The work achieved a €9,000 hammer price.[2]
What did different bidders see in these objects that made them willing to leave the published valuations so radically behind?
Two prices for the same painting
A cautious attribution, an unknown provenance, a panel that appears older than expected, a composition someone recognises, a signature that merits closer examination. In such cases, a specialist is not merely buying the painting as it is currently offered, but also the possibility that its cataloguing may later be upgraded.
An entire trade exists around precisely this phenomenon. The classic sleeper scenario is familiar: a work is cautiously catalogued, a dealer sees more in it, has it cleaned or technically examined, consults a specialist and then attempts to secure a stronger attribution. But the Lyon case does not fit that model quite so neatly. Above all, €30,000 is already a substantial amount of money for the supposed Collier.
A Collier that, according to the catalogue, is not a Collier
The small panel bears the letters ‘EC’ at lower right. Its subject also belongs squarely to the visual world for which Edwaert Collier (1642–1708) became known: still lifes in which books, musical instruments, globes, papers and vanitas symbols are carefully layered across the composition.
Anyone seeking to imitate Collier would hardly have painted a landscape with cows; they would have reached for the repertoire by which Collier was recognisable. An ‘EC’ monogram could just as easily form part of such a historical pastiche. Yet the Lyon panel contains just enough elements to make a specialist linger over it during a viewing.
Collier himself used the EC monogram. The National Museum of Western Art in Tokyo, for example, owns an accepted Vanitas, Still Life with Books and Manuscripts and a Skull of 1663 on panel, monogrammed and dated ‘EC 1663’.[3] Globes recur throughout his oeuvre. The difference between €500 and €30,000 does, however, suggest that at least two parties were prepared to commit substantial sums to an interpretation that departed from the most cautious reading of the painting.
Why €30,000 makes the mystery even greater
Looking only at record prices, the result might seem easy to explain. Suppose the painting were one day accepted as an autograph Collier: €30,000 might then appear cheap. But the market for Edwaert Collier is not that straightforward.
In May 2025, Lempertz sold a small, signed and dated 1676 vanitas still life by Collier, also on panel and measuring just 19.5 by 17 centimetres. The work achieved €15,120 including buyer’s premium.[4] A month earlier, Dorotheum had sold a much larger vanitas still life, signed and dated 1694, for €10,400.[5]
By contrast, another small Collier at Lempertz rose to €125,000 including buyer’s premium in 2022. That painting, however, had a very different profile: it was registered with the RKD as an autograph work, had a historical provenance, had been exhibited and published, and also carried a significant restitution history.[6]
The hammer price is not merely far above what one might expect for a 19th-century work in Collier’s manner. It is also higher than several recent results for paintings that were actually offered as autograph works by Collier.
The Breenbergh is a different puzzle
The situation is different with Tobias and the Angel. Lyon Enchères already dated the work to the 17th century. The potential shift therefore lies not primarily in its dating, but in how close it may stand to Bartholomeus Breenbergh (1598–1657).
Breenbergh spent many years in Italy and became one of the leading Dutch painters of Italianate landscapes. After his return to Amsterdam, Biblical and mythological subjects assumed an increasingly prominent role in his oeuvre. Small paintings on panel and copper fit comfortably within his production.[7]
More relevant still is the fact that Tobias and the Angel genuinely appears within Breenbergh’s orbit. In 2019, Christie’s in London offered a pair of paintings as autograph works by Breenbergh: Tobias and the Angel and The Journey to Emmaus. Both were painted in oil on copper and measured 16.3 by 22.2 centimetres.[8]
That is remarkably close to the 12 by 16.5 centimetres of the Lyon painting. The pair sold for £15,000 against an estimate of £12,000–18,000.[8] This gives the bidding in Lyon a much more concrete context. A specialist did not have to speculate abstractly that Breenbergh “might have painted something like this”. There is an Tobias and the Angel offered as an autograph work on the same support and at a similarly small scale.
And that is exactly where the danger lies
Breenbergh in particular demonstrates why visual recognition is not the same thing as attribution. The Louvre owns a drawing depicting Tobias and the Angel in a landscape with ruins. The sheet was formerly attributed to Breenbergh himself. Today, the museum catalogues it as manière de Bartholomeus Breenbergh and describes it as a copy after a drawing by Breenbergh in Grenoble.[9]
A work can stand close to an artist. It can follow his composition, depict the same subject, date from the same century and even have carried his name for many years, and still not have been executed by him.
When the estimate became meaningless
What the two Lyon results demonstrate is how quickly a low estimate can lose its function. At €300–500, an auction house can position a painting cautiously and invite the market to form its own judgement. But once two or more specialist buyers begin bidding into the thousands, it is no longer the catalogue attribution alone that is being traded.
Perhaps someone recognised a particular composition or hand in the Breenbergh. Perhaps a buyer noticed material or technical characteristics in the Collier that made a 19th-century dating seem less self-evident. Perhaps the parties involved had access to comparative material that was not mentioned in the catalogue.
The Collier in particular poses an intriguing question for the market. At €1,000 or €2,000, one might have called it a cheap gamble. Two relatively unremarkable catalogue lots became very different objects once the bidding began. Not because any new art-historical evidence emerged at that moment, but because several market participants were willing to place their own reading above that of the catalogue.
Do you have a particular interest in this artist or in this subject?
Do you follow this artist, or have you come across a work you would like to know more about? We regularly research works appearing on the market and are always happy to exchange views on quality, provenance, art-historical context and previous auction results. You can contact us directly via info@antonello.art.
Notes and sources
[1] Lyon Enchères, Tableaux anciens – Mobilier & Objets d’art, Lyon, 5 September 2026, lot 73, “École hollandaise du XIXe siècle, dans le goût de Edouard Collier, Nature morte au globe céleste”; oil on oak panel, 14 × 21.5 cm; estimate €300–500; hammer price €30,000.
[2] Lyon Enchères, same sale, lot 21, “École romaine du XVIIe siècle, suiveur de Bartholomeus Breenbergh, Tobie et l’Ange”; oil on copper, 12 × 16.5 cm; estimate €400–600; hammer price €9,000.
[3] National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo, Edwaert Collier, Vanitas, Still Life with Books and Manuscripts and a Skull, 1663, oil on panel, 56.5 × 70 cm, monogrammed and dated ‘EC 1663’.
[4] Lempertz, Old Masters and 19th Century Part I, Cologne, 17 May 2025, lot 1026, Edwaert Collier, Vanitas Still Life with a Skull, Bust, Clock, Globe and Bottle; 19.5 × 17 cm; result €15,120 including buyer’s premium.
[5] Dorotheum, Old Masters, Vienna, 29 April 2025, Edwaert Collier, vanitas still life, signed and dated 1694, 74 × 62.5 cm; result €10,400.
[6] Lempertz, Alte Kunst, Cologne, 21 May 2022, lot 2096, Edwaert Collier, Vanitas Still Life with Nautilus Chalice and Bust, 30 × 24.5 cm; estimate €8,000–12,000; result €125,000 including buyer’s premium.
[7] Taco Dibbits, “Bartholomeus Breenbergh, Jacob Wrestling with the Angel, 1639”, in J. Bikker (ed.), Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 2007.
[8] Christie’s, Old Masters Day Sale, London, 5 July 2019, lot 141, Bartholomeus Breenbergh, Tobias and the Angel; and The Journey to Emmaus, oil on copper, each 16.3 × 22.2 cm; estimate £12,000–18,000; recorded result £15,000.
[9] Musée du Louvre, Département des Arts graphiques, INV 22546, Paysage avec devant des ruines Tobie et l’ange, currently catalogued as “manière de Bartholomeus Breenbergh”, formerly attributed to Breenbergh.
