Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

M ELEY · 1st April 2019, 03:10 PM

I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on this piece. I understand that there are slight differences in the portraits of the monarchs, but I would always have described the marking as "attributed to..." or "believed to be..." Jim has acutely accessed the date and country of origin (Germany), so at the very least we know that Midelburgo was on the right track in identifying the fact that the portraiture is one of the Holy Roman Emperors of this time period. I don't think the eagle crest is necessary to prove or disprove this. That it is definitely Leopold might remain a contention, but it does fit the timeline of his rule (1670's-1705). If Udo is right and the monarch is from an earlier date, it would be more of a memorial to their past rule. In either case, I am just happy that it wasn't just a generic imprint of no one in particular for decorative purposes alone.

1st April 2019, 03:10 PM	#19
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,066	I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on this piece. I understand that there are slight differences in the portraits of the monarchs, but I would always have described the marking as "attributed to..." or "believed to be..." Jim has acutely accessed the date and country of origin (Germany), so at the very least we know that Midelburgo was on the right track in identifying the fact that the portraiture is one of the Holy Roman Emperors of this time period. I don't think the eagle crest is necessary to prove or disprove this. That it is definitely Leopold might remain a contention, but it does fit the timeline of his rule (1670's-1705). If Udo is right and the monarch is from an earlier date, it would be more of a memorial to their past rule. In either case, I am just happy that it wasn't just a generic imprint of no one in particular for decorative purposes alone.