Completed Dress and Textiles, Portraits: British 18th C 16 Who painted 'A Girl with a Pearl Headdress'?

A Girl with a Pearl Headdress
Topic: Artist

Manchester City Galleries would be grateful if there are any eighteenth-century portrait experts out there who would like to speculate as to the artist of this portrait. The girl has distinctive round eyes which may spark an association for someone!

Unfortunately I can't see the original back of the painting at present, but in 1972 Curator Timothy Cifford had a good go at deciphering the wording of three labels, all in the same hand, on its stretcher:
Label 1: 'note: This picture has been / seen & ...sed as a good and genuine example of Gainsborough / (illeg) Pfengst / the Gainsborough expert'
Label 2: 'For .../ /of/ /The Hon Q (illeg) S / Bateman......'
Label 3: 'Margaret Gainsborough / Peggy / daughter of / Thomas Gainsborough RA / and painted by him circa 1755'.

However, the picture has been since dated 1710–1720, based on the costume, although who proposed this date is unclear.

The picture came in to Manchester's collection as part of the George Beatson Blair bequest in 1947. Blair was a passionate local collector of all kinds of art, some valuable, some less so. He purchased this work believing it was a Gainsborough from the dealer A. T. Leeming of Bridge Street, Manchester, on 17 Nov 1921. The previous owner is listed as the Hon. Charles Bateman. He paid £100 (we have the receipt).

Please let us have your thoughts.

Hannah Williamson
Curator, Collections Access, Manchester City Galleries

Manchester Art Gallery, Entry reviewed by Art UK

Completed, Outcome

Jade Audrey King,

This discussion is now closed. A conclusion was not reached.

Please see the discussion comments below.

If anyone has additional information about this painting, please follow the 'Start a discussion on Art Detective' link on the artwork's Art UK page to propose a new discussion.

15 comments

Marilyn Milne,

I would not pay much attention to the dating 1710-1720 based on the costume as at that time fashions were much slower to change than they are today, especially in the provinces

Veronica Isaac,

There is plenty of writing on dress from this period to investigate the 'fashion' element of the portrait, but as fashions for children moved at a different pace to those of adults and the dress worn in portraiture does not always reflect fashionable dress, I would advise pursuing an alternative route for dating.
Should you wish to read more about dress in this period however I would recommend Aileen Ribeiro's work, in particular Dress in 18th century Europe 1715-1789 and also Susan North, Fashion in Detail from the 17th and 18th Century. For writing specifically on children's dress, you are more limited, but could try Noreen Marshall, A Dictionary of Children's Clothes, 1700-the Present.

Gordon Wilding,

can you see any similarity with the portrait of Mrs Susannah Hope by Thomas Hudson (school of) in the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge.
Painted circa 1760.?????

Bruce Trewin,

Certainly many 18th century artists considered it inappropriate for a sitter to be wearing 'modern' dress (for example Sir Joshua Reynolds). Van Dyck costumes and poses were particularly popular so we should probably be cautious with dating by costume. As for Gainsborough I think we can safely say no. His daughters' portraits all had almond shaped eyes for a starter.

Lou Taylor, Dress and Textiles,

I would suggest that this portrait could well be around 1720 because the girl's style of dress relates to similar dress in other portraits of adult women of that period. This is not fashionable dress but 'artistic' dress. Little girls were dressed like adult women from a very young age- see dress similarities to the portrait by William Aikman, of Euphene Lockart, 3rd wife of John, 6th Earl of Wigton, dated to 1720. I make no comment about the possible artist.

James Astley Birtwistle,

If we can ignore the 1710-1720 dating I would say that the distinctive round eyes suggest the hand of Francis Hayman. I have recently seen a private work similar to this of a young boy by Hayman, the eyes, large forehead, and handling of fabric look very similar. He is known to have influenced Gainsborough, perhaps the optimistic attribution stems from this relationship. See the photo below of a Hayman work sold at Sotheby's in 2010 to compare.

1 attachment
Manchester Art Gallery,

I find Michael Dahl I a good suggestion - what does everyone else think?
Hannah, Manchester City Galleries

Tim Williams,

Certainly a follower of Dahl, but for me it's closer to Lou's non-suggestion of Aikman. It's a tricky one though without having anything concrete. I can't currently see any obvious leads that might lead to an identity of the sitter (apart from a potential ancestor of Bateman's, but there's a fair bit of time between his ownership and the execution). Perhaps there are other markings/labels on the reverse that might lead us somewhere?

Barbara Bryant,

At some point in its life this picture became a Gainsborough. I don't have any suggestions about the artist but the reference in label 1 to Pfengst must be to Henry J. Pfungst (1844-1917), a well-to-do wine merchant and collector of works by Gainsborough, both oils and drawings, who became an "expert" (see label 1) on this artist. He wrote an introductory essay to a volume on Gainsborough's drawings. And it may well have been Pfungst who attached the attribution of Gainsborough or at least gave that attribution credence.
Pfungst also collected widely in other areas, including Old Master paintings, miniatures, majolica, and even contemporary sculpture, giving quite generously to many museum collections, see http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/term_details.aspx?bioId=111648

Tim Williams,

Edward Byng is very close, but there's only a couple of autograph paintings on the web to compare.

Barbara Bryant,

There have been some good suggestions for attribution, including Edward Byng, William Aikman, and Michael Dahl, but none of these can be considered conclusive. The dating would still seem accurate as c.1720, judging by the clothes (as per Lou Taylor's comment above).
It is not Gainsborough, that much is certain, although one can understand why Gainsborough was the favoured attribution in the early 20C. So for now, we should look at closing this discussion, unless Bendor has any further comment.

Manchester Art Gallery,

Our thanks to all the contributors. Moderator please close this discussion as unresolved.