Inconclusive or Studio attributions

Individual Data Points IDP	INCONCLUSIVE OR STUDIO ATTRIBUTIONS Below there are two examples of Data Point Distribution (DPD) compared to the Designated Artist Target Zone (DATZ). Both examples appear in a similar graphic format to that which appears in the various Catalogue Raisonnés. The image below designated as rcr-377 shows inconclusive attribution results. Note that only eight of the IDP fall within the DATZ for Rembrandt van Rijn. Three IDP are marginally acceptable and six IDP are completely outside of the DATZ. This graphic is in a visually compressed format. Thus, what appears to be only a short distance from the DATZ is actually much farther away than is apparent. Were this graphic seen in an uncompressed view, four of the six IDP that are outside of the DATZ would not even appear on the chart. Additionally, Veritus normally uses sixteen IDP for its evaluation. Because of the inconclusive results, Veritus plotted an additional four IDP. Even with compression, three IDP are still not visible due to the distance from the DATZ. No clusters of IDP fell within the DATZ of any other artist. The DPD was spread over the areas covered by several artists' DATZ. Thus, the painting does not appear to be a collaboration of Rembrandt and one other artist. This painting is in poor condition. This factor made the evaluation extremely difficult. This painting can not be authoritatively identified as a Rembrandt. Because it is the policy of Veritus to only issue an attribution when it can be authoritative, this painting was tentatively listed as a Studio of Rembrandt with important contributions by Rembrandt van Rijn.
Designated Artist Target Zone DATZ
Data Point Distribution DPD	The image designated as rbc-006 shows inconclusive attribution results. Note that only eight of the IDP fall within the DATZ for Peter Paul Rubens. One IDP is marginally acceptable and six IDP are completely outside of the DATZ. Were this graphic seen in an uncompressed view, two of the six IDP that are outside of the DATZ would not even appear on the chart. Veritus normally uses sixteen IDP for its evaluation. Because of the inconclusive results, Veritus plotted an additional four IDP. Even with compression, five IDP are still not visible due to the distance from the DATZ. No clusters of IDP fell within the DATZ of any other artist. The DPD was spread over the areas covered by several artists' DATZ. Thus the painting does not appear to be a collaboration of Rubens and an single artist. This painting is also in poor condition. This factor made the evaluation extremely difficult. Because it is the policy of Veritus to only issue an attribution when it can be authoritative, this painting was tentatively listed as a Studio of Rubens with important contributions by Peter Paul Rubens.
	© 1995-2025, All rights reserved
	If you have any technical problems with this site, please contact the This site is being constantly updated and expanded, it was last modified : 4 June 2018