N.Z. Man’s Painting Not By Breughel

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31028, 6 April 1966, Page 13

N.Z. Man’s Painting Not By Breughel

(XZ.P.A. Reuter—Copyright)

LONDON, April 4. f 't-\n U nAA Own New Zealander who hoped or *oOO,OOO for a painting can now expect ess than £lOOO, according to London experts.

' Sotheby’s, the London auctioneers, said today the painting definitely was not by Pietier Breughel, or his son, Jan. i The New Zealand owner, whose name is being kept secret, sent the painting to Soth- ; eby s last month for valua- , tion and possible auction. ! A spokesman for Sotheby’s 1 said today: “In this case it was perfectly obvious it was (not a Breughel.” Three of their experts decided this unanimously on their knowledge of Breughel’s works and of the painter himself.

Seventeenth Century Sotheby’s said it was painted in the first quarter of the seventeenth century on wooden board typical of that period.

The painting was unsigned but on the back had a tag sayung: “44. Breughel. A Village Scene.” It showed part

of a Flemish village with the church nestled among a few houses and snow lying on the ground.

Sotheby’s have told the owner it is not the painting he thought it was and are awaiting his decision whether or not to sell it at auction.

“A few Breughel’s pop up every now and then from around the world but this definitely is not one of them,” the spokesman said.