The Evangelist Matthew(?) __________Oil painting, attributed to Rembrandt van RijnSigned: Rf.Rf - may mean “Rembrandt made”; fecit (verb Latin);he made (it); she made (it): formerly used on works of art after the name of the artist. Abbreviation: fe., fec. Size of the stretcher without frame: 33,7 x 29,3 cm; Size of the frame: 48,7 x 43,9 cm; Condition: The canvas was relined, probably in 19th century. Basically there are 2 layers of canvas: old and new. There is a repaired cut or damage of the canvas in the area of of old man beard and his book. Provenance: from the collection of the late Yvonne Schotte, daughter of the Belgian magnate Hippolyte Schotte from castle AalstHere is picture of castle from family Shotte in Aalst .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kasteel_Regelsbrugge.JPGOpinion of Art Specialist Jean-Marie Clarke, artistorian from Europe about signaturehttp://www.rembrandt-signature-file.com/“First of all, I am not a Rembrandt expert as such, but only an art historian who has done a lot of research on the signatures, which permits me to give an educated opinion on the matter.Second, it is very difficult to judge a painting from a photo alone.Nevertheless, I can say a few things about your painting and its signature.The form of the signature--an initial R, followed by an "f"--would point to an early work, i.e. previous to 1632 (or even 1630).What I see on the picture is a very calligraphic signature with an unusually prominent placing.This and the fact that there is no date, - do not necessarily disqualify it as authentic. One can usually expect surprises from the young Rembrandt.One surprise would be that this "tronie" is painted on canvas, whereas Rembrandt in ca. 1630 worked mostly on wood panels in the case of such small paintings.Another surprise is that the handling of the paint seems to be remarkably fluid, giving less an impression of searching for than of applying effects; i.e. it seems to be the work of a mature painter. In a sense, the old man's face is too well painted to be by the young Rembrandt, who, around 1630, was still working toward an accurate rendition of the human likeness. This is a very subjective judgment, of course.At any rate, this is a very fine painting, showing a face at an angle that is quite difficult to treat in a satisfying way. Only the hands look a bit summarily treated, but there may be more shadow in the foreground than the photograph indicates.As it happens, I am presently collaborating with the owner of a painting of similar size, but on wood showing an old woman to try to establish its (presumed) authorship by Rembrandt. It is an uphill battle. The experts and the art establishment have very mixed feelings. Opinion of professor Gary Schwartz :The painting does not seem to have the quality that would convince art historians and collectors that it was made by Rembrandt. However, it is not un-interesting. The model in the painting resembles a sitter who posed for Rembrandt on numerous occasions around 1630. In most of them, the old man has more hair on his head and his beard is not curly. In none of the compositions known to me, - is the model reading a book, as in this painting. I would, therefore, be inclined to call the painting a copy after a lost work by Rembrandt. It would be interesting to study it in relation to the entire group. Such a study might add a bit to our knowledge of Rembrandt. It would not necessarily add to the market value of the painting