# RKD 116036, design relation, and reproduction history

## A distinct comparator

RKD 116036 and the present sheet must be kept separate. The RKD record describes another sheet and attaches two distinct image records: a colour reproduction (9141481) and a black-and-white photograph (9158962). The available colour and monochrome files have different framing, margins, lettering, and pixel dimensions. This contradicts only the narrow claim that the monochrome is a simple grayscale conversion of the colour file; it does not prove that the two files are independent captures of the original.

The current 2005 Sotheby's page supplies a documented lot page, subject title, technique, dimensions, and the reported `Terburg` inscription for a strong object candidate. Three supplied crops of that inscription zone—RKD monochrome, RKD colour, and a Sotheby's PDF reproduction—show faint cursive marks but also limited tonal separation and halftone/reproduction pattern. They are three reproductive witnesses to one reported mark, not independent signatures or proof of an autograph. The catalogue and crops do not, by themselves, identify the immediate source of either RKD image or establish an object history before the sale.

## What the visual comparison shows

**OBSERVED / INFERRED.** A documented registration exercise, based on six manually selected broad landmarks and four retained checks, left lower residuals for present sheet–RKD than for present sheet–Dresden. The exercise makes RKD the priority compositional comparator in the available set.

This is not a line-by-line overlay. The points were selected manually, the images are not orthorectified, and the retained points do not form a blind validation sample. Residual values are descriptive of one configuration, not a probability of copying or a measure of authorship.

Several regional comparisons support questions rather than conclusions:

- At the back, the present sheet's boundary appears near an interior route in the RKD design. It is **UNVERIFIED** whether that route is spine, seam, fold, abandoned contour, or a reproduction artefact.
- Trouser and shadow regions preserve related organisation but differ in line and tonal treatment.
- the present sheet's stepped horizontal shadow has no equivalently legible sequence in RKD. This weighs against a claim that every line coincides.

## What follows from a close design—and what does not

**INFERRED.** The closeness is sufficiently specific to test direct derivation, an intermediate reproduction, or an earlier common design. It is not enough to choose among them. Same-hand repetition, workshop copying, copying by another hand, and later derivation remain separate possibilities.

Different nominal scale may weigh, after direct measurement and control for trimming, against contact transfer 1:1 between original sheets. It does not weigh against a reduced or enlarged copy, a transfer from a reproduction, or a common antecedent.

## Reproduction quality

The 2005 catalogue image is a scan of a printed page, not a native photograph of the drawing. Its effective depiction of the work is comparable in pixel envelope to the available RKD files and retains a visible screen or grid. It improves the documentary history of the published comparator but does not reveal stroke endings, sequence, paper structure, watermark, or medium chemistry.

**Next verification:** obtain source/acquisition metadata for RKD image assets, a photograph or negative made directly from the drawing if one exists, and a perpendicular, scaled photograph of the present sheet. A comparison of non-iconographic reproduction artefacts may clarify image genealogy; it would still not establish authorship.

**References:** RKD 116036 and digital objects 9141481/9158962; Sotheby's 2005 lot 141, p. 159; the 20–25 September image-quality and registration audits.