# Paper, watermark, and support > **Status, prepared 5 October 2026.** The active watermark account is [research note 15](/en/research/rembrandt-school/young-draughtsman-drawing/notes#note-15). The September finding below, that no published object-specific Strasbourg-lily record had been located, was a bounded online-metadata result. It is superseded by seven Kettering part I entries. RP-T-1887-A-1327 / M 18 remains a corrected historical lead: a possible lamb fragment in a crowned shield, recorded in the Dutch metadata as Schild met kroon. The text below is kept as the record of that earlier check, not as the current finding. ## What is visible The supplied photographs show laid-paper-like structure and a partial wiremark area. They do not provide a complete, rectified transmitted-light record of the sheet. No reliable reading of `WR`, a crown, shield, countermark, or complete Strasbourg-lily variant has been established from these images. ## What dimensions and motifs can mean Sheet dimensions are descriptive. They do not establish a workshop standard, a mould, common stock, common ream, sequence in a sketchbook, date, or authorship. A partial lily/crown/letter motif is compatible with multiple paper traditions and copies. A countermark is normally a separate mark on another part of a sheet; an element below a shield should not automatically be relabelled a countermark. `WR` must not be expanded into a named paper stock without a source that supports that reading for the object. Watermark literature records `WR` in more than one family of marks and shows that motifs and initials were copied. Identification requires the entire mark, its relation to chain and laid lines, wire deformations, orientation, and comparison with documented exemplars. ## September 2026 Ter Borch watermark check **SOURCE-REPORTED / negative result with limits.** A targeted review of accessible institutional records and watermark literature did not locate a published, object-specific Strasbourg-lily record for a drawing institutionally attributed to Gerard ter Borch I/II, Moses, Harmen, or Gesina. This is not proof that none exists: Kettering's two-volume catalogue was not read page by page, and conservation records may not be public. The review found object-specific `PM` / `letters PM` records for individual Gesina and Moses sheets, and an English/Dutch discrepancy in the level of watermark description for another Gesina sheet. It also found a `WR`-bearing **Pieter Lastman** drawing that passed through the Ter Borch studio estate. That is a useful warning: a family collection or studio-estate history does not make a watermark evidence for an artist in that family. The most useful specific lead is Rijksmuseum **RP-T-1887-A-1327**, *Boy Squatting to Relieve Himself beside a Dog*, **attributed to Moses ter Borch**, c. 1656–57. The museum's public JSON-LD records `Schild met kroon` (shield with crown), and links the sheet to Kettering **M18, vol. I, p. 296 (illustrated)**. This is **SOURCE-REPORTED** terminology for that object. It does not identify a fleur-de-lis, letters, a Strasbourg-lily variant, a full countermark, or an autograph Moses sheet. It is a defined technical follow-up, not a material match. Other exact records retain the same limits: Städel **923 Z** (Moses, *Standing Youth in Naval Uniform*) records `B mit Krone`; Städel **924 Z** (Gerard II **?**, with a Moses alternative on the mount) records `Wappen mit Flügeln [?] und dem Buchstaben B`; Rijksmuseum **RP-T-1887-A-1260** (Gesina) records `PM`; and **RP-T-1887-A-1125** (Moses mentioned on the object) records `letters PM`. None is a verified Strasbourg-lily record. Conversely, the apparent `Crown with a fleur-de-lis` in Rijksmuseum **RP-T-1887-A-1174** belongs to a drawing catalogued as **school of Rembrandt**, even though it came from the Ter Borch estate; it cannot be converted into Ter Borch paper evidence. The search trail matters. Public Kettering-linked metadata for **1,308 unique records** was searched, yielding **13 records** containing watermark terms. Those hits include recto/verso records of one sheet and archival material, so they are not 13 independent drawings; none expressly named a Strasbourg lily. This is a bounded metadata search, not a census of every watermark in the Ter Borch corpus. Object JSON does not always carry the technical text visible in a scientific catalogue: RP-T-1887-A-1174 is a concrete counterexample. The printed Kettering catalogue and technical records therefore remain necessary checks. **SOURCE-REPORTED:** Rijksmuseum's Watermarks Project began in 2024 and describes low-energy radiography of roughly **4,000** seventeenth-century Dutch drawings, with images shared internally, a preliminary index, and intended future open publication. It does not say that the full dataset is publicly downloadable. The project page identifies **Aurora Belli** as Research Technician / Junior Paper Conservator. These facts describe a possible research route, not a published present-sheet comparison. ## September 25 supplied photographs Eight supplied JPEGs (`IMG_6605.JPG`–`IMG_6612.JPG`) add limited but real clarity. Their primary images are 640 × 480 pixels; embedded HDR gain-map auxiliaries are 320 × 240 pixels and do not measure depth, infrared response, radiography, or paper structure. **OBSERVED:** the close view `IMG_6608.JPG`, with broader views `IMG_6605.JPG`, `IMG_6606.JPG`, and `IMG_6612.JPG`, repeats a marginal group of light, curving, approximately symmetrical lines. In `IMG_6608.JPG` the visible portion includes a narrow central configuration, rounded paired side contours, an arched or undulating upper sector, and at least two short strokes towards an irregular current edge. **INFERRED:** repetition across those views makes it more plausible that a localized structural feature of the support, compatible with a wire element, is being recorded rather than a one-off reflection. The photographs remain oblique, non-coplanar and unregistered; rulers are not a valid physical scale. They do not identify the design as a crown, `WR`, a Strasbourg lily, `Type E`, a mill, a mould, or a date. Edge irregularities support recording each edge, but do not prove trimming or loss of a watermark. WZIS/Piccard and Briquet give comparative historical entries for lily-and-`WR` families, but neither identifies the present sheet or a Ter Borch drawing. WIRP-style methodology demonstrates why whole-motif and chain-line information are needed before naming a variant. ## Material claims not supported The present files do not identify fibre as flax/hemp, ink as iron gall or bistre, sizing, paper date, mouldmates, same ream, or a material twin. A visually empty online watermark field means “not reported/examined in that record,” not a demonstrated absence on an original sheet. ## Next test Capture the entire present sheet under transmitted light or an appropriate non-invasive equivalent, with scale, orientation, rectification, chain/laid-line intervals, all visible wire features, and full recto/verso context. Compare potential matches against complete, object-specific technical records. A first focused external query, if later authorised, would be **RP-T-1887-A-1327 / Kettering M18, vol. I, p. 296**: request the full watermark image, variant designation, dimensions, chain-line relation, and countermark information. Even a confirmed watermark would date paper circulation, not necessarily execution of the drawing. **References:** paper assessment and non-invasive laboratory brief; WIRP method; WZIS/Piccard; Briquet; Rijksmuseum object records; *Kettering, Drawings from the Ter Borch Studio Estate* (1988), cited object entries; 25 September new-photographs assessment; and the 26 September Ter Borch watermark synthesis.