# Sources and next tests > **Status, prepared 5 October 2026.** The paper lead below, limited to M 18 / RP-T-1887-A-1327, is superseded. The current request is the seven Kettering objects and part II, pp. 776–802, set out in [research note 15](/en/research/rembrandt-school/young-draughtsman-drawing/notes#note-15). No enquiry has been sent. Part I was consulted for those entries; the part II plates were not. ## Principal primary and institutional sources - **RKD**, *Zittende jongeman aan een tafel*, no. 116036; its colour-reproduction and black-and-white-photograph assets. Source for comparator catalogue details and image-record distinctions, not an attribution of the present sheet. - **Sotheby's**, *Old Master Drawings*, London, 6 July 2005, lot 141, printed p. 159. Inspected scan: title, Dutch School attribution, medium, dimensions and reported `Terburg` inscription of the comparator candidate. - **Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden / Dittrich and Ketelsen**, C 1421 and *Rembrandt. Die Dresdener Zeichnungen* (2004), cat. 95. Source for the Dresden object and its qualified context. - **Rijksmuseum**, named controls in the Barent, Carel, Gerard, Moses, and paper notes. Catalogue wording, measurements, media, annotations, and watermarks are object-specific. - **Städel Museum**, 926 Z, 924 Z, 2917 Z, and 2916 Z. The question marks, mount-based Moses alternatives, and `Abklatsch` relation are substantive parts of the records. - **Cleveland Museum of Art**, 1941.603. A Gerard ter Borch control with CC0 image access; Google Arts & Culture is a discovery/derivative route, not independent attribution evidence. - **Boijmans**, H 223 (PK). Object record and Koenigs-history context; any published reproduction must retain the object-specific rights status recorded in the package manifest. - **Primary auction catalogues:** Boerner (1931), Gilhofer & Ranschburg (1934), Habich (1892), and Sotheby's (2005). These are used for precise object corrections, not for inferred present-sheet provenance. ## Scholarship and method - Alison McNeil Kettering, *Drawings from the Ter Borch Studio Estate in the Rijksmuseum* (1988): principal catalogue reference. On 26 September 2026 its bibliographic record and individual object citations were checked, and the two volumes were not fully read. That check named **M18, vol. I, p. 296**, for Rijksmuseum **RP-T-1887-A-1327**, whose public metadata records a `shield with crown`. On 5 October 2026 part I was consulted for seven other watermark entries and for a correction of M 18: Kettering suggests a possible lamb fragment in a crowned shield, not a positive lily. Part II, pp. 776–802, remains unread. See [research note 15](/en/research/rembrandt-school/young-draughtsman-drawing/notes#note-15). - Gerbrand Korevaar and Gwen Tauber, “Gerard ter Borch Repeats” (2014): historical context for repetitions and transfer. It does not study the present sheet or RKD 116036. - Christian Dittrich and Thomas Ketelsen (2004): Dresden C 1421 catalogue. - Martin Royalton-Kisch (2010): British Museum Rembrandt-school and Drost control. - Watermark references including WZIS/Piccard, Briquet, WIRP methodology, and the National Gallery of Victoria discussion: comparison and identification method, not evidence that the present sheet bears a named variant. ## Ranked next tests | Priority | Test | Specific question addressed | Limitation retained | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Perpendicular, high-resolution recto/verso and transmitted-light record of the present sheet | Complete support, wiremark, chain/laid structure, crossings, and reproducible dimensions; improve on the eight 640 × 480 supplied photographs, which show a repeated but incomplete curvilinear feature | Still does not date execution or identify an artist by itself. | | 2 | RKD image-source and object documentation | Is a direct-object image, negative, publication source, or higher-resolution record available? Is lot 141 explicitly linked? | Image genealogy is not authorship. | | 3 | Catalogue and attribution history | What is the date and status of `Terburg`; how do Kettering entries classify the relevant Ter Borch sheets? | A historical label is not automatically autograph evidence. | | 4 | Controlled comparison against matched media and functions | Do repeated graphic decisions survive across multiple passages and secure controls? | Similarity cannot be converted into numerical attribution probability. | | 5 | Object-specific provenance documentation | Can any historical or modern event be tied to this sheet? | Provenance research does not itself authenticate the drawing. | The Rijksmuseum Watermarks Project is a potential later research route. Its current public description says it has used low-energy radiography on roughly 4,000 seventeenth-century Dutch drawings, with an internal image-sharing workflow, preliminary index and planned future open publication; it identifies Aurora Belli as Research Technician / Junior Paper Conservator. A properly scoped request, if later authorised, could ask for a limited technical index check for the named Ter Borch-family controls and for M18. It should request the inventory number, full image, variant, dimensions, chain lines and countermark rather than presuppose that a shared motif proves a common mould or artist. ## Publication and rights boundary These research notes may cite sources and link to institutional records. Reproduction must follow the object-specific licence or permission. RKD image rights, Sotheby's scans, Boijmans images, Custodia images, and supplied case images must not be treated as public-domain merely because they are accessible online. Publicly supplied extracted images can be included with captions that identify source and uncertainty; their inclusion does not change their underlying rights status. ## Reconciliation with the live dossier The live dossier snapshot of 26 September 2026 already presents the present sheet–RKD viewer, regional back/breeches/shadow observations, the Ter Borch research lead, current source qualifications, and a staged examination plan. These notes consolidate the research record behind that public material. They should be integrated as supporting notes or linked sections, rather than duplicating it. Where a source audit identifies a documented correction, integrate it transparently and record the revision; preserve the distinction between observed contour routes and an unproven individual-stroke or mechanical-tracing claim.