The Plate MarkRembrandt · Bartsch 20

State atlas

One plate, one to four states

The states below are given in the New Hollstein's own words, from the catalogue entry for no. 170. How many states this plate has depends on which catalogue you read — Bartsch, Hollstein and White & Boon each recognise one, New Hollstein four — so a state is meaningless without naming the catalogue it belongs to. Note also that the catalogue's reproductions show the signature legibly only in states I and IV: an impression with no visible signature is narrowed to state II or III and no further.

How many states does this plate have?

Five citations, three different answers, all of them from published catalogues or major print rooms. This is not a defect in the sources; it is what the state of cataloguing for this plate actually looks like.
CatalogueStatesEvidenceChecked
Bartsch, 17971The Rijksmuseum renders the reference as “Bartsch 20-1(1)” — state 1 of 1.Rijksmuseum
Hollstein, original series1The Rijksmuseum renders the reference as “Hollstein Dutch 20-1(1)”.Rijksmuseum
White & Boon, 19691The National Gallery of Art's catalogue raisonné field reads “White/Boon 1969, no. 20, State only.” New Hollstein confirms the correspondence directly, printing “White & Boon only state” against its own state II.National Gallery of Art, corroborated by New Hollstein 170, p. 31
New Hollstein, as cited by the National Gallery of Art3The NGA record's bibliography cites “The New Hollstein … no. 170, state ii/iii”, a three-state reading. The catalogue as published divides the plate into four, and lists the NGA's impression (1943.3.7201, retouched with brush and grey ink) under state II.Interpretation, not a findingThe NGA citation points at the open-ended serial publication rather than the completed Rembrandt volumes, so it most likely preserves an interim reading. Now that the published entry can be read directly, the state assignment for that impression — II — is not in doubt, only the state count in the NGA's citation.National Gallery of Art
New Hollstein, Rembrandt (Hinterding & Rutgers)4Read directly from the catalogue entry for no. 170, pp. 31–32, which sets out four states with their diagnostic features and lists the impressions known in each.—

The four states of New Hollstein (Hinterding & Rutgers, Rembrandt), no. 170

What each is said to look like, and where that description comes from.
I

Before the jaw is defined

New Hollstein, verbatim: “The jaw under the left ear not defined by a clear contour.” The plate is already signed and dated upper left, Rembrandt f 1638. The catalogue records four impressions in this state: Amsterdam (RP-P-1961-989), Darmstadt (GSHL, GR.10753), Paris (Lugt, 4692) and Stuttgart (A10901).

What to look for

  • The jaw under the left ear is not defined by a clear contour
  • Signature and date present in the plate, upper left: Rembrandt f 1638
  • Papers recorded for this state: Strasbourg lily; Strasbourg lily with initials BA, c. 1638

Signature

Present. Clearly legible in the catalogue's own reproduction of 170/I.

New Hollstein 170, p. 31, transcribed from the catalogue; impression cited also at the Rijksmuseum

II

The jaw clearly delineated

New Hollstein, verbatim: “The jaw under the left ear clearly delineated. A few lines added to the shadow of the nose, under the right eye.” The catalogue then notes “White & Boon only state” — that is, the single state recognised by White & Boon corresponds to this one. By far the most numerous state: the catalogue lists something over sixty impressions across more than forty collections, several of them retouched by later hands with pen, brush and grey ink.

What to look for

  • The jaw under the left ear clearly delineated
  • A few lines added to the shadow of the nose, under the right eye
  • Signature and date still present
  • Papers recorded for this state include Arms of Bristol, Arms of Ravensburg, Basel crosier, Basilisk (c. 1640–47), Foolscap and its variants, and Strasbourg lily

Signature

Present in the plate. Not clearly legible in the catalogue's reproduction of 170/II, which is a richly inked impression — so the reproductions cannot be used to separate state II from state III on the signature alone.

New Hollstein 170, p. 31, transcribed from the catalogue; the British Museum's “second state with jaw delineated” agrees

III

Rebitten and reworked — and not by Rembrandt

New Hollstein, verbatim: “Probably rebitten; many lines stronger and broader than in early impressions. Work on the cap strengthened, for instance, cross-hatching added at the base of the feather and along the brim of the cap above the eyes. The curved lines on the forehead extended over the brim of the cap. Strong horizontal shading on the right ear. Short diagonal lines added in front of the left ear, and to the beard, on the right side of the chin. Not by Rembrandt.” The catalogue lists seven impressions, two of them in Basan albums — which is why none surfaced in a search of online collection databases.

What to look for

  • Many lines stronger and broader than in early impressions — probably rebitten
  • Cross-hatching added at the base of the feather and along the brim of the cap above the eyes
  • The curved lines on the forehead extended over the brim of the cap
  • Strong horizontal shading on the right ear
  • Short diagonal lines added in front of the left ear, and to the beard on the right side of the chin
  • The catalogue lists no watermarks for this state

Signature

Not visible in the catalogue's reproduction of 170/III. The catalogue does not describe the signature's condition in this state in words, and — importantly — it is not clearly visible in the reproduction of state II either. An absent signature therefore narrows an impression to state II or III and does not decide between them.

CaveatThe work in this state is explicitly not Rembrandt's, so an impression in state III is a posthumous rework of his plate. That makes the II-versus-III determination the most consequential open question about NP-RMB-001 — and it turns on the line-work described above, not on the signature.

New Hollstein 170, p. 31, transcribed from the catalogue

IV

The signature clumsily redrawn

New Hollstein, verbatim: “Signature clumsily redrawn (H.L. Basan workshop).” The catalogue lists impressions in Amsterdam, Budapest, London, Moscow and Paris, several of them bound into Basan albums. The British Museum's own record for its impression agrees and dates the edition to around 1810.

What to look for

  • Signature clumsily redrawn, not original
  • Associated with the Recueil published by Henri Louis Basan in Paris, around 1810
  • Frequently found bound into Basan albums
  • The catalogue lists no watermarks for this state

Signature

Present, but redrawn by a later hand.

New Hollstein 170, p. 32, transcribed from the catalogue; the British Museum's record agrees

Why this page exists

A state atlas is the thing that makes a state attribution checkable. Without one, “state III” is a label somebody applied, and the only way to test it is to find the person who applied it and ask what they were looking at.

This atlas is incomplete, and its most conspicuous gap is the state that matters most to this project. That is not a comfortable thing to publish on a page about your own object, and publishing it is the point: the alternative is a record that looks more confident than the evidence behind it.

Two things would complete it. The printed New Hollstein entry for no. 170, which would give the catalogue’s own state descriptions. And a high-resolution image of an impression securely catalogued as state III, against which the described features could be checked. If you have access to either, please get in touch.