Does this impression carry the signature “Rembrandt f. 1638”, and if not, why not?

The owner's working record describes the sheet as “state III of IV, without signature.” The Rijksmuseum's record for its impression of this composition states the inscription “Rembrandt f. 1638”. These cannot both describe the same thing. Either the phrase in the working record means something other than what it appears to mean, or the sheet is trimmed through the signature, or the working record is wrong. This is the cheapest open question on the board to resolve and it unblocks several others: a description that is wrong about the signature cannot be trusted about the state.

One institutional record (Rijksmuseum RP-P-1961-989) states the inscription “Rembrandt f. 1638”, alongside Lugt collector marks 176 and 2228, for an impression catalogued as New Hollstein 170-1(4) — that is, state I of IV. The project has not located any source describing a state of this plate in which the signature is absent. The sheet itself has not been examined.

• 8Unreviewed submissionOwner's working object record, assembled 2026 · Owner / steward · 2026-08
• 1Physical observationNo conservator examination has taken place · 2026-08-12

• The signature is present and the working record's phrase “without signature” was copied from a description of a different lot or a different print.

  Possible

  A transcription crossover would also explain the dimensional inconsistency in RQ-03. One error in a compiled record often has one cause.

• The signature is physically present but lost to the trimming at the left margin.

  Possible

  The Rijksmuseum record places the inscription in the upper area of the plate. Whether trimming at the left could remove it depends on exactly where it sits and how much was taken.

• A later state of the plate had the signature burnished out or worn away.

  Possible

  Would need a source. Signatures do wear, and reworked plates are sometimes altered. The project has no evidence for this and does not assert it.

1. 01Photograph the recto and look. This is the whole method.
2. 02If the signature area is damaged or ambiguous, examine under magnification and raking light.
3. 03Compare the position of the signature against a high-resolution institutional impression before concluding that trimming removed it.

A single colour-managed recto photograph at sufficient resolution to read the plate's upper area.

• Rijksmuseum RP-P-1961-989 (records the inscription) ↗
• Impression census — compare recorded inscriptions

• RQ-02Which of the four New Hollstein states is this impression, and what distinguishes state III from state IV?
• RQ-03What are the plate and sheet dimensions, and does a plate mark survive on any edge?