Lost portrait of Augustus Montgomery
A lost (and now re-found) portrait of
Augustus Reebkomp (later Montgomery).
Inherited by his descendants, the Gibbon family, and sold after 1913.
It was lost for a century, and then re-discovered by me in 2023.
In 2023 I discovered it had been sold in 2022 at auction in America.
It had been mis-labelled for a century as
"Colonel St Leger" (
John Hayes St Leger).
The proof that it is Augustus Montgomery (and not St Leger) is below.
Portrait of Augustus Montgomery.
Oil on canvas.
For sale in 2022
at
Charlton Hall, South Carolina, USA.
Mis-labelled as
"Colonel St Leger" (
John Hayes St Leger).
See
full size.
See
wider shot.
See
close-up.
And
closer.
Summary of the proof that this is a portrait of
Augustus Reebkomp (later Montgomery).
- Knowing nothing else, we can see there is a problem with the picture.
It is a "navy blue" Royal Navy uniform, not a "red coat" British Army uniform.
So it cannot be Col. St Leger.
He was army not navy.
- I call it as proved that it is mis-labelled.
- This simple problem was noticed long ago.
People noticed
there was a problem with it being Col. St Leger.
But they had no other alternative candidate.
Now we do.
- So who could it be?
We actually have the candidate.
The portrait is identical to a lost portrait in the Gibbon family of
Augustus Montgomery, Royal Navy officer.
- The dates work too.
The Gibbon family sold the portrait after 1913.
It first turns up as "Col. St. Leger" in 1921.
-
I call it as proved that this is Augustus Montgomery.
It got mis-labelled around 1921.
Augustus Reebkomp (later Montgomery)
was the illegitimate son of the
10th Earl of Pembroke.
He was half-brother of
George Augustus Herbert, 11th Earl of Pembroke.
He was treated well by the family, and was close to his legitimate half-brother the 11th Earl.
The (future)
11th Earl sat for a
portrait in 1780
painted in Paris by
Jean-Baptiste Greuze.
Reebkomp's descendants, the
Gibbon family, had a story that the portrait of Reebkomp above
was painted by Greuze.
However
[PP, vol.1]
shows no sign of Reebkomp in Paris with his brother in 1780.
Reebkomp was serving in the Navy in 1779 to 1783.
He took the surname "Montgomery" in 1781.
He went on leave in 1783.
Maybe the portrait was painted in 1783 or shortly after.
It is possible he then went to Paris for his own portrait by Greuze.
He did travel a lot.
However
[Russell, 1992]
studies all British sitters of Greuze, and does not find him.
Most likely the Greuze story
is confusion with his brother's picture.
When the painting was later sold, it was classified as a portrait by
John Russell.
The sitter is labelled wrong.
The painter may be a guess too.
There is no solid evidence it is Russell.
Augustus Montgomery died in 1797.
His widow
Susan Maltass
would have inherited the portrait.
She moved to Paris before 1818. The portrait would have been in France for many years.
Susan died in Paris in 1851.
Susan's natural son
Auguste Henry Saladin Montgomery
is known to have then
held a portrait of
Augustus Montgomery, which must be this portrait.
However
Augustus Montgomery is not his father.
Augustus Montgomery's daughter
Elizabeth Gibbon
in a
letter of 28 Nov 1851
is
trying to get "my father's portrait"
from him.
This must be the portrait on this page, and
she succeeded in getting it.
Elizabeth's son
Arthur Augustus Gibbon
inherited the portrait.
It is mentioned in
his will.
He died in 1907.
The portrait
took centre place among the portraits in the Gibbon family home,
where it is seen in a photo of 1913.
It is clearly of Augustus Montgomery.
Arthur Augustus Gibbon's son
Arthur F.V. Gibbon
sold the portrait
sometime between 1913 and 1926,
to meet debts
(notably school fees).
He apparently sold it before he moved to Pinner in 1926.
I had a note that said "possibly 1920".
It was then lost for a century, until in 2023 I found it.
Extracts (these two sections run into each other)
from
letter of 28 Nov 1851
from Reebkomp's daughter
Elizabeth Gibbon
after her mother's death.
She says that
"my father's portrait"
is now in the possession of her
illegitimate half-brother,
who she calls "Henry S."
It is not his father.
She is negotiating with him for the picture and other things:
"I cannot find words to express Henry S's [illegible]".
It seems he has agreed
to give it to her:
".. has resolved itself into offering me my mother's old, dirty mended Turkish bracelet
and my father's portrait".
Presumably it is the portrait on this page.
See top
larger
and
full page.
See bottom
larger
and
full page (rotated).
Will of Arthur Augustus Gibbon
(died 1907)
mentions the 5 portraits of his parents and grandparents.
This would be:
Photo of Apr 1913 of interior of
Lawn House,
the home of
Arthur F.V. Gibbon.
Left to right:
Portrait of
Capt. Robert Gibbon
(still in the family),
the
lost portrait of Reebkomp,
portrait of
Barbara Yeats
(still in the family).
See
full size
and
original.
See
close-up
and
further close-up.
- This shows the lost portrait was quite a large picture.
- The
2022 auction
says it is
height 23.5 in,
width 18.5 in.
Which seems to match this photo.
- The other two portraits here survive, and they both have dimensions (outer frame):
height 35.5 in,
width 30.5 in.
-
Detail
shows the silhouette of
William Henry Gibbon.
Lawn House
is now a pub.
This fireplace behind the bar (E end of the building)
is the only location that matches in any way the
1913 photo above.
The approximate position and dimensions of the fireplace seem right,
though there are many differences.
It is unclear if this is the same location as the photo.
The E end of the building was redesigned and the door moved,
so maybe the old fireplace is simply gone.
Nothing else in the building matches at all.
Photo 2019.
See
full size.
See
other shot.
See
closer.
See
wider.
Left: Close-up of the Gibbon portrait in the 1913 photo.
Right: The
11th Earl portrait by Greuze.
The oval frames are quite similar.
As if these were meant to be a pair?
In close up, though, the beading is in slightly a different place on the two frames.
Also the 11th Earl picture has writing showing the sitter and painter.
The image quality is low on the other, but it does seem that the Gibbon portrait does not have writing.
A cut-out photo, found in Gibbon family papers.
This is clearly the portrait on the wall.
This photo looks very professional, like from a printed book.
Maybe this photo is cut out of the sale catalogue
when Gibbon sold it in 1913 to 1921.
Notes written on the back of the above.
These say it is Reebkomp.
Notes look fairly modern, maybe late 20th century.
See larger
and full size.
The Reebkomp portrait was sold and then lost for a century.
I often wondered if it was out there.
For many years, I did a "reverse image search" on the above picture
to see if it would turn up.
Eventually, in 2023, a "reverse image search" by me
discovered the picture existed and had been sold at auction in America in 2022.
It was mis-labelled as a portrait of
"Col. St Leger".
This is
John Hayes St Leger
(born 1756, died 1800).
We need to establish of course that it is not St Leger. See below.
The painter was said to be
John Russell
(born 1745, died 1806).
There is no solid evidence for this.
Research soon showed that it was mis-labelled as Col. St Leger quite early, by 1921.
Label on the front of the picture sold in 2022.
This says it is John Hayes St Leger, by John Russell.
See
full size.
From
Charlton Hall.
This label looks old but we think it was only made around 1921.
The back has various stickers and markings.
See full size.
From Charlton Hall.
- Marking
with number "L 63.29.2".
Maybe a lot number at a sale?
- Sticker
of Thomas Agnew and sons,
art dealers of London, Manchester and Paris.
- Sticker
saying "W.O. 1296", date 31 July 1925.
This is explained below.
- Label
saying it is John Hayes St Leger, by John Russell.
Agnew's records
The stickers and markings on the back show the picture was once sold by
Thomas Agnew and sons.
Some of the picture's provenance can be traced in the
Thomas Agnew & Sons Ltd Archive
at the
NG.
Thanks to Zara Moran of the NG
for help with the following.
The picture in the index to Agnew's
"Bond Street on sale" (Bo/s) books, 1921-1934
[NGA27/31/3/1].
The picture ("Pict") has Bo/s no. 4528.
See
larger
and
full size.
LHS part of the entry for the picture in Agnew's
"Bond Street on sale" (Bo/s) book
[NGA27/3/4].
This book covers a range of dates.
See larger
and full size.
-
Date received: 29 Sept 1921.
-
Owner: Colin Agnew.
He was one of the family
of Agnew's.
He was using the family company to sell it.
Agnew's receives it for sale in 1921.
But Colin Agnew may have acquired it years earlier.
-
A previous reading of this thought it said "signed and dated"
but that clearly refers to the picture above, not to this picture.
The modern picture is not signed or dated.
RHS part of the entry.
See
larger
and
full size.
And
wider shot.
- Cost price: "mie". According to their code this is £150.
- Sale price: "ace". This is £230.
-
How disposed of: Credited.
-
Date disposed of: 4 Aug 1925.
Zara Moran of the NG
discovered this Agnew's index card.
(todo) Get reference.
This is a reference to it being photographed by Agnew's for sale.
Apparently photographed on 17 Oct 1921.
Cooper is the photographer they used.
The picture is labelled as Col. St Leger by Russell.
But
someone has spotted the uniform is navy not army.
This card says:
"really a naval officer".
So it cannot be St Leger.
But they had no alternative candidate.
So it seems they just shrugged and left it as St Leger.
LHS of the entry for the picture
in Agnew's
Picture Stock Book
[NGA27/1/1/12].
The book covers various dates.
The picture is listed under outgoing in 1925.
See larger
and full size.
- No. 6491.
- Outgoing on 5 Aug 1925.
RHS of the entry.
See
larger
and
full size.
See
wider shot.
- Sold to
Chester H. Johnson
(died 1934), a Chicago art dealer.
- Work Order (W.O.) 31 July 1925.
WO 1296 (Work Order number)
Date: 31 July 1925
Owner: Chester Johnson
Fd Oval portrait by Russell
ex Bo/s 4528 (see above)
Packed and sent to USA
Zara Moran of the NG
discovered this Agnew's Work Order number entry.
(todo) Get reference.
Chester H. Johnson's art gallery and business was
from at least 1925 to 1930
in the Fine Arts Building,
Michigan Ave
(or Michigan Boulevard), Chicago.
This is from pp.116-117 of
1927 Chicago Directory.
The Fine Arts Building is still there today.
See street view.
The Reebkomp portrait was probably displayed for sale there, mis-labelled as St Leger.
The painting
was sold at auction on 23 Sept 2022
by
Charlton Hall,
South Carolina, USA.
It sold
for $6,250.
See auction entry with many images at
Charlton Hall.
They say it came from the estate of
Bennetta Heath
of North Carolina (died 1982).
The grave of
Bennetta Heath
of North Carolina (died 1982),
who owned the Reebkomp portrait without knowing what it was.
She lived in North Carolina, then Ohio, then Florida, then back to North Carolina.
Let us compare the 2022 auction picture with other images.
Left: The cut-out picture in the Gibbon papers.
Right: The 2022 auction picture.
Clearly identical.
This is how "reverse image search" found the picture.
Left: The portrait on the wall in 1913. Clearly the same as the cut-out picture.
Right: The 2022 auction picture.
Note the frames are different.
Comparing the uniforms.
Left:
The Beechey portrait of Augustus Montgomery.
This is his Royal Navy uniform.
Right:
The 2022 auction picture.
The uniform is similar.
It must be Royal Navy, which wore "navy blue" uniforms.
Left: John Hayes St Leger painted in 1778.
Right: John Hayes St Leger painted in 1782.
British Army officers wore red uniforms, the
red coat.
But the 2022 auction picture does not have a red coat.
It is a Royal Navy uniform, not army.
It cannot be Col. St Leger.
The picture is mis-labelled.
The 2022 portrait is our lost portrait of Augustus Montgomery.
- It cannot be St Leger, for a few reasons.
First, Gibbon would not have St Leger on their wall. That makes no sense.
-
They were not related to St Leger.
Nor was he a friend of their ancestors, as far as we know.
He does not appear in
Wilton papers (WSHC 2057).
He does not appear in
The Pembroke Papers.
- When Gibbon had it, the picture could not have had the label saying it is St Leger.
That label must be added around 1921 when it was re-framed.
- Even if it had no label when Gibbon had it,
if it actually is St Leger, how could it even have come into their
possession?
- It is a mystery why the frame was changed. The Gibbon frame somewhat matches the Greuze of the 11th Earl.
Maybe the old frame got damaged, and when re-framed it was forgotten who the sitter was.
- The main reason it cannot be St Leger is the uniform.
It is a Royal Navy officer.
- So we know it is mis-labelled.
And we know the real sitter is a Royal Navy officer.
- Who could it be? Well of course we have an identical picture known to be a lost picture of
Augustus Montgomery, a Royal Navy officer.
- I call it as proved that this is Augustus Montgomery. It got mis-labelled around 1921.
- Painter is unknown.
There is no solid evidence for either
John Russell or Greuze.
St Leger's family.
Col. St Leger is "John Hayes", born 1756.
From DONERAILE
on p.829
of
[Burkes Peerage, 1938].
No connection to Herbert or Gibbon.
It makes no sense for
Gibbon to have a portrait of St Leger.
See
full size.
