centerlogobigAAD logo


Philip Mould replies to accusations against his poor and unregulated scholarship,
with poor and unregulated scholarship

CEDDC752 0DAA 403E A2D2 3AC03C1B4801

Philip Mould is insisting, in legal correspondence received to my email 19 June 2020, that the supposed Van Dyck self-portrait he brokered to the London National Gallery in 2014 is nothing but and always has been autograph to “Van Dyck” (since it was apparently painted by Sir Anthony Van Dyck and apparently then passed to Sir Peter Lely’s seventeenth century collection and then ended up in the possession of Mr Mould and his partner Alfred Bader in 2009 who sold it to the London National Portrait Gallery for £10,000,000). He is also insisting that I, on the other hand, write nothing except complete and utter rubbish .

But what should we make of the standard of Mr Mould's research?

I quote from his correspondence. 

“The Self-Portrait's attribution to Van Dyck is and has been supported by pre-eminent Van Dyck scholars, long before our client [Mr Philip Mould] had any connection to it. This is evidenced by it being published as an autograph work by the artist in no fewer than 7 (seven) publications, including the most recent catalogue raisonné (the "Catalogue Raisonné”).3 (my bold)

Unfortunately, this claim is entirely false.

I draw attention to the 7 (seven) claim, which I’m assuming is written like this in case I am either verbally illiterate or numerically illiterate, and might misconstrue.

Let’s see what Mr Mould’s “sources” are for this 7 (seven) claim, attached as Note 3. (my comments in square brackets in red)

Read more on Academia:

About the Author



AAD REPORTS   Reports, news and opinion from