Connect with us

Maine

A portrait found in a Maine attic unexpectedly sold for $1.4M. Could it be a long-lost Rembrandt? | CNN

Published

on

A portrait found in a Maine attic unexpectedly sold for .4M. Could it be a long-lost Rembrandt? | CNN




CNN
 — 

During a routine house call to a private estate in Camden, Maine, auctioneer Kaja Veilleux made an unexpected discovery in the property’s attic: A 17th-century painting of a young woman wearing a cap and ruffled collar.

“On house calls, we often go in blind, not knowing what we’ll find,” said Veilleux, the founder of Thomaston Place Auction Galleries, in a press release. “The home was filled with wonderful pieces, but it was in the attic, among stacks of art, that we found this remarkable portrait.”

The artwork appeared to have been painted in the style of Dutch master Rembrandt — and a label on the frame’s reverse claimed it was by him. The paper slip, which appears to have been issued by the Philadelphia Museum of Art, also suggested the painting was loaned to the museum in 1970.

Advertisement

Very little is known about the portrait, however, and it is not widely recognized by scholars as part of Rembrandt’s oeuvre. While the auction house told CNN it believes the label to be genuine, the Philadelphia Museum of Art was unable to confirm whether it had ever borrowed the portrait. (A museum spokesperson added, via email, that “generally… a slip or label doesn’t necessarily verify a work of art — certainly more work would be required.”)

Thomaston Place would not disclose whether it consulted a Rembrandt expert about the attribution, but it proceeded to list the painting with an estimate of just $10,000 to $15,000. The portrait was described in sale materials as “After Rembrandt,” terminology denoting that a painting is believed to be a copy of — or was modeled on — a known artist’s style, and is not an autograph work.

But not everyone, it seems, was so sure.

After an opening offer of $32,500, more than double the high estimate, bidding at an auction last Saturday soon skyrocketed into six figures. Almost a dozen potential suitors, some of whom joined via phone from Europe, participated in the sale, according to Thomaston Place. Three telephone bidders remained until $900,000, before the last two pushed the final sale price up to $1.41 million.

The auction house believes this to be the highest sum ever paid for an artwork at a Maine auction. And the figure suggests that several collectors (including the winning bidder, identified only as a “private European collector”) believe there is enough chance that it is a genuine Rembrandt to be worth the gamble.

Advertisement

Rembrandt scholar Gary Schwartz said a potential buyer had earlier sought his opinion on the Maine portrait. He advised the unidentified collector (who was not the winning bidder) to “go for it,” he said. The art historian told CNN he believes there is an “extremely large” chance the portrait was painted by the Dutch master.

While Schwartz stressed it is impossible to properly judge the work without seeing it in person, he pointed to a strikingly similar Rembrandt portrait, also depicting a young woman in a white cap, at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna.

“The resemblance … is so strong that I am amazed that people accept one and simply dismiss the other,” he said on a video call from his home in the Netherlands, adding that he is “not surprised that somebody paid (over) a million when it came up to auction.”

Schwartz also points out that the Maine artwork featured in a catalog of Rembrandt’s work as recently as 1969. Listed under the title “Portrait of a young girl,” the painting is described as belonging to a private collector in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Although the catalog’s author notes that the attribution to Rembrandt is “doubtful,” Schwartz believes its inclusion is significant — and that the painting was simply never researched, as it was in private hands and inaccessible to scholars.

Advertisement

“When paintings fall out of interest, they just disappear into dark space,” said Schwartz, who published a 2022 book arguing that another downgraded painting, “Rembrandt in a Red Beret,” is in fact a genuine self-portrait.

Oliver Barker, Sotheby's European Chairman, fields bids for Andy Warhol's

How do art auctions really work?

Art historian Volker Manuth, who authored publisher Taschen’s 2019 monograph “Rembrandt: The Complete Paintings,” told CNN he was also approached by a potential buyer of the Maine portrait. He had only encountered it as a “poor black-and-white reproduction” in the aforementioned 1969 catalog, adding via email that he has “more doubts about the attribution to Rembrandt than not” (though he, too, stressed that attributions “should not be given without a thorough investigation of the original painting”).

Advertisement

“The price paid… might indicate that somebody has hopes that the cleaning of the rather dirty painting might turn it into a portrait with the qualities attributed to Rembrandt,” added Manuth, who is an art history professor at Radboud University in the Netherlands. “This happens more and more often. I would not be surprised to (see) the painting back on the market soon as ‘Rembrandt.’”

There is no single authority on questions of attribution, and the influential Rembrandt Research Project ceased operations in 2014 (having not, in Schwartz’s view, ever considered the Maine portrait). Over the past century, the number of paintings broadly accepted by scholars as genuine Rembrandts has fallen dramatically, with hundreds reattributed to followers or otherwise downgraded to “after Rembrandt” status.

But inclusion in a major catalog, or the backing of a big auction house, can increase a painting’s value manyfold. Take “The Adoration of the Kings,” which was valued at just $17,000 by Christie’s in 2021 but sold for almost $13.8 million last year after new research led Sotheby’s to declare it an authentic Rembrandt, not the work of an artist associated with him.

Schwartz suggested that, should the Maine portrait receive similar endorsement, it might be revalued at up to $5 million. Speaking to the New York Times, authentication expert Mark Winter meanwhile estimated a figure “in the area of $15 million.”

In either case, the painting may, one day, be worth significantly more than the amount paid at the Thomaston Place auction. Though this may only transpire if the portrait’s new owner invites scholars to inspect it.

Advertisement

“The great thing, really, would be to go to Vienna with this painting, hold it up there (next to the similar portrait and) have a discussion with a few experts,” Schwartz said, adding. “It (was painted) on panel, so you can date the panel, and very often you find that the wood is from the same slabs that have been used by other paintings form the Rembrandt workshop.”

“Nobody should express a definitive opinion without studying the object,” Schwartz said.



Source link

Advertisement

Maine

Watchdog searching for stores selling now banned products with PFAS in Maine

Published

on

Watchdog searching for stores selling now banned products with PFAS in Maine


The Maine nonprofit Defend Our Health is taking on the role of watchdog to make sure companies and stores are not selling products that are now banned in Maine because they contain toxic “forever chemicals.”

As of Jan. 1, Maine joined Minnesota as the first states to ban thousands of everyday products containing toxic PFAS chemicals.

The new ban includes children’s toys, cosmetics, cookware, and cleaning products. It also includes reusable water bottles, upholstery, clothing, and feminine products.

The National Institute of Health says even trace amounts of PFAS have been linked to low birth weights, compromised immune systems, cancer, and other adverse health effects.

Advertisement

Cookware in a store (WGME)

Defend Our Health says so far, most stores in Maine are complying with the law.

“We’ve seen a lot of the physical retailers complying with the ban. We have seen, for example, the PFAS-containing cookware being pulled from the shelves,” said Emily Carey Perez de Alejo, with Defend Our Health.

It is also not allowed in Maine to sell and ship banned products online to people in Maine like frying pans coated with PFAS.

Defend Our Health says a lot of online retailers have marked PFAS products not deliverable to Maine, while others have tried to comply, but missed a few products.

Advertisement

“From some retailers we have seen a wide array of PFAS-containing cookware still available for delivery to Maine,” Carey Perez de Alejo said. “So, we’ve reached out to the state to report some of these violators. We’re going to be reaching out to the companies. Hopefully, it’s just an oversight and they will be taking action to correct and come into compliance.”

Toys in a store (WGME)

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection says it will be reviewing the information received from Defend Our Health.

The Safer Chemicals Program manager says the Maine DEP will investigate to ensure no banned products are being sold in Maine, either in stores or online.



Source link

Continue Reading

Maine

State recommends major changes for Maine’s mobile home parks

Published

on

State recommends major changes for Maine’s mobile home parks


Residents of Bay Bridge Estates in Brunswick said that Tuesday was the day that their homes were being hooked up to the town’s water supply. (Daryn Slover/Staff Photographer)

A new state report offers a series of recommendations to expand existing mobile home parks in Maine and build new ones, allow homeowners to obtain traditional mortgages at more favorable rates and overhaul the state’s oversight of parks.

The 30-page report, written by the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future and mandated by legislation passed last year, is intended to be a blueprint for future proposals as lawmakers seek to protect the roughly 45,000 Maine residents who live in mobile home parks.

It will be presented to the Housing and Economic Development Committee this month.

Advertisement

Mobile home parks in Maine and across the country — often considered the last form of unsubsidized affordable housing — are increasingly being purchased by out-of-state investors who raise the monthly lot rents, in some cases doubling or tripling prices, according to national data. 

Park residents, often low-income families or seniors on a fixed income, own their homes but not the land they sit on and residents are essentially helpless against rent increases.

“If they’re forced to lose their housing because the rents get too high, it’s hard to see where they’d be able to go,” said Greg Payne, senior housing adviser for the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future.

The state is feverishly trying to build tens of thousands of housing units in the coming years, but Payne said in an interview it’s just as important to “protect the housing that we do have.”

Advertisement

“If we lose any of our affordable housing stock, that’s going to make our challenge even greater,” he said.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR OWNERS, RESIDENTS

Many state officials would like to see more mom-and-pop or cooperatively owned manufactured housing communities, especially as the state tries to ramp up production.

But according to the report, the number of locally owned communities has been dwindling, and smaller owners and developers frequently struggle to increase available housing in their parks.   Boosting supply could also help lower costs for existing residents. 

As with all construction, it has gotten expensive. 

“There are plenty of owners who I think would be willing to expand if the math worked,” Payne said. “If we’re able to help with that, it creates more units that we desperately need across the state and creates the opportunity to spread existing costs across more households.”

Advertisement

The report recommends, among other things, making it easier for park owners to access MaineHousing construction loans, which state statute currently prohibits. 

The office also suggested developing a subsidy program that would give owners a forgivable loan if they agree to charge income-restricted lot rents to income-restricted households. 

‘TOO GOOD TO MISS’

The report also recommends allowing mobile home buyers to take out traditional mortgage loans.

Historically, loans for manufactured homes have been titled as personal property or “chattel” loans, similar to cars. These loans, according to the report, typically have shorter terms, higher interest rates, fewer lenders to choose from and inferior consumer protection. 

Over the years, construction technology and government regulations have evolved and factory-built houses are now often comparable to site-built housing, according to the report.

Advertisement

The price gap between the two is also narrowing, with many mobile homes selling for well over $200,000.

Payne said he spoke to an Old Orchard Beach resident whose interest rate is more than 11%, and is paying about $640 a month for a $60,000 loan, on top of her monthly lot rent. Comparatively, according to mortgage buyer Freddie Mac, the current interest rate on a 30-year mortgage is about 6.15%. That would save her hundreds of dollars a month.

“We don’t often have the opportunity to increase affordability and have nobody losing,” Payne said. “It’s an opportunity that could be too good to miss.”

‘SYSTEMIC LACK OF SUPPORT’

The report recommends an overhaul or “reimagining” of state regulation and oversight of mobile home communities to better serve residents. 

Currently, the Maine Manufactured Housing Board is in charge of licensing and inspecting parks, while landlord and tenant issues and consumer protection claims are enforced by the Office of the Maine Attorney General or the court system. 

Advertisement

But according to the report there is a “systemic lack of support” from state government in addressing some of the more common problems in parks — poor living conditions, untenable community rules and fees, disregard of state laws — and attempts to get help from either agency often result in referrals elsewhere. 

“This pattern of circular referrals, rarely leading to support, often leaves park residents feeling isolated and unheard,” the report says. 

The office recommends that the Legislature transfer the responsibility for certification, technical assistance and regulatory coordination from the Office of Professional and Occupational Regulation, where the board is currently housed, to the Maine Office of Community Affairs, which would also serve as a “first call” for residents seeking assistance.

Compliance with state rules would be handled by the attorney general’s office, which may need to find ways to provide more legal support to homeowners.

Finally, the report recommends directing more private resources toward supporting a housing attorney at Pine Tree Legal Assistance who has expertise in mobile home park issues.

Advertisement

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS

Mobile home parks have been a hot-button issue in the last few Legislative sessions.

Lawmakers last year passed a series of bills designed to protect mobile homeowners, including one that gives park residents the “right of first refusal” if their community goes up for sale. 

In addition to the recommendations outlined in the recent report, the state is seeking to collect more data about the state’s parks.

Historically, the Maine Manufactured Housing Board has not tracked whether the parks are owned by resident co-ops, out-of-state corporations or Maine-based operators. It also collected no information about how many lots are in each park, vacancies or average lot rents.

That information is now required in order to license a park.

Advertisement

Another bill, which has resulted in confusion and some retaliatory rent increases, requires owners to provide 90 days written notice of a rent increase and establishes a process for residents to request mediation if the increase is more than the Consumer Price Index plus 1%. While owners are required by the new law to act in good faith, they are not prevented from moving forward with an increase.

Efforts to institute statewide rent control failed in the last session, in part due to Maine’s long history of local control, but many communities, including Brunswick, Saco and Sanford, have passed rent control measures or moratoriums on rent increases as they grapple with how to protect residents. 

The state report includes a model rent stabilization ordinance for municipalities but no mandate.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Maine

How labels make or break Maine’s recreational cannabis compliance system

Published

on

How labels make or break Maine’s recreational cannabis compliance system


A group of recreational cannabis flower products purchased in October at Brilliant Buds in Bethel were fully compliant with state requirements.

The stickers for the “Find.” brand products displayed required warnings, strain names, potency values, processor license information and batch identifiers.

A Find-brand package purchased at Brilliant Buds in Bethel shows a medical-use label faintly visible beneath the recreational sticker, including the strain name MAC 1. Find is Curaleaf’s economy and mid-tier product line, typically selling for about $75 an ounce in Maine’s medical market and around $125 an ounce in recreational retail. (Courtesy photo)

But when the recreational stickers were peeled back after being purchased on Oct. 24, medical cannabis labels were found underneath. The labels included Curaleaf’s Auburn facility address and medical-style batch data. Curaleaf is one of the largest multistate medical cannabis operators in the United States.

Was it a labeling error? Was the product for medical use instead of recreational? Was it simply a case of recycled packaging?

Advertisement

Those questions and more are at the core of labeling irregularities in Maine’s cannabis packaging, verification and retail compliance model: repurposed or mislabeled consumer packages can move through intake, stocking and point-of-sale without triggering an alert.

One recreational-use bag labeled “Turnpike Cookies” revealed a medical label beneath it printed with the strain “MAC 1.” A second bag of “Mintz Snackz” had the same label. In both cases, the originally labeled strain name was faintly visible through the sticker.

The discovery does not establish wrongdoing or intentional misconduct, but it does raise questions for consumers and regulators who may not necessarily be able to distinguish if a product on the shelf had an old label that was not properly removed or if the product was intended for one market but was being sold in the other without following all required rules.

In the case of the layered labels at Brilliant Buds, it was all legal. Maine’s recreational cannabis rules do not prohibit layered labels, and the final, visible sticker is treated as the compliance record at retail.

With labels from different regulatory programs remaining visible beneath a retail sticker, however, it has created confusion among consumers who want to know exactly where their cannabis is from and raised questions about packaging quality control.

Advertisement

Under Maine rules, the label itself is the mechanism by which retail compliance is communicated and enforced. The Office of Cannabis Policy allows multiple labels on a recreational package, provided required information is not obstructed.

Maine’s recreational cannabis program includes mandatory testing, track and trace, stringent labeling and universal symbols. The medical cannabis program does not require mandatory testing or track & trace.

Kaspar Heinrici, chief executive director of SeaWeed Co. in Portland, said the recreational cannabis market operates under a level of scrutiny that is often misunderstood by the public.

“There is still a misperception that cannabis operators are putting a plant into a bag with little oversight,” he said. “The reality is that regulated recreational operators are working with a level of organization, testing and standard operating procedures closer to the medical or financial services industries.”

TRACING CANNABIS

Maine’s recreational system requires cannabis sold at retail to be identifiable for recall purposes through batch information printed on the label.

Advertisement

Heinrici said Maine’s batch-based approach is intended to balance public health protections with operational practicality.

“If there is an issue with one unit of a product, it likely extends to the rest of the package and potentially the package it came from,” he said. “Being overly specific at the individual unit level is not going to provide additional benefit.”

At the retail shelf, compliance and recall depend on the accuracy of the information printed on the visible retail label. Inspection quality can vary depending on staffing levels, lighting, workflow and training. Batch numbers are often printed in small type.

The rule does not require individual retail units, such as eighths, quarters, ounces or pre-rolls, to carry a unique electronic identifier, radio frequency identification tags or scannable code. But it does for cultivation and wholesale inventory movement.

Maine uses Metrc (short for Marijuana Enforcement Tracking Reporting Compliance) a track-and-trace inventory system adopted in many cannabis jurisdictions.

Advertisement

Other states use different track-and-trace platforms. For example, Connecticut uses BioTrack. In Connecticut, each retail cannabis unit carries a printed unit identification number with a machine-readable barcode, as well as a QR code with a link.

A Curaleaf “Ched-R-Cheez” cannabis label from Connecticut shows a printed unit identification number with a machine-readable barcode and a QR code intended to link consumers to batch-specific test results. (Courtesy photo)

Curaleaf is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, and operates more than 150 operates medical and recreational dispensaries nationwide.

Maine consumers do not have a comparable consumer-facing verification tool.

Heinrici said that while testing and traceability are essential, additional regulatory layers do not always translate into better consumer outcomes.

Advertisement

“The track-and-trace and testing requirements are important for public health, but they verge on being overly detailed and overly burdensome for the end consumer,” he said. “More regulation always comes with a cost, and that cost ultimately shows up at the register.”

SHIFTING MARKET IN MAINE

Curaleaf entered Maine in 2016 through its relationship with Remedy Compassion Center, one of the state’s original eight nonprofit medical cannabis dispensaries and the first to open under Maine’s medical program.

While Curaleaf exited recreational retail storefronts in Maine in 2023, citing competitive pressures, the company remained active in the state’s medical cannabis program as well as recreational cultivation and manufacturing.

It appears Curaleaf is dipping its toes back into recreational retail. In late November, job postings for Curaleaf-managed operations at Brilliant Buds in Bethel signaled a return through a licensed partner rather than a Curaleaf-branded store. Additional Curaleaf job listings in Bangor indicate a recreational retail component planned for that location.

Curaleaf did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article. Attempts to seek comment from Brilliant Buds were also unsuccessful.

Advertisement

A reporter visited the Bethel store in person but was asked to leave upon entry. A follow-up phone call to the store and subsequent emails seeking comment were not answered.

Office of Cannabis Policy Data Analytics Director Eric Miller said recently that recreational sales are strongest in western and southern Maine, particularly in border-adjacent regions near New Hampshire, a factor that may help explain Curaleaf’s focus on Bethel.

John Hudak, the director of Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy, said sales data suggest some border effects, but emphasized they are not the primary driver of Maine’s recreational market.

“I think New Hampshire is having an impact in York and Cumberland County, but it’s not the major driver of Maine’s cannabis economy,” Hudak said, adding that tourism and Maine consumers account for most recreational sales.

MEDICAL vs. RECREATIONAL

Maine regulates cannabis under three distinct frameworks: medical cannabis, recreational cannabis and hemp-derived products. Each system operates under different statutes, labeling rules, testing standards and tax structures.

Advertisement

Recreational cannabis is overseen by the Office of Cannabis Policy and is subject to labeling rules, mandatory third-party testing, Metrc oversight and a 10% excise tax. As of late 2025, Maine lists roughly 180 licensed recreational cannabis stores, along with 78 cultivation facilities and 81 manufacturing facilities statewide.

According to data from the Maine Office of Cannabis Police, monthly taxable cannabis sales in Maine show medical sales peaking earlier and then leveling off, while recreational sales rise steadily after legalization, narrowing the gap between the two markets from 2022 through 2025. (Rebecca Richard/Staff Writer)

Maine’s medical cannabis program is also overseen, separately, by the Office of Cannabis Policy. Maine lists 86 active medical dispensaries and approximately 1,554 registered caregivers statewide. A medical cannabis caregiver is an individual or business authorized to grow and sell cannabis directly to registered patients, often operating at smaller scale and under less prescriptive labeling and testing rules.

“From a caregiver standpoint, testing and transparency matter because trust is everything,” said a Franklin County-area medical cannabis caregiver who requested anonymity. “Even unintentional confusion around labeling or testing can make patients question whether a product is safe.”

In July, cPort Credit Union notified many medical cannabis caregivers and caregiver storefronts statewide that their business accounts would be closed, citing evolving compliance expectations and regulatory risk. The decision did not apply to licensed medical dispensaries, which are subject to higher levels of oversight.

Advertisement

“Patients ask more questions now than they did a few years ago,” said the Franklin County caregiver. “Public perception around safety is shaped as much by labeling and communication as by the product itself.”

The labeling incident in Bethel illustrates a possible hole in Maine’s recreational oversight model. Cultivation and wholesale movement can be tracked with some accuracy, but at the retail shelf things can get much more dicey, relying on individual inspectors and label accuracy — rather than actual traceability.

At the point of sale, the sticker is the system. Against that backdrop, state regulators are continuing broader discussions about testing standards and consumer protection.

The Office of Cannabis Policy hosted a Cannabis Conversation on Testing Lab Standards on Dec. 22, hosted by director Hudak, which focused on how the state and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention work together to ensure certified cannabis testing labs, examining laboratory procedures, oversight and public health standards. The video can be watched on Maine OCP’s YouTube page.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending