Should The Original Painting Be Painted By Rembrandt?

By pointing out that all the apparent three issues mentioned in the reading were all made by someone in order to sell the painting at a higher price, the professor in the lecture challenges the passage.

According to the reading, the clothes that the woman wears show huge variance. The professor, however, argues that the fur collar was not included in the original painting, by analyzing the pigments. In fact, the pigments were painted by someone else, so painting would appear to be the portrait of an aristocratic woman. At the same time, its value would increase.

The reading also contends that there is inaccuracy of the lightness of the painting. This is again contradicted by the professor who says that in the original painting, the woman wears a light-colored cloth that illuminated her face by reflecting light. Therefore the lightness of the original painting was absolutely realistic and should be painted by Rembrandt.
It is finally stated in the reading that actually several pieces of wood composed the wood panel.
In the professor’s view, however, the wood the panel was originally made by one piece of wood. Someone enlarges the panel with other pieces of wood to make the painting more valuable. Also the original piece of wood is found to be extremely similar to the wood in another Rembrandt’s self portrait with a hat. Thus, the similarity is another strong evidence showing that Rembrandt was the
painter.