The coat of arms in the present portrait was first transcribed in the 1872 museum catalogue, and identified as that of Nicolaes van der Borcht in the catalogue of 1893. As was recognized in the 1904 catalogue, the same coat of arms appears in another portrait (SK-A-725) which has also long been attributed to Anthony van Dyck. Although the sitter is identified in Cornelis Vermeulen’s (c. 1654-1708/1709) engraving (in reverse, of 1703) as Dominus Nicolaas vander Borcht,15 he was named as François in the museum catalogue of 1827 and then as Jacob, before Nicolaes was adopted. Stols16 and Baetens17 record a Nicolaes van der Borcht, the son of Hendrik, whom Stols listed as a shipper and forwarding agent in Dunkirk circa 1607. According to Stols, the son’s similar business activity was based first in Calais and then circa 1626 in Lisbon, where he was declared bankrupt in 1631. Baetens states that by the 1640s he was (once again) a rich merchant trading in silk and broking insurance. In 1656 he was recorded as seventy years old. However, Nicolaes is unlikely to be the sitter in this portrait, for the arms are those granted to his brother Adriaan in a letter patent of 2 March 1633 from Philip IV of Spain (1605-1665), in which Adriaan is described as Lord of Elverdinghe, Waesten and Spière and as resident in Cassel,18 all properties in West Flanders, Spière being less than twenty kilometres south of Dunkirk. Stols records that Adriaan had been a shipper and forwarding agent first in Malaga in 1615, then at Seville circa 1616-19, and in 1627 at Calais. Adriaan, who was born in Antwerp, was still alive in 1650 when he was created a knight. It remains a matter of conjecture as to why with the (incorrect) evidence of Vermeulen’s engraving, in the next recorded identification of the sitter – the 1817 sale catalogue – the sitter’s name was given as François. There are intermittent records of a François van der Borcht, and indeed a François van der Borcht married a niece of the second Michiel Peeters, through whose family the portrait descended (see Provenance). It was perhaps information provided from this source that led to the mistaken identification in the 1817 sale catalogue. Vey’s scepticism notwithstanding, Glück’s identification of the town in the background as Dunkirk seems likely to be correct.19 The silhouetted profile agrees, though not exactly, with the view in Sanderus’s Flandria Illustrata of 1644.20 The tallest tower would be that of the Sint-Eloikerk; the Stadhuys tower is to the left, though improbably and inaccurately tall and thin; further to the left is the Jesuit Church and then the castle. The shore is correctly shown as made up of dunes and the channel, the harbour can be made out to the left. Until 11 October 1646, when it was captured by the French, Dunkirk was the home port of the naval army of Flanders (Armada de Flandes) in the war against the United Provinces, and also of many privateers similarly engaged against Dutch shipping.21 The 1960 museum catalogue first recognized that the view of Dunkirk was by a different hand from that of the portrait, perhaps that of Andries van Ertvelt (1590-1652). Such outside collaboration would have been unusual but not unique in Van Dyck’s practice (see SK-A-725). But as Van Ertvelt’s extant oeuvre is not extensive and his manner is not well defined, it seems best, granted the no more than workmanlike level of the handling, to describe the view as by an anonymous painter. As far as the rest of the painting is concerned, Van Dyck’s authorship was doubted in the Rijksmuseum’s 1885 catalogue.22 But apart from criticizing the balustrade, Vey accepted the painting. However, judgement of the handling is not made easy by the discoloured varnish. The brushwork is best discernible in the face, and that indeed seems worthy of the artist. For the rest, the formulaic treatment of the hand,23 the only partially rendered collar, the feebly executed black costume (where legible), the dull folds of the drapery and the poorly executed coat of arms lack the vigour to be expected of a great artist or perhaps even of his studio working under his direct supervision. A possible explanation for the differences in handling could be that Van Dyck had painted the head but left the rest unfinished when he departed for England in 1632 or in 1635 – and rather the latter year, if the date of the sitter’s patent of nobility is taken as a terminus post quem. An anonymous artist, cognizant of Van Dyck’s style, perhaps a former member of his Flemish studio, would then have completed the work, leaving the background to a specialist view painter. The balustrade would then have been introduced later by an incompetent artist with little understanding of perspective. Glück24 recognized that the merchantman at anchor in the roads is flying a flag bearing the same coat of arms at her stern as is inscribed on the hanging above the sitter; the heraldic colours are correctly rendered. The ship flies a ../..