“Branch Hill Pond, Hampstead Heath,” John Constable

General description:

Described by Constable to the patron as “A scene on Hampstead Heath, broken foreground and sand carts, Windsor Castle in the extreme distance on the right of the shower. The fresh greens in the distance (which you are pleased to admire) are the fields about Harrow, and the villages of Hendon, Kilburn, &c.”[a]

Auxiliary support:

N/A

Primary support:

The size of the painting is similar to the standard English ‘three-quarters’ size (30 by 25 inches) which could have been cut from a narrow 27-inch-wide roll of canvas and still accommodate 1-inch-wide tacking margins on each side. [b]

Preparation layer(s):

Constable is known to have employed toned priming layers of different colors beneath his skies through the 1820s, ranging from blue to buff to salmon pink. These are described as forming “an integral part of the final image. It gives characteristic colour and tone to large areas of the composition, where it remains visible through sporadic brush and palette knife work in the paint layers.” [c]

Beginning the 19th of May 1824, Constable hired John Dunthorne Junior, the son of his friend and sketching partner John Dunthorne Senior, as a studio assistant. In correspondence, Constable describes that Dunthorne Jr. “is squaring and working hard for me,” and “forwards me a great deal in subordinate parts such as tracing, squaring &c &c.” [d] As this overlaps with when Branch Hill Pond was likely begun, it is possible that Dunthorne Jr. prepared the horizon line. 

The lack of other specific underdrawing is related to the fact that Constable painted the Branch Hill Pond scene at least ten other times in his lifetime (see Appendix 2: Other depictions of Branch Hill Pond by Constable). He developed familiarity with the landscape through his oil sketches and preliminary drawings. 

Evidence suggests that when Constable created larger versions of his sketches, he used a grid system to scale up. When he created duplicates of his finished pieces, a greater extent of underdrawing is associated with the copy. [e] This piece’s direct approach helps distinguish it as the first version, despite confusion related to the 1917 Christie’s sale alongside its duplicate, currently at the Oskar Reinhart Am Römerholz in Winterthur, Switzerland. 

Paint layer(s):

Generally, Constable painted his landscapes from background to foreground, while simultaneously re-painting each layer wet-over-dry with increasing levels of detail. 

In other Constable paintings from 1824 – 1826, researcher Sarah Cove has positively identified the following pigments: lead white, vermillion, red iron oxide, red lake, yellow lake, Naples yellow, Prussian blue, natural ultramarine, umber, charcoal black, patent yellow, ivory black, mars browns, burnt terre verte, mars yellow, and Antwerp blue. [e] His binding media are identified as linseed oil with walnut oil in lighter colors. Evidence from his extant palettes also indicates that Constable sometimes included additives like egg, beeswax, and pine resin. [f]

Surface coating(s):

This painting is known to have been exhibited at the 1825 Royal Academy before being sold to Frances Darby, so the presence of original varnish is unknown. Sarah Cove describes that 

Constable was aware of the benefits of varnishing and its proper timing. It is unlikely that his paintings were varnished by the exhibition time due to his working habits. [g] There is no evidence that Constable varnished the picture before it was sent to Darby. 

Constable is known to have disliked the 19th century aesthetic preference for darker-toned paintings, though at some points he reluctantly did so to please his audience; “I have grimed it down with slime & soot – as he is a connoisseur and of course prefers filth & dirt, to freshness and beauty.” [h]

Frame:

Documentation supports that Constable worked with leading following London framemakers. In sale negotiations with Darby, Constable belabors the cost of original framing, “the frames are rich and cost me about £20 each.” [i] He is also known to have sometimes repurposed frames from his unsold Academy pictures. [j]

CITATIONS: 

• [a] John Constable, Patrons, Dealers, and Fellow Artists, vol. 10, ed. R. B. Beckett, John Constable’s Correspondence, IV (Suffolk Records Society, 1966), 97.
• [b] Jacob Simon, “‘Three-Quarters, Kit-Cats and Half-Lengths’: British Portrait Painters and Their Canvas Sizes, 1625-1850,” National Portrait Gallery, April 2013, https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/research/programmes/artists-their-materials-and-suppliers/three-quarters-kit-cats-and-half-lengths-british-portrait-painters-and-their-canvas-sizes-1625-1850/3.-further-standard-sizes.
• [c] Sarah Cove, ed., “Very Great Difficulty in Composition and Execution: The Materials and Techniques of Constable’s Sky and Cloud Studies of the 1820s,” in Constable’s Skies, by Frederic Bancroft (Salander-O’Reilly Galleries, 2004), 127.
• [d] John Constable, Patrons, Dealers, and Fellow Artists, vol. 10, ed. R. B. Beckett, John Constable’s Correspondence, IV (Suffolk Records Society, 1966), 159 – 161, 181. 
• [e] Sarah Cove, “Constable’s Oil Painting Materials and Techniques,” in Constable (Tate Gallery Publications, 1991), 509.
• [f] Sarah Cove et al., “Mixing and Mingling: John Constable’s Oil Paint Mediums c. 1802-37, Including the Analysis of the ‘Manton’ Paint Box,” in Painting Techniques History, Materials and Studio Practice: Contributions to the Dublin Congress, 7-11 September 1998 (International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 1998).
• [g] Sarah Cove, “Constable’s Oil Painting Materials and Techniques,” in Constable (Tate Gallery Publications, 1991), 515.
• [h] Ibid, 516.
• [i]John Constable, Patrons, Dealers, and Fellow Artists, vol. 10, ed. R. B. Beckett, John Constable’s Correspondence, IV (Suffolk Records Society, 1966), 97
• [j]Jacob Simon, “John Constable and Picture Frames,” The Frame Blog, February 1, 2026, https://theframeblog.com/2026/02/01/john-constable-and-picture-frames/.

For the purposes of publication, names of individuals have been redacted.

Treatment summary:

1825 – 1949: unknown

• Glue-paste lining
• Overpainted

1952: National Gallery of Art

• X-ray exam: possible abrasion or overcleaning
• UV exam: overpaint
• Visual exam: no loss of paint film
• Treatment: “cleaned and waxed”

1982: VMFA

• Backing added
• Replaced two missing keys, secured all with wax
• Noted losses from rabbet and crack in clouds

2003: VMFA

• Aqueous cleaning with “ammonia water” pH 8.5 and saliva
• Retouch losses with watercolor

Full timeline:

Frame:

Tag attached to left d-ring: “49.18.4”

Top left label: “28| Hampstead Heath| Oil on canvas| Lent by the Virginia Museum of Fi[ne Art]s, Richmond, USA”

Top right label: “SL 83. 33”

Left center label: “No. c/12 54” and “7951”

Right, upside down inscription in chalk “13” (2x)

Slip frame, left center, inscription in pencil “front”

Bottom left stamp in black, “716”(?) 

Backing board:

“COMMONWEATH of VIRGINIA| Virginia Museum of Fine Arts| 2800 GROVE AVENUE/RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23221-2466| John Constable| Branch Hill Pond, Hampstead Heath, 1824-25|oil on canvas| Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond| The Adolph D and Wilkins C. Collection 49.18.4”

“Constable to Delacroix| 5 Feb – 11 May 2003| Tate Britain| CONSTABLE, John 1776 – 1837| Branch Hill Pond, Hampstead Heath| 1825| X01722| 114| Oil on canvas| 62.2 x 78.1 cm| Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (Richmond, USA)”

“The Metropolitan Museum of Art| Crossing the Channel: British and French Painting in the Age| of Romanticism (10/7/2003 to 1/4/2004)| Virginia Museum of Fine Arts| John Constable| Branch Hill Pond, Hampstead Heath| SL.20.2003.57.2 Cat No.: 114”

“AMIRAN ABRASION SENSITIVE COATED GLASS| SHATTER PROOF| DO NOT TAPE GLASS| DO NOT TOUCH GLASS| DO NOT CLEAN GLASS| HANDLE ART OBJECT WITH GLOVES ONLY”

Detached, found in curatorial file: “The Tate Gallery| LENDER: [blank]| ADDRESS: [blank]| ARTIST: John Constable| TITLE: Landscape (Branch Hill| Pond, Hampstead) |EXHIBITION: JohnConstable [sic]| DATES: Feb. 18 – April 25| CAT NO 239”