Click images to enlarge

Description

Oil on canvas 20 inch by 13.5 image. On the reverse is a stamp for 'Oliver Stearns Boston'. In Christies' 1998 catalog of the sale of Lane's 'view of Boston harbour' it is stated "Like many of Lane's early works, Boston Harbor bears the canvas stencil, 'O. Stearns Boston" The painting depicts Britannia in a storm. 
The figurehead, with her shield on the starboard of the ship, (and so unseen in the present image), ...(In the day, it seems that an East-West passage was displayed in a painting, by convention, with the bow of the boat to the left as one views it..so the artist would be facing North)... together with her spear, unique among Cunard sidewheelers and the red and black funnel, identifies the boat as Britannia. A full sized carving of the original figurehead can be seen on board the QE2. (as shown) Although the colours on that figure have been changed when it was renovated (as was its arm). However, looking the same as the figurehead in the present painting, especially in respect of the shield being on the starboard side and so not visible in the present painting. The two tone blue paint is seen on the recreation of the figurehead on board QE2.  If one also examines the 1850 model of Britannia - seen in the Science museum - one also sees the shield on the starboard side.
Notice the small red mark centrally on the sail of the distant boat, perhaps identifying it as belonging to the 'Red Swallow-tail line' or Red Star line.
The Boston Daily Transcript  of 8 August 1841. states..
  'There is a beautiful painting exhibiting at the window of W.H.Oakes music store, No.13 Tremont Row. It represents the steamship Britannia during the most terrific gale she ever encountered. It was on the morning of 23 April last on her passage from Liverpool to this port. The picture was painted expressly for Captain Cleland by Mr.F.H.Lane, one of the best painters of sea views in the country.'
The first 'Luminist' painting....................................  The 'beautiful painting' of Britannia, the very same painting that kick-started Fitz Henry Lane's career in oils,- his first commission, has never be found... until now.... I'd posit that the newspaper did not know why the painting appeared 'beautiful' but observe that it appeared so because Lane had used it to introduce the world to  a new distinct style, in the same way that Renoir had introduced the world to a distinctive 'Impressionist' style - also embodied in one particular impactful painting in 1874.....'Impression Sunrise'. Unlike 'Impressionism', and because in part, this painting was lost to the American public and critics of the time; it would take the world almost two centuries to christen Lane's style, and the present painting as 'Luminist'.
One must first observe that this is a beautiful painting as described in the Boston newspaper. - It has exceptional aerial perspective which one would believe was by Constable if one did not know. Somehow, all of Fitz Henry Lanes' paintings, even of storms, appear mellow. Probably due to the coherence of tonal quality throughout which lacks the stark contrast or chiaroscuro used by western artists after Caravaggio. Despite the darkness of the storm, the sun just touches and illuminates the cumulus cloud on the left, which re-radiates its' glow to tint the green of the swell enveloping the ship. The effect giving the whole painting an unusual and distinctively unique radiant quality (a 'luminist' quality). Added into the mix, Lane has cleverly delineated the figurehead, which is the only distinguishing feature of the boat as compared to it's sister ships, using bright colors, with the figurehead risen above the horizon so that one wouldn't be sure that it, itself wasn't the source of the luminosity of the painting. And one must be reminded that in 1841 a figurehead was a significant and important part of any ship. Indeed which could be considered as lighting its path through a turbulent and unpredictable sea. The overall composition seems to be copied from the work of Samuel Walters - who it must be noted, also produced a similarly proportioned painting of Britannia at Sea (see A.S.Davidsons' book, the whereabouts of which is unknown after auction at Christies in 1964) and which is likely to have been contemporary with or earlier than the present painting (he residing in Liverpool). Other of Lane's paintings such as that shown above show very similar skies and the small boat in the distance is very similar to those seen in his larger paintings of 3 masters in a storm, also as shown. (even down to the structure of the waves in-front of the boat, it's attitude and rig)
Note well that one can identify all the rigging lines seen on the small boat, also present on Lane's watercolour of a three master shown on the Cape Anne website of Lane's catalogue raisonne. The figurehead also shows the same curvilinear depiction. And the form of the waves on the port bow have the same 'W' form - if only sketched in the present painting due to its' smaller size. It is remarked on the Cape Anne catalog raisonne, that the boat in Lane's watercolour is the same boat as appears in his oil as shown. I posit that the elicitation/representation of the individual lines is a fingerprint of Lane - he being proud of his knowledge of rigging and the detail he puts into his paintings. In this respect one can see if one looks at the three depictions of his boat, including the present representation, that it is the same boat pictured at slightly different attitudes. Thus, whilst the rigging lines are the same , the yards (spars) have swung around taking the lines with them. That Lane represents this coherently and realistically between the three representations of the boat is a testament to his knowledge and observation, and in actual fact is, together with his luminist style and the composition of his clouded sky, together, his finger-prints in this painting. A lesser artist - or draftsman would not entertain the task of delineating the yards and rigging in such detail, nor with such a coherent naturalistic effect, when one considers that the paintings are different and conducted at different times over a number of years. This separation in time shows that Lane had a very fixed model in his head as to how a boat and its' complex rigging,- should appear, and be represented so as to appear natural, in different attitudes. As evidenced here, using the same mental model over a spread of many years. This explains the similar appearance of the boat in three separate pictures of different sizes, in three different orientations in space, spread over many years.
Bearing in mind the importance of the/a figurehead in 1840 - (Indeed Captain Cleland would have thought the figurehead very important to the survival of Britannia in the storm of 1841) - (the steamer 'President', a similar boat, was sunk on the same journey with no survivors, and on average 2 boats a month were sunk to the weather on the same trip) - it would be incumbent upon any marine artist to get the figurehead right. Moreover, I'm sure that it would be believed that Britannia's shield protected her. That Cunard lost no lives in trans-Atlantic crossings would subsequently be the chief selling point of Cunard. And in 1840, the figurehead might be considered the reason. To get it wrong cannot be attributed to artistic licence.  Especially as in this case, the figurehead alone was the only difference between the four sister ships of Cunard and indeed the only way to identify each individual ship in a storm.. It is thus more than strange that the figurehead of the ships in both the Peabody and Phoenix have Britannia's shield on the wrong side. (see images above) This factor alone factually and objectively separates the present painting from those in the Peabody and at Phoenix, and it thus has a greater claim to being a representation of Britannia herself as she appeared in 1841, and as so described in the Boston newspaper of 1841. Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that it is the level of detail which Lane puts into his painting which is a significant factor in separating his work from other of his contemporaries. One would not expect him to get the figurehead wrong. One might observe in this respect that the ship in the present painting, in other respect than the rigging and the figurehead looks very similar to the ship as it is presented in the Phoenix and Peabody paintings. Both seen in profile. Perhaps both of Lane's 1842 paintings of Britannia were a response to Walters' larger 'realist' representation of Nonantum (pictured in the same storm), which sold to the ships' Boston owner in 1841. However the fact of Lane's painting not selling to Cunard's owner might have made him abandon his attempts at copying Walter's realist style as seen in his 1842 paintings of Britannia in a storm, and reverting subsequently back to his distinct 'Luminist' style, as exhibited, seen and revealed in the present painting in 1841, for the rest of his career.
The artistic qualities in the painting transcend the paintings' 180 years and are still evident, as seen nicely in the first image above, despite the craquelure and ravages of time. Britannia still lights the way, just as she led the ship, crucially, safely, through numerous mountainous seas and Atlantic storms,; the same storms which themselves finished off much of Cunard's competition of the day.
In this painting, it could be said that Britannia herself has been breathed life into as though a 'Luminist' herself.
'Cabinet Sized Painting'.........................  One must also observe, and it is significant that the painting, at 20 inches wide, is a lot smaller that either of Lane's two 1842 paintings of Britannia in the Peabody or Phoenix. Dickens on his 1842 crossing on Britannia observed how tiny the cabins were and the general cramped conditions below deck. In particular and to paraphrase 'he observed that nothing had been invented smaller to sleep in, perhaps with the exception of a coffin !!!! 
In all probability, neither the paintings in the Peabody nor Phoenix could or would have fitted in the captains' cabin on Britannia. Indeed I suggest that the origin of the term 'cabinet painting' arose because it referred in particular to the small size of paintings commissioned by Sea Captains for their confined cabins. Add in to this, that it would be dubious as whether a not a captain could afford to commission such a large painting as those seen in the Peabody or Phoenix. Also, such paintings would take a long time to complete and the captains on board Britannia and her sister ships changed regularly, so there would be no knowing when a captain would return to any given port. (all the known records of Britannia leaving Liverpool or arriving in Boston show a different captain to be on board on each occasion. (Woodruff on her maiden voyage 1840, Cleland 1841, Hewitt 1842 Lang 1846 etc)) (1840 through 43 Cunard had 4 ships on a two weekly schedule(1 a month in winter) meaning each ship would only visit Boston on average 5 times a year and if the captains changed then one can see that a captain may not re-visit Boston at all often.
'Luminist brushwork'  ................The fine aerial perspective and luminous tonal quality raises the artistic quality of this painting above that of either of the painting in the Peabody museum or that in the Phoenix Art museum attributed to Lane, of Britannia in  a storm, dated 1842. Both totally lack aerial perspective, making them look naive by comparison to this or for that matter, any other of Lane's oil paintings in his raisonne making them atypical of his work. In contradistinction to those paintings, the present painting is in keeping with virtually all of Lane's oil paintings in his raisonne (which also all demonstrate his Luminist style) and it is in keeping with his contemporary lithographs which he was also producing in 1841 before he embarked upon his career in oils, especially in respect of the sky and clouds - which, as well as this similarity of cumulus form as also shown above for comparison with his 1859 (book cover Fitz Lane / Mary Blood Mellen above) painting of a sunset, also demonstrates fine brushwork in keeping with what could be described as a 'Luminist trait' (in particular the absence of individual brush strokes - the opposite of impressionism) which appear anything but naive. (albeit that his first known watercolour  that of a fire (Burning of the Packet Ship Boston -1830)) is by all accounts naive in many respects) Perhaps his diversification into oils was largely driven by the positive reception to the present unique picture, and its 'luminist' presentation, not to mention that perhaps it was the first he sold to a ship's captain or owner). That he returned to the particular 'Luminist' style, as seen here, after his subsequent unsuccessful paintings of Britannia as seen in the Peabody and Phoenix of 1842 which did not sell, is testament to the paintings' perceived 'luminous' quality. It is also perhaps pivotal in his embrace of the 'Luminist' style which he would come to be famous for and iconic of, when the term was invented in more recent times. As one can see - the style does differentiate and contrast with that of Samuel Walters (above) or Robert Salmon  - which, together with its fine overt defined brushwork, itself is the pinnacle of European ship portraiture. (albeit that the composition rests on Walters' and Salmon's highly evolved constructions)
'Lane's First Commission in Oil'..................................(It is relevant that this painting would be Lane's first oil painting in the public domain as demonstrated by Lane's raisonne at Cape Anne Museum available on-line, and the sky in particular is very typical of his engravings such as those shown above of Baltimore and Bowdoin college (see also 'The Battle Ground at Concord' ).
 Fitz Henry Lane produced the designs for W.H.Oakes' sheet music scores and his name can be seen on the image etched on many of them. In 1840-41, Oakes' business, producing the sheet music with Lane's illustrations, was based at 8 Tremont Row. For one year, 1841-42, Oliver Stearns- who supplied the canvas for this painting, was based at 5 Tremont Row - opposite.  (source email from Mariners museum - which can be supplied)                                           The painting in Liverpool. Captain Cleland's & Britannia's home port ................................Also of great of relevance to its provenance, the present painting was purchased at an estate sale at Cato Crane auctioneers, in Liverpool, rather incredibly, about 100 meters from the quay where Britannia berthed throughout her short career (1840- sold 1849) (provenance can be supplied). Indeed the building which houses Cato Crane today, and where the painting was displayed for sale, was probably built, along with the adjacent Coburg Dock, specifically to moor and service Britannia (and her sister ships) herself, for the transatlantic trade. In fact, Cato Crane, is about 100 meters from the quayside and somewhat elevated up a small hill. Whereby one in 1840 would have been able to clearly seen Britannia from the door. As Lane's painting was painted 'expressly for Captain Cleland' it is more than reasonable to assume that it ended up in Liverpool. (in actual fact, Erik Ronnberg states in Lane's raisonne on the Cape Anne website that "on arrival in Liverpool, Captain Cleland showed the painting to the public as he had in Boston")(and one would suggest therefore - in this context - that the painting stayed this side of the Atlantic). (there is no auction record of the painting in the UK - or any evidence of it returning to the USA). Indeed the painting was likely made in a suitable size to be exhibited in his small cabin on board Britannia. (hence the term 'Cabin - et' painting) That the painting was found 180 years later, 100 meters from where Britannia was berthed in the Coburg dock, 1840 through 1849, is an incredible coincidence. But that it was found in Liverpool rather than Boston is a strong indicator that this is F.H.Lane's painting as described in the Boston Transcript of 1841. Another of Lane's paintings has never been found in the UK. However one cannot imagine that a painting painted 'expressly for Captain Cleland' did not end up in his home port.  Especially given that the attribution of Lane's other two known paintings of Britannia is 1842, a year after the Boston publication, and in which both represent the boat with the same atypical rig.. It is also surprising that both of those 1842 paintings are on a somewhat epic scale, given that he had never produced an oil painting of any kind prior. He might have been 'the country's leading painter of sea views' - but at the time of this painting, his 'sea views' were confined to his stock in trade media from which engravings could be made. Presumably watercolor, ink, pencil and print. (he may well have factually produced the most sea views of any artist in the U.S. as his artworks appeared on Oakes' widely distributed printed music sheets and in this respect he would have been the 'leading painter of sea views').) One must observe that the ship appears in both of Lane's 1842 paintings as it appears in the present painting in regard to its direction, attitude, level of detail (especially accounting for its difference in size), proportion. So although the figurehead and rigging might appear different - those paintings do appear to have been drawn from the present painting.
  Interestingly - the building in which the estate sale took place was probably built, together with the Coburg Dock itself, to service Britannia herself, being first opened in 1840, the same year Britannia and her sister ships were first manufactured.
      Indeed, over and above this astonishing coincidence, this painting exhibits Lane's characteristic luminist style. The colours from the sky suffuse the whole composition and far from the raging storm described by Cleland, the soft tones express a somewhat romantic perspective, not at all unlike any of his later work in oils. Moreover the sky is very typical of Lane's engravings as perhaps would be expected for this, his first extant oil painting ship portrait. The words of Erik Ronnberg - as posted on the Cape Anne website - home to Lane's raisonne - points out that neither of Lane's 1842 paintings of Britannia are typical of Lane's luminist style. Indeed it is there postulated that Lane also produced a third painting (whereabouts unknown) which he unsuccessfully tried to sell to Cunard.  It has both the style and quality of Lane's work. 
Britannia's shield on wrong side in Lane's 1842 portraits of Britannia...........................Moreover, I would point out that on the figurehead, Britannia's shield is portrayed on the port side in both of Lane's 1842 paintings as seen now in the Peabody and Phoenix Museums. That is incorrect, as the original was copied by Cunard and is the basis for the full sized replica Figurehead now on the QE2 and as also the shield is clearly seen to be lacking on the port side in the present painting in contradistinction to both the paintings of Britannia seen in those museums. It might seem a small detail but none of the figureheads on Britannia's sister ships had a spear. Britannia's shield was on the starboard side and should not be visible in either of the paintings at Phoenix or The Peabody.
     On the reverse is a label for Davis & Gray, Belfast. Of relevance again to the provenance of this painting - this dates from the 1920s and supports the contention that the painting at some time in its past, made the journey by sea across the Atlantic before the age of flight. That it returned to Liverpool might possibly be explained if it was owned by an employee, associate or captain of the Cunard line.
      It is also of interest that the present painting lacks the ornate gilding on the paddle boxes which is a feature of other earlier portraits of Britannia. Charles Dickens observed that the paddle boxes were completely shredded during the storm the boat encountered on his 1842 crossing ('American Notes' available free online)- so that it exposed the paddles to splash water across the decks. He also observed that during the storm, there was no distinction between sky and sea, and both were the 'colour of lead'. And one would observe that indeed the sky and sea do have the colour of lead in the present painting. He also observed a period of about an hour in the middle of the storm when an eerie calm descended - more foreboding than the incredible storm. Unbeknownst to Dickens - I propose that he was describing the 'eye' of a hurricane. Perhaps this is the moment depicted in this painting. The eye of a hurricane. Which indeed as described by Dickens would throw up a wall of water around the boat so that the horizon appeared elevated - as seen in the present painting.
I would suggest the same happened in the storm of 1841, and the paddle boxes would have been replaced in Boston, but without the ornate gilding on the original boat. Hence they appear as they do in the present painting. One of the most important paintings in the history of American art, tipping Lane into a career of oil painting.. And found rather amazingly adjacent to the home berth of Britannia in Liverpool. 
Masts 'struck down' in both of Lane's 1842 portraits of Britannia..................................................It is also of interest that Dickens in his American notes writes that the masts were 'struck down'. In both the 1842 paintings at Cape Anne and Phoenix, the masts are indeed struck down. Indeed in both of those paintings, the striker is removed from the bowsprit. Whereas in the present painting - clearly the masts are not struck down (to anything like the same degree) and the striker on the bowsprit (which supports the extended masts) is still clearly in place (as is the bowsprit). It also might have been the case that Britannia lost its' bowsprit in the 1842 storm, as Columbia did in a subsequent storm (see fitzhenryonline for a newspaper cutting of the time) and that might have necessitated striking down the masts. This all suggests indeed that both of the 1842 paintings were executed after the storm of 1842 and that their attribution to 1842 is correct. Neither of them is the 1841 painting as described in the Boston Newspaper. One must point out that the Steamer 'President'. - Cunard's rival and the then largest steamer in the world - sunk on the same journey. It may well be that the captain chose the wrong 'rig' or did not strike the masts down, believing, like the captain of Titanic, that she was unsinkable. She may well have had more coal than Britannia meaning that she was was too light - as Dickens observed on Britannia - when the storm hit her, requiring the striking down of the masts as seen on Lane's 1842 depictions of Britannia. The captain may well not have done this.
So the 'rig' of the vessel would be of note to a captain commissioning a portrait.
Indeed each Captain would rig the boat differently according to their own experience and Britannia was a new and unique ship. It is entirely possible that Cleland, who was captain in the storm of April 1841 did not strike the masts down in the storm, whereas Hewitt, the captain (according to Dickens and the record) in 1842 brought about a much more extreme change of rig. Such changes would have depended crucially upon how much coal the ship had at the time of the storm. Dickens pointed out that in 1842 the ship had used a lot of coal by the time of the storm and so he observed (as a matter of his concern) that its' ballast was light for the ship's design when the storm arrived (because the coal was an integral part of the ballast - the boat being too heavy when it left Liverpool, and too light when it approached Boston, to Dickens consternation). This would have required drastic action, simplistically, to lower the ships' center of gravity, requiring the extreme measures of reducing mast height greatly.
(It would have been a greater problem for the steamer 'President' - which sunk).  Hence Lane would have seen her as she is depicted in the 1842 paintings without her characteristic striker and extended masts. In contradistinction, the present painting shows her with her characteristic striker and rig, suggesting that the storm depicted was not that of 1842 (as depicted the same in both of Lane's 1842 paintings). (If 'President' did not sink, perhaps today one would not be so celebrating the portrait of the Cunard boat. Indeed Cunard in all probability would not exist) And possibly Lane himself would not have become so famous or Luminist art have become so influential. Thus the rig of the boat in the storm of 1841 - as it is presented in the present painting - was to be a pivotal point in history.
That different Captains did not strike the masts down in a storm is evidenced in the painting of Samuel Walters of 1841, which shows the American ship Nonantum - with sails shredded, on the Atlantic in a severe storm, with  Britannia or one of her sisters on the horizon. Clearly , although distant, Britannia is seen with her striker and characteristic rig still in place. Although, indeed, the gaffs on that boat are lowered, whereas they are still in place on Lane's 1842 paintings (perhaps indicating that the bowsprit was lost in the 1842 storm)
As an after  thought I believe the painting was on display in Oakes' Music store where it would have attracted the attention of Clement Drew, an established marine artist in 1841 and who had a studio at 18 Court street, around the corner from Tremont Row. I believe he would have felt Lane was treading on his professional toes, exhibiting his painting of Britannia so close to his studio and on the back of the publicity it courted, produced a number of copies of it, although with the boat flipped horizontally left - right, and sold them to other captains of Cunard. (For example see his painting of 'Acadia eastward bound' in the Mariners museum, believed sold to the captain of Acadia.) However one can see the quality of the present painting is significantly better in terms of the detailed more finely painted and powerful exposition of the sky and the complimentary and harmonious tones of the sea which also contrast with it, (even despite its smaller size), which together contribute to the great sense of depth in the painting (as they do exactly similarly in Constable's painting) and the sense that the storm engulfs the boat, which appears bobbing as a cork in such an epic conflagration. Drew's paintings are by comparison naive, the sky generally flat and clouds presented using coarser brush strokes.
The present painting thus echoing Dickens words - who was actually on the boat in a hurricane. (to paraphrase - How could anything possibly float in such a tumult, let alone a boat? - again to his utter consternation) There would indeed be a hollow in the sea in the eye of a hurricane due to  raised of pressure there as compared to its' surrounding walls; the eye, where the wind-speed would lower the pressure and thus raise the sea level, as compared to the 'wall' of the hurricane. This wall of water - appearing above the boat - is depicted very well in the present painting.
Dimensions of Britannia accurate, indicative of Lane's noted draftsmanship..........................(One would note that Dickens observations concerning Britannia were quite accurate as he use the details in his subsequent talks. Among other things, he knew the tonnage of coal that the ship could carry and he observed that the funnel was 40 feet above the deck. Knowing that Britannia was 207ft  between perpendiculars - one can work out how accurate the different paintings are....and the present painting is quite accurate). Lane was certainly acknowledged as a good draftsman in records from the time and would be expected to get the relative dimensions of the boat right.
The present painting resolves Erik Ronnbergs' puzzle....................................................................(If one further reads Erik Ronnberg's words on Cape Anne museum website. He says that "It is likely Captain Cleland displayed the painting in Liverpool as he had in Boston, and it is also likely that the port's marine artists would have taken notice of the dramatic pose of Britannia".........Indeed Walters' 1841 painting of Nonantum - for it's American owners, looks to be pretty much an exact copy of the present painting. He would have observed how proud Cleland was of it and have been aware of the publicity associated with it in Boston' and so would have realized that a similarly constructed painting would have been received well in Boston; it might possibly even have been 'expected'.
(so whilst Lane might well have learned Walter's style through his business as a lithographer and used it in the painting of Britannia as it is seen here (with the addition of his own 'luminist' qualities), yet he would have been the first to use it in depicting the storm of 1841 - and so reap the public acclaim for it's dramatic depiction)
Contrary to the assertion by Erik Ronnberg that 'Walters painting taught Lane a lesson' (in realistic depiction of a boat in a storm), the discovery of the present painting (of which Ronnberg was not aware) suggests almost the opposite - That Walters would have to present his painting of Nonantum  to a Boston audience and a Boston ship owner - in the same manner that Lane presented Britannia. (seen in this painting)
Moreover, Lane was not successful in selling his 1842 version of the painting (as seen in the Peabody) to Cunard, simply because - for some reason he decided to show Britannia's shield on the wrong side. Perhaps for artist effect, but none the less, wrong. Perhaps misjudging the importance of the figurehead to the shipping line. As a none sea-going soul, he would not understand just how important a figurehead was, in the day. (Between 1838 and 1847 no less than 21 mail-carrying ships were lost on the North Atlantic route—two each year on average...source Wikiwand under the heading 'Packet Boat')
Solving 'The Mystery In the Museum' (3 museums) 
Or, he may well have felt bound by convention, to paint the bow of the boat on the left of the painting, representing the encounter with the storm on the westward passage, which in his balanced judgement did not allow the most characteristic profile of the figurehead to be seen (although as it is presented to Cleland in the present painting) and therefore he chose to  paint Britannia' s 'better-(more iconic) side - with her easily identifiable shield)' on the wrong side of the boat in the larger more detailed paintings of 1842. This judgement might well have not pleased Cunard (together with the atypical rig - without her bowsprit or striker) with the result that the painting did not sell.
So, after the 1842 storm, Lane would have seen her with her masts struck down exactly as described by Dickens,(American notes) and without a striker, as shown in both Peabody and Phoenix, and would have presented that detail in his large paintings. However that was not iconic of and indeed did/does not look like Britannia (and it could easily be one of her almost identical sister ships).
 So, given the convention that an East to west passage presented Britannia with her bow on the left of the painting and thus her figurehead without her iconic shield visible, and perhaps only her spear able to distinguish her from her sister ships in that profile (as seen in the present painting).... Lane would be forced into painting Britannia's shield on the wrong side in those 1842 paintings, so as to identify her from her sister ships. (especially given that her struck-down bowspritless rig did not look like that of Britannia). Unfortunately both the atypical rig, combined with the incorrect figurehead meant that the paintings did not sell to Cunard. (solving a 180 year old puzzle). In actual fact also solving  '180 year old Mysteries in three museums' (Cape Anne. Peabody and Phoenix). It might be the reason that those 1842 paintings are believed by some to be described as fakes!
 PTR copyright 27/07/2023
Moreover this explains exactly why Lane's 1842 paintings of Britannia are still in the USA and the present painting was found in Liverpool. 180 years after it was painted. In 1841, as evidenced in the present painting, Britannia's masts were not struck down so severely as they were in 1842 (the striker was not lost nor the bowsprit ) as there was a different captain (Cleland in 1841, Hewitt in 1842) and Lane did not feel it necessary to go to the extra-ordinary lengths of painting Britannia's shield on the wrong side in order to identify/distinguish her in the painting. 
 (In Liverpool - nobody had heard of Lane and in the USA nobody knew what Britannia looked like.)
Ronnberg does state that there were 2 versions of Lane's 1842 painting. One of which he tried  unsuccessfully to sell to Cunard. They are thus the paintings in Phoenix and the Peabody. This painting is the one he sold to Cleland. This is all a very simple explanation of why Lane's second painting did not sell and why both still reside in the USA and the present painting was found on this side of the Atlantic.
The stamp on the back of the canvas for Oliver Stearns places the canvas of the present painting within easy reach of Lane's hand, moreso in 1841, when Oliver Stearns was based at 5 Tremont Row, opposite Lane at 8 Tremont Row, and indeed this very painting was on display at Oakes' store at 13 Tremont Row, as advertised in the Boston Newspaper, whereas neither of the 1842 paintings in Phoenix or the Peabody has this provenance, nor that of being found in Liverpool. Indeed Lane's paintings have only come to the fore in terms of value in recent history and 181 years is a long time during which a lot can happen to a painting and a lot of knowledge about it lost. When added to its' distinct 'Luminist' style, contrasting with the convention of the period, as expressed in Walters and Salmon's paintings, and the similarity of the sky, in particular to his contemporary lithographs, and good draftsmanship, that his employers noted and is reflected in the dimensions of his representation of the boat, testify to; such nailed in provenance is thus invaluable.
I am guessing that David McIver - who owned the ships of Cunard in Liverpool, owned the painting after Cleland, as although it was by coincidence sold at Cato Crane in Liverpool, Cato Crane acquired the painting on the Wirral - where their office is less than a mile away from the McIvers' residence there in the 1840s and there are many branches of the McIver family who had their roots there. The hand writing on the reverse looks like the only example of his hand that I can find.

Please Note - in the EU that ebay stipulate that buyers are responsible for all costs associated with import as we the seller have no control over them. Moreover we are not registered for VAT in any EU country, so cannot export any item with greater value than 10,000 euros to any particular EU country.