
Anthony Van Dyke was a Flemish painter who lived from 1599 to 1641, and has the great fortune of having a brown named after him. Personally, I would prefer to have a pleasant green or vivid blue named after me, rather than a brown, but that's what we remember about Van Dyke, and I suppose that's good enough for him. This in one of his paintings. I'm sure you will recognize it.
If you look at this painting, you'll see there are a lot of browns. So which one are they referring to when the label says "Van Dyke Brown?" Apparently, that's not an easy question to answer.

I started by trekking out to the local art store for some Van Dyke Brown watercolors. I bought one of every brand they carried, plus I already had some of my own. Here's what I started with, from left to right: Grumbacher Academy, Windsor & Newton Cotman, Daler-Rowney Artists, Daler-Rowney Aquafine, Dr. PH Martins, Windsor & Newton Artists, Maimeriblu, Daniel Smith, Sennelier, and Van Gogh.
I performed this experiment on Arches cold press watercolor paper.

I started with a dab [highly scientific, I know] of paint straight from the tube, and using clean water, I pulled the paint down the sample area. I learned several things from this experiment.
The first thing I learned was that no two Van Dyke browns were the same. Which is the real Van Dyke? If I had a real Van Dyke in my possession with which to compare these samples, it would be much easier, but I don't, so I can't tell you who got it right.

All the paints had their own unique traits, but the Sennelier was a BIG surprise. When I opened it, it appeared to have separated,
like a whole lot. As you can see from the tissue, I squeezed out a quarter or more of the tube just trying to get past the separated binder to the actual pigment. What a nasty mess. I tried swabbing it with a tissue, only to have the tissue permanently adhere to the paint. Disastrous.

The first three samples did pretty well. The Grumbacher had some slight binder separation. The Grumbacher was fairly finely ground, and showed virtually no granulation. Personally, I like granulation, but you may not. It was a fairly cool brown.
The W&N Cotman was warmer, almost ochre when diluted, with slight granulation. I thought it had good color depth. The Daler-Rowney Artists was also a little bit ochre, and had moderate granulation.

Interestingly, the Daler-Rowney Aquafine differs remarkably in color from the Artists color by the same company. It was a vastly cooler color that came off a little duller than the Artists.
The Dr. Martins was a brick red, far from brown. It dried to a very dull, featureless finish with no granulation, no depth, and a very flat tone.
The W & N Artists was a great paint. Unlike the two Daler-Rowney paints, the W&N paints were fairly close in color. The W&N Artists had good depth and granulation, and did not come off as flat at all.

The Maimeriblu was a gorgeous paint; great depth and great granulation in a much cooler tone. It was my personal favorite for its character. I had never tried that brand before, so I was very pleased, and will definitely buy more.
The Daniel Smith was just a very neutral tone. Light granulation, good depth, but just neutral. Almost a non-color. Very hard to describe.
The Sennelier, aside from the separation disaster, was almost the same brick red as the Dr. Martins. It had slight granulation, but was otherwise sort of flat. Lastly, the Van Gogh; cool and neutral like the Daniel Smith, although with less granulation character. It didn't do much for me.
I hope you have enjoyed the brown "review." Send along your questions and comments, and don't forget to post a link to work you've done with any of the featured supplies. Thanks.