Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.

Doubly convertible reredos, proven to have been made in Nuremberg, built in 1479 and paid to Michael Wolgemut with fourteen hundred Rhenish guilders. The authorship of the carving that defines the reredos is unknown. The painted components show qualitative differences (the hands of Wolgemut and Pleydenwurff and those of the employees) and are overall probably less valuable than the sculptural part. The preference given to painting over carving in art historiography is certainly only due to Wolgemut's fame. The actual appreciation should be exactly the opposite. Dr. Pablo de la Riestra see also Peter's Altar in Nuremberg: Here we should point out stylistic parallels between the two works. The sculptures come from the same workshop, as noted by Stefan Roller, see Stefan Roller: Nuremberg Sculpture of the Late Gothic: Contributions to the Sculpture of the Imperial City in the Second Half of the 15th Century, Berlin 1999, p. 149.