3 copies/variants: one Koetser 1966 (panel 14 x 19.3, ill. Essen 1997 p.131 fig.2); second Indianapolis, Museum of Art (copper 10.2 x 11.4)--exhibited Essen 1997. Third variant sold London (Christie's 13.xii.91 # 177 as circle of JBI), copper, 14.6 x 17.8. There are photos of these in RKD voorordening, and all 4 are exhibited in Russell article. A more distant version (?) is illustrated Essen 1997, p.131, fig.3. Curious that even Jan's very earliest painting seems to exist in such a lot of copies and variants.
Another distant but very curious variant sold Sotheby's London 3 December 2008, #8 (panel, 15.5 x 18). To harbor have been added all these figures from just slightly later JB works, like Ertz 13 from 1595--a figure group is directly reproduced from there. Since Ertz 13 was in the Barberini Collection and hence didn't leave Italy before 20th century, that would mean that either the painter of the Sotheby's picture worked from a drawing by JB, or knew the painting in Rome. But other figures here, especially woman seated on basket at far left and figures in midground with cart, are I am sure taken from works from school of Beuckelaer, works like Getty picture in fact. So this is a very peculiar pastiche. Also a tiny painting, same size as Ertz 1, but on panel.

Figures here in lower right corner are indeed the same as in a painting by Paul Bril, Harbor at Night with Lighthouse, in Vienna dating from 1601. Ertz, p.93, says that Jan must have taken his staffage from a drawing by Bril. He is known to have copied a drawing by Matthijs Bril. Some boat in this picture is also copied from Bril. It's been suggested (Russell 1992) that the present work is by Cornelis Liefrinck II and copies a work by his father Hans II, or is a variant on it. I've looked at the only known works by Cornelis and I don't believe this is by him. It's too refined. Bril connection actually ends up backing Pijl/Ertz's argument. I mean, how could this Leiden Liefrinck guy have known about the Bril drawing or painting? Russell thinks that Hendrick Vroom somehow made the connection--he knew Bril in ROme in the 1580s. But she that's even more tenuous than Ertz's idea of a lost drawing that JB could have copied-it relies on both a lost drawing and an uncertain intermediary.

Pijl has examined this painting himself and says it is definitely by JB. The painting Russell says is monogrammed by Hans Liefrinck II has clearly been tampered with to make it into a JB. Oddly, when it was sold at Christie's NY (22.v.98 #50) it was tentatively attributed to Hans Liefrinck II [or anon. Flemish] but the monogram on it clearly now reads IB. I have looked closely at catalog illustration, which is very clear, and compared it the present work as illustrated in Ertz 1979. The putative Hans Liefrinck is a clearly inferior work. Everything about it is less alive, less clever, less detailed--from ship in foreground to very distant background and way light is treated there. So the putative HL is NOT a JB. I do not understand its relationship to Ertz #1, which Pijl says IS a JB and I'm inclined to believe him. I am going, however, to deattribute also the Indiannapolis seascape, or I'm going to put it as a "q" number. God knows who was knocking off Ertz #1, but it wasn't [only] JB himself.