I tend to trust a contemporary eyewitness over a reconstruction done several centuries later

We dont really have the former, save in a painting that, as noted, is little more than a plug-n-play from a court painter's long-standing approach to such things. His "portrait" of Bach is, by all reports, little different from those he might have done of a hundred members of the court -- sort of like the galleries here, if you get my drift, :)

So, so what if the reconstruction looks a little bland or a little dull? Should she have made him look like SuperComposer, with a chiseled jaw and steely eyes and perfect hair and perfect skin? Wouldnt that have been just as disingenuous? Just having something like this, no matter how riddled with possible errors it might be, far outweighs having nothing at all. It may not be 100% historically accurate, but, heck, what has been?

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider