Printing process
The most definitive method of determining whether a print is an original or a reproduction is by examination of its production process. All reproductions are made by a different process than originals; reproductions are photomechanically produced and originals are not. This difference in process can usually be spotted by an expert and in some cases is quite obvious.
- Most reproductions are made from a dot-matrix or half tone process, which produces a lentiginous image composed of a symmetrical pattern of small dots.. If you look through a fairly powerful magnifier (e.g. 10X) and you see little dots (either black & white or color), then you have a reproduction.
- If the print is supposed to be an intaglio print (engraving, etching, mezzotint, aquatint, etc.), then if there are big enough margins, a platemark should appear. Note that fake platemarks are not uncommon, but these usually differ in character from real platemarks. Also, the ink in an itaglio print will often feel raised from the surface, so if the print surface feels absolutely smooth, this is a clue that it is not an intaglio print.
- If the print is supposed to be a lithograph or woodcut or wood engraving, then there should be no platemark. If a platemark appears, you likely have a reproduction.
- Most intaglio prints, woodcut and wood engravings, when colored, are colored by hand with watercolors. If the color is printed and the print is supposed to be one of these types, then this is another clue you have a reproduction.
Paper
As a general rule, almost all prints and maps printed before 1800 are on laid paper and almost all prints and maps printed after 1800 are on wove paper.
- Laid paper is made by hand in a mold, where the wires used to support the paper pulp emboss their pattern into the paper. This pattern of closely spaced, crossing lines can be seen when the paper is held up to light. The first example of the use of wove paper in western printing was in 1757, so any print or map made before that should certainly be on laid paper. However, even in the second half of the eighteenth century, the use of wove paper was relatively rare, increasing in instances the closer to the end of the century. Also, some modern paper has false laid lines and reproductions often add false laid lines to make the item look more authentic. Thus the appearance of liad lines in the paper is a clue to authenticity, but not proof positive.
- Wove paper, in contrast, is made on a woven belt and lacks the laid lines. Thus the paper will lack the pattern of crossing lines when held up to the light. Though laid paper was used after 1800, the use of laid paper became less and less common as the nineteenth century progressed.
Other
- Look for any printed information which indicates the print is a reproduction, e.g. “reproduced from” or a copyright notice, etc.
- The best way to tell what you have is to try to find a reference book which features the map or print you are trying to research. This can be a collection listing, an exhibition catalogue, or a or catalogue raisonné. These references often list details about the prints or maps and you can compare these to your print or map. Among the details to check are title, measurements and the exact wording of any imprint information. Note that old prints do vary a bit in size, but the measurements should be within about 1/4” of the recorded size.
- Many prints and maps were issued in bound volumes and if the item is large, then it will often have to have been folded to fit into the volume. This is especially true for old maps, where the majority of original antique maps from before the nineteenth century have a "centerfold." The appearance of a centerfold is often good evidence that you have an original.
Note that none of these tests are certain, for there are exceptions to all of them. Also, even if your print passes these tests this doesn’t mean that it is original, though failure of any indicates it probably is a reproduction. Ultimately the issue must be decided by knowing what process the print should be and knowing what the paper should be like. This often takes an expert to determine for certain.
You can read more about how to tell an original map in a "Tips of the Trade" article on the Antiques Roadshow web site.
You can read more about the different ways prints were made in the Antique Prints Blog posts on print processes.
Hello, I have a watercolor that says copyright 1905 by Taber Prang Art Co., as well as by ELamasure. I can't find what you said about the other Lamasure question. It looks so real and is well framed. Is there any value?
ReplyDeleteAll the print by Taber Prang are very nice, but they have only "decorative" value. This does not mean they are worthless, just that their value comes from what they look like and what someone would pay for an attractive art work.
DeleteI have a print, pretty sure its a reproduction, but can not find any other image of it online to compare it to.. I know the glass is real, not sure about the frame, but I'm afraid to open the frame and ruin it, with that being said, can older reproductions be worth anything?
ReplyDeleteReproductions have only "decorative" value. That is, they are not collector prints but get their value from what they look like.
DeleteI have a german cherry heart print supposed to be original great frame cant find values
ReplyDeleteHi Chris,
ReplyDeleteI have a 1916 WWI Poster "Columbia Calls." It looks to be an original but I'm just not sure. The poster is on very thin paper--almost like tissue paper. It is in fine condition other than some browning along the sides, some small tears on the corners and scraped corner. How can I really tell if it is an old piece? I'm a bookseller not an antique collector. I'd really appreciate your advise.
Thank you,
Tisha
Hello Chris, I have a etching done by Antoine Marcenay de Ghuy after Rembrandt, it looks like laid paper with the lines. My question is when you look at laid paper in light can you see thru it or is it thicker than that? The only one I am finding like this is at the British Museum. Any help would be great.
ReplyDeleteLaid paper can actually be of varying thickness, though I have never seen one so thick you couldn't see the laid lines when looking at it through a light. Note that there is "fake" laid paper, where you see the lines, but the paper was actually made mechanically.
DeleteHi Chris,
ReplyDeleteI have two 'Twelve Months of Flowers' etchings by Robert Furber. I understand that the original prints were created in 1730, then reprinted in 1964 by Penn Prints, and again in 1982. Are there any distinguishing marks on the reproductions that would separate them from the original 1730 prints? I want to know if what I have is original, or from a reproduction series. The platemarks are visible, and there is no dot-matrix. Thank you for any input!
First off, there are many more reproductions of the Furber prints than just the Penn Prints and the ones from 1982. I haven't kept track, but I would guess that there are probably about twenty series of reproductions done over the years (though much less in facsimile size). In the end, the way to tell is the paper and process. Not all reproductions are dot matrix, but none that I know of were actual engravings. Also the paper. All reproductions I have seen are on later paper.
DeleteI have an 'Authentic hand colored reproduction of an original watercolor by John Hulse' Is this worth anything?
ReplyDeleteI have a Carington Bowles print "The comical hotch potch, or the alphabet turn' posture master". There is not copyright date. It has lines in the paper. It has the raised edge. It appears to be watercolor. Do I take this in somewhere to be seen. Or is it just a nice print?
ReplyDeletehallo,i have an old tschaikovsky's portrait print saying lower right
ReplyDelete"ACKERMANN COLLECTION No 40"."HAS TSCHAIKOVSKY'S SIGNATURE" with blue ink lower in the middle & to the lower left says H.SEROFF PINX.
The print is protected by an old wooden gesso frame with glass.the back of the frame is almost still sealed by the old worn paper but has some
spots the paper is peel off & can
see the rusty nails holding the back of the print.As i can see through the
glass,i see clearly lines on the print.
i do not know if i should take of the
print from the frame to clean it or
leave it as is.The print was found in
an old estate house owned by an old violin builder.
can you determine the date of the print?or if the signature is real?
I will be waiting for your thoughts.
i can send photos if this helps...
Thank you,
It does not hurt to take the print out of the frame and in fact the old backing and mat (if any) is likely acidic and so will eventually destroy the print. The best thing to do is to take out the print, deacidify it, and then put it back in with "acid free" matting/backing/hinges.
DeleteThe signature will be a facsimile signature, not a real one. That is fairly typical of that sort of print. The print will probably date from the mid-1870s to late 1890s, though if there is no date on it is is probably impossible to date cloer than that.
thank you very much for your help & your fast reply!
DeleteI have the Litho "Bologna Strada Maggiore" J Hakewill and JMW Turner The entire sheet measures 12" x 17". The impressed lithograph measures 7.5" x 10". The lithograph has been colored. There are 2 tears in the paper would it be worth it to have it repaired?
ReplyDeleteIf you like it, sure, but the print has only "decorative" value so purely economically I wouldn't spend much on doing that.
DeleteThank you for your swift response. I am a novice at this - but this doesn't look like a regular print. The paper is much heavier and the print looks like it was impressed or stamped onto the larger sheet. I also think I may be a little confused between what is a lithograph, engraving, etching or print. Thanks again for your response.
ReplyDeleteHi.I have a very old print by Edwin Byatt and at the end of the signature their is other writing and some numbers and it looks like a crest or something. And the lady is green at the bottom. .plus Behind that stuck to the paper on the back of that was a Black and White print 1894 copyright of the hush by maude goodman singed by her on the chair. Copyright by
ReplyDeleteSorry copyright by photogiaphische Gesellischafl 1894
ReplyDeleteI bought a map (at Goodwill) that is beautifully framed that is the map of Virginia that accompanied Thomas Jefferson's NOTES ON VIRGINIA. This clearly wasn't a copy originally in the book because it in not colored or folded, but do you know if the engraver sold the map separately from the book? It's square and about 26 inches across.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the map was issued without folds. There are a number of reproductions of the map out there, and while I cannot tell for sure without seeing it, the odds are that is what you have.
DeleteThank you for your prompt reply!
DeleteI have two Albrecht Durer prints, I've been trying to find someone to help me figure out how old they are. They are antique looking, but I'm no expert. Do you have any advice for me on how to proceed? Thanks in advance.
ReplyDeleteI have a print that is not the typical 'dot matrix' pattern. Instead it is more of a fingerprint looking pattern. What type of printing would this be?
ReplyDeleteHard to know what process from your description, but it could be a collotype or an off-set litho, but there are literally hundreds of different printing techniques used since about 1900. The dot matrix are the most common, but there are tons of others. It is unlikely, however, from your description that it is a 'hand done' process, but rather that it is some sort of photo-mechanical process.
ReplyDeleteHello. Please forgive my ignorance on the subject, but I bought an old framed work by Henri Riviere (Le Crepuscule from his Les Aspects de la Nature series). The dealer label behind the backing gave the address as "Pittsburg" without the "h" on the end, which can usually be used to date things to pre-1915 when the "h" became standard. Thinking it was a color lithograph on paper, I took it out from behind the glass and found it is printed on heavy board, like the kind of mat board used to frame photographs. The board is beveled at the edges and the print bears Riviere's signature signed in the stone and his red studio monogram. Would this be considered an original print or a copy? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteWe do not deal i Riviere prints, so I have not seen enough to be sure, but I am not aware that they were ever issued printed on a board. That would make me suspicious about the originality of the prints. Since the signature and stamp are both "in the image" any reproduction would include these. My guess is that it is probably a copy, but I just do not have enough experience with these prints to say for sure.
ReplyDeleteHello and thank you for creating this forum. Very early today, I purchased a series of 3 plates : Fores's Celebrated Winners : Teddington, The Hero and Flying Dutchman. They each are the requisite size as I have discovered the originals were/are. I have checked the various typefaces of the titles, and other notations on the prints, and they are consistent. The 3 are each beautifully, expensively and heavily framed under glass, so I haven't removed them yet to examine the paper, nor to more closely examine the various etching lines, etc, under the tints of the pieces. I realize that they are rather late in the history of printmaking and so pape may not be a telling feature. I understand the originals were aquatints- and wonder what I should look for to verify this form of coloration in my pieces. Each has evidence of the plate strike marks around the perimeter ( I took various printmaking courses in college many decades ago, so am a little familiar - but rusty- with the processes) I have looked online to try to discover whether these are reproductions or later restrikes, etc, but so far have not been able to find any information that the series was reprinted, past the strikes still available in the late 1880s... How doses one ascertain strikes, restrikes, or reproductions in these? Any information would be greatly appreciated.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really hard question; one of the most difficult there is related to antique prints. Basically, for any British sporting prints there is the issue of whether they are originals, restrikes or reproductions. The odds are that they are one of the latter two, as early British sporting prints are quite rare and the latter two types of prints fairly common. The fancy framing is actually something of a clue that they are one of the latter two (oddly), for those types of prints were done for decoration and so were often elaborately framed, whereas the earlier prints are generally found in less elaborate frames. I did write a blog just on this subject, so rather than go through the whole thing again, I will suggest you do a search in this blog for "british sporting" and you'll find that blog.
ReplyDeleteThank you much! I found a label on the back of one of the frames, with evidence of similar labels on the other 2 that gives location, contact info of the antique art gallery from which they were purchased. Contacted one of the parties and it was verified they are not reproductions. I appreciate your time and will read your blog for further information.
DeleteThank you for all of the relevant information. I've read all of the blogs recommended and examined the prints in question under high magnification and am now confident they are originals and early strikes.
DeleteHello, I have a mezzotint of a woman called "Countess de Dilliere" by N. Sherwood. The signature on front looks like it is in pencil. On the back there is a piece of brown paper attached to the back that states who it is, along with Limited Edition, two-hundred fifty copies. Plate destroyed, the number 39 in a red border. Not sure what this is, but thought I'd try to find out.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on the front it says London, Published 1919 By F.T. Dennis 7 Red Lion Square
DeleteNot really sure what your question is, as you have told me all the information there is about this print: viz. it is a Mezzotint by N. Sherwood issued in 1919 in London in a limited edition of 250. It is unlikely it is a reproduction, as this sort of print was not often reproduced, so that really is all one can say about the print (though you could, of course, do some research and learn more about the artist if so inclined)
Deletei have a large what i think is a lithograph by Raymond Allegre its signed by the artist,and of the painting is Venise. I havent had the back off because its sealed tight with wood the wood piece looks dried out and old.what can i do to identify it?It was my great grandmothers.and iam 60 could it be an original?
DeleteI have what I thought was an original picture signed C.E Fischer 47,it looks like a dot matrix reproduction ,however only the black shadows appear to be made up of dots,I see no dots on the black outlines or signature ,of course they seem much thicker , the colors seem to be water color they lack the dot matrix it literally looked like the shading and shadows are dot matrix and the rest not ? it was in an old frame
ReplyDeleteI came across 4 Jacques Barraband prints in a charity shop, that judging by the age of the frames and yellowing of the paper, must have been framed in at least the 1960.s. they have Barraband prinx in the left hand corner and De L:Imprimene de langlois at the bottom center. The name of the bird is provided in french but no reference number to a plate:
ReplyDeletePerruche omnicolore
variete de la perruche a large queue
le parroquek a calotte blue
variete dulori a collier
I may have misspelled them – they are away being re-framed as regardless of value they are lovely, if not a bit weathered!
Please can you advise on their age as I can’t find vintage prints of the originals on the internet, if that's what they are
The odds are that these are reproductions. I say this only based on the number of reproductions of these prints (of which there are a lot) vs. the number of originals (of which there are quite few). They still are, as you note, lovely so I wouldn't worry about it, but my guess is that they are from the 1960s...
DeleteI have what could be an original etched lithograph of George Dunlop Leslie's "Back to Schoo". It has a raised seal and both pencil signatures of GD Leslie and F Stacpoole are on the lithograph. There are large margins and a platemark. It is in an old glass frame. Are there any other distinctive marks, signs I can look for to know that it is not a repro?
ReplyDeleteIt certainly sounds like your print is an original (esp. with the signatures). In the end it is a question of process (note that it is probably an engraving and not a lithograph), but I would be very surprised from what you have written if it is a reproduction.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for getting back to me! Another note, the raised stamp has "VOX" insignia. I have enjoyed this engraving for the last 20+ years, could there be any value to it?
ReplyDeleteChris hello , I have stumbled onto a lot of vintage cigarette add posters (chesterfield ,old gold , lucky strike, 7 up buy war bonds )
ReplyDeleteI have small chesterfield posters (21x22's) that all say litho usa on the white edging and liggett co in the bottom left then I have these oversized chesterfield posters in the 60" size that are driving me crazy I don't understand what they are or when there from picturing different Stars (Ronald Reagan ,Rita,William Bendix ) these big ones have a really oily red outside on front then seems like pictures dimensionaly placed on top of that from the real early lithos ? Like the Ronald Reagan one says (copyright 1918) bottom right corner? Then a HUGE 60" "chesterfield wins " out board motor poster looks like a high quality litho print of the original stone litho and the people setting in the boat looks dimensionally added to the oily litho backdrop ? 50" old gold posters that have actresses and they say usa litho in bottom right corner on the White around the picture Then the 7up "her America must stay free" I have a huge 70" with the back showing ilford cibachrome and a huge #1 in pencil , and from my understand Ilford didn't print on that paper till the 50's but the from of the poster has Litho 1943 7up co ..
So is my assuming everything I have is a reproduction correct because I just spent a lot of money and now I'm scared ? I'm just ready to understand what I have ? Thank you for any help you can give me ...
I am sorry, but I really do not know posters of that sort. I would suggest contacting an expert--any advice I gave you could very well be wrong.
DeleteHi Chris. I was reading the posts and replies to figure out my picture by Marino.Italian artist I was told it was a print and then I was also told it was like a Kmart special. It does have a dot matrix but written on the back of the Picture which is on paper is the size of the picture and the words early lately which could describe the picture and it looks like the #2 in pencil all written in the artist hand writing. Stamped on the framing material is thename of an auction house/framing co in Florida which is no longer there. I guess I was wondering has any value or just worthless. The picture is mixed colors with a white line scratch through the colors making an image of a two headed creature on one side with the body connecting to a horses head and hoof othe other side. Thanks for your time juls
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to add a note could this be a lithograph. I have to add I'm not sure about the dot matrix sometimes I think see it and other times I don't. Also the person that told me it was like a Kmart special said that was because the paint was The color was pulling away. Thanks again any comments
DeleteI really cannot give a definite answer without seeing it in person, but it sounds to me i) like it is a straight reproduction and not a lithograph and ii) even if a lithograph, that is has only "decorative" value.
DeleteHello Chris. May I request a favour from you? I have found some copper plates and I have no clue if this is an interesting find or not:
ReplyDeleteI very recently purchased 3 copper engraved plates in a local thrift shop in Belgium. When I came home with them, I started surfing the internet. I have come up with the following result so far:
One of the plates is exactly the image of an engraving print of Cornelis Galle, "Raphael et Tobias". I have found a picture of a print on the website of the British museum. It dates from the 17th century.
Another plate represents Mater Dei, mother of God. I have found a picture of a holy card that was sold on ebay, which looks very similar, apart from the edges around the woman figure. It was advertised as 18th century.
A third plate shows an ex-libris. I found a text about it when searching on google with: "bon trot du bay" and "bon trot de bay". A date is mentioned there saying 1615. It was in French I recall.
The 2 first plates are the mirrored images of the prints I have found on the internet. The ex-libris, I cannot confirm, because I haven't found a picture of it.
Now, apart from searching these plates on the internet, I also started looking for similar plates, from that time period (1600's). I couldn't find many. I understand that such plates are very rare, because most of them where reused after the prints weared the plate. Now, can you give me some extra info on these. To help you a little bit, here is a link to some pictures I have made of them: https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0i532ODWJfCRxG . Oh ya, the sizes of the plates are more or less the same sizes as mentioned from the prints. Thank you in advance.
Gert
I cannot really help more than to give my impression (ha, ha). These look very much like they could be original plates; nothing I see in the images which proves to me otherwise. You would have to physically compare them to original examples of the prints to see if there is an exact match to be sure.
DeleteChris, thank you for your very fast reply and hopefully good news. I have already looked at details on the plate and compared them with the picture. Even some "faulty" points are there, on the late as in the print. Do you have any idea of the value if they are the real thing? Thank you. Gert
ReplyDeleteSounds good. As to value, not only do we not really handle such, but I do not discuss anything more than vague notions related to values in this blog.
DeleteOk, thank you for your expert advice. We will write to Plantein- Moretus to find out more. Once again, thank you for your advice and... fingers crossed!
DeleteGert
I have a print titled Veduta Della Badia, e del Palazzo del Pirtefta pressa dalla Riazza Della Chiefa de P. P. Dell Oratorio by Zocchi. I think the number isTXVIII. I found it in my Mom's things after she passed with a whole bunch of other antique prints including Italian prints of fish. She was from Italy. Is it worth getting this print reframed to protect it? I may sell it. I think it is a woodcut print that is lightly tinted with watercolour.
ReplyDeletei have a Tattershalls - Vanity Fair Print dated 1887,how do i tell its age,is it an original,just wanted to know its value
ReplyDeleteThere are reproductions of the Vanity Fair prints, so you can tell by determining the way it was made. The originals were done by chromolithography. In terms of value, this blog is not a place I discuss specific values, but I would bet you can find this print for sale on the web, which should give you an idea.
DeleteI have 2 prints in original frames that hung in my grandmother's house most of her life and in my mother's house until her recent death at 94. One is of " The Apple Dumpling Lady" and the other is black and white Sir Walter Raleigh saying Goodbye to his wife prior to his hanging. Neither are in good condition and I was able to find copies of each on art.com. I am a little nervous about just tearing them down and replacing with the copies. I would not want to damage if valuable to any collector. Can I assume even if originals they would have no value when discolored and titles not readable?
ReplyDeleteAny original will have "some" value, but the poor condition means their value is less. They probably could be fixed, but the cost of fixing them would probably be more than their value.
DeleteGreetings, Mr. Lane.
ReplyDeleteIn my dining room is a print of The Melton Breakfast from my grandmother's dining room. I have not removed it from the fram or taken it from behind the glass, but the paper appears old. There is evidence of hand retouching as the buttons on the men's coats have a distinct shine different from the rest of the print. Could you please suggest how I could further determine whether this piece is one of the original or early prints?
British sporting prints, like yours, are actually one of the toughest types of prints to determine what you have. I wrote a blog on that subject, where you can read about the issues (search for British sporting prints). Basically you need to show it to someone who would know...
DeleteThank you for responding. I am going to the Antiques Roadshow this weekend and plan on taking it. I will read your blog and take it into consideration.
DeleteI have been keeping measurements of many prints of The Melton Breakfast, measurements from left to right plate marks and also from top to bottom plate marks, They vary greatly, which tells me that the majority of the prints are copies. Many are later lithographs with no plate marks. According to some that seem to know about the original print, the measurement from left to right mark is approx 28" and top to bottom is approx 20". It seems odd that the British Museum chooses not to show their print on-line.
DeleteI think the measurements of 28" and just under 20" in height are the proper distances between plate marks on originals. It would be wise to ask any sellers for the dimensions before buying The Melton Breakfast print. Most are mere copies or Lithos. It may be possible to find early restrikes also. Look for a bit of foxing also. Expect to pay $1500 USD for a fine original with a COA.
DeletePlates certainly never shrink or grow larger, although plates may be trimmed because of damage to edges. I have noticed the wide range of plate sizes for The Melton Breakfast prints I have seen listed for sale. I would not even consider buying a print listed as period or original if I could bit see the plate marks.
DeleteHello, Chris!
ReplyDeleteI just bought a black and white poster advertising Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech in 1968.
Here is a copy of the poster on Ebay--https://www.ebay.com/i/372075101660?chn=ps
It's a widely reproduced poster but I wonder if mine is possibly the real thing.
The lettering is glossy and feels slightly raised while the half-tone image of Dr. King is matte and slightly faded. It has no raised edge.
Does this help to identify the print?
Thank you so much for your advice!
Hi, I bought an old print at an auction...the signature was not showing but i liked it. I took the back off....the covering paper had disintegrated and only the edging of frame had any left. I took it out and found it is signed Cotor...no other marks or signing at all. It is a thicker paper and when you hold it to the light there is a slight sheen on some areas like the sky. The trees etc. look more dull ...I don't know if these areas were hand painted or if it was a layering process of printing. Would you think this has any value?
ReplyDeleteHi Chris...... I have an old framed print in Black and white. It seems to be John Faed and is marked with Vs.7 The Cotter's Saturday Night. It also has a verse from the Robert Burns book penned below it on the backing. Would you have any information on this.
ReplyDeleteJohn Faed is a well known genre artist, but beyond that I cannot tell you about your prints. Many of his images were made into engravings, so it could be that. As for the "Vs 7" I have never seen that and really not sure what it means. Sorry I cannot help!
Deletehi I found two Jacques baraband prints, le tyrant savanna and LA pie hupee, they are both nicely framed I'm curious of value? Thank you
ReplyDeleteTyran savana
DeleteI picked up a Covens & Mortier engraving of flowers in a vase. I looked at it under 30x & it doesn't have dots. There was a plate edge (w/rounded corners) very visible within the matted frame. Took it out of the frame & it is printed on really thick card stock is the only way to describe it. At this point, I'm assuming it's a nice reproduction because of the paper thickness & it seems way too clean. Did they print on such thick stock (really probably thicker than cardstock)?
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts?
Help is appreciated, as there is a 2nd one framed the same way available, but I didn't want to double down after opening up the first frame as the thickness of the paper made me doubt. I originally thought the paper might have been clean if it had been cut from a very large old book, but that doesn't seem likely because of the thickness.
Thank you, in advance, for any comments you may have Chris Lane. I also wanted to thank you for the blog as it contained some very helpful info.
DeleteHave question about European ownership stamps.Have seemly old print of a man in bloused shorts, long stocking, loose shoot and long feather in cap with back to viewer. He is urinating. The picture had three ownership stamps: The Uffizi Museum, the People's Picture Gallery (name has changed,), Budapest, Hungary and the Heraldic stamps of the Condon family (Irish Castle.,)
DeleteSo is puzzle me why this little print traveled so widely. As a joke I have it hangs next to my toilet as an example of why your there. No hint of the artist. The Peoples Picture Gallery's named changed about 1896 or 1892, uffizi is dark ink, the other two in red ink. Can not find who made this. Thanks, if you are able to help.
I have a print, possibly very old of a Indian chief it would seem, the artist is C.Bodmer which I understand was an alias for Karl Bodmer. It is signed C.Bodmer, and has a date or some identifying number at the bottom. Just wondering is this a repro., or could I maybe have something more rare? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHave a Feather Bonneted Indian, signed C. Bodmer.. either an oil or Glyclee I am guessing. Keep thinking I'll throw it out. The colors appears sort of dull and facial details not spectacular. Was that his painting style? The canvas modest in size. Worth keeping?
DeleteI have a 13.5" x 11" sepia tone print of a Roman battle. 2 horses, dead soldier, fighting solders, soldiers on horses in background. It is on laid paper - thick paper with indented horizontal lines. The only writing on it is "Vafari inv e del." and on the right side "Acacciati in:" Can you tell me anything about this. Thank you. Love your blog.
ReplyDeleteI bought three prints from the flower catalog which you can find by Googling "From the Collection of Rob Furber Gardiner". One, from magnification, I knew was clearly a newer print and done with litho printing, so nice but no real value. The other two have a Connecticut phone number for the framer has an old 5 number Connecticut phone number so I'm guessing framed at least 70 years ago. These I think are intaglio with hand water color painted flowers. Under 40x magnification the lines have no breaks and appear slightly raised, so ink seems thicker. Outside edge shows platemark, but so does the newer litho print reproduction, so I don't think that helps identify truly old intaglio. Is there any way to firmly identify intaglio by sending a macro view to anyone for authentication?
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI have six P.S Duval & Sons Lithographic prints seemingly from the 1860-1870's in fantastic condition. I have been going through an exercise in figuring out whether they are originals or reproduction prints. The prints themselves being "Copenhagen Snuff" with an American Indian figure with Victorian style ornamentation throughout. Both Duval and the company owning "Copenhagen Snuff" folded by 1900.
My Grandfather was head of a printing plant in Virginia and we found these prints among his Stamp and Postcard collection.
Specifically, looking at a magnified image taken by a DSLR camera, one doesn't see a dot matrix or standard rosette pattern but something slightly different.
There are within a particular color on the print, what appear to be at extreme magnification little primitive stick stars, and dots within circles randomly clustered of the same color as what is seen by the naked eye. Between these odd patterns exist darker areas of the same color.
If you are interested to read and answer, my question is whether this sort of thing would be consistent with a 19th century advertising lithograph?
It is a bit hard to tell from your description, but there is nothing in what you say that makes me suspicious. Sound like they are probably "right."
DeleteThank you for your insight and reply.
DeleteHello, I have an Albretch Durer "Nemesis" not sure if it could be an etching or engraving? The paper is discolored and the back has lines with some sort of watermark, block letters..there is also a red stamp on the back of the paper, which is a circle with lines inside it as well as a line over the top and bottom of said circle. Reproduction no doubt, but how can I tell when it was reproduced? Thanks so much for your time!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I am not that familiar with Durer's prints & reproductions of them. It does sound like a reproduction, but beyond that I am sorry to say I cannot comment. You need to contact a 'old masters' specialist. Good luck.
DeleteThank you anyways😊
ReplyDeleteHi there, I have a print which I've been told it's from the 19th century of the musician's and it has a stamp in the bottom right hand corner of 3 pears! And on the back it has a stapled tag that says Holloway Art Gallery... have you any ideas please
ReplyDeleteSorry a pair of pears in a red circle
DeleteSorry, but that information alone I cannot tell you what you have. It could very well be 19th century, but the pears sign doesn't help as both an original and a repro would show the same thing. Sorry I cannot help!
DeleteHello Chris! First off, thanks for posting so much great info on this blog!
ReplyDeleteWe have in our collection 3 of the full sized Twelve Months of Flowers (April, August & November) and wonder about their authenticity.
After reading your previous replies we opened up November to shine a light through the paper to detect laid lines. After opening the back we found a restoration stamp on the back of the print (Williamsburg Restoration C4W) and the print does have laid lines and also has a watermark (could be Daron, Dacian or perhaps Dacan) in 2 places, but it's pretty hard to make out. Does this sound like these could be originals?
We appreciate any help you could provide. Thanks again for the wealth of info you have provided!
Just saw your reply to my email. Thanks for your help!
DeleteHi. I found this old thread when researching a print I have. It is in fact the November print with the same stamp on the back (Williamsburg Restoration C4W) that you had. I'm hoping you got more information about your print and are still active here as to see my reply! Please let me know if you found any more information about this Williamsburg Restoration print!
DeleteI have the etching by Gustave Marie Greux that was printed in 1875. It is "Le Moulin de St. Maurice". Unlike any shown on museum sites, mine does not have a small number 3 above the top right. Also, mine is not titled below with "type" printing, but the title is hand-written in pencil. I believe it to be an original and not a later "folio" print and may have been printed by Greux himself.
ReplyDeleteYou may see an original print of this at the San Francisco Museum (Achenbach Foundation) It is displayed on-line. The later ones were indeed with the small number 3 at upper right corner of the image and were printed later as "folio" prints. Text is done with type-printing. These are about 1/10 the value of prints from the original plate.
DeleteHi there I have an Elzeviar Library Bacon's Essays book by Francis Bacon staamped New York John B Alden, Publisher 1883 is this an original print? Thank you. I have some really old antique books I want to know how to tell if original?
ReplyDeleteHi there, a have a print by Giovanni Battista Piranesi “Veduta del Palazzo fabbricato sul Quirinale”, 1749.
ReplyDeleteMine has a number 38 at the bottom right corner compared to what I found online. I looked at it under 10x loupe. It has no dot matrix. I opened the frame and looked under the light, the paper does not have line. It seems a bit thick. I can feel with my fingers the grooves or plate marks that are not very deep. The paper seems to be woven paper that's still in line with the Piranesi prints ages.
The lines are crisp black with white and no gray areas.
Main concern is with the number 38.
Would you please shed some lights as I am at the end of what I can search online and watching videos.
Does this print has any value? Regards
After further online research, I found an eBook https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=Al1NAQAAMAAJ&rdid=book-Al1NAQAAMAAJ&rdot=1 (free to read). that has on Page 25 the details about the print and the number 38. It's definitely an etching that was part of a later printed book of a collection of prints.
DeleteGood job tracking that down. Hind's book is pretty much the standard reference people use to find out about their Piranesi prints. There are so many different editions, not to mention reproductions, and this is a great source to figure that out.
DeleteFor Piranesi prints, it is only the life-time ones that really have significant value. Any of the later editions still have value, as they are handsome prints from the original plates, but it is more like a "decorative" value.
I have a Print Camille Fonce River Vessel at Rheims Signed 1919 Booth London Printed Paris. The frame was destroyed as it was damaged beyond repair. This impacted on the edging of the print. How can I keep it safe from more damage?
ReplyDeleteI think your best bet is to reframe it. Make sure to do it to "museum specifications." Tell your framer that is what you what. If they do not understand what that means, go somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteI have a framed piece with a label on the back saying it is, "ROTHERITHE From the original etching by James A. McN. Whistler." I don't know if it is an original or a reproduction. Do the words, "from the original indicate it is a reproduction or is that a typical way of saying it is from an etching?
ReplyDeleteI purchased it over 30 years ago In Kansas City, Missouri. When viewing it with a magnifying glass I saw no dots.
John Hoover Leawood,Kansas
In this case it appears to mean that it is either a restrike (printed from the original plate) or a photogravure (photographically made reproduction). In any case, says "from the original etching" is not something that original etchings say, only reproductions.
ReplyDeleteHi Chris,
ReplyDeleteI took a few photos of an image on paper which might be David Roberts’ Lithograph from his Nubia series. At two lower corners there are two small marks. They are appearing to be small round indentations (one in each corner) partially smeared in black paint. They are only touching corners of the image and lies in the surrounding image non colored paper.
I do not have photos of the top corners.
Image contain only title in one corner and author’s name in another. All inscriptions are included in image field. Could you please suggest what these dots might be from? Are they indicating that it is a real limited collectors addition image?
I will appreciate it very much if you would be able to help me to solve this mystery.
It makes no sense to me in terms of the original production of the prints. Never seen anything like that on an original Roberts print. Sorry, but I am afraid I cannot help.
DeleteHi Chris,
DeleteThank you very much for your reply. I checked upper corners of the lithograph on my photos. These strange round marks are only on the bottom. If they are not part of normal production process than another explanation might be that this image was pinned to a wall some time ago.
Also, it is not a deluxe edition as it has small inscription directly under the lithograph image.
I am still contemplating if I should buy it. If I will end up owning it, I will let you know if I am right in my assumption.
Thank you very much for your help and expertise again.
Respectfully,
VS
I have an july 4th 1897 baseball match poster that has folds in it that indicate it was folded and put in someones pocket it matches the Library of Congress example exactly except my measures 11 5/8 x 14 3/4 smaller that any replica i can find currently for sale I might note that it was found in a house i was cleaning out. Among other things i found was a 1815 bible, 1865 washington bowl and pitcher in the same house any insight on the poster would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but not really our type of print so cannot help. Good luck with it.
ReplyDeleteHello Chris,
ReplyDeleteI acquired a Whistler etching dated 1859 called Billingsgate. How can I authenticate it? Plate size 6" x 8 3/4".
Your best bet is to read the catalogue raisonné on Whistler prints (there is one on line) and compare your print to its description (various states of the print). Also, it should be an etching (and not some sort of photoengraving) and on the "right" paper.
DeleteThank you! It appears to be the 8th state and on laid paper
DeleteHello Chris
ReplyDeleteI have a reproduction of Rembrandt Thomas Jefferson courtesy of The New York Historical Society by A Mark Robert’s Color Production, I understand that reproductions are for decorative purposes, but wanted to know if this is worth anything?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteI recently purchased an art lot from an estate sale and included was a framed Abraham Lincoln drawing by Thomas Johnson. It looks to be incredibly old and is quite weathered. On the bottom it says "Abraham Lincoln" and below that "From an Etching by Johnson"
In the drawing it has "T.Johnson" as a signature. I have found many online but none look exactly like mine. Mine is different because of the way Lincoln is facing and in his appearance. How can I learn more about it?
There is no source for info I know of on Johnson's work, so really you just have to luck into info that you find on line. Note that it says "Fro an etching by T. Johnson." That implies that this is a reproduction and not an actual etching. It is possible that the reason he is facing the other way is because it was copied directly onto the printing plate and then printed, which would reverse the image, but that would not explain the difference of appearance. Beyond that, however, I cannot offer any other info.
DeleteHi Chris, recently in an antique store I found a box of photos all black and white mounted on mat board. On the back of the mat board it says hung on office wall from Aug 1970 - Nov 1972. I bought one and framed it, looks really nice. Size is 10.5"x13.5" How can I tell if it was made from a negative and is an actual photograph or is it a print of some kind. Both store keeper and myself looked at if with a 10 loop and there are no pixels at all. No other markings on it. Thanks,
ReplyDeleteHello Chris,
ReplyDeleteI have a very old frame containing an image of The Halt of the March by artist R. Edmonstone. The artist, engraver, publisher and printer are listed under the image in tiny writing. Does that mean that this is likely a reproduction and only worth what someone values it as a decorational object? I cannot see a signature, watermark or print number, though I was afraid to remove it from the frame. Many thanks in advance, Amy
The information under a print are often quite small so that by itself would not indicate if it is an original or not. Most prints do not have signatures nor numbers.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much!! Really appreciate your kind help. Do you have any tips as to how to remove very aged paper backing from a frame without damaging the print? I wondered if heating with a hairdryer might melt the glue?
DeleteI have a Vintage painting
ReplyDeleteNorman Rockwell - Waiting For the Vet in a wooden frame, how do I tell it's not reproduction
I have an old book with hundreds of full page etchings of Dog and Cats, there are text on the back of each etching telling what the etching is about, there are no plate marks on the pages. Can you tell me what this is.
ReplyDeleteI have an engraving St. Michael's Mount, Cornwall by T Allom. The date is missing. On others very few of them they have a date. On the back there is a note that says orginal engraving. My question is. Could a date be missing on a orginal or its fake because the date is missing.
ReplyDeleteI purchased two hand tinted copper bird etchings marked Dessune et Grave par Martinet. The hand tinting looks very real and you can see the indent of the plate. They do not have plate numbers though which I find odd. All the other examples I have seen have a number in the upper left or right to identify where they are in the book. Do you think they could be real or just reproductions. On the back of one was the framer sticker Milton A. Bleier Corp. with the number 581/5 style no. 7222 birds. Did Milton Bleier Corp deal with original works?
ReplyDeleteHi, I purchased a large 29 by 36 inch print of 1974 Chagall and when it arrived I noticed a tag - Pace / Columbus with full description date and type Litho. Upon research, Pace was a very prestigious art gallery. It still exists today. However the Columbus gallery closed and the art was sent to the Museum of Art at Columbus Ohio. This Litho as its labeled in the back is on arch paper. However upon 30x magnification. The colors are microscopic miniature dots ~ not like the Rosetta dots like an offset print. What do I have ? A silk Screen ? The tag would have said Silk Screen instead of Litho I would think. Any Ideas ? Thank you
ReplyDelete