Chine Appliqué

A chine appliqué print (also called a chine collé print) is a print where the image has been impressed onto a thin sheet of China paper (or other thin paper) and then that thin sheet is backed by a strong, thicker sheet of paper. These are fairly easy to spot: often the backing paper will age to a different color than the China paper, but even if not when you look closely at a chine appliqué print you can see the edge of the China sheet (usually just beyond the edge of the printed image).

Chine appliqué prints were made a fair bit in the nineteenth century for a number of different types of images. The reason this was done is because the thin China paper takes an intaglio impression more easily than a thicker sheet of paper, so that that chine appliqué often has a richer appearance than a standard print. This was sometimes done for proof prints (cf. blog on proof prints).

To this extent a chine appliqué print is often more desirable than a standard print, however there are several possible problems associated with these prints. First, the quality of the backing sheet is often not as good as that of a standard print, so this will sometimes discolor significantly more than the China paper, giving the print a somewhat distracting appearance. More importantly, however, is that a chine appliqué print is much more difficult to restore than a standard print. Any sort of immersion into water (which is often used in restoration) can lift the China paper off the backing and it is so thin that it can be difficult to reattach to the backing neatly. Chine appliqué prints can be restored, but only by a skilled conservator and there is definitely always the risk that the restoration will come out well. This doesn't mean one shouldn't buy a chine appliqué print with condition issues, but one must be aware of the risks.

Print conservation & restoration

Back in June I posted a blog about prints that are found in old frames. One of the things I discussed was that many of these prints were in bad condition and needed "fixing up." I've had a number of follow up questions on this topic, so today I'll discuss in more detail the issue of print conservation and restoration.

The first thing to say is that for prints it is crucial that those with condition issues at least be conserved (the difference between conservation and restoration is that the former concerns not allowing the print to get worse and the latter with trying to take the print back to its condition before it started to deteriorate). I love the Antiques Roadshow and this program has been helpful in raising people's awareness of antiques and various issues related to antiques. However, there is one "lesson" people have learned which is sometimes misapplied to prints.

Anyone who has watched the program a number of times will probably have seen at least one segment where the appraiser comments that the item being examined was nice, but would have been worth considerably more had it not been restored. A table that would have been worth tens of thousands in "original condition," but now worth only thousands because it was cleaned and its patina lost. As a result of this, we often get people coming in to the Roadshow proudly showing us a print which they didn't restore because they wanted to preserve its value.

Unfortunately, the lesson about not restoring furniture does not apply to prints. The "problems" associated with furniture aging are not generally destructive of those objects; in contrast, the "problems" associated with the aging of prints often are destructive. Acid, mold, foxing, waterstains and many other problems one typically finds with prints will eventually cause those prints to be destroyed. Thus prints with aging issues, in contrast with furniture, do need to be conserved to retain their value.

A print that is acidic will have its paper continue to breakdown, eventually becoming brittle and falling apart. Foxing and mold will spread and will also lead to the eventual destruction of the print. Waterstains can cause the paper to weaken and eventually rot away. A print glued to a backing will be harmed both by the glue used, and also by being attached to a backing which likely will eventually fall apart itself, at the same time destroying the attached print.

What this means is that for almost all prints with condition problems, it is important to conserve them in order to preserve not only their value, but their existence. Sometimes the condition problems will not progress very quickly, so that the destruction of the print may be far off in the future, but these problems do not go away unless the print is conserved.

Restoration goes beyond conservation, by trying to return the print to its earlier condition and appearance. This is more a question of taste and value than conservation. One has to conserve a print for it to continue to survive, but once conserved a print needn't have its foxing spots or waterstains removed, the darkened paper lightened or whatever. Our usual policy is that "tasteful" or "moderate" restoration is desirable.

Certainly, in most cases, restoration increases the value of prints (again, unlike in many cases with furniture). For one thing, most conservation processes will restore the print at the same time, so if one sees a print with the appearance of condition problems, one assumes it is in bad shape. Also, one of the main purposes for which people acquire prints is for decoration and a print that has been properly restored looks better than one that hasn't.

Still, with prints some of the same factors come into play that cause furniture collectors to seek out antiques that don't look too pristine, that look like they are wearing their age. Many print collectors want their prints to look like antiques, not modern copies with bright white paper, etc. This means that any restoration done should be done with care so that the print is not over-restored. Foxing and stains can be removed and acidic paper lightened, but the print shouldn't end up looking bright white and spotless. Likewise, one can make repairs and fill losses, but there is nothing wrong with a print showing some signs of its age. This is a subtle matter and it is important before having any print restored that you and the restorer have the same idea of how you want the print to end up.

Conservation/restoration is a fairly expensive thing to have done. For a typical small folio Currier & Ives print, with just standard condition issues, it might cost about $150 to $200 to restore. Those prints with worse conditions issues (if they are laid down or badly stained, for instance) or prints of a larger size, will cost even more. This obviously means a serious expense for the owner of antique prints and it is something that is a regular concern for us at the Philadelphia Print Shop.

There are some prints where it just doesn’t make sense to spend the money to fix them up unless they have a lot of sentimental value. If a print is worth only $50 or so, then it seems ridiculous to pay $250 or more to fix it up. However, even if a print is worth only about the same as the cost of the restoration, or even a little less, it might make sense to fix up the print if you like it or it means something special to you. It is not always easy to find the same print in better shape, and antique prints do retain their value (assuming they do not deteriorate in condition), so it is reasonable to make the investment in preserving the print even if the value doesn't quite equal the cost.

Some people resolve this problem by trying to restore the prints themselves. We do not recommend that owners do this, as most of the means that non-experts use to "restore" their prints actually cause the prints harm in the long run. If the print is worth restoring, it is probably worth having a professional do it. If an owner really wants to do his/her own restoration, then do some reading and get the proper materials so that the job is done right. While we do not encourage non-professional restoration, a good resource for anyone interested in the subject is the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works.

A final few thoughts on this subject... First, you should keep this issue in mind when looking to buy an antique print. Many prints that you find in antique shops or at auction need restoration. You might, for instance, be able to buy a nice small folio Currier & Ives print at an auction for, say, $50, which might seem like a good deal when you know that a print gallery might sell it for $150. However, if you figure that you need to spend $150 or so to restore it, it becomes clear that this isn't such a good value.

Finally, we hate to see antique prints be destroyed by inaction. Certainly there are some prints of low value or that are relatively common where the cost of fixing them doesn’t make sense, but if you own an antique print that needs to be fixed and don’t want to pay to have this done, perhaps you should consider selling the print to someone who will fix it up and then buying something that doesn’t need any work. It is not good to simply ignore the issue of prints that have condition problems. Whatever value they currently have will leach away as the prints continue to deteriorate.

Find more information and antique prints here at PPS-West.com.

"Proof" prints

What exactly does it mean when one says a print is a "proof." While the connotation of this term is clearly positive, it is not always clear what specifically it means. In the world of fine art prints the expression has a quite clear meaning. A proof is an impression of a print pulled prior to the regular, published edition of the print. Within this category there are a couple of sub-categories.

A trial or working proof is one taken before the design on the matrix (plate, lithographic stone or wood block) is finished. These proofs are pulled so that the artist can see what work still needs to be done to the matrix. The Otto Kuhler print above is a trail proof. Once a printed image meets the artist's expectations, this becomes a bon á trirer ("good to pull") proof, meaning that the artist has ok’d the matrix for printing.. This proof is often signed by the artist to indicate his approval and is used for comparison purposes by the printer.

An artist's proof is an impression issued extra to the regular numbered edition and reserved for the artist's own use. Artist's proofs are usually signed and are sometimes marked "A.P." (artist’s proof), "E.A." (Épreuve d'Artiste) or "H.C." (“Hors Commerce,” meaning outside the regular commercial run).

All this is well established, for with fine art prints there is usually a concern that the prints be run off exactly as the artist wants them and that the number of impressions be limited. In contrast, the meaning of “proof” is not nearly so clear for commercial prints. Commercial publishers realized that the positive connotation of the term meant that there was a financial advantage to offering so-called “proofs” for sale. Thus commercial publishers developed other types of proofs to offer to purchasers, generally at higher prices.

A proof before letters (Avant les lettres) is an impression of a print pulled before the title is added below the image. A scratched letter proof is an impression in which the title is lightly etched below the image. A signed proof is one where either the engraver or artist or both signed the print in the margin (that is, with a manuscript signature, not a printed one). The print of Lady Washington's Reception above is a signed proof before letters, with pencil signatures by both the artist and engraver. These are different ways in which publishers created "special" impressions of their prints, ones that were limited in number and so, in theory, worth more.

This is all fairly clear and there are examples of all these types of prints from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, the term “proof” ended up in the nineteenth century being used in a manner which essentially made it meaningless. One can find the term "Proof" on hundreds of examples of some prints, especially for the larger, steel engraved prints from the mid to late nineteenth-century. Indeed, for some of these prints we have found no examples without “Proof” engraved at the bottom. The print of Washington and Family above is one we always find with "Proof" printed in the bottom margin.

One assumes that the publishers of these prints did mean something by engraving “Proof” on these prints, but we have never figured out exactly what. It is obvious that the appearance of this label on the prints was meant as a sales tool, for the term has always been associated with limited numbers and higher value. However, so many prints have this term printed on them that “Proof” does not mean anything like the original meaning described above. It may be that these prints were intended to be “special” impressions issued in “limited” numbers, but certainly the numbers were not that limited nor are the prints really in any obvious way more "special" than the regular edition impressions (assuming there even was a regular edition).

So what does it mean when you find “Proof” in the margin of a mid to late nineteenth-century print? We get a queries about this all the time. The answer we have to give is “not much of anything.” We don't know what specific meaning this term was intended to have by the publishers (if anyone has ever seen anything from a publisher explaining their use of this term, I’d love to hear about it..), and it really doesn’t make any difference at all in price of these prints. I guess if there were two copies available of a print, one with "Proof" and one without, I'd pick the one with "Proof" on it if everything else was the same. However, if there were even a small difference in condition, I'd choose the print in better shape whether a "Proof" or not.

“Original woodblocks” by E.M. Washington: an art scam

Some time ago, an what seemed to be an exciting find appeared on the market, a collection of woodblock prints from the estate of an unknown printmaker, Earl M. Washington. At the time, this find was described as follows:

Earl M. Washington (1862-1952) was an African-American master wood-engraver and printer who between the early 1900s and the time of his death had amassed and printed from one of the largest collections of artists' wood blocks in the United States. Washington's career began at the age of 13, when he was apprenticed at a Southern printing shop. In 1880 Washington moved to New York, but encountered racial and social prejudice which barred him from employment at the larger printing shops in the city. Eventually finding a position in a small shop on the Lower East Side, Washington went on to perfect his skills as a master printer.

Washington's collection of wood blocks began accidentally, with blocks collected from the fire-ravaged print shop of a fellow-carver and friend. As he continued his printing work, Washington's circle of acquaintanceship widened, and he began to receive blocks from many different artists and publishers. These included the work of Hale Woodruff, (1900-1980) whom Washington met and befriended; Eric Gill, Lynd Ward, Rockwell Kent, M. C. Escher, Robert Gibbings, and others. Washington printed impressions for each of the wood engraved blocks in his collection, and in some instances, he used the designs of other artists to create new engraved blocks.

It turns out that this "find" was the result of an elaborate scam perpetrated by this printmaker's supposed great-grandson, also named Earl M. Washington. The evidence is overwhelming that even if the first E.M. Washington did exist and was a printmaker (both uncertain), he was neither the maker nor printer of these prints. Instead it is clear that the maker of these prints is the current E.M. Washington, who made "original" woodblock copies of prints by the famous printmakers who were supposed to be the friends of his alleged great-grandfather. Each of these prints is signed "E.M. Washington," which though said to be by the great-grandfather is certainly the signature of the great-grandson, and they are dated with dates when they were supposed to be printed, a clear misrepresentation.

The current E.M. Washington has spent a lot of time and effort (and I believe still does) marketing these prints to print dealers and at auction (they still come up on ebay). The story changes regularly, but usually the prints are misrepresented as being something that they are not and inappropriate prices are asked or suggested.

Although these prints were created as part of a scam and do not have the value they might have were the story true, their history is fascinating. This makes the prints interesting and thus some value (not to mention that the images are quite attractive). The eagerness with which they were initially accepted speaks to the growing modern interest in the work of early African-American artists and artisans. Though we know now that they are not what they seemed, these prints are still very good "original" copies of some very fine wood block prints, especially those of African-American figures and subjects. They are lovely images and fun to own, as long as you acquire them knowing what they are and for an appropriate price.

Prints in frames

In earlier blogs, I discussed the importance of proper framing for prints. Currently, there are framers all around the country who do “museum quality” framing and so a good percentage of the antique prints getting framed now are done properly. This was not, unfortunately, the case in earlier days. It wasn’t until probably about the last twenty years or so that museum quality framing became easily available, and there really wasn’t any such thing prior to about the 1960s. As a consequence, a significant majority of the prints that were framed before the 1990s are not properly framed.

This means that many framed prints are in an environment that has probably already caused them significant harm, and which will continue to do so as time marches on. These prints will typically be in acidic-mats or have wood backing, they will often be glued down to acidic-backings or hinged with acidic-hinges, they will be “repaired” with tape that is harming the prints, they will have insect or mold damage, and they will have glazing that offers no protection from the harmful effects of light.

The sad fact is that the majority of framed antique prints should be reframed. Often when I visit someone’s house and see antique prints, I have to tell them that they really should have their prints reframed. This is often not a popular suggestion, but unless these prints are reframed, they will slowly, but surely continue to deteriorate.

Unfortunately, the problem is not really solved simply by having the prints reframed, for many of the problems caused by the old frame have affected the prints themselves, so that the prints will continue to get worse even when removed from the old frames. The mold, mildew or foxing in a print remains harmful to the print unless treated, and even if these specific issues are absent, any print that was in an acidic environment for any length of time will have absorbed some of the acid from the mat or backing and that acid will continue to break down the paper fibers unless it is treated. So the further sad fact is that the majority of framed antique prints should not only be reframed, but should be conserved as well.

This means, of course, a considerable expense for the print owner. For a typical small folio Currier & Ives print in an old frame, with just standard condition issues, it might cost about $200 to $250 to conserve it and refit it into its frame (that is, put it back in with rag mat, etc.). Those prints with worse conditions issues (if they are laid down or badly stained, for instance) or prints of a larger size, will cost even more. This obviously means a serious expense for the owner of antique prints and it is something that is a regular concern for us at the Philadelphia Print Shop.

There are some prints where it just doesn’t make sense to spend the money to fix them up unless they have a lot of sentimental value. If a print is worth only $50 or so, then it seems ridiculous to pay $250 or more to fix it up. However, even if a print is worth only about the same as the cost of the restoration and reframing, or even a little less, it might make sense to fix up the print if you like it or it means something special to you. It is not always easy to find the same print in better shape, and antique prints do retain their value (assuming they do not deteriorate in condition), so it is reasonable to make the investment in preserving the print even if the value doesn't quite equal the cost.

The worst situations we run into are where someone has a house full of antique prints that need conservation and reframing. The work on all of them can add up to a considerable total. In these cases we often suggest that a plan be designed to have them done over a period of time. Pick the most valuable or the worst condition prints and have them done, then do another one or two in another six months or a year, and so on, so that over time you can have all your prints preserved.

A final few thoughts on this subject... First, you should keep this issue in mind when looking to buy an antique print. Many prints that you find in antique shops or at auction need restoration and reframing. You might, for instance, be able to buy a nice small folio Currier & Ives print at an auction for, say, $50, which might seem like a good deal when you know that a print gallery might sell it for $150. However, if you figure that you need to spend $200 or so to restore and reframe it, it becomes clear that this isn't such a good value.

Finally, we hate to see antique prints be destroyed by inaction. Certainly there are some prints of low value or that are relatively common where the cost of fixing them doesn’t make sense, but if you own an antique print that needs to be fixed and don’t want to pay to have this done, perhaps you should consider selling the print to someone who will fix it up and then buying something that doesn’t need any work. It is not good to simply ignore the issue of prints that are not properly framed. Whatever value they currently have will leach away as the prints continue to deteriorate.