Antiques Roadshow: Atlantic City

Last weekend I was in Atlantic City for the first stop for the 14th season of Antiques Roadshow. Each summer the crew and appraisers for Antiques Roadshow visit a number of cities around the United States to tape material for the coming season of programs. This summer Roadshow is visiting six cities and from each stop three programs will be produced, to begin airing in January next year. My partner, Don Cresswell, and I have been working as appraisers at the Prints & Posters table for Roadshow ever since the second season (back in 1997) and this summer we will each work as an appraiser at three different cities. Atlantic City was my first; in two weeks I will head down to Raleigh; and in August I’ll fly out to San Jose for the final city of the 2009 tour (the episodes taped this year will broadcast in 2010).

Antiques Roadshow remains one of the most popular shows on PBS and generates a lot of interest and questions whenever we meet any of its many viewers. I will post a blog after each city, explaining a bit about the process and discussing my experience at each stop. In this blog I’ll give an overview of how the process works at each city.

During the early years of the show, it was first come, first served for those who wanted to bring items in for an “appraisal.” With the incredible popularity of the show, however, it became clear that this wouldn’t work, as people ended up waiting many, many hours and there was no way we could see all the items people brought in for us to look at. Thus the show began to issue timed tickets, a system that works quite well now. Most tickets are distributed by the producing station, WGBH, and also some tickets are available as gifts for donations made to the the local PBS station in the city.

Each ticket-holder can bring in two items to be appraised. You arrive with your items at the ticketed time and when you get to the front of the line you go through Triage. Nothing is rejected at Triage—within the rules of the show, anything you want to have appraised will be appraised, except for stamps, coins, vehicles, ammunition, explosives—-but it is there you will assigned to a particular table. You might be sent to the table for Tribal Art, Toys, Collectibles, Furniture or (of course) Prints & Posters. At each table will be appraisers who are specialists in that subject who will then look at your item. When your turn comes, you show the items to the appraiser, who will then tell you what he or she can about it and give you an estimated value.

The producers of Roadshow work hard to have the best possible appraisers in as wide a range of subjects as possible. Of course it is impossible to have a specialist in every field of antiques, so it does happen that sometimes someone will bring in an item for which there is no specialist, but in those cases, appraisers will collaborate and use their general experience to give as much information as possible. For most items, however, one of the appraisers at the show will know about the item brought in and the owner will get a free appraisal from one of the country’s top experts. Not a bad deal!

As a point of interest, the sixty plus appraisers for each city are not paid anything for working on the show; not a salary nor expenses (we do, however, get a free lunch…). Obviously, our “pay” is when we appear on one of the episodes for the show, as this is terrific publicity, which we certainly couldn’t afford if we had to pay for the air time! However, I think most experts, and certainly my partner and I, continue to appraise for the show because it is actually a lot of fun, it gives us a great opportunity to spend time with our colleagues in other areas of the antique world, and because we all care about sharing our knowledge with as many people as possible.

After the next stop (Raleigh later this month), I’ll write about how some of the items get selected for filming, but today I’ll just make a few comments on my experience in Atlantic City…

It should not be surprising that the majority of items we see at the Prints & Posters table do not have a lot of value. As I discussed in an earlier blog, the vast majority of prints were made not as “fine art” or “collectible,” but rather as inexpensive, decorative items. This is exactly what we see mostly during a day’s filming for Antiques Roadshow. Most people who come in suspect that their print or map is not valuable, though they have a hope it might be, so most are not upset when we confirm that their item doesn’t have a lot of market value. However, we do try to give them as much information as we can about their prints and to put them into context so they can appreciate their print for what it is. As I said in the earlier blog, most prints have only “decorative” value, but there is nothing wrong with that!

I did see good items in Atlantic City, some of which might appear in the produced episodes when they appear next year (we never know what will actually appear on the show until they run), but typically most of what I saw were inexpensive, decorative prints. I am not sure how many items I appraised, but I would think somewhere around 200-250! We see our first item around 8:00 am and the last person came to our table at about 7:15 pm. There are usually three people at the Prints & Posters table and we pretty much work non-stop except for a 15-20 minute lunch break. An exhausting day! We have a good time, however, by trying to make it a fun experience for the people bringing items in.

One of things I have noticed over the last 12 years is that at each city there seems to be a particular type of print that we see a lot of, which we might see very few of at other cities. I suspect this might be in part because there was a gallery which sold that type of print in the past, but for this or some other reason, almost every stop has its signature type of print. In Atlantic City it was the early twentieth century, hand-colored aquatints based on classic paintings. These are “original” prints, in the sense the plates are made by hand, but they are “reproductive” prints in the sense that they are copied from paintings. There were a lot of these made between about 1905 and 1930 and they are quite lovely images. However, because they are reproductive and because this sort of print is not currently that popular, they have only “moderate” value (most in the range of $150-$350). Over the years we usually see about one or two of these at each city, but in Atlantic City I saw at least a dozen.

I’m off to Raleigh in a couple weeks and will make another post about the process and my experiences then. In the meantime, you can see many of the appraisals I have made in previous years on the Antiques Roadshow video archive.

Can you tell me anything about this print?...

As we state on our web site, we are always happy to answer questions so as to help spread knowledge about antique prints and maps. We answer every email we get as best we can within the specified parameters (for instance, that the query is polite and that it not include an unsolicited email attachment). One of the most common questions we get is to help provide information about a print where the owner cannot find out anything at all about it.

Here is a typical question I received this morning:

I came across a framed print which was turned upside down in a closet and used for a shelf. Since then, I have been trying to find out more information, or where I could find more information about the print.

There is a sticker on the back from Goupil's Gallery, 5th Avenue and Twenty Second Street, NY. The frame is painted wood throughout the front with a scalloped cutout in the center for the picture of a young girl. The edging of the scallop is painted gold.

I have tried to research the print, frame, Goupil's, etc., and always meet with a dead end. I even brought it to a local "Antiques Road Show" here in Columbia and the art dealer could not provide me with any information. I am looking for some direction as to my next step. Can you possibly provide that for me.

In a couple of ways this question is typical of the type of queries we get all the time (though unusual in that the framed print had been used as a closet shelf!). First, the only information on the item is the name of the gallery that framed or sold the print. Secondly, the owner has tried to research the print (usually on the internet) and found absolutely nothing.

The sad thing is that in most of these cases--including this one--there is nothing we can tell the owner. First off, the name of the framer or seller (in this case Goupil of New York) does not tell you much about the print. Most framers and art galleries handled all sorts of prints and the fact they framed or sold the one in question usually adds nothing to your knowledge about the print itself.

The real problem, though, is that it is just a fact of the print world that there isn't any information that is possible to find about an awful lot of antique prints. Sure, there are many prints where the publisher, artist, engraver, date, etc. is printed on the prints themselves, but at least as many prints have little or no information on them. Some may have a title, or perhaps a place of publication, but many have nothing at all.

For these prints, it is usually impossible to learn anything more than what you can see by looking at them. If I examine a print in person, I can usually tell the process by which it is made and often a general date (from the process, style and paper). Beyond that, though, there is often nothing more to be learned. From the middle of the nineteenth century through to the early twentieth century there were tens of thousands of prints made about which there is no information one can find today.

These prints were usually inexpensive prints produced for decoration, where the artist was unrecorded (or, even if identified, there may be nothing more known about the artist ) and where the publisher didn't bother to record its name nor the date of publication. These prints were simply intended to be framed and hung on the wall and the publishers didn't think it was worthwhile to document any of this information.

As discussed in the blog about decorative prints, there is nothing wrong with these "mere" decorative prints, but the nature of these prints means that there is likely never anything--other than process and a general date--to be learned about them. It is frustrating for us when people email us or bring this sort of print into the Antiques Roadshow, but it happens all the time. Our best advice is for the owners not to worry about this lack of documentation, but rather to simply enjoy these prints for what they were intended, as decorative prints to be framed, hung and enjoyed.

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.

Conservation of prints

I am off tomorrow for Atlantic City to do appraisals for the Antiques Roadshow. This is the beginning of filming for the fourteenth season of the program, which my partner, Don Cresswell, and I have worked on as print and map appraisers for all but the first year. I am a fan of the show, for I know relatively little about antiques outside our specialty, and from every episode I learn something new. Also, our regular appearances on the show have certainly helped increase recognition of our shop. However, there is one somewhat negative consequence that the show has had with respect to antique prints and maps, that is that it has inadvertently led some people to think that prints with condition problems shouldn’t be conserved.

The problem is that a fair number of times, appraisers have explained how, for instance, a highboy is worth $20,000, but would have been worth twice as much if it hadn’t been “restored.” The mantra that appraisers often cite is “don’t restore, because ‘original’ condition is more desirable.” This is absolutely true for antique furniture and some other antiques, but not for prints. I have been filmed a few times on the show remarking that this rule-of-thumb does not apply to prints and maps, but most people remember the story about the lost value due to restoration, without understanding that it doesn't apply to all antiques. At least once during every stop, someone will bring in a print to my table at the Roadshow and proudly tell me how they haven’t had the print restored so as not to loose any value. This is, of course, not the right thing for antique prints.

The basic issue is that for, say, furniture, the old stains, patina, worm holes, etc. do not threaten to harm the item. They do affect the appearance of the piece, but if not “corrected,” the issues will not cause the item to fall apart. For prints, on the other hand, condition problems affect not only the appearance, but also the survival of the prints themselves. Foxing, acid burns, the old wood backing on frames, tears, mold, and even waterstains can all cause further harm to a print. For most prints that have condition issues, if they are “left alone,” they will eventually be destroyed. Thus for an antique print with condition problems, conservation does not hurt value, but rather enhances value and can prevent its destruction.

There is, of course, a difference between conservation and restoration. The former is treating a print so that it will be preserved, that is, so that any harmful elements of its condition are removed. One can conserve a print and have it look just the same as it was before conservation. This is the minimum that a print collector should do. Most antique prints that one comes across “in the wild” will have harmful elements, usually at least acidic content, but also often foxing or mildew or the like (this is especially true for framed prints, the subject of a future blog). Such prints are often in acidic environments, from which they should be removed. And then tears and holes can also cause problems, for they are places a print can more easily be further damaged, and thus these should be repaired. I strongly urge all print collectors to make sure any prints they purchase are stable or, if they are not, to have them conserved.

So what about restoration, that is the “improving” of the appearance of a print. As discussed above, this sort of thing can significantly hurt the value of furniture. Does restoration hurt the value of prints? Over-restoration can hurt the value of a print. If a print is over cleaned or the color “enhanced,” so that the print looks “new,” then yes, the value can be lowered. However, as long as the restoration is done with sensitivity, it will almost always increase the value of a print, not lower it.

Why is this? Interesting question. I suppose some of it is the fact that antique prints often need conservation and even minimal conservation—-such as repairing holes or tears and deacidification--tends to “improve” the appearance of a print, so such improvement has a positive connotation for prints, rather than a negative one. I think also it is because many prints are used for decoration, and frankly, a sensitively restored print works better for decoration than one with spots and acid-burns.

In any case, our recommendation is that for every print which is purchased, that has not already been conserved, i) it should be examined and conserved for preservation if needed (and, of course, subsequently cared for properly), and ii) that there is no reason that the print should not be restored as long as it is done with sensitivity and not over-restored. The worst thing a print collector can do is to buy a print in bad shape and then keep it that way.

Ron Tyler

Last week I posted a blog about the Amon Carter Museum as part of the “print institutions” theme. Today I am going to present a profile of the director of the Amon Carter, Ron Tyler, as part of the “print people” theme. As outstanding as the Amon Carter is among American institutions with print collections, so is Ron Tyler outstanding among American print scholars.

Ron first worked as a curator at the Amon Carter shortly after he received his Ph.D. from Texas Christian University, leaving in 1986 to become the director of the Texas State Historical Association until returning as director at the Amon Carter in 2006. Ron has served on numerous historical and art related boards and is active in the American Historical Print Collectors Society, where he just gave a enlightening talk at the 2009 conference in Portland. Ron is one of the most meticulous and wide-ranging print scholars and we are blessed that he is also a wonderful educator, sharing his knowledge through lectures, exhibits and as editor and author of over two dozen books.

Quite a number of his books relate to American prints, including Alfred Jacob Miller: Artist as Explorer; Nature’s Classics: John James Audubon’s Birds and Animals; Visions of America: Pioneer Artists in a New Land; and The Image of America in Caricature and Cartoon. Ron has particular expertise on John James Audubon, exploration art, and images of the American West. To me one of his most important books is the classic Prints of the West. This book provides an excellent overall view on the subject, and it is both scholarly and detailed, but also accessible to the general public (both in content and price). Whenever we meet someone interested in the topic, we always recommend this terrific reference.

I asked Ron if he would be willing to answer a few questions for this blog, and here are his replies…

Would it be fair to say that in the broadest sense you are an art historian? How did you get into this field?

I was trained as a historian, but began working at the Carter after teaching for two years at Austin College. So, in a real sense, I grew up at the Carter and received on-the-job training there. I think that history training works well for anyone involved in American art, because art is so crucial to understanding the culture of 19th century America. I worked at the museum until 1986, when I moved to the University of Texas at Austin, where I was a professor in the history department (teaching a course on the American West through history and art with Bill Goetzmann, who pioneered the course and wrote a book for it, The West of the Imagination) and director of the Texas State Historical Association. I returned to the Carter in 2006 as director just as they were presenting an exhibition that I curated on bird’s-eye views of Texas cities.

You have written on general images of America, John James Audubon and images of the west. How would you describe your particular focus and why is that of particular interest to you?

I’ve always been interested in historical images, particularly those made during explorations—hence my interest in the American West. I started with the idea that eye-witness paintings and drawings are primary historical accounts, just as diaries and journals are. I am captivated by the role that art played in defining the culture of 19th century America and how the images from explorations fit into that context.

There have been many books in the couple decade on prints of Native Americans and the American West. Do you think there is a particular topic within those subjects about which there is a particular need for new reference work?

There are important works that have not yet received proper attention. Bill Reese hasn’t published his research on Catlin yet; J. O. Lewis and McKenney & Hall still need further work, I think, as do many of the prints that came out of the great surveys. Joni Kensey’s work on Thomas Moran’s Yellowstone prints and the Joslyn Art Museum’s book on Bodmer are examples of the kind of work that can be done. I think more state and local work on the city views could be done. I would love to see someone do a full study of one of the good bird’s-eye views. There is still much to be done.

What are your favorite prints at the Amon Carter?

That is a hard question, but I really like the historical prints—Seymour, Bodmer, Nebel, Woodville, Bingham, Moran.

What are you working on currently?

I have two works in progress that I hope to be able to finish soon-—at least one of them. I haven’t finished the book on bird’s-eye views of Texas, because I was diverted to do the website (www.birdseyeviews.org) for the museum. I also have an almost-finished manuscript on Texas lithographs, 1818 to the latter part of the century.

Exhibit on Georg Ehret

Until July 19th, there is an excellent exhibit at the New York Botanical Garden entitled: Georg Ehret: The Greatest Botanical Artist of the 1700s. This exhibition explores the life and work of botanical illustrator Georg Dionysius Ehret (1708–70).

Ehret was born to a Heidelberg farmer and he worked his way from obscurity and penury into the most prominent botanical circles in Germany and London. Among his patrons and friends were Sir Hans Sloane, Philip Miller and the famed Swedish botanist, Linnaeus, with whom Ehret noted he was “the best of friends.” The wealthy and influential Dr. Trew was Ehret’s most important patron. We owe Trew a particular debt of gratitude for sponsoring so much of Ehret’s work.

Despite his humble beginnings, Ehret rose to become the dominant botanical artist of the mid-eighteenth century, at a time when botany was the most important of the sciences. What sets Ehret apart in this talented and dense period of botanical illustration is the combined subtlety and boldness of his illustrations. His plants are rendered in great detail–-structure, seeds, variation in texture and color–-that can be contributed to his pioneering use of the microscope in botanical illustration. And beyond his accuracy, Ehret's work is among the most beautiful botanical art of any period.

The Botanical Garden exhibic gathers together magnificent examples of Ehret’s paintings from public and private collections, along with examples of his printed works. Among the latter are the important works published by Trew, Plantae selectae and Hortus nitidissimis, as well as a copy of the only work produced and published by Ehret himself, entitled Plantae et papilliones rariores, produced in London between 1748 and 1762.

For more information, visit the exhibit web site.

Ewell L. Newman Award

At the recently held American Historical Print Collectors Society (AHPCS) annual meeting in Portland, the 2009 winner of the Ewell L. Newman Award was announced and I am really pleased that the award went to Panorama of Pittsburgh, the book on 19th century printed views of the city which I authored.

The Ewell L. Newman Award has been awarded yearly since 1989 by the AHPCS in order to recognize and encourage outstanding publications enhancing appreciation of American prints before 1900. As described by the AHPCS:

Small and large works, those of narrow scope and those with broad general coverage are equally considered. Original research, fresh assessments, and the fluent synthesis of known material will all be taken into account. The emphasis is on quality and on making an outstanding contribution to the subject. Exhibition catalogues, monographs, articles, and works based on local sources are eligible.

Panorama of Pittsburgh served as the exhibition catalogue for an exhibit held at the Frick Art & Historical Center in Pittsburgh from June to October, 2008. This was the most comprehensive exhibit of printed views of Pittsburgh ever produced and it was selected as one of the best 2008 exhibitions in Pittsburgh by both major city newspapers.

The catalogue, Panorama of Pittsburgh contains color images of all the items in the exhibit, and the thematic essay begins with images of Pittsburgh before the fire of 1845 and progresses through views from books and magazines, prints documenting events, illustrated newspapers, frameable views, advertising, music sheets, and other types of prints.

This book, however, was intended not just as an exhibition catalogue, but also as a long-term reference on nineteenth-century views of Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh printmakers. Thus is provides background information on the most prominent Pittsburgh-based printmakers, a list of Pittsburgh printmakers assembled from period sources and the most encyclopedic list of nineteenth-century prints of the city that has ever been assembled. The Frick produced a beautiful catalogue, the form wonderfully complementing the content. I was very pleased with how it came out and I am also, obviously, delighted that it won the Newman Award.

The past winners of the award make an impressive list, including significant books on many different topics. Among the references on historical prints are Sherry Fowble's Two Centuries of Prints in America, Gloria G. Deak's Picturing America, Bernard Reilly's American Political Prints, 1766-1876, Noble E. Cunningham's Popular Images of the Presidency , and Mark Neely and Harold Holzer's The Union Image: Popular Prints of the Civil War North.

References on American views are equally well represented, including Ron Tyler's Prints of the West , Sue Rainey's Creating Picturesque America, and John Rep's St. Louis Illustrated and John Casper Wild . These are only some of the excellent books which have won the award, providing very good company for Panorama of Pittsburgh.

Call for entries: The AHPCS is always looking for submissions for the Newman award. Publications remain eligible for a period of roughly two years after they first appear. Once a work has been passed on by the Jury it will not be considered again except in a substantially revised edition. Jurors include collectors, authors, and scholars, of American historical prints. To submit a book to the Jury for consideration, please mail to the Jury chairperson at: Cottonwood Press Books, Attn. William Huntington, P.O. Box 24337, Omaha, NE 68124.

N.B. In this blog I use this symbol [] to indicate that the Philadelphia Print Shop sells a particular reference work mentioned. Just click on the symbol to go to our listing of that book.