My Old Ship Painting
C.
however I rather foolishly tried to make a webpage with Front Page, and
it created a monstrosity of a file too large for anyone to access
properly.
I have posted here
http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?Page=1 ( I hope), as my
initial curiosity remains. To recap, I paid very little attention to
this painting when I obtained it in an estate, as its limited palette
put me in mind of a hobby set, or a paint by numbers piece. Recently, I
put it on my light table, and could not detect any evidence of paint by
numbers or hobby artefacts. I looked at the frame more closely, and
found it to be fairly well made of wood (no gesso) with nice m/t
joints. The detail of the painting, particularly the little fellows on
the deck, appears decent. The back of the painting at one time had an
English newspaper (all monetary refererances made in pounds) with the
year 1864 mentioned. However, I don't think it is that early, judging by
the fame. It is unsigned.
Digressing largely, I must admit to being a dullard in the area of
computers. I can use them well enough, do routine set-up, etc., however
I encountered an aggressive attack on my system at the end of May, and I
am left a bit stumped. I recovered from the attack, but being paranoid
now, read up on and installed an upgraded security system (went from
Norton 2002 to Norton 2004). I believe I had trouble because certain
sights, such as the free web pages and Hotmail, would not work unless I
dropped my firewall, (which I stupidly did, and believe that's when the
virus came through). I have since closed every one of the 65000 or so
ports on my system. I very quickly dropped my firewall to upload the
ship pictures you see. I can not access my hotmail address (which I use
to prevent spam) even with my firewall dropped.
I do not want to take up space on this antiques board with unwanted
computer talk. However all of you seem to have no trouble with your
systems. I was going to post to a tech ng, however their postings seem a
little over my head. I wanted to ask you good people if you would mind a
thread on these issues, as you all seem to have a way of explaining
things so people like me can understand. If you do, I sure understand,
and will seek assistance elsewhere.
And thank you for any insight on my ship painting!
C.
C.
the stretcher appear to be period mid to later Victorian, and the
canvass has the appearance of age. The frame wood is mahogany. There
are small nails that were holding the stretcher into the frame that do
not appear period, they look more like finishing nails from about 1935
or 1940. The backing may have been removed to lift the painting out of
the frame for some reason, and that is how they put it back. The type
face on the remnants of the old newspaper backing appears the proper
period, with the irregularities you would expect. The canvass is
deteriorating as you might expect something poorly cared from that era.
If it is faked, it is done well, as far as ageing goes. As you mention,
I hope someone familiar with these works will comment. If there is
another view I can show, please ask, and I will take another photo.
C.
"Ronnie McKinley" <mcki...@nowherenet.org> wrote in message
news:cpmmc09qo7l0gbq0t...@4ax.com...
> This is a difficult one, C ;>)
>
> I can't give you any one specific artist name but this type of
'primitive'
> painting (and the subject matter) was certainly popular in the late
18thc and
> early 19thc. Other subject matters in the 'primitive' style, ratting,
hunting
> with dogs, cock-fighting, pictures of bull, cows, dogs etc., all
manner of
> gentlemanly related activities.
>
> In Britain/Ireland today this 'primitive' painting and subject style
is
> highly sought after, has been for many years and genuine pieces
(examples)
> can make fair amounts of money.
>
>
> The problem!! - unfortunately these 'primitive' painting styles are
highly
> reproduced and have been since the mid 1980s. I'm not speaking of
cheap nasty
> interior shop repros, but pieces reproduced which have the intention
of
> deception. Places like Newark England (famous antique fair) have been
*one*
> of the major outlets for the latter. Another problem with these
'dodgy'
> reproduction, the backs and frames have been aged. Sometimes quite
good. Also
> I've come across some repros (at a later date) being put into old
frames.
>
>
> Generally one of the give aways on these repro examples is the heavy
crazing
> of the paint, rather like crazy-paving - but having said that, genuine
> originals also tend to show, heavy to moderate, cracking of the paint.
Heavy
> cracking of the paint (over time) appears to be a characteristic of
this
> 'primitive' painting style. Don't know why that should be, I guess it
may
> have been the heavy handed applied painting style, the type, or mix,
of the
> oil paints themselves.
>
> So that's my opening remarks and comments and I'll be interested in
the
> comments of others, especially those who have handled the genuine and
the
> reproductions in this subject matter. It's always difficult to be 100%
all
> knowing and sure when it comes to a mere picture on the Internet
viewed by a
> computer monitor screen :)
>
>
> (FWIW you can raise and discuss computer related subject matter AFAIC)
> --
> Ronnie
C.
> In rec.antiques "C." <jcal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"snip" stuff about re-examination
> It all sounds promising, however.
>
> I would be a bit concerned with the use of 'old newspaper' as backing
on a
> stretched canvass.
I included several closeups of the stretcher showing the newspaper
remnents.
> Remember what I said about the crazing?? like crazy-paving. Does the
crazing
> in the oil look right, or does it just look like an interior
decorator's
> glaze? If it's badly crazed (heavy deterioration) then the oil should
be
> lifting from the canvass and it would almost certainly need re-lined.
Is that
> how it appears? - which to me would indicate genuine deterioration. Or
does
> it appear just like a decorator's glaze? - forced over-done age
cracking,
> sham aging?
Several close ups of the crazing included. I believe it to be genuine
crazing, and note also the areas where the paint came off the canvas.
> If you could make slightly larger images with more detail and a bit
sharper
> that may help? Both of the back and the image itself?
The first study was done with my little 3 mega pixel Kodak....these last
ones were using a monstrous 8 or 10 mega pixel Nikon wielded by this
professional photographer that has been hanging about me since 1972. The
webspace I am using is a little restrictive in what it will carry, but
they look better than the last ones. There are 32 pictures in the study,
and the enlarge pretty well when you click on them. They are spread over
the 3 pages.
This is a bit of excitement! Thank you for the interest in this old
painting!
C.
C.
> Thanks for the pix, C. You've gone to a lot of trouble.
Not at all! Much of what I do involves plain old back breaking work. A
good research discussion on one of my pieces is a delight! I sure
appreciate you taking the time to look! Thank you!
> overall appearance looks right. I'm not really going to comment on the
frame
> or the stretchers or bits of wood, old frames and old bits of wood are
a dime
> a dozen in any junk yard :)
They sure are. I myself keep a small stock for restoration purposes, and
wander old junk yards when I can.
> The painting is to some extent in a state of moderate to heavy
deterioration,
> yet the canvass colour itself seems still pretty fresh. I would have
expected
> the canvass to be a lot darker in colour, both with age and dirt. Not
just a
> dirty "tea" colour.
>
>
http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=47
> ... bottom right in this seems very fresh. Almost clean and fresh
peeking
> out through the dirty brown colour?
In this area, it appears that the newspaper and the very top layer of
the mounting tape has been stripped away. Although the photo seems to
lack the depth, the darker area is thicker, and as you move to the
lighter area, you can see that it has been peeled into layers, part of
the same piece and not another.
>
http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=46
> ... and this??
I think I might have been a bit ambitious with the lighting here to get
the nails to show up. The contrast between the dark area and light is
there, however in your hands, not so stark.
>
http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=29
> ... in this one - what is that staining down the right-hand side all
about??
Two problems with this photo. The first is a perspective one that
confuses me. The photo looks like it is a rectangle standing vertically.
It is actually a rectangle laying horizontally. I will interrogate the
photographer about that. Secondly is another lighting issue. I wanted
you to see all the staining on the back. The lighter staining you see
running along the bottom is very faint. The stain running along the
right side is darker, but not as dark as the photo shows, and the
canvas is much the same colour each side of that stain, the difference
being more in the shade rather than the colour. It is also contiguous
with the area you mentioned in the earlier photo. We side-lit it to get
that bottom stain to show up better. Having said that, I cannot explain
why it would be stained more in that one area than the others. However,
that area matches up with where those large missing paint chips appear
on the other side, and where the canvass is most damaged where it meets
the stretcher. It may have been subjected to water damage while stored
in a cellar (where I found it, in a box with some old framed prints. The
box was what I call a "mirror crate", and had a packing label on it
from an address I know the family had not occupied since 1963 . The
prints were damp and mouldy).
>
> The missing paint which is straight through to the canvass, doesn't
appear to
> show any chipping or canvass primer, just clean through to the
canvass. And
> the colour of the canvass here and on the back appear more or less the
same
> colour?
>
http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=53
Yes. These chips are clean to the canvass, which is that tea colour, but
more uniform than on the back. I have to qualify that statement by
noting the small area we see in the chips, as compared to the whole
back.
> The crazing (cracking of the oil paint) I'm still not happy with this.
It may
> well be just a trick with the photography, the light (or flash)
emphasizing
> the crazing, I don't know.
Although we did aggressively light this study, the crazing appears in
your hand as pronounced as the photo, only in the darkest areas. It
seems that where the very dark colour paint is used, the crazing cracks
are wider. The cracks themselves do not extend to the canvass, but to a
light coloured base or primer. This same primer can be seen under
magnification where the paint was worn off, rather than chipped off. It
seems as you look at the painting, whenever that dark colour appears,
crazing is more pronounced, not just in appearance, but in the width of
the cracks.
>
>
http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=58
>
> ... that crazing pattern and the wideness of the cracking itself just
> slightly worries me. As does, what appears to be, the mountain of old
frayed
> backing papers.
The prow and stern of the ship have the widest cracks. Although the
lighting emphasis it, in your hands this is where your eye would pick
out the widest cracks. Right below the three little fellows on the front
of the ship is a very faint anchor and chain I was trying to show,
however it does not show up. There are cracks and crazing elsewhere, but
less prevalent to non-existent where the colours lighten, such as the
sky area.
The backing papers were held in place by that old tape you see, and it
appears when it was removed, it peeled the papers and exposed the two
layers. It appears the tape held the sheet of newspaper in place. The
difference in the colour on the tape are in the layers of the single
piece of tape, separated by whoever pulled it off.
>
>
> But who the hell is going to fake something like this? - I here you
say. Even
> worse, ship it to Canada where it ends up in an "estate" sale? - very
good
> question.
Trying to guess where some of this stuff comes from is difficult,
particularly when the remaining family does not care. In this case, the
family was highly fractionated. No one wanted any part of the estate,
except of course, for the money tied up in the house and land, because
the elderly woman had become mentally unstable and everything was a
mess. (quite usual...) However, through the photos and family documents
left, I determined the family was fourth generation Canadian, placing
their arrival in Canada about 1885 from England (pater) and Scotland
(mater).
One guess, if it is genuine, for the removal of the picture might be a
misplaced, misguided motivation in retrieving the old English newspaper.
Another is something I have heard of, but never run into, that of hiding
or storing something behind the picture.
> Anyway's, in my neck of the woods, if that old painting of yours is
right
> and period it could make 500-700UK£ and in one of those trendy
decorator
> antique shops (up the Kings Road ;>)) ) could have a price tag of a
couple of
> K :)
What a pleasant surprise! Well, I suppose the thing to do is get it
verified and properly restored.
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments!
C.
Mike Wilcox
In rec.antiques "C." <jcal...@hotmail.com> wrote:The first study was done with my little 3 mega pixel Kodak....these last ones were using a monstrous 8 or 10 mega pixel Nikon wielded by this professional photographer that has been hanging about me since 1972. The webspace I am using is a little restrictive in what it will carry, but they look better than the last ones. There are 32 pictures in the study, and the enlarge pretty well when you click on them. They are spread over the 3 pages.
Thanks for the pix, C. You've gone to a lot of trouble. The fraying of the canvass itself does look quite genuine and convincing, as does the nails and the staining around that area. And I suppose the general overall appearance looks right. I'm not really going to comment on the frame or the stretchers or bits of wood, old frames and old bits of wood are a dime a dozen in any junk yard :) What still concerns me. The painting is to some extent in a state of moderate to heavy deterioration, yet the canvass colour itself seems still pretty fresh. I would have expected the canvass to be a lot darker in colour, both with age and dirt. Not just a dirty "tea" colour.
http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=47 ... bottom right in this seems very fresh. Almost clean and fresh peeking out through the dirty brown colour?
Don't ship it to Canada, I have to look at enough of this stuff as it is ;~)) At least the provenance'shttp://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=29 ... in this one - what is that staining down the right-hand side all about?? The missing paint which is straight through to the canvass, doesn't appear to show any chipping or canvass primer, just clean through to the canvass. And the colour of the canvass here and on the back appear more or less the same colour? http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=53 The crazing (cracking of the oil paint) I'm still not happy with this. It may well be just a trick with the photography, the light (or flash) emphasizing the crazing, I don't know. http://ca.msnusers.com/OldThings/csstudies.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=58 ... that crazing pattern and the wideness of the cracking itself just slightly worries me. As does, what appears to be, the mountain of old frayed backing papers. But who the hell is going to fake something like this? - I here you say. Even worse, ship it to Canada where it ends up in an "estate" sale? - very good question. Anyway's, in my neck of the woods, if that old painting of yours is right and period it could make 500-700UK£ and in one of those trendy decorator antique shops (up the Kings Road ;>)) ) could have a price tag of a couple of K :)
that tend to come with them are a bit of a smile, such as, " My gran got it as a gift for tending to the
gout in the Earl Of Uxbridge's big right toe after Waterloo". She must have been a gardener ;~)
-- Mike Wilcox --
C.
> news:hte0d0dsvbfg9m28j...@4ax.com...
> > Anyway's, in my neck of the woods, if that old painting of yours is
> right
> > and period it could make 500-700UK£ and in one of those trendy
> decorator
> > antique shops (up the Kings Road ;>)) ) could have a price tag of a
> couple of
> > K :)
I submitted the painting via the high res. digital study to Bonham's
Marine Dept. I thought it might be timely with their Marine Auction
coming up again in September.
Here is the answer:
"It is an Anglo-Chinese ship's portrait from the mid-19th. century. We
sell
these on a regular basis...With all these type of
paintings, these is quite extensive craquelure in the surface, so its
condition is less than perfect, I'm afraid. This will detract from its
value...The picture is probably worth £400-600 and should not be
restored prior to
auction..."
Mr. McKinley's description and retail estimate were very close to
Bonham's expert! (Bonham's estimate is for auction, not retail,
therefore a bit lower).
The expertise resident in this group never ceases to amaze me. All I can
do is thank you for allowing me to participate when I can. Discussions
on these things always excite me. Look at this example. The discussion
Mr. McKinley and I had ends up identifying a decent little painting, and
gives those that read these posts a possible reference for something
they may have!
Thank you again!
C.