Art question
ElizabethK
unmatted version or type and has the arist's signature in the white
margin at the bottom left. On the right is a signature of a completely
different person. In the middle between these two signatures, is a
printed type sketch of some kind.
Could someone tell me why there might be two signatures? I have seen
the same before with other artists and other sigs. Oh and there is a
copyright firm name and number in the actual print along the bottom
barely able to be seen.
No dates although I do think the pic and frame from maybe very early
1900's or thereabouts.
However what I am most interested in is why two sigs appear on some
prints. I have a large Sadler print with two sigs and I have a huge
print by Jennie Brownscombe which I dearly love called Sunday morning
in Sleepy Hollow and that also has her name on one side - not her
signature, and the name of Jas. King on the other. He apparently did
the etching? But if I have a print is it also an etching? Or was the
print "of" an etching. Need some help understanding please. Thanks
Liz
Ronnie McKinley
>However what I am most interested in is why two sigs appear on some
>prints. I have a large Sadler print with two sigs and I have a huge
>print by Jennie Brownscombe which I dearly love called Sunday morning
>in Sleepy Hollow and that also has her name on one side - not her
>signature, and the name of Jas. King on the other. He apparently did
>the etching?
I believe you have answered your own question.
With two "signatures" (usually) the signature to the left is that of
the artist, that is, the artist which made the original work, the
original (one-off) painting. The signature to the left is that of
the artist (print-maker) which made the "metal plate" (by whichever
employed technique) - from the "metal plate" the print run is then
produced.
If the "artist's signature" is in fact a **signature**, that is, not
just a facsimile then that would imply the "plate" was made during
the life of the artist, obviously, otherwise the artist (original
painter) couldn't have signed the print in the first place, such a
print, was (usually) made with the artist's (painter's) permission
and sometimes possible assistance.
> But if I have a print is it also an etching?
That depends. An etching is a "technique" - a method of making
prints from a metal plate, usually copper, into which the design has
been incised by acid, opposed to an "engraving", a "technique" of
making prints from metal plates into which a design has been incised
with a cutting tool called a burin.
There are of course other techniques and variation on techniques
from which a print can be made. The print run is produced (or
"reproduced") from the metal plate. However, the important and most
meaningful "signature" appearing on a print is that of the plate
(print) maker.
If the signature of the print-maker is a "real" signature, not just
a printed or a facsimile signature, then that usually implies either
an "artist's proof" or a limited edition run, with each print being
individually signed. Such would be more valuable than a large
mass-produced print run of no limiting factor. Of course, in the
case of a large commercially produced print run, it is very unlikely
(understatement) the artist (print-maker) would have taken the time
or found it necessary to sign each print individually, the signature
in such a case being "printed" or just a facsimile.
Ronnie
=====
Foolabaloney
Snip:
>That depends. An etching is a "technique" - a method of making
>prints from a metal plate, usually copper, into which the design has
>been incised by acid, opposed to an "engraving", a "technique" of
>making prints from metal plates into which a design has been incised
>with a cutting tool called a burin.
>
Question: And I hope it's not a dumb one....
Is there any value in the metal plates themselves, as an antique or
collectible? Someone brought me one once, copper, and I really had no idea
what value to place on it. It did look kind of cool. Aren't metal plates
destroyed at some point to limit production? Like if I have a limited edition
print (modern) I assume there will never be another made....not that the
printing plate has just been hidden away in the artist's cellar "just in case"
he/she decides to print more.
I guess this would be a question about molds, also. I once told about
those Effanbee molds I had. I thought they were great, and certainly there are
folks out there that collect that sort of thing. Does the same thing apply to
printing plates?
Thank you in advance, in retrospect, and for all eternity.
LF
Ronnie McKinley
>Is there any value in the metal plates themselves, as an antique or collectible?
I would suppose so. But I suspect **who** the print (plate) maker was would play the
major part in the "value" or desirability of the plate itself. I personally have
never had any *plates* by famous of well known listed artists, at least not to my
knowledge. However, over the years I have picked up a number of plates, usually
small and not very detailed examples. I can only assume these have been plates made
for book illustrations, cheapo prints or the like. These type of plates, in my case,
have been, by and large, only of curio value. But I live in hope that the next car
boot sale will unearth an original van Rijn. ;>
> Aren't metal plates destroyed at some point to limit production?
That depends on the age. The Old Masters for example did not publish their prints in
limited editions but printed as many as they could sell and without signing or
numbering their works. Important works of the masters are documented in catalogues
and, although these must be revised from time to time, they furnish the only firm
information available. There are arguments even between experts about the
authenticity of many old prints. In the very early days of printmaking this was not
a serious problem because the print was not looked upon as a precious art object,
and prices were low. The question of originality became an issue only in the 18th
century, and, in the 19th century, artists started to hand sign their prints. The
19th century U.S. painter and etcher James McNeill Whistler was one of the first
***Western*** artists to hand sign his prints.
> Like if I have a limited edition print (modern) I assume there will never be another made e....not that the
>printing plate has just been hidden away in the artist's cellar "just in case" he/she decides to print more.
Signing is now regulated by a convention, c1960 convention, I think. Anyways, after
the edition is printed, the *modern artist* usually either destroys the plate or
marks ("strikes") it in a distinctive manner to guarantee that any reprint from the
plate is identifiable.
In fact, a signature by itself means little or nothing. For instance, Pablo Picasso
issued many signed reproductions of his paintings - on the other hand, many of his
original etchings have been published in split editions, some signed, some not.
These unsigned etchings are original, while the signed reproductions are not. The
crucial difference is that Picasso made the plate for the original print, while the
signed reproduction was photomechanically produced.
Needless to say, print and print-making is a minefield.
Ronnie
=====
ElizabethK
McKinley) wrote:
>In rec.antiques, eliza...@earthlink.net (ElizabethK) wrote:
>
>>However what I am most interested in is why two sigs appear on some
>>prints. I have a large Sadler print with two sigs and I have a huge
>>print by Jennie Brownscombe which I dearly love called Sunday morning
>>in Sleepy Hollow and that also has her name on one side - not her
>>signature, and the name of Jas. King on the other. He apparently did
>>the etching?
>
>
>I believe you have answered your own question.
>
>With two "signatures" (usually) the signature to the left is that of
>the artist, that is, the artist which made the original work, the
>original (one-off) painting. The signature to the left is that of
>the artist (print-maker) which made the "metal plate" (by whichever
>employed technique) - from the "metal plate" the print run is then
>produced.
>
>If the "artist's signature" is in fact a **signature**, that is, not
>just a facsimile then that would imply the "plate" was made during
>the life of the artist, obviously, otherwise the artist (original
>painter) couldn't have signed the print in the first place, such a
>print, was (usually) made with the artist's (painter's) permission
>and sometimes possible assistance.
>
>> But if I have a print is it also an etching?
>
>
>That depends. An etching is a "technique" - a method of making
>prints from a metal plate, usually copper, into which the design has
>been incised by acid, opposed to an "engraving", a "technique" of
>making prints from metal plates into which a design has been incised
>with a cutting tool called a burin.
>
>There are of course other techniques and variation on techniques
>from which a print can be made. The print run is produced (or
>"reproduced") from the metal plate. However, the important and most
>meaningful "signature" appearing on a print is that of the plate
>(print) maker.
>
>If the signature of the print-maker is a "real" signature, not just
>a printed or a facsimile signature, then that usually implies either
>an "artist's proof" or a limited edition run, with each print being
>individually signed. Such would be more valuable than a large
>mass-produced print run of no limiting factor. Of course, in the
>case of a large commercially produced print run, it is very unlikely
>(understatement) the artist (print-maker) would have taken the time
>or found it necessary to sign each print individually, the signature
>in such a case being "printed" or just a facsimile.
>
>
>Ronnie
>=====
Very interesting and I really "do" thank you so much. Hooooowever,
some questions. If you were shown and old pic under glass with the
sigs as you describe above, how can you tell or maybe what would "you"
look for which would tell you if they were real sigs or not? This is
if you were unable to take it out of the frame under glass. Also what
do you look for which tells you - or does it always, if something is
an etching or an engraving? Any tell-tale signs to help someone like
me not make a mistake money wise, when money is as always, hard to
come by? I see prints/etchings or whatever on ebay which often
interest me, but much of the time I am torn since I don't feel I am
armed with enough info. I realise that if you love a piece and can
afford it, then price wouldn't matter - but when it does I don't want
to make too many dreadful mistakes.
Thankyou again
Liz
Aliron
> what
>do you look for which tells you - or does it always, if something is
>an etching or an engraving?
Liz, perhaps this page will help.
http://www.ukans.edu/~sma/techmap/techmap.htm
Ronnie
=====
Tina Sutherland
begin to think I'll be able to 'get' prints yet.
Tina - anything is possible ;-)
Aliron wrote:
> In rec.antiques, ElizabethK wrote:
>
> > what
> >do you look for which tells you - or does it always, if something is
> >an etching or an engraving?
>
Gerald Clough
> Very interesting and I really "do" thank you so much. Hooooowever,
> some questions. If you were shown and old pic under glass with the
> sigs as you describe above, how can you tell or maybe what would "you"
> look for which would tell you if they were real sigs or not? This is
> if you were unable to take it out of the frame under glass. Also what
> do you look for which tells you - or does it always, if something is
> an etching or an engraving? Any tell-tale signs to help someone like
> me not make a mistake money wise, when money is as always, hard to
> come by? I see prints/etchings or whatever on ebay which often
> interest me, but much of the time I am torn since I don't feel I am
> armed with enough info. I realise that if you love a piece and can
> afford it, then price wouldn't matter - but when it does I don't want
> to make too many dreadful mistakes.
> Thankyou again
> Liz
Ronnie, check me on this. You've dealt with more of these than I have.
The inks in most old monochrome prints is a grease-based ink. It tends
not to fade badly. I would think an actual signature would likely be in
a common writing ink, and those do fade after many years.
I'll throw in something that has worked well for us when we have found
an old print with that we liked and wanted to keep, but the print had,
as so many do, areas of foxing, effects of poor mats, and general
darkening.
We've recovered a number of these with a solution of common chlorine
bleach. Soaking the pring in a mild bleach solution clears the stains
and brightens the piece nicely. A bath tub works well. As with most
chemical treatments, start with a fairly weak solution and add bleach
gradually if things don't start happening within about 30 minutes. If
the whole print can't be placed in the solution at once, just keep
moving it through the solution, keeping the solution fresh on all parts
equally. When the stains have cleared of the print has brightened, began
putting it through a series of plain water washes, changing the water
frequently.
The wet print must then be dried between sheets of blotter paper (photo
supplier) under enough weight to keep it flat. Thick, porous material
between the weight and the blotter paper or several layers of blotter
material aids drying. It's made a remarkable difference in prints that
had darkened to the degree that they weren't pleasing or had so much
damage that they were pretty much free. A surprising amount of detail
often appears that couldn't be seen before. I do't know what real
conservators use, but this cheap process has had 100 percent success for
us.
Do NOT attempt this with colour prints. Reserve it for monochromes where
the grease ink isn't won't take up the solution.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clo...@Texas.Net
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can give it up."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aliron
>The inks in most old monochrome prints is a grease-based ink.
>SNIP... taking the 5th)
Surely!! you really mean to say ... in **lithography** (and with
offset printing processes) the ink "is a grease-based ink" ????
Dipping a mezzotint into a bath-tub of Vortex ... mm mm .. what did
the ocean say to the shore?? ;>
Ronnie
=====
Another One Bites the Dust Antiques
-------------------------------------------------------
ElizabethK
ali...@glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk (Aliron) wrote:
>In rec.antiques, ElizabethK wrote:
>
>> what
>>do you look for which tells you - or does it always, if something is
>>an etching or an engraving?
>
>
>Liz, perhaps this page will help.
>
>http://www.ukans.edu/~sma/techmap/techmap.htm
Thank you so much. Will study it more closely during the week.
Liz