🔎 UNIDENTIFIED Any info on this etching?

[Stacyphi]

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Red-Coat]

Hi Stacyphi

That's a quality piece of engraving. It's the Bay of Naples in Italy with Mount Vesuvius in the background, used as an illustration in Thomas C. Jack’s “The Gazetteer of the World” (London, 1887). The original plate was engraved in 1886 by the Scottish artist and cartographer John Bartholomew (1831-1893) but for monochrome reproduction.

Your colourised version might be contemporary, but I see a lot of prints of this type which have been detached from their original publication at a later time and hand-coloured for sale as framed standalone art.

No way of saying what process has been used here and what age it is from a rather poor image of it behind glass.

 

[Stacyphi]

Hi Stacyphi

That's a quality piece of engraving. It's the Bay of Naples in Italy with Mount Vesuvius in the background, used as an illustration in Thomas C. Jack’s “The Gazetteer of the World” (London, 1887). The original plate was engraved in 1886 by the Scottish artist and cartographer John Bartholomew (1831-1893) but for monochrome reproduction.

Your colourised version might be contemporary, but I see a lot of prints of this type which have been detached from their original publication at a later time and hand-coloured for sale as framed standalone art.

No way of saying what process has been used here and what age it is from a rather poor image of it behind glass.

You are the best, thank you

 

[GlowingArtist]

I https://laurelleaffarm.com/item-pag...les-Italy-Laurel-Leaf-Farm-item-no-u91034.htmbeg your pardon but it appears that, "Thomas C. Jack" is the seller of engraved antique prints(prints of blank and white etchings likely woodblock originals) on this site, https://www.greatbigcanvas.com/category/jack-thomas-c/
This appears to be by the same unnamed/unknown artist(it is called an orphan work) see




A modern print(Not an etching) circa 1950-1979? I see Turner influence.If you are looking to sell it isn't likely very valuable, maybe some if it has a numbered print somewhere written on it. You could look on the big E though.

 

[Stacyphi]

You are the best, thank you

I can take another picture tomorrow of it from out behind the glass it’s a

You are the best, thank you

it’s a very thick piece of paper it’s printed on underneath I can take another photo tomorrow

 

[Stacyphi]

Hi Stacyphi

That's a quality piece of engraving. It's the Bay of Naples in Italy with Mount Vesuvius in the background, used as an illustration in Thomas C. Jack’s “The Gazetteer of the World” (London, 1887). The original plate was engraved in 1886 by the Scottish artist and cartographer John Bartholomew (1831-1893) but for monochrome reproduction.

Your colourised version might be contemporary, but I see a lot of prints of this type which have been detached from their original publication at a later time and hand-coloured for sale as framed standalone art.

No way of saying what process has been used here and what age it is from a rather poor image of it behind glass.

 

[Red-Coat]

Now it gets complicated. After a little more digging, I was wrong to attribute this to John Bartholomew (I found that attribution by an internet search). It does indeed appear as an illustration in Thomas C. Jack’s “The Gazetteer of the World” published in London in 1887 and Bartholomew did produce map engravings for the work (which I believe may have been printed in colour). But it seems he didn’t produce the engravings for the other monochrome illustrations. That seems to be a mis-attribution (but you can see how it might have arisen) as evidenced by an earlier example of the engraving in the British Museum:



They describe it as a “book illustration” for William Brockedon's "Finden's Illustrations of the Life and Works of Lord Byron". The plate has “Drawn by J.D. Harding from a sketch by W. Page” and “Engraved by E. Finden” above the title “Bay of Naples” with “London Published 1833, by J. Murray & sold by C. Tilt, 85, Fleet Street” below. It's said to be a steel engraving, not a wood-block. The size (including the border) is given as:

Height: 160 millimetres (sheet; trimmed or cut)
Width: 230 millimetres (sheet; trimmed or cut)

William Brockedon (1787-1854) was a Devonshire Painter, draughtsman, illustrator and writer who studied in London, travelled widely and authored (edited) the work on Byron containing Finden’s engravings.
James Duffield Harding (1798-1863) was a London painter, draughtsman and printmaker.
William Page (1794-1872) was a British landscape painter who travelled extensively in Europe.
Edward Francis Finden (1791-1857) was a London line and stipple engraver and printmaker.
John Murray was a London publisher established in 1768 and still in business under that name until 2002.
Charles Tilt was a London publisher and printer from c.1813-1841

Both books containing this engraving were published as three volume sets in “8vo” or “Octavo” size, for which the pages are typically approximately 160 × 230 mm. The illustration itself is around 90 x 135 mm, excluding the border and in moncochrome, not colour. Those typically sell for around $25-30 since you could buy a a full original set of either of those works with their dozens of plates for a few hundred dollars or less.

There are modern prints available, reproduced from the Granger Collection but upsized to 18 x 24 inches priced at $33, or 24 x 36 inches priced at $66. Again, these are monochrome.

Also, since the copyright has long expired, both books have been reproduced from scans of the original volumes in modern times in both hardback and paperback, notably:

Finden's illustrations of the Life and Works of Lord Byron (1833)
General Books LLC (3 Jan. 2010)
Nabu Press (24 Feb. 2010)
HardPress Publishing (10 Jan. 2012)
Wentworth Press (26 Aug. 2016)
Palala Press (16 Feb. 2018)
Forgotten Books (20 Nov. 2018)

The Gazetteer of the World (1887)
Wentworth Press (23 Mar. 2019)
Nabu Press (24 July 2011 & 12 Mar. 2012)

Those will have the original illustration in monochrome and I don’t think they were printed on the quality of paper apparent in your print.

Sacrilege though it may be, as I said, books like this are often deconstructed to get the illustrated plates which may then be hand colourised to enhance their appeal. I have an acquaintance who is an antiquarian book dealer who makes a substantial proportion of his profits by doing exactly that. He cuts the engraved prints from books that are damaged or have a low profit potential, colourises them himself and frames them for sale. Depending on the size, I still suspect that’s what you have, with the colourisation added at an unknown date.

 

[GlowingArtist]

What about attributing this top piece above, t at first to a Thomas C Jack? And why are you not providing citation for your confident references to records I cannot confirm. And this post print colorization argument based on your friend's likely illegal altering and changing attribution of old master works. Yes, you know it all. This is an early print, designed when it was colored and not before based on it's style which gives away it's provenance. But then I just have an Art Bachelor's.

 

[Retired Sarge]

What about attributing this top piece above, t at first to a Thomas C Jack? And why are you not providing citation for your confident references to records I cannot confirm. And this post print colorization argument based on your friend's likely illegal altering and changing attribution of old master works. Yes, you know it all. This is an early print, designed when it was colored and not before based on it's style which gives away it's provenance. But then I just have an Art Bachelor's.

First off Redcoat admitted he misidentified the artist and some other things, and took time to explain how and why. Takes a big person to do that, plus 99.9% of the time he is correct in his identifications.

Second off colorizing a picture/print in or from a book is not illegal. What someone does with something they own is their right. Also how does colorizing something change "Attribution"?

No disrespect meant here, but having a degree doesn't make one an expert, but it DOES give them an edge up on us non degree dummies like me.

 

[Tpmetal]

What about attributing this top piece above, t at first to a Thomas C Jack? And why are you not providing citation for your confident references to records I cannot confirm. And this post print colorization argument based on your friend's likely illegal altering and changing attribution of old master works. Yes, you know it all. This is an early print, designed when it was colored and not before based on it's style which gives away it's provenance. But then I just have an Art Bachelor's.

Yeah I have the same useless degree, doesn't make us any more of an expert. You do have the same attitude that makes me hate the academic art world though.

 

[Red-Coat]

What about attributing this top piece above, t at first to a Thomas C Jack? And why are you not providing citation for your confident references to records I cannot confirm. And this post print colorization argument based on your friend's likely illegal altering and changing attribution of old master works. Yes, you know it all. This is an early print, designed when it was colored and not before based on it's style which gives away it's provenance. But then I just have an Art Bachelor's.

Oh dear. Wrong on many counts I’m afraid.

I did not attribute this print to Thomas C. Jack. I incorrectly attributed it to John Bartholomew. The reason for that misattribution was that I found it in an image library with that caption because it appears as a monochrome illustration in Jack’s three-volume gazetteer published in 1887, for which Bartholomew produced some (but not all) of the engravings used for the plates in the book. The image library had apparently jumped to the conclusion that all of the plates had the same engraver. An easy mistake to make.

That error became apparent when I checked the British Museum records. Below is a link to the museum’s collection record for the print where it is correctly attributed as “Drawn by J. D. Harding from a sketch by W. Page. / Engraved by E. Finden. / London Published 1833, by J. Murray & Sold by C. Tilt, 86, Fleet Street.”

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1900-1231-1448

It’s a monochrome illustration from Brockedon’s book on Lord Byron which the frontispiece says was published by John Murray of Albermarle Street and “sold also by Charles Tilt, Fleet Street”. The work was published in three volumes during 1833/4 and this particular illustration appears in the second volume (1833). You can download a scanned copy of it for free at the link below because the copyright has long expired. The print is on page 248 of the pdf file (not the original page number for the book).

https://ia804504.us.archive.org/6/items/findensillustrat02brocuoft/findensillustrat02brocuoft.pdf

Since you have an “Art Batchelor’s” you might like to consult your course notes to refresh your memory on the generally accepted definition for an “Old Master” and the copyright restrictions for creative works. In the UK at least such copyright usually lasts for the duration of the artist’s life plus a further 70 years.

My friend does not alter ‘old master’ works and never falsifies attributions on the occasions when he hand colours the prints he has detached from old books. He’s doing nothing illegal. The harsh reality is that there are many lovely old books which have low or modest interest for collectors (or with covers and bindings in poor condition) where the individual plates sell more readily and more profitably as framed wall art. Sometimes colourised to enhance their appeal and sometimes not. This has been common practice since the beginning of the 20th Century and is by no means confined to my friend’s business.

Whether or not that's the case here depends somewhat on the size of the print (which Stacyphi hasn't told us). I quoted some sizes for reference purposes which should enable determination of whether this has come from one of the two publications in which it is known to appear or a later reproduction.

You should get out more.

 

[Doubter in MD]

Art fight! Art fight!

Just kidding. Thanks Red-Coat. Informative, well constructed post(s). As always.