Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - hemster922

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
I just watched Rauville ~ interesting, that guy is amazing! But aw, man..please don't let there be any crazy story behind my picture! I also just read that the couple who found 10 million dollars in gold coins have to give them up because they were found to of been stolen in the late 1800's! That has to hurt.

I just got another invite to have this viewed at a different gallery in NYC this Saturday...[and yes mart..it is exciting! :) ] so we'll see what happens, but this is it for me!
If I come up empty, back on the wall it goes!

2
Well the quest continues!
Been in contact with the met, whos curators emailed me a short list of experts they recommend to view this piece.
..frustrating..I just wish I had a definitive answer as to what this is so that I can sell it with a proper description. I never expected this to be so hard

4
I'll post pics as soon as I can Ipcress any input is MUCH appreciated Thank you!

5
The one gallery owner wrote in his description that though the age of the paper is unknown it appears to be of high quality. Also that this is in no way a "low end print".
And 3 calls & emails were made to the framing co. no reply

6
I tried the Met by phone and could not get a person so I emailed with pics some time ago and response was that my email was accepted but it may take weeks for it to be reviewed and responded to by the appropriate person. Emailed again yesterday after visiting another gallery owner in NY who also advised me to do so.
I was in contact with Swann Galleries Vice President and Director of Photography as well some time ago, and after many emails back & forth she gave me an open invitation to visit her at the gallery when I could find a day to travel into the city. Recommended that the piece be removed from under glass, and when I did so and revealed that there were no markings or signature on the back she wrote me that the piece may not be appropriate for their auctions without a signature. [I wasn't looking for it to be auctioned off. Just properly identified]
...confused, so I never got to her.

7
Hi Everyone!
It's been 7 months since this original post and I must say I'm still at a complete standstill with this piece!
I've taken it it to experts. "Photogravure" has been ruled out [and documented]. But of the many evaluations I've been able to get over the months, not one of them are definitive or confirming as to print process.
In other words, I still do not know what it is that I have here and it's driving me crazy!
Silver Gelatin and Platinum are suspect, but due to confusion on the age of this piece and type of paper it was printed on so far no one can confirm for me what this is, and the mystery continues!
I was advised to remove it from the glass frame and have it professionally mounted [which I've done].
It's been viewed under microscopic contraptions, and the paper blacklighted to test for age, and still I'm advised to have it further investigated.
How can this be? I've pretty much exhausted my resources and am baffled as to what to do next.
I also contacted Aperture [who apparently controls Stiechen's work in some way] and the first thing I was asked was if this piece was acquired through them..[there would be a watermark]...when I said "No, it was purchased at an estate sale", the woman suggested I contact the original owner. I said "That would be impossible due to the fact that she's passed"...the woman then suggested I contact the next of kin.
[[[shaking head]]]
Another expert, a gallery owner, who has been in the business for over 30 years and a big fan of Steichen's work said
Quote
"If I don't know what this is, that's a very good thing, it means you have something"
...ok...BUT WHAT?
Help  ???

8
hahaha I like that mart!

9
While researching I stumbled across this bit of info. from www.collectorscircl e.com
Thought it might help someone else..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"" First, if the mark says, "Royal Vienna," it is not the Imperial and Royal Porcelain Manufactory, Vienna. No ifs, ands, or buts about it; it is a fake!

The bindenschild (shield) in the mark was a rendition of the center of the Coat-of-Arms for the royal Austrian Habsburg family. The Imperial and Royal Porcelain Manufactory used the marks impressed in the clay or blue ink underglaze from 1744 until 1864. Just because it is a blue underglaze mark or impressed mark that does not make it authentic. Don't be fooled.

Most imitations of the mark are the shield upside down thus it appears to be a beehive. Even many of the true marks turned upside down will look like a beehive. In Rontgen's book "Marks on German, Bohemian, and Austrian Porcelain," page 575-576 Rontgen discusses the marks. To detect imitations of the true mark the book has the following guides,

    Pieces with forged Vienna marks are usually heavily decorated with mythological or historical scenes, often with a description of the scene on the bottom. Quite a number of urns, vases and especially plates are signed "Angelica Kauffmann."

       1. Any Bindenschild blue overglaze is a forgery. In the early years of the manufactory, circa 1744-1749, the shield occasionally was painted red, purple, black or gold overglaze, but never blue.
       2. Any Bindenschild that is stamped blue underglaze or overglaze and shows perfect symmetry and shape is not a mark of the Vienna manufactory.
       3. If inscriptions, signatures or letters are arranged in a way that the mark appears as a beehive, it is not the mark of the Vienna manufactory.
       4. All impressed number, except 0-60 (molders and turners), 84-99 and 800-864 (year numbers from 1784-1864) are indications of a forgery.
       5. Letters, words or shapes in gold overglaze are indications for forgeries. If a part of the bottom is covered with a golden shape, this shape usually hides the original manufacturers mark.
       6. Any number over 155 painted in color overglaze is not an identification number of a decorator of the Vienna manufactory.
       7. Any number over 27 blue underglaze is not the number of a decorator of the Vienna manufactory.
       8. Any bottom description of a decoration or scene indicates that the piece was not decorated in the Vienna manufactory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I still can't seem to locate an example of the "sheild" [not beehive] that is stamped on these 2 pieces so I'm growing curiouser and curiouser...


10
You may be right Mario, interesting...
Although I do believe the couples photo was original to the frame [convex in shape], like you said, it was probably discarded for one reason or another and used as a backing for the newspaper photo. [those horrid glasses are enough of a reason for me to call for a retake!  :o ]
still and all, I imagine theres a story here. The guy looks like he may have been important, like a gangster!

12
You think so ghopper? Because I actually think I can do better off of Ebay [and away from dealers], so I hope you're right!

13
I believe earlier than that Mart, the chair is Victorian, possibly caned. [I've done plenty like it over the years] and The New York Times printed the article in 1914. A 'Rotogravure' they call it. It's the real deal too! [not a copy]
The couples photo mimics that of a 'photogravure' [which I've been doing some serious research on lately due to the Edward Steichen piece I have]
...and that poor woman...and those seriously unfashionable GLASSES!  ??? can we date them?? haha

14
well she would love my Mom! She's got elephants all over the place! ...I've just begun..  :o

15
Yes I am selling it Mart, I have it on Ebay currently.
It's overall size including the frame is 19" x 11.5"
The back of the frame had been taped to keep it together since many of the tiny nails had been missing I suppose, so when I removed the tape to replace them I discovered the contents.
The photo of the couple [I'm assuming] was original to the frame, and then at some point became the back support for the photo of the child.
I priced it at $99.00 to start the bidding tho I'm not exactly sure of it's true value. Got a lot of feedback so far..
I REALLY like it! If it doesn't sell I'm keeping it for sure

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5