Featured Antique painted photo - Mayall, London

I came across this today - the case measures 6.5 x 5.5 inches when closed. While looking at it the glass fell out. I wasn’t intending to take it apart but took the opportunity to grab a few photos before gently easing the frame and glass back in. They have obviously been removed before.

The image has been over painted and is rather lovely. I’m terrified of causing any further damage though since it all feels quite fragile!

There’s a sticker on the back but an initial search hasn’t brought anything up for me. I thought the name was ‘Emma Ryde’ but the ‘R’ in Robinson looks different… any ideas?

 

This woman (a hand colored ambrotype) looks very similar, but there are discrepancies in the associated information -

https://www.portrait.gov.au/portraits/2011.5/margaret-robertson/

There is the possibility that the case your image is in is not original to the painting.

 

@2manybooks Thanks for that. And you’re right it could be that the photo and the case don’t belong together, I hadn’t really considered that. I’ll keep searching ad see if I can find anything relating to the name.

 

Here’s the full image without the frame/glass. The paint is crackled (oil? varnish?) and the original colour was protected under the oval frame. Exposed areas have faded. Does anyone know if Mayall used this kind of technique…? Or perhaps it’s been added to the frame as suggested?

 

Well, you've done an internet search for the photographer and discovered he was renowned for his portraits, including that of Queen Victoria?

Debora

 

You'll find some other of his enhanced photographs here.

https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?phrase=john+jabez+edwin+mayall

Debora

 

Thanks @Debora … I’m familiar with Mayall but not with the techniques he might have used. I love those images on the Getty pages!

 

I should add. Treat your piece gently. His work is in museums. That studio opened in 1852 so your earliest date.

Debora

 

Thanks again. I’m honestly not going to touch it now, after first checking it out! And I don’t want the label to fall off… I’ve put it away and will rely on the photos.

 

Pondering this image some more.........

The dress appears to be ca. late 1850s.

It does appear to be a hand colored/enhanced photograph, and appears to be on paper rather than a daguerreotype or ambrotype. At that time period, the only photographic prints on paper would be albumen prints or a "salted paper" (or simply "salt") print.

Distinguishing the two is not always easy. Albumen prints are typically on very thin paper which has been mounted on a heavier stock. The emulsion, made from beaten egg whites, produces a comparatively smooth surface, although in early albumen prints there may be a sort of craquelure effect.

With salted paper prints the fibers of the paper remain visible, and rather than resting on the surface of an emulsion the image appears within the surface layer of the paper.

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/sal... prints exhibit,as coated salted paper prints.

 

@2manybooks thanks again, this is fascinating information… I’ve been taking a closer look at the snaps I took while the glass was off, and you can clearly see the coating. And in at least one place it appears to have bubbled up. There may be other clues, but I’m not in the least tempted to do any further physical investigation. So the photo is hand coloured and then coated? I’ve learned something new today!

 

It is very difficult to analyze an object like this just from photos. But here is what I think I am seeing (and I may be wrong) -



The section on the lower right looks like the original, unretouched photo surface. It is blurrier than typical for an albumen print, which is why I suggested it might be a salt print.

The red and green colors are probably watercolors, based on the way the lower edges bleed out. The white areas on the sleeves, bodice, and head cover look like a more opaque type of gouache. Some type of transparent coating, such as a gum wash or varnish, has been applied over the painted areas to saturate the colors. Some of this coating extends below the painted areas, visible as tan colored brushstrokes. It is this coating that has crazed and flaked in the bubble you highlighted.

The paint has been applied quite heavily, so I cannot be absolutely certain that there is a photograph underneath. It might be that the unretouched area is a type of underdrawing. I have not seen this particular combination of materials and techniques before.

I believe @Figtree3 is familiar with historic photographs. Perhaps she may have some insights.

 

@2manybooks I’m extremely grateful to you for sharing this information! To my eye, and looking at the image directly, the uncoloured areas appear as a faded photographic image. At least that’s what I assumed earlier when the frame was off.

I now recognise the bleed edge as watercolour since I’ve dabbled a little myself, but it’s great to have that confirmed. The colours must have been so vibrant when the image was new and it probably looked very magical at the time! The detail in the dress is impressive to me, and the face and hands well painted to my inexpert eye.

I’m still searching for the name in the records, hoping to find another image of the same lady, or at least some of her history (fingers crossed). No luck yet but I don’t give up easily.

Btw I found the photograph in a charity shop. I’m planning to go back tomorrow to ask if there were other items donated at the same time.

 

I think you are right! Still a lot to confirm, but there’s a marriage in 1827 between John Peacock Byde and Emma Robinson… thanks!

 

Um... With a family seat at Ware. May well be. The type of family we're looking for.

Debora

 

From the 'British Critic' 1827.

Debora

 

Thanks @Debora . Ancestry trees have Emma’s birthdate as 1803 or 1804, but it’s based on census data. I haven’t found a birth record yet.

 

Here's her obituary notice.

Debora

 

I spoke to the charity shop manager about the image. She told me she had taken it apart. And she couldn’t remember if there was anything written on the back. She also insisted that it was a painting not a photo (but I don’t think she fully understands the concept of hand coloured photographs) and suspected the image and case were not originally together. She may be right about that last point… I would love to find another photo of Emma Byde for comparison.