Featured 2 Stanley Berkeley Etchings

Wonder if these are original but not restrikes. If so, want to get an idea of possible value?

 

Found the pair but not colored.
https://www.grosvenorprints.com/stock_detail.php?ref=29008

 

In the art world, the only prints that are usually called "originals" are ones where the artist was directly involved in the printing, which are normally hand-signed and numbered.

With prints like these, they were commercially produced, so original vs restrike isn't so important. For highly collectible works, like Currier and Ives prints, there may be collectors who care, though.

I don't think it matters to buyers of these types of prints, either. I think they mostly purchase them for the image or the historical significance, not to have an original in the contemporary sense.

That said, I do say "original," meaning original to the time it was first produced, when I list antique prints since there are sellers who make reproductions to sell.

 

Those bear the text “ Painted and Etched By Stanley Berkley”. So I’d think the artist was involved, right?
Not sure what do you mean by commercially produced. The signed and numbered one, were not?
I found colored restrike and black and white “original” so far.

 

What I find strange is that they are plate signed with Barkley but according to some online sources the name is BarkEley, with E before the L.

 

I didn't see a hand signature and number? Just the signatures in the plates and the info printed below about the publisher.

It does mean that Stanley Berkley did the original art work and etched the plates, but not that he pulled the prints from the plates, which the publisher would have done.

They would have been printed in black ink from the plates, and then someone added the color, probably by hand. In those days, it wasn't unusual for etchings and engravings to be sold with and without the color added.

I'm not always sure what's an etching and what's an engraving, but these look like engravings to me. Engraving was done with a sharp tool that drew lines while etchings were done with acid that left textured areas in the plate. I know it says etched by the artist, though, so not sure... it may be he used both processes in producing the plates.

 

Apparently both were used...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stanley_Berkeley

I've been doing genealogical work, and have been puzzled when close relatives have different spelling of what's supposedly the same surname.

According to a genealogical reference I read recently, until the 20th century, last names weren't always fixed the way they are today, and people would vary the spelling. I guess it was somewhat like the way we use nicknames today, calling people various forms of their first name.

 

Thanks for the info. I also think they are engravings and not sure why it says “etched”.

How do we know, the artist did not pull the prints from the plates? Even if he did, he would have still needed a publisher right?
So, engraved but not pulled by the artist, what do we call it, original print or not?

No, they are not numbered,
neither hand signed. I meant that even so, they still can be considered commercially made. They were done to make money, not for charity, right. But I think I get what you mean, mass produced prints, usually no involvement of the artist, large quantities.


Also, with the more modern original prints, there were editions with no numbering. But usually documented the size of the edition.

 

Another question. There are two publishing companies, one British and one American. How did that work?

 

I'm not sure on some of the aspects, but suspect that just like today with mass-produced art, publishers often sought work from artists rather than the other way around. Artists have rarely earned much money, at least while alive.

Often publishers had subscribers who bought prints over time, like one a month, to add to their collection. Or sometimes publishers put together a portfolio of work by various artists and issued it as a set. I don't know how large the runs usually were, or how often they were repeated. I would guess that some were limited-editions while others weren't.

Prints were a way for people of modest means to enjoy the aesthetics of art or hang something they enjoyed on the walls. Sometimes there was probably a status thing, too, just like with some collectors today.

 

I don't know how it worked with multiple publishers. It was often that way with books being published in different countries by different publishers as well.

It could be publishers didn't restrict artists from selling the work to other companies. Or maybe the publishers themselves sold it to other publishers, or had some sort of partnership thing?

 

All that said, my hunch is your prints would sell relatively well. They're nicely done, not run of the mill, genuinely old, apparently in good condition, and have animals... which always seem to sell well!

 

Last question, promise
If it has a printed text with the publishing year, in this case 1885, would later print also bear that same text?

 

Pigs Not a big fan, but these are cute.

 

Good question about the print year. I'm not sure, but if it was printed later my bet would be not all that much later. I'd be surprised if collectors would care in most cases. With a publisher like Currier & Ives, there might be collectors who want to have every print and the first run of each and would pay attention to things like date published. I'd be very surprised if that's true with most prints and publishers, though.

I'm not a big fan of pigs, either, but agree these are cute... which also should help them sell.

These prints have more of a timeless feel to me, too, and I think they'd fit in a modern decor more than most antique prints so that should help, too.

 

Not if the re-strike is from a reputable company.

Your prints include publisher and date. If a re-strike was produced by someone else, including that information would be, at best, misleading.