Help w/signatures & thoughts on pastel(?) nude + another OLD painting

I found these 2 paintings at a local thrift today; I thought the nude may be a print but looking with a magnifying glass I'm pretty sure it's a pastel. And since I think too much od signature is covered I'm probably going to have to take it out of the frame to photograph it - unless someone recognizes the style & / or the part of signature showing

The 2nd one I believe is old(!) & I can almost make out signature except last part - can anyone tell who artist is on this one?
Any thoughts on painting itself (besides the crackling - is it worth restoring?)

Thank you for any information!

 

Does look old. Not the world's most accomplished artist but the horse and dog add a lot of appeal.

Debora

 

I agree old, and a tiny (tiny) bit of charm, but very much so not a good painting

The lady and dog don't even look grounded

Old doesn't always mean valuable

I think sometimes you look at paintings in terms of potential value rather than content

 

I probably do.

 

No worries mate, we all do to a certain degree

It's just best not to think of art in that way

Feeling, technique, subject matter are far more important

 

That nude, as a friend of mine says, was "whupped with an ugly stick!"

As for the other...I like it very much. I don't mind that the child and dog seem to have wafted into the lane. Think upon one of England's Very Famous Painters who couldn't do feet. On anything, man or beast.

 

Holy cow-that nude's anatomy right out a David Cronenberg film.

 

I like them both. May be in the minority here but I really like the nude. Some mild cubism going on.