15TH CENTURY ENGRAVED WOODBLOCK/CUT FOUND. NEED ADVICE!...

If anything...the "Thanking You" .....makes it look like a receipt ...that they received the blocks....

 

If this is from an incunable, you should be able to find the book it is from. There are relatively few illustrated ones and they are very well documented, lots of literature and many are also digitized and free to read for everyone on the internet. Attributing it to a certain book or even artist will increase the value.

But I have seen quite a few incunables and bibles of the 16th century and I am still quite sure this is 19th century. I would definitely get a second opinion if you are interested in the history. If you want to maximize profits, its a gamble whether you take the lot of money you have already been offered saying you haven't checked further in good faith, or risk getting an opinion dating it much younger. (I would think, even if its 15th century it's worth less, if you cant attribute it to a known artist.)
In the 15th century the iconography was quite strict, meaning that artist tended to depict ever the same stories and its quite easy for an expert to name the story or verse of the bible. Biblical scene in the holy land, shows that the expert didn't care to take a close look or wasn't much of an expert, especially considering the mistake with the nativity.
In my experience most auction houses and book experts only look closely if you pay them or have a contract.

 

To summarize:
- By the wood grain visible on the back of the block, the engraving is worked on the end grain. This technique was not used until the late 18th century.
- Bullier, stamped on the back, was a "menuisier" (wood worker) active in Paris in the middle of the 19th century. His shop probably provided the woodblock for the engraving. The typography of the Bullier stamp is characteristic of the 19th century.
- The block's dimensions are typical of 19th century commercial book illustrations, compatible with mechanical presses used at that time.
- The style of the image (how the figures are drawn) is not consistent with 15th century imagery.
- The "letter of authentication" does not clearly identify this particular block, and provides no basis for its attribution to 1495 other than what a consignor may have told the auctioneer. No evidence of expert research is provided.

With the exception of the unusual gilding (if that is what it is), I believe the folks here have very adequately identified this woodblock.

 

Younger! Younger! Thanks everyone for pointing out my mistake.

Debora

 

If anyone can produce any support for the coin dealer's assertion, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

Even if the Auctioneer/Appraiser's letter was meant in regard to your block, research is much easier today than it was in 1971. Their 15th century dating could have been an honest mistake.

 

WQW !!! ... The knowledge on this board is AMAZING, Thank You all for sharing it, it was most interesting and I'm grateful to learn as much as I can. Joy.

 

Here's approximately what it would look like in print:

 

These are the results of a search of the British Library's catalogue of incunabula for 'Bible' & printed in France. You have to expand the record to know whether or not a volume is illustrated. Ones I found that are, all had the same note: woodcuts. The block under consideration here is clearly an engraving, so, once again, support for the position that the block is not 15th century.

OP says it was found carefully packed for storage, so someone valued it enough to take good care of it. Can we know whether this was because owner believed item to be of great age and value, or simply because s/he had the sense to know it would easily be marred by knocking around if just thrown in a box?

 

A cautionary tale about auction houses and misinformation. Just a couple of weeks ago I was made aware of a cameo coming up for auction by a firm that pride themselves on their expertise in antiquities and, unlike most others, allow returns if an item is not as described. An attractive, monochromatic hardstone piece in high relief, simply set, from an East Coast collection, Victorian, opening at around $2,000. The person who wrote to me about it did so because he knew what I could also immediately see: the cameo was by someone working now, and style of the setting indicated it was work from the last few years.

Concerned that the piece would slip onto the engraved gem market & be accepted as Victorian forever more, I wrote them, politely asked how they had determined it to be Victorian, including several links to sites where they could compare it to the modern work, & suggesting they might want to reassess.

Their acknowledgement said they would look into it, but piece had been consigned by a highly (that word again) reputable collector. Next message thanked me for the information, indicated they were sending it back to the reputable collector, and the lot was withdrawn.

I was relieved. Auction houses are not always (maybe should say 'rarely') receptive to evidence that contradicts their description of something. Sotheby's did not want to hear it when someone I know who had spotted the discrepancy informed them a cameo they were offering, conspicuously signed on the front by a famous name, was blank shell in the same area when it had been auctioned by a lesser house just a few months before. They preferred to take the position that previous consignor, the auctioneers & their photographer had all failed to notice the deeply engraved 7-letter name, even though the other auctioneer had noticed the much fainter marks on the back, which Sotheby's did not mention.

Before:


And after:


The forged signature is not even a very good match to other specimens, but there will now be no talking anyone out of the belief they have a genuine Saulini because, after all, the mighty Sotheby's said it was.

Auction house experts. Bah! Humbug!

 

Someone had the engraved block gilded. Obviously they liked it as an object in it's own right. It seems likely that it was meant for display in some fashion.

 

AGREE!!!
and this is why i just had to log in and say "i REALLY LOVE this forum!!"

 

If this block is copied from an existing painting, which is likely, the painting could predate the engraving by centuries. I can imagine an original composition dating to the 16th or 17th C. I don't see it as particularly a 19th C approach.

 

How do you know that "many people on this board " think like you do?? You have no idea what people here are thinking. .. also, I certainly don't find you accepting of other peoples opinions as you have argued the point with almost everyone, your mind was made up before you came here and you wanted people to agree that 'you are right'. That being said I think you have a VERY nice decor carving that some folks would LOVE to have ... Joy.

 

I hope the owner brings the woodcuts to an expert who can physically examine them and give an opinion and justify his/her findings with literature and comparable pieces. Would be really interesting.

I would also love to know what the gilding is about, somewhere in the back of my head i think that I have seen a gilded woodblock before but i cant remember where and if there was an explanation. I have looked at many woodblocks here http://sammlungenonline.albertina.at/default.aspx?lng=english2&query=Freitext="Holzstock"&showtype=record and http://www.memofonte.it/studi-di-memofonte/numero-17-2016/ p 176 ff but have not found gilded ones.

If they were gilded after use, i don't know if they would use printing dye, wouldn't a golden relief be more decorative?

 

Just as an artistic reference point, this early 16th century engraving is after Albrecht Durer:



https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/342707

 

Deleted.

 

I AM SO INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATED! I found the block's image on vectorstock.com, but they do not provide the original source.
https://www.vectorstock.com/royalty...jesus-at-the-temple-encounter-vector-19008917

 

With the help of your image I found this

https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/187500/187565/187565_presentation-of-jesus-at-the-temple.htm

It lists the source of the image as:

Source:
Martin Luther, translator Volks-Bilderbibel oder die ganze heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testaments, nach der Ueberseßung Dr. Martin Luther's (Leipzig, Germany: Baumgärtners Buchhandlung, 1853) 80