Opinions on After Rembrandt Etching

I have had this etching for a while, I take it out every once in a while and research. The only one I have seen like this is at the British Museum. Tell me what you guys think. Could it have any value?

 

I don't know what happen to half of my writing. But, I have had this for a long time. Hoping someone could tell if it might be worth anything?

 

I see this being called the Head of Saskia and Lieven Van Copenol, but it's neither of those. What is your British Museum reference?

This looks to me like a reproduction from a book. Probably no older than the 19th C when art was reproduced in books as etching or engravings.

 

Also at Princeton

By Antoine Marcenay de Ghuy, after Rembrandt
"Le Vieillard Atrabilaire"
http://artmuseum.princeton.edu/fr/collections/objects/53752

So, are you saying that the one you have is this one? Is this a copy of a Rembrandt work?

I do see that yours does not have the marks of the one in the link.

 

Does it really look like a page out of a book? Yes figtree3 is right its by Antoine Marcenay de Ghuy . I really don't think it is out of a book, it does have the etching plate mark and the other mark is where it was in a frame with matting around it. I mean it very well could be that's why I posted it. And the paper is thicker than book paper. It also has the lines going thru the paper. I have compared it with the ones on the British Museum web site and it really does have some of the same marks. Or maybe I'm just in lala land. LOL

 

I don't know that it is out of a book. It could be. Illustrations in old books can be printed on heavier paper and bound-in in addition to the lighter-weight text paper. I don't know if that's the case here. I also don't know why this copy does not have the identifying text that appears in the link Fig found.

 

Go to The British Museum and search Antoine Marcenay de Ghuy. Tell me what you think. You know it's probably nothing but it don't hurt to dream. Right.

 

Sorry, but I get no result.

Princeton has another example of this print without the text, but it is still identified under the plate.

Harvard has an example (with text) on a much larger sheet.

I don't know what any of that indicates.

Strangely, I can't find an example by Rembrandt.

 

http://www.britishmuseum.org/resear...artId=1&people=110150&peoA=110150-2-23&page=1

 

There was identification scratched at the bottom of your image, but it has been erased (scraped off the plate?). I wonder what that means.



So far as the British Museum is concerned, I think you may have another example of that same print as it's bottom corner seems to scraped the same as yours.

 

Yeah I think one day I will take it to a auction house in the area and have them check it out. More than likely not nothing. I purchased from a yard sale cheap so I thought it was cool knowing Rembrandt done the original.

 

Can you provide a close up of the paper? If it's laid paper it might be older than what we suspect here on this thread. Can you see horizontal lines going across the paper? That would mean it's laid and older than 19th c.

 

Yeah you can see the lines going across the paper. I will try to get a picture. I think tomorrow will be better to take in day light so it will show up better.

 

You should take it to an expert who can examine it, as you said. It is very interesting.

Fig

 

I don't know if you can see the lines in this picture. If not I will take some tomorrow. That's the back.

 

The way I'm reading it: The Princeton print was first with identifying information scratched into the plate below the image. Then that information was scraped off and other examples pulled (printed) in what the British Museum calls "proof before letter". That includes your print. Then the lettering was added that shows in Fig's link.

 

Yeah it's confusing... That's why I put it up and take in out every once in a while and research some more. I will take to auction house one day and let them check it out. Thanks for all the response. Rembrandt is interesting.

 

Proof before letters conventionally means any example before any lettering of any kind.

On the face of it I think it's probable you have a general equivalent to the British Museum pre-lettering proof. The laid paper adds weight to this, as well as the bottom edge still bearing the excess etched lines...which appear to have been burnished away in later states.

No indication I can see that it's from a book.

 

By the way: nice one!

 

THANKS Alec for your opinion. Do you think it could have any value? I think I have seen on antique roadshow before some after Rembrandt etchings are still considered Rembrandt originals. I may be wrong but I think I seen that somewhere before. I really like it a lot, will leave for my daughter one day and let her have fun researching it. There are 3 different ones of this etching on the British Museum.