Featured An etching in bone, maybe ivory?

Saw this today, seller got it from an estate sale and says the front feels like bone that is etched into then had ink in the gaps.

The back feels something like plaster.

What dyou think?

 

I think the back looks like a decorative item trying to look years beyond its age.

But a close up of the materials could be helpful.

(not that it doesn't have some age, I could see this coming out of the 1960/70s...)

 

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/452088_44-scrimshaw-portrait-of-napoleon-bonaparte

here is one. stimated 150-200$ lot passed.

 

And the companion: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/scrimshaw-etching-josephine-154024070

I don't know what these are. They don't all look to be from the same era.

 

The fact that there are two identical Napoleons would suggest resin reproductions of scrimshaw.

 

Seller's description of Josephine: You can feel texture in the surface.

They're too large for bone, so I find it interesting that the texture caught attention in both cases. Ivory that has been worked doesn't have a texture perceptible to the fingertips.

Unless it's the same one.

They're incredibly carefully done for reproductions, even down to Josephine being more yellow than Napoleon. (ivory yellows more or less over time, depending on the conditions it has been exposed to.) I can't think when there would have been enough demand for these, in an era when there are the materials & techniques to make them, to make it worthwhile. And, in the case of Josephine, to have added writing directly on the back of the plaque, when it was going to be covered over with paper? Seems they were meant to be a set. Why make Josephine look like she has spent her time not with Napoleon (the different color)? Wouldn't it be odd for a modern faker not to make the surface smooth? This is the detail that argues against elephant or walrus ivory, the only kind I have direct experience of.

It's really too bad there are no photos of the backs for the other two. I'm getting more indications of genuine than for fake. The texture issue confuses me & would never make a definitive pronouncement without better info.

 

I don't know if they are the same one. If they are, he has slipped in his frame (certainly plausible). Don't have two pictures of high enough quality to really compare.

There are other examples of this style of thing.

 

This piece labeled "reproduction"
https://www.ebth.com/items/1370239-reproduction-scrimshaw-etching

 

A portrait miniature of Josephine, from Pinterest, so no good info associated.



The signature at the edge is probably that of the person who made this miniature copy, not the original artist. Getting woozy comparing the jewels back & forth between many similar portraits. If I've got the right one, it's her coronation portrait & was reproduced endlessly, in all sorts of media. Most have her facing viewer's right, like this one. Scrimshaw artist dispensed with the lacy bits at her shoulders, & maybe worked from a print that got the painting reversed:



Why would a modern fake not be a more faithful copy of the original painting?

Not etched, painted on ivory:

https://en.expertissim.com/french-s...on-i-josephine-pair-ivory-miniatures-12227793

 

The back of that one looks like the material is Celluloid, or similar. More than anything, the description of the back of Josephine keeps me from joining the reproduction camp. Sherlock Holmes said something like: it's a capital mistake to theorize without data.

 

I will say I think they were not etched free hand. Maybe from an image projected by mirror, which would also account for the reversal.

 

Some of the yellowing I'm seeing on pieces called "fake" has me wondering if the "fake" label is in order to sell ivory. Gad, this stuff has become such a tangle.

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/juratone-scrimshaw-ship-pictures-1738622017

 

http://www.kahnfineantiques.com/index.cfm?ImgId=3081

 

The back looks like brown paper to me. Think it's just part of the frame job.

 

Sometimes it probably is. "Natural material" has become code for ivory, both on eBay & from flea market sellers.

 

Is there a cover glass on Napoleon? I am trying to determine if yours and the one on liveauctioneers might be the same one. There are some smudges on yours that do not appear on the other, which might be due to it kicking around for a few more years, if uncovered. But there also appears to be a difference in the "cracks"/scratches to the right of Napoleon. The ones on the liveauctioneers example look to be more continuous, while the ones on yours appear to skip.


Another thought - might these be transfer prints on porcelain? That might explain the back feeling like "plaster".

What can you tell us about the map on the back of your Napoleon. Is it paper? The tears look a bit like parchment.

 

I'm back to, "not the same piece."

 

I'm starting to think they are genuinely old, but maybe reproduced in multiples, the mass production of their day, by artisans with steady hands working from a projection on ivory or whatever it is. In appearance, such as we can see, looks very much like ivory. Except there's the texture thing.

 

Then they both have that stray mark over the left shoulder, which overlapped photo covers on OP's

 

The OP's is the one in the front. I don't think they both have the stray mark you mention, but not sure we're talking about the same stray mark.