Featured Trying to find info on an old wood panel painting.

Painter, owner or framer?

 

Exactly.

I am not yet a Certified Internet Expert on that topic, so I can't say with any Authority.

However, "owner" was the most common attribution I saw. But again, these were not the same style of symbol as we have here. More traditional family crests.

I will go become a Certified Internet Expert and get back to you.

PS: I think finding the artist is in the realm of possibility. I also think it is the kind of research project that could take years.

 

Think it could take us years to get a tentative ID on the painter, while someone already well versed in Flemish painting may know where to start looking & terms to use that would shorten the process considerably.

If the seal is not one already known to that world, think our chances of finding it are about like the all the monkeys with typewriters turning out the plays of Shakespeare. This is a relatively simple mark with common elements; no guarantee it is even unique to a particular person/company.

 

Agreed. It would be wonderful if it’s an artist that was known, but I’ll be just as happy once I find out what the seal means. The painting has been a mystery to me since childhood, and the seal makes it even more fascinating. I’m off on Monday, that’s when I’ll try and contact the different places that you all have suggested and hopefully it will lead to some answers.

 

"Finding a needle in a haystack is easy if you're willing to look through the haystack one straw at a time."

-Samuel Garfinkel
TV SERIES: In Plain Sight
episode: Aguna Matatala​

There's so much that still isn't on the internet.

I'm not convinced that "we" can identify the artist. Or the seal. I'm not convinced we can even know for certain what the seal means - current research seems to have more questions than answers. What we thought we once knew, we now question.
​

Not because I think it will answer anything, I now have the Medieval Graffiti book on my Kindle.

(And I think it's a good thing I live in the US. Because if I lived in the UK, I'm pretty sure I'd spend all my time staring at weird symbols in churches. )

 

@Jeanette Torello What is the height/width of the seal? (the matrix/design/image itself, not the full area of wax)

 

It’s very small, I’m wondering if it was on a ring:

 

That is why I asked. So, by my calculations, 3/8" (9.5mm).

That's quite wee. I'd put my money on ring.

 

JUST AN EXAMPLE

Photo Owned By: West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service
https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/617882

 

Agreed!!

 

@cxgirl, I did notice that, but they were so faint, I just didn't want to mention them.....sometimes I feel my eyes might be playing tricks on me or am I imagining them!!!! So, glad you saw it without me mentioning it!!! But think it might be too hard to bring it up any.....unless @Jivvy has a magic trick!!!

 

I don't think it's there. The higher res pictures OP posted later, I don't see letters of any sort.

 

I also think the bottom isn’t 2 XX’s, I think they would’ve been more symmetrical than they are. I think it’s two compasses like a Freemason compass.

 

I agree, except they're carpenter's squares, not compasses, or one of each, with the compass stylized.

 

Lol, yes that’s what I meant.

 

Count me in too.

This doesn't exactly get us any farther along in identifying painting, painter or owner, but I love having one more tidbit that contributes to the picture of the life it has led. Gives a strong clue about age. I'm sure Jivvy is currently working on when these devices & signet rings with them stopped being used.

Wonder why West Yorkshire put the ring Jivvy showed as anywhere 1400 - 1600 while this one they think is around 1600:

https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/510156



Jivvy's ring is the better made & only some gilding is lost. The matrix on that one is also the same shape as the painting; this one approximates it.

 

Illustrations at end:
https://www.hslc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/62-2-Rylands.pdf

Didn't read, but a bit in archaic English says that any man can take a mark, but arms require a herald or pursuivant. This is England, so some things may not pertain to the country of the painting, but an eyeball survey of marks shown in paper suggests the sign of four was not in use before the 16th century.

Looks pretty interesting; may actually read.

 

Have to remember most people couldn't read:



These are basically addresses.

http://www.insel-hiddensee-360.de/hiddensee-hausmarken.html

A house mark (also house mark) is a property mark, which is attached outside to house, buildings and objects. Originally, they are simple primitive scribe symbols related to the stonemason, traceable back to pre-historic and prehistoric times. House brands show the clear family assignment. Initially used as a property or property mark, they were passed on within the respective family and became symbolic of this family or clan. These house brands were for a whole house. The symbol was also recognizable without reading. The individual persons who belong to the house personalize this house brand with a small addition. House brands were used as property marks (yard marks) on movable and immovable equipment in house and yard. They were particularly necessary for fishermen to mark pots, nets and other accessories that were often shared. On Hiddensee the private labels still had legal character in 1976. The house stamps had and have predominantly linear shapes and also special designations, e.g. 'Spadn' (spade) or 'Hahnenfaut mit'n Knäwel' (buttercup with a gag). Private labels are not personal, but as the name says home-bound, even when sold to strangers or inheritance on sidelines they remained and legally effective. Sometimes the new owner scratched an extra line in the sign.

 

Again the sign of four ones are 16th century:

 

It was funny - I was searching on something or other and ended up on the 1877 Finger Ring Lore https://archive.org/details/fingerringlorehi00jonerich/page/n8

The dates on Merchant's Marks and signet rings of these style... well, let's just say that the data hasn't completely gelled.

I don't want to jump the gun, but, I will say that I disagree with anyone who thinks this piece is 19th century or later.

I'm this close to saying the same about 18th century. And this clos- no, I won't go any further.

Again. I'm still gathering data.