Confusing artwork with two artist

So I found this about a year back, and I thought this was originally drawn by J.V.D. Ulft of Amsterdam, but on the bottom left corner there is another person's name. Heritage auctions (one of there reps) thinks that it's a book cover but it's too big to be a book cover unless the book was big as a (roughly) 30x26 inches. I accidentally tore a small piece of it when opening the frame and its all in pencil and the paper is very very fragile. Anyone have a clue what this might be? Thank you for your help.










Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

Could be that one name is the artist, the other the printer, publisher, or engraver.

 

That's what I was thinking. The name in the plate is the artist. The other is the engraver. The image is 17th century Antwerp. It says something about a cathedral, a legislative building and the "new church". This is a link to a Pentax camera forum with a shot taken in 2010. http://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/photo-antwerp-cathedral-17694/

 

Thank you all for the help. One thing that confuses me is that the date from the possible publisher reads (and correct me if I'm wrong): 1253 or 1653. If it is 1253, the artwork was created before ULFT'S time. Any suggestions?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

1653 is more like it. The clothes say 1650 rather than the 1250s for certain. The hats on the men and the ladies' dresses are all 17th century.

 

The painting is "The Dam in Amsterdam with the new Town Hall under Construction" by Jacob van der Ulft, 1621-1689. The original is in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

I'm pretty sure it does say Jacob van der Ulft in that corner you have highlighted.

I don't think this is any kind of intaglio print. I think it's a monochromatic photo-litho reproduction of the type common around 1900.

 

Still confused as to why they would date it 1653 if it was made in the early 1900s. Also, can thick paper (felt like cloth but not as strong) get that fragile within a 100 years? I literally touched it and it ripped a little at the top.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

Thank you. I did not even consider the clothing till you mentioned it.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

The painting was done in 1653 and signed with name and date at that time. Any reproduction will include the name and date because it's painted on the original picture. Any label on a reproduction is likely to include that information as well as part of identifying the picture. The paper is more likely to be brittle on a more modern print as it would be done on machine made, acidic paper (more modern, in this case, meaning post industrial revolution). 17th C paper would likely be less brittle as it would be hand made with less acidic materials (e.g. linen fiber vs. wood fiber).

 

You are awesome! Thank you!

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk