Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Dawnno, post: 592714, member: 10171&quot;]My guess is, from reading the link article, that the fabric is virtually indistinguishable b/c it might be &#039;double glued&#039; down onto the wood (wood and fabric are saturated), so it becomes part of the wood in effect, thus when the corner split, it split right off with it... need a microscope to tell.&nbsp; But why else would the &#039;suture&#039; be along the sides... you have to sew the thread to something else, and it&#039;s not the wood.&nbsp; So, logically, the fabric was put down, then overhang sewed, then tightened up... maybe glued etc...&nbsp; so hard to tell without seeing it in person.&nbsp; And even then, it might be &#039;there&#039; but neither can tell. </p><p><br /></p><p>It suggests to me that the artist had knowledge of how to paint icons &#039;correctly&#039;... could have been done during a period of history that was &#039;trying oils&#039; alot, and so, after it started flaking, the owner (church?) goes &quot;oh no.&nbsp; now what&quot; and goes back and has another one done &#039;old school&#039; the &#039;right way&#039;... that&#039;s a possibility anyway. </p><p><br /></p><p>Or the artist painted extras in oil and sold them at a stand by the roadway to the church goers/tourists.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Either way, lots of work.&nbsp; Somebody just didn&#039;t feel the need to restore it, nailed a wire electrical staple on the back and sold it.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>This is where experience with icon paintings provides more insights.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in