James Gilray hand colored engraving. Why is one hand colored and the other not?

These are both from wikipedia commons although there are a number of examples throughout the internet. The non colored one is from Bodelian library the other one is from British Museum. Are non colored ones just as common or are they a later photocopy or something?

 

Many of these images were made before advances in color printing. An artist has embellished the original engraving, adding interest, desirability.

 

But the original work was issued as hand painted I dont understand if these ones that are not colored were issued originally or are later reproductions.

 

It's the uncolored ones that are likely as originally published. Both prints could easily be from the same run. Coloring can be added at any time, even centuries after a print was made.

Why do you say "issued as hand-painted"?

 

well I assumed that probably because Im more used to Currier and Ives stuff and the one from Bodelian appears to be part of a book (but maybe not). I was thinking the book was a collection of such and they did it without color to save cost.

But basically I hadnt really given it much thought. I guess thats what assumptions are.

 

OK Im going to add more. I just went to the James Gilroy entry on findartinfo and clicked on the first 30 entries. They are all etchings. Everyone of them is colored.

I clearly formed an assumption some time ago about these and really didnt recall why I assumed that. But Ive been looking at his stuff for maybe a year or two and I guess since so many of them are colored I assumed thats what they did.

 

I suspect most of the old engravings out there were published in books or magazines, and as such would not have been colored. There are, of course, exceptions. It's the prints that were published as stand-alone pieces, to be framed and hung, that are the most likely to have been colored from the get-go, which can include images that were simultaneously published in books and magazines.

 

Several pages of information state that this print was issued in color, originally commissioned from Gillray for the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine. However, that one was a fold out, which the non-colored one appears to be. There are also several statements saying that the print was issued by itself at the same time. I could not find any explanation for the ones that are not colored. Everything that mentions the original printing says it was in color, or is silent on the matter of color/no color.

This page is oddly formatted. I found it through a Google search. This one misstates the title of the magazine as Anti Jacobin Magazine and Review.
https://www.james-gillray.org/pop/morality2.html

The British Museum has a long description of the print here:
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1868-0808-6762

Reading all of this, it seems that the opinions lean in favor of the publication in the magazine being in color, but it's possible that these pages are incorrect. Actually, the first of the links I posted above is from a site that is what I'll call a labor of love.
(Description of its beginning here: https://graphicarts.princeton.edu/2015/11/10/james-gillray-online-catalogue/ )

So perhaps browsing the whole site will help? Or writing to its creator?
https://www.james-gillray.org/index.html
Note that there is a contact page, and also a catalogue of prints by him. The author's goal is to be very thorough.

There is an 1851 catalogue of Gillray's works. Not sure whether it would be easy to find. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/350530

 

wow thanks for the deep dive on that Figtree. wow