(DUPLICATED from Sleepy-time Books) This comes from the Atlas Historical, Genealogical, Chronological and Geographical by Emmanuel Augustin-Dieudonne Joseph, Count De Las Cases, AKA A. Le Sage, 1808 edition. De Las Cases was the last companion of Napoleon at St. Helena. I found only one result for this swell etching from Christie's 2003 from the estate of Philip Corso, one in the Collection of the British Museum and one on Eur-Atlas info (membership required) Price Realized $1,016 Estimate $500 - $700 2 December 2004 New York, Rockefeller Plaza Sale Information NAPOLEONICA FROM THE COLLECTION OF DR. & MRS. PHILIP CORSO I know there are Francophiles out there, but this may have gone high just from the venue itself. Any suggestions as to value such as appreciation since 2004? What kind of leaves are those on the huge garland? Acanthus? This is Rococo or Neoclassical? Griffons on the crown?
I don't know why I didn't find these when I looked before... Any help? http://www.ebay.it/itm/1808-Napoleo...ching-gravure-Napoleon-tree-rar-/221770827086 http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/les-fastes-napoleens-de-1796-a-1821-br-dynastie-6-c-c8a40e9a4d http://www.euratlas.net/euratlas-info_members/fastes_napoleens.html
Thanks, Gila! I do remember that ebay comp, there's been a long gap since I first researched this baby! I notice the one you linked from the British Museum collection says "Etat de l'Europe en 1807" instead of 1808 as yours does. If everything else about yours is the same, I would say this indicates a later printing, or perhaps a later version with some things changed from earlier. If the map is exactly the same, I would say a later printing. Can you tell if the 1808 in the caption on yours appears to have an overstrike or alteration of 1807, or is it cleanly printed? ..... FigTree It is cleanly printed, Fig. I'm confused: Which label is being used to date it? Just for reference, here is the British Museum version. FigTree The British Museum also has a clear provenance back through its acquisition in 1869 through Christie's... It says it was printed in 1807. So, I'm confused: Which label is being used to date this and the following? the map label? This one, from the EurAtlas page - has the same dates as "mine" and says edition of 1808. Then from invaluable (translated) POMP NAPOLEENS of 1796-1821 Imperial Dynasty in 1814 . Board broadsheet folded (60.2 x 44.3 cm) engraved with the Royal Calcographie Brussels in 1825 and printed by Al. Jouvenel son. So not printed by Moisy. Gila's EBay comp shows the same dates as "mine" but says: Date of Creation: 1800-1899 So it sounds like it was edited and printed at a later date? Then says: A circa 1808 etching by Moisy, an active french engraver active in the 19th century. Many descriptions call it an etching - is that not correct? Thanks Guys! Sorry for the duplication and the lengthy comparisons (head swimming)
where to turn? *chewing fingernails* I made it all worse by moving the question! arrrgh Think about birds! birds with nothing more important to do than look completely adorable: I think that's called mood regulation
What I am looking at is the caption at the bottom of the map on your version and the British Museum version. See the small print at the bottom of the colored map? Yours says "ETAT de L'EUROPE in 1808." The British Museum version says "ETAT de L'EUROPE in 1807." I'm not sure what you are asking related to dating by a label. All I was pointing out was that the date printed at the bottom of the map is different. You had included a link to the British Museum version in your other thread and when I looked at it I noted there was a difference. I was pointing out that it was not printed at the same time as yours was. I don't believe that I used the word "label" at all, and I was not indicating the date that either one was printed. That would take far more research than I have time to do.
I hadn't noticed the difference until you pointed it out. Then I started looking at the other comps saw differences in how they were dated, that's all. All I can do when writing copy is describe exactly what I see, and let the experts decide if it's of any value to them. I don't know enough about these manuscripts and how they're published to say for certain when it was published. It seems like kind of a black art, to me, but I'm sure a scholar would be able to access the facts easily enough. It's tempting to go by descriptions already written. You pointed out that it is an engraving, while it's sometimes written up as an etching. It just goes to show that descriptions aren't references (including mine)! Thanks for your time, Fig! I've already eaten into the profit on this, but I hope to learn and have a friend here who may be able to teach me more.
