Opinions on After Rembrandt Etching

I believe that the earliest version is the Princeton example with identification scratched on the plate under the image. That identification includes the date 1764. The "4" in that date is ambiguous. It might be a "3" that was changed to a "4". Either way, I believe that print pre-dates yours, if only by some nominal amount. That informal identification was then erased (scraping/burnishing - doesn't matter), but traces of the lettering remain and can be seen on both your example and the British Museum example. After that, more formal captioning was added to the image as shown in Fig's link, but I believe that the traces of lettering from the earlier example are carried over and can be seen on the formally captioned later image.

I think that what you are considering with respect to the Antiques Roadshow are examples of prints pulled from plates produced by Rembrandt, but after Rembrandt's death. That's a different situation from this, which is a copy of a Rembrandt produced by a different artist.

Here's an auction that shows your print together with a Rembrandt print, the pair estimated between 500-750 Euros. I believe the bulk of that value is in Rembrandt's Joseph print.

https://www.expertissim.com/estampe...dt-joseph-contant-ses-songes-gravure-12207285

 

If yours is an intermediate state between the initial etching and its final appearance, then yours would not be from a book. Note, however, that the captioned example in Fig's link has a heading the reads Pl. No. 19. That suggests that the print was intended either for a book or a portfolio.

 

Thanks moreotherstuff for all your information. But mine is like the one at The British Museum which says proof before letter. Wouldn't that mean before all the lettering like the one at Princeton. Or does than mean the one at Princeton after all the lettering was took off. I hope I'm making sense.

 

There are two different versions with lettering. The lettering on one is completely different from the lettering on the other.

On the first, I’m talking about the lettering immediately under the image, not the penciled notes below the plate line.

1. http://artimage.princeton.edu/files/ProductionJpegs/INV36637.jpg

On the second, the printing is a much more formal title. This is the image shown in Fig’s link.

1. http://artmuseum.princeton.edu/file...b89b78ad7edefb45d0ba01068f8.jpg?itok=3LMuRT39

Before that second image was lettered, the printing on the first image was erased and proofs were pulled. Those proofs are what you have and what the British Museum has (at least so far as I can see). The erasing of the lettering from the first image was not 100%. Traces of that lettering remain and can be seen below the image on the lower right of your print and on the British Museum print.

When the British Museum says “proof before lettering” they mean proof before the formal title was added as shown in the Fig’s example.

The one shown in Fig’s link, the one with the formal title, came after yours.

I doubt it makes much difference. All the versions were probably produced within a very short time period, circa 1764.

 

Thanks moreotherstuff for all your time you have put in this. I guess we just hope it's something valuable. But I guess not. I'm sure its worth more than what I paid for it. I will keep looking and one of these days I will find that one item that will pay off for all the work I put in it to find it.

 

These prints may be the only record of a lost original. I'm not finding the work by Rembrandt anywhere and copies of this print are at Princeton, Harvard, the British Museum, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and who knows where else. It does have some value, maybe mostly as a historical record of something lost, but it's not as valuable as an original by Rembrandt.

 

, but it's not as valuable as an original by Rembrandt.

Understatement of the Year Award....!!!