Originals or prints?

Hi guys I'm new here and only a couple of years into my newfound love of antiques and art (I moved to a really old house and now everything I buy has to match!)

So these pictures I bought for £3 each from a charity shop today, I liked them as soon as I saw them, and then turning them over realised they seem to have quite a bit of age to them.

The first 2 I have looked up the artist Rappini and found he did watercolours in the late C19th, and some of these are selling for £1000's(!) I just wondered how can I tell what these are, they look so old and yet good quality, compared to most the prints I have seen. Is there any way without taking them out of the frames of telling if they're originals or prints? And even if they are prints would they have any value?

The bigger one I am pretty sure must be a print of a J Nash original, but the only mention I can find of this image is dated at 1873, and this has the date of 1844? Also the quality seems incredibly fine, is it a coloured etching or something along those lines? The text under reads "Fireplace, gatehouse, Kenilworth" as far as I can tell.

Hard to do them justice with a mobile phone camera but here we go!

Thanks for any thoughts,

James





And the backs...



The J Nash...









The back (covered in mould so I have cleaned it off a bit and put glazier points in to put the wood back in place)

 

Since Kenilworth is one of Walter Scott's Waverly novels, have to wonder whether that one or any of the others are illustrations removed from books. Dimensions?

 

Hi Bronwen, thanks for your reply, the frame is 23x19 inches and the inner picture is 16 x 11.5inches ... i had never thought about it being a plate from a book, though it may be too large, i know they used to make books pretty big!

 

Scott's novels were wildly popular. Could also be that illustrations, whether originally made for the books or not, became popular as prints for home decor. Print dealers do remove interesting/attractive book illustrations for framing when the intact book is of lesser value. These do seem over large for anything short of a collector's volume of Scott's work, not so likely to be chopped up.

 

Scott the wrong tree to bark up for Nash.

They don't show it, but here's how the Met describe their copy.

 

Hi that' really interesting especially as the met one is dated as 1839... I wonder how mine has the date of 1844, does that suggest it's a lithograph done in 1844? I thought normally only the artist would sign and date a picture. Thanks for the really interesting information!

 

Hi,
I would remove the wooden backing or at least varnish it so it does not cause foxing of the print. All of my wooden backings have been soaked in equal amounts of club soda and antigastrics like Maalox or Wingel. Then varnished to stop foxing.
greg

 

The original was a painting by Nash, reproduced as tinted lithograph for the book, which evidently enjoyed enough popularity to have more than one printing. What interests me about the Met's copy is that it appears once to have been a reference book in their library, now reclassified as art.

 

Mansions seems not to have been a book but a print collection. Prices for Nash's work have varied widely.

 

The Mansions of England in the Olden time was published in 4 vols (series 1 through 4) from 1839 to 1849. They were large folios 14” by 21”, so your print probably came from the last series. They’ve been reprinted since, but I think in smaller format.

https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Se...sortby=1&sts=t&tn=mansions+england+olden+time

From what I’ve seen online, the prints were b&w lithographs available hand colored.

If you search the series name you will find comparable prints for sale and get an idea of asking prices.

I think you got a good buy, but the value will suffer due to the paper condition.

I can't tell about the Rappinis. Best bet is to take them to a local art museum, or at least to someone who can recognize a watercolour. They would be generically classed as Orientalist.

 

Many thanks guys you've exceeded my expectations and I really appreciate it! So realistically the Nash lithograph is probably it's money's worth at £3? I still love it I think it's so well done and really charming to look at with the little boy playing knight!

With the condition it's in should I just cut it off the current mount and remount it do you think? (And probably reframe it too). Would it affect its historical interest to lose the hand written desctiption beneath the print as I would probably cut this off too with it being on the mouldy card currently?

 

Welcome to the forum, soaduk.
Looks like you've done nicely at £3 each.
Vittorio Rappini pictures in general are a bit puzzling to me. I see the same pictures in different conditions in different auctions, all called watercolour. Could they be hand tinted prints?
Also he seems to have made some before he was born, no small feat. He lived from 1877-1939, but some of his work is dated as mid 1800s.
Most of his work is likely to be post-1900 of course. Mostly Egyptian scenes.
I like the desert scenes you've got.

 

Hi, thanks. That' really impressive perhaps he was also a great artist in a former life?! Some people have all the luck. I' still hoping these are originals but it sounds from your experience there's allsorts going around so I may never really know the truth with these!

 

Are you saying that the Nash print has been cut to the limits of the image and glued to a card?

 

It's certainly glued to some very mouldy card yes, whether the print has been cut down I don't know.

 

Do you know that it's glued to moldy cardboard? Have you taken it out of its frame?

 

Hi yes the card fills the frame, the image itself is slightly raised so stuck onto this mount/card, I intended to cut it out and put on to new card. What does this suggest I just wondered what your thoughts are?

 

If you trim it, you'll still be left with the image glued to moldy cardboard. I don't know how to treat that.

Removing the print from its backing might be an idea, but I won't advise on how to do that, or whether you should try. I might try it myself, but would likely end up destroying the print. In all likelihood you would be dealing with a water-based glue, but you are also dealing with water-based colour. There's no end of ways it could go wrong.

 

Exactly my thoughts too! Would be amazing to get it off the card somehow but can't imagine it working out well and would be a shame to rip it. I'll probably just gently treat the back of the card with some mould killer and hope for the best! Thanks again.

 

Hi,
I remember when the river Arno flooded Florence Italy. They had to find ways to save numerous painting, prints and paper. They froze them. Most of the glued down moldy backing pieces fell apart from the real art. I would try that, it should freeze the glue and help crack it off.
greg