American Silhouettes
My other two silhouette pages are getting too full, so I will post additions here. Make sure you check out older blogs by clicking the links below.
Links
- 19th Century American Silhouettes I Homepage
- 19th Century American Silhouettes II
- 19th Century American Silhouettes III
- Silhouette Artists Born Without Arms
Links of Interest by Others.
- Peggy McClard's Antique Silhouettes Inventory
- Materials and Techniques of American Portrait Silhouettes
- Mechanization of Likeness in Jeffersonian America
- Moses Williams, Cutter of Profiles, PDF file
- Miniature Portraits(Best Site on the Subject)
Monday, December 14, 2009
Rare Day's Patent Silhouette FindOne of our readers, Bob, finds a good one! He writes:
From the news reports, sounds like Upstate NY is getting socked pretty hard by winter weather. Hope all is well.
Have attached some photos of a recently acquired silhouette which I hoped to share with readers. In response to your earlier query, the winter is an active season for antiquing in New England with regular shows and auctions. Guess we're a hardy bunch.
It is a hollow cut silhouette of a gentleman on what appears to be rather thin woven paper. Above the silhouette there is a signature in florid script that looks to me like "John Broadbent" with a curlicue flourish beneath. I assume this is the identity of the sitter. Under the bust is the embossed mark "Day's * Patent". The silhouette is otherwise without embellishment. The quality of the cutting is good but not the best in my opinion.
The silhouette is backed by a square of thin paper that is black and glazed on one side. Because the paper is shiny, it causes reflections which are greatly exaggerated by the scanner and appear as white streaks and smudges. Unfortunately, this shiny black paper is glued to the back of the silhouette. I always forget to do something before putting everything back together and this time it was to scan the reverse side of the unframed silhouette! Overall condition is okay with some rippling, spots, dirt, toning but without tears or significant stains. There is a small spot of something near the back of the sitter's head that is stuck to the paper that I dare not try to remove. Overall, I think it displays well. My scans really don't do it justice.
The frame is moulded black painted pine. It is old, but I do not believe it is period. However, the silhouette fits just about perfectly.
On the back, there was a fragment of paper bearing a 20th century label with the address (pre zip code) of a Mrs. Emerson Greenaway from Philadelphia. There is old longhand writing on the paper fragment which is not legible. It came off of the back of the frame during the trip home but I have saved it.
From what I could find, the early hollow cut silhouettes by Augustus Day seem to be relatively scarce. Hope you and others will comment.
With Best Wishes for the Holidays and New Year and thanks for now nearly a year of enjoyment reading your blog and appreciation for all the work it must entail.
Have attached some photos of a recently acquired silhouette which I hoped to share with readers. In response to your earlier query, the winter is an active season for antiquing in New England with regular shows and auctions. Guess we're a hardy bunch.
It is a hollow cut silhouette of a gentleman on what appears to be rather thin woven paper. Above the silhouette there is a signature in florid script that looks to me like "John Broadbent" with a curlicue flourish beneath. I assume this is the identity of the sitter. Under the bust is the embossed mark "Day's * Patent". The silhouette is otherwise without embellishment. The quality of the cutting is good but not the best in my opinion.
The silhouette is backed by a square of thin paper that is black and glazed on one side. Because the paper is shiny, it causes reflections which are greatly exaggerated by the scanner and appear as white streaks and smudges. Unfortunately, this shiny black paper is glued to the back of the silhouette. I always forget to do something before putting everything back together and this time it was to scan the reverse side of the unframed silhouette! Overall condition is okay with some rippling, spots, dirt, toning but without tears or significant stains. There is a small spot of something near the back of the sitter's head that is stuck to the paper that I dare not try to remove. Overall, I think it displays well. My scans really don't do it justice.
The frame is moulded black painted pine. It is old, but I do not believe it is period. However, the silhouette fits just about perfectly.
On the back, there was a fragment of paper bearing a 20th century label with the address (pre zip code) of a Mrs. Emerson Greenaway from Philadelphia. There is old longhand writing on the paper fragment which is not legible. It came off of the back of the frame during the trip home but I have saved it.
From what I could find, the early hollow cut silhouettes by Augustus Day seem to be relatively scarce. Hope you and others will comment.
With Best Wishes for the Holidays and New Year and thanks for now nearly a year of enjoyment reading your blog and appreciation for all the work it must entail.
BMJ says:
Yup, we had a terrible week of snow. Had to shovel that white stuff every day. Actually, shoveling the fallen snow ain’t that bad. The bad stuff is the ice, snow, salt, and sand that street plows throw into the driveway. That is heavy duty stuff! When you see 18 wheelers flipped over on the thruway, I don’t think driving to antique shows is a good thing. I like silhouettes, but I prefer to stay alive.
Bob’s recent find is especially a nice one. He calls it “scarce,” but it is actually rare. I wonder if he would share with us what he had to pay for it. It is a little treasure. If he were to find Todd’s Patent and Bache’s Patent, he would then have the trio. These three guys applied for the patent as a group.
The black paper Bob mentions is either flint or tarred paper. Flint paper is quite shiny. Tarred paper is more matte but still reflects light to some degree. Flint paper is quite flaccid like a slice of pizza from good pizza shop. Tarred paper is stiffer like a slice of home-baked frozen pizza.
If I had this silhouette in that frame, I would repaint the frame. Not the whole thing. What I would use is matte black paint. Dab a little from the backside of the lid with my finger and then touch-up the worn spots and smooth out. The whole package would look so much better.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Samuel Bradburn Banton BustlinesBanton worked exclusively in Maine. His cuttings share similarities to those works by William Chamberlain and Justin Salisbury. One of these three cutters started this type of cutting, influencing the other two, but we do not know who that is at this time. However, I am confident this puzzle will be solved in time. For now, I would like to share my findings on Banton bustlines. By knowing these bust terminations, we could at least separate Banton from Chamberlain and Salisbury. Caveat: there are always transitional bustlines for every cutter.
Banton seemed to have started his cutting career with this bustline (see first and second photos): a straight line with a prominent arch. The profiles are quite folky. His embossment is not known on this early type. The first sitter is Dow Smith of Maine.
His second phase is more refined (see third photo), but the bust retains a straight line with an arch, although not as prominent as his earlier busts. This example has his embossment.
With his third phase, the straight line is no longer straight and has a slight curve (see fourth photo). The arch is very shallow. This also has his embossement.
His fourth phase has shallow double arches with a notch in the center (see fifth photo). This example is not signed. The sitter is Benjamin Hazeltine of Maine.
With his fifth phase, Banton retains the bustline, but instead of using his earlier technique of cut/uncut method, he cuts out the head only and adds colors to the bust (see sixth photo from Bob’s collection, April 20 blog below for more).
Note: There may exist an earlier phase before “phase one,” but intermittent phases between one and five are unlikely but not impossible. Since Banton lived until 1864, he may have worked with photographs, coloring them or painting from them.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Silhouette: The Art of the Shadow by Emma Rutherford
This is a new book, hot off the press. It has a cover price of $65, but it is being sold between $40-45 on the average, plus shipping. It is a large book measuring 11 x 11 3/4 inches.
My "take" on this book:
This is a coffee-table art book. One may enjoy flipping the pages and looking at full-page color photos, mostly of British shades. That is understandable; the author is British. This is NOT a reference work on the subject. This book is NOT about silhouettes, as we know it, although the American section is. This book contains very few readable pages for its size and nothing new within those pages. However, I did learn Doyle's full name: William Masey Stroud Doyle. The book is not indexed.
The brief American section contains wonderful illustration (see above photo for a sample). Most of them are from “McClard collection” and present the folky side of American silhouettes. I did recognize a few of them as "old friends," as having owned them once. That was a pleasant surprise. As many of you already know, Peggy is a dealer in folk art, but she is also a collector-at-heart when it comes to American silhouettes. Her choice of illustrated examples permeates well.
Because of its format, I believe the intention of the author was to present an introductory art book on the subject. It is a pretty book; however, pretty art books usually end up in Borders and Barnes & Noble "bargain art book" section at a fraction of original cover price. If this book came out fifteen years ago, it would have been helpful to silhouette collectors in a limited way. The timing is bad, however, as there are endless flow of information and photographs on the internet today.
Conclusion: Although the American section is of some interest, this section alone is not enough to recommend this book to fellow silhouette collectors. If you want the best reference book on British silhouettes, buy McKechnie. If you want the best book on American silhouettes, although a bit outdated, buy Carrick.
I have my copy of "Silhouette: The Art of the Shadow" for sale. I only have this one copy: $30 plus $7 postage by media with tracking. My loss, your gain!
Anonymous said... Mr. Jones is a bit blunt here but I tend to agree more than I disagree.
BMJ: Thanks for your comment. Even a brief comment is appreciated. Many people read this blog, but very few ever respond.
Gaye said... I received the book as a birthday present! I found the large format pictures beautiful. It is a treat to see the silhouettes with such clarity. However, the labeling of the illustrations is hit or miss--by that I mean some pictures have a labeled caption, some (almost all of the 2-page spreads) have neither page numbers nor captions nor illustration numbers. You have to use the list of illustrations in the back, after you painstakingly figure out which page you are on! This is definitely a "survey" book rather than a detailed analysis of silhouettes, but even saying that I don't understand why it has been made rather difficult to use. Still it is a beautiful book.
BMJ: Giving this book as a birthday present may be a good idea. I had the same problem with Gaye when trying to figure out which illustration fits which description. I agree it is a bit clumsy. Thanks for your well thought comment!
Sunday, November 1, 2009
More Finds from BobOne of our regular readers, Bob, shares his finds with us. Feel free to make comments. By the way, I thought New England shuts down from November to April. Are there good shows during those months?
Anyways, Bob writes:
Thought I would send along one silhouette and a double folk portrait that might be a bit beyond what folks usually send to the blog, but thought it might be of interest none the less.
The silhouette is one I actually purchased loose and had framed by someone who keeps a stock of period frames and glass. The overall sight size is 3 1/2 inches wide, 4 inches tall. Sorry, but the guy did such a nice job putting it together, I just couldn't pull it all apart. It is cut on woven paper. Overall condition is okay. I believe it once had an eglomise mat as indicated by the oval halo around the image and the little flecks on the silhouette which upon close inspection are traces of bits of flaked black paint/asphaltum and gold leaf. I liked the hollow cut embellishments and the saw tooth lower boarder of the bust. According to the person from whom it was purchased, came out of a box of "stuff" from the Philadelphia area. Couldn't find anything quite like it in my limited reference library.
We often see folk portraits which are painted, drawn, etc on paper, wood, canvas, artist's board, ivory, etc. I've owned this carved double portrait for a number of years. It's deeply carved from a hand hewn block of hard wood (maple?) with a hand wrought square hanger on top and embellished with paint. It doesn't show well in my as per usual lousy photographes, but the details of the man's shirt and buttons are also painted in. Overall it is 4 5/8 inches wide, 5 inches high and the block is1 5/8 inches deep. Done in a style reminiscent to me of Victorian oval miniatures in a carved frame. He looks pretty happy, she don't. Thought it my be of interest to other readers.
Anyhow, that's it. During the fall and winter, there are decent antique shows nearby just about every few weeks. Hope will turn something up of interest to share with the readers in the coming months..
Friday, October 9, 2009
Blackout!A few days ago, we had a blackout that lasted several hours due to very high winds. It's a good thing we always have candles and sticks. We used an 18th century brass chamberstick to go around the house, just like they did back then.
We don't know his real name, but we call him Samuel (see photo). In the 1830s I am sure this was how he was viewed at night. I hope this brings Samuel some good memories.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Fabrica Excellente
One of our readers, anonymous, writes:
Hello: Thanks for posting so much useful information on silhouettes, but I did not see the type of sihouette that I have - a pair of full figure Lady & Gentleman hunters made from various silk fabrics, with painted faces and backgrounds.
I will attach two photos as it is difficult to describe them. I can send more if these are interesting.
I will attach two photos as it is difficult to describe them. I can send more if these are interesting.
Wow! That was fast. I've been unable to find any info - I bought them 20 years ago at a small antique shop in Wisconsin. The picture size is 9x13. The glass, frames and backing appear to be original. The male is not in good shape. No signature.
Here are a few more photos.
Here are a few more photos.
BMJ writes:
Thanks for sharing; I love this!
Will share my thoughts about it soon.
New York State Museum Albany - Pair of Portraits Attributed to R.M. NORTONFirst, a pair of portraits that I mentioned last week (see below) sold for $865. The seller writes, "The auction value on the miniatures I have listed are $5000,00+ The last known sold were a set of 3 that sold for $18,500.00 as stated above." Someone got a real bargain (LOL)! And I thought $10 was a bit too much for them. Let's hope the buyer is happy with them.
Second, if you live anywhere close to Albany, NY, you should check out the current exhibit of African-American portraits. It is called, "Through the Eyes of Others: African Americans and Identity in American Art." This is one of the paintings there. It is by William Prior. I am not quite sure if all items are from Fenimore Art Museum, Cooperstown, but I know this painting is. There was a nice mini portrait hanging at this exhibit I really wanted to have. I could have reached for it, plucked it, and secured it. Don't those security guards ever take a break? At any rate, this is a choice exhibit. In addition, there is a 17th century Dutch exhibit going on, plus the usual Native American items, fossils, etc. etc. All this being free, you can't beat it. If you go there on weekends, parking is free too.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Edouart with Fort Ticonderoga Backdrop
One of our readers, Jane, seemed to have found a good one! If this is indeed genuine, I am sure the museum at Fort Ticonderoga would like to add this to their collection. Jane writes:
[Here is the story for your blog concerning the finding of the Edouart:
I have always thought it a great idea to peruse through antique shows that one shows in...no matter what the quality of the merchandise might appear to be! After setting up at a show in June in Aurora, Ohio, I was walking through rather quickly, glancing at the offerings, and noticed a full length Edouart silhouette hanging next to a few others that looked English. I could not see it very well, and the price tag was resting on top of the frame. I asked the dealer to see it, and the price I saw was the lowest price I had ever seen for an Edouart. I said to myself, "My goodness, is it a photo?" The signature was right, the location Saratoga, dated 1840, and the background sure looked like a graphite drawing of Fort Ticonderoga! As my heart beat faster and faster, I asked the dealer if I could remove it from the frame. Lo and behold, it was a genuine cut and paste by the master! I didn't ask for a dealer's price! I could see some people out of the corner of my eye watching me as I discussed the piece with the dealer. He is a wonderful, older fellow, who has collected silhouettes since the 1940's...he even asked his wife if the price was right...she answered "Yes, that's the price you told me to put on it." Deal sealed, and off I went with my prize. I even felt a little guilty about such a great deal...but I got over it quite quickly! Many dealers followed me, asking if I wanted to sell...I told them all this was my find of this year, and they couldn't pry it away! It hangs proudly on my dining room wall, and I even found a bamboo cane identical to the one this gentleman is holding, and have it displayed nearby! Notice how his overcoat is blowing in the wind...the wind always blows from west to east, so the mountains across Lake Champlain are the Green Mountains of Vermont. These are the occurrences that keep me going in the thrill of the hunt!]
I have always thought it a great idea to peruse through antique shows that one shows in...no matter what the quality of the merchandise might appear to be! After setting up at a show in June in Aurora, Ohio, I was walking through rather quickly, glancing at the offerings, and noticed a full length Edouart silhouette hanging next to a few others that looked English. I could not see it very well, and the price tag was resting on top of the frame. I asked the dealer to see it, and the price I saw was the lowest price I had ever seen for an Edouart. I said to myself, "My goodness, is it a photo?" The signature was right, the location Saratoga, dated 1840, and the background sure looked like a graphite drawing of Fort Ticonderoga! As my heart beat faster and faster, I asked the dealer if I could remove it from the frame. Lo and behold, it was a genuine cut and paste by the master! I didn't ask for a dealer's price! I could see some people out of the corner of my eye watching me as I discussed the piece with the dealer. He is a wonderful, older fellow, who has collected silhouettes since the 1940's...he even asked his wife if the price was right...she answered "Yes, that's the price you told me to put on it." Deal sealed, and off I went with my prize. I even felt a little guilty about such a great deal...but I got over it quite quickly! Many dealers followed me, asking if I wanted to sell...I told them all this was my find of this year, and they couldn't pry it away! It hangs proudly on my dining room wall, and I even found a bamboo cane identical to the one this gentleman is holding, and have it displayed nearby! Notice how his overcoat is blowing in the wind...the wind always blows from west to east, so the mountains across Lake Champlain are the Green Mountains of Vermont. These are the occurrences that keep me going in the thrill of the hunt!]
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Munchkin Silhouette - Inside of Donut
Bob, a faithful reader, sends us another piece:
“As always, have been enjoying the posts on your blog. Appreciate the kind comments of your annonymous contributor and would encourage them to participate.
I have attached some pictures of something I have acquired within the past few months. It really is an odd duck and frankly have to ask, is it real?
It is a cut and pasted silhouette done on what is now an almost cream colored paper (probably originally white) surrounded by a cut and pasted paper ring, all applied to a deep green colored background. Sometimes black shows up as green tinged in the photographes, but this is really a deep green color. The construction of the frame, as described below, precludes taking things apart. That both the silhouette and the surrounding ring are cut and applied is confirmed by careful examination with a raking light. The silhouette itself is 2 3/8 inches from the top of the head to the lowest "dip" on the bust line. The paper ring is 4 3/8 inches tall.
It is housed in a true diamond shaped moulded frame, not just a square turned on its end. The frame is just about 8 inches high by just over 6 1/2 inches wide. I am not the best at identifying woods, but it looks like cherry to me. It has a nice surface. It hangs by what appears to be the original original bent wire hanger that pierces the top point of the diamond. The glass is wonderfully crude. The photographes show the defects, bubbles etc. The silhouette is essentially sealed in the frame by a 1/4 inch thick piece of pine attached with small square brads. The photos make the back board look much lighter. It in fact has a wonderful oxidized color that really looks "right". When you stroke it with your fingers, you can feel the planning marks. I've included photographes to show the joinery.
On Ms. McClard's website, there is an example of a cut and pasted silhouette executed in white paper on a black ground. On your blog, see the entry of 1/28/09, including the male silhouette illustrated on the original Chapman handbill (was this a "stock" image used for all handbills of this type?). Also refer to the entry of 2/19/07. See what is called in this entry a "white shade" with an attribution (not sure if that's firm) to Chapman and once again, the male silhouette illustrated on the orginal Chapman handbill.
As always, look foward to hear what folks might think.
Bob (yes, that's my real name).
Bob (yes, that's my real name).
BMJ says:
First, I would like to thank Bob again for his wonderful contribution. Second, Bob asks, “Is it real”? Because it exists, I am sure it is “real.” It is three-dimensional and concrete, as far as I can tell. But I am sure Bob wants more than that. I will give it a shot.
I think what we have to consider first is how this package is constructed. Since I only have the photos, what I see is what I know. The portrait’s measurement is in tune. That is good. It is obviously a “leftover” center from a hollow-cut. I’ve had a number of them in the past. They are scarcer than the actual hollow-cuts, as most were just thrown away by the cutters. Some cutters, however, saved them for making albums. Bache is a perfect example.
This paper “ring” may have originated from the periphery of the actual hollow-cut. If that is the case, the actual hollow-cut became much smaller and took the exact shape of the inner cut of this “ring,” which is oval. Confirmation is possible by comparing the color, wove, and thickness of the ring and this leftover center. In order to do so, they must be removed from the frame.
I believe there are two glasses here, one plain and one blackened. The ring and the portrait appear as though they are set against the clear glass. This was then sandwiched with blackened glass. Diagonal, brush stroke lines of this glass have left an imprint on the portrait from the reverse. There are four very dark black areas surrounding the portrait. This may be due to one of the glasses being very slightly concave. The two glasses are actually touching each other on those four points.
If Bob were to remove the backing somehow, he may find the glasses taped around the borders. The type of tape used may determine the age of the construction. The blackened glass may not even be a glass at all. It may be cardboard or tin or something else. In order to date the construction, it needs to be disassembled. The portrait looks to be circa 1805.
One of our readers, Peggy, writes:
With regard to Bob's question about the Chapman handbill in your 1/28/08 blog entry, the small silhouettes at the top of the actual handbill are press printed as part of the handbill and the three silhouettes across the bottom are three separate silhouettes that a former collector framed with the handbill. The silhouettes are actual hollow cut silhouettes attributed to Chapman but don't have the stamped signature.
Bob also asked about the white silhouette on a black background on my website, and yes, that is what a lot of people call a donut-hole silhouette.
BMJ writes:
Was Peggy refering to Bob the BMJ or Bob the reader. At any rate, Bob the reader, just sent me an email and writes the following:
From Bob, the reader:
Thanks to Ms. McClard for her comment. Re-reading my posting, I didn't make clear I was referring to the printed silhouette motifs at the top of the Chapman hand bills. In the 2/19/07 posting, it was stated that the donut hole silhouette was identical to the one in the handbill.
By the way, went back and carefully reexamined my silhouette. I'm fearful of damaging things by any attempt to take it apart. It looks like it's been undisturbed for a very long time. However, carefully studying with bright light at different angles, with magnifier, etc., I feel pretty comfortable saying that the profile and the oval around it are from the same paper regarding color, texture. I think it's backed with a paper or cardboard painted what appears to be a deep green color. It's possible over the years the paper has become uneven, touching the glass in front and creating the darker spots?
By the way, went back and carefully reexamined my silhouette. I'm fearful of damaging things by any attempt to take it apart. It looks like it's been undisturbed for a very long time. However, carefully studying with bright light at different angles, with magnifier, etc., I feel pretty comfortable saying that the profile and the oval around it are from the same paper regarding color, texture. I think it's backed with a paper or cardboard painted what appears to be a deep green color. It's possible over the years the paper has become uneven, touching the glass in front and creating the darker spots?
Now Peggy follows and says that:
Oh, I see what reader Bob is asking. The white silhouette from the 2/19/07 entry does not belong to me, but comparing the figure with the man at the top of the handbill, I don't find them to be exact. The handbill man seems older, and a bit wider (middle aged spread?). The white silhouette has a separately cut strand of hair on the man's forehead while the handbill man seems to have more hair combed down to his forehead (not separately cut). The handbill man's hair is over the top of his collar with a bit of a flip back, not the white silhouette doesn't have that same long hair. Finally, the handbill man has a tie that would have been separately cut, but there is no tie end on the white silhouette. So, I don't see that the white silhouette is a stock silhouette...who knows about the handbill silhouette? It might have been stock so that Chapman did not have to put anyone's specific image on the handbills.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Say What?
Because this pair is currently being auctioned, in order to protect the seller, current bidders, and any potential bidders from (I really do not know what), I will not disclose any description or attribution made by the seller. The portraits, however, are being offered as rare, genuine 19th century examples.
I chose two photos out of twelve. Suffice to say, I believe these two photos will support my statement.
It is safe to assume the “original” portraits were painted circa 1825, judging from their attire. Is “this” pair from that time period? If I believed this pair to be period, I would not be writing about them. Most things, if not all, reflect light. Smooth and non-porous surfaces reflect more light than those that are not. This pair of portraits is quite reflective. The support (paper stock) resembles nothing like the period paper. These portraits would gave been painted on card or wove paper. Such support does not reflect light as these two portraits do. Note the glossiness and whiteness of the support.
The support is too clean. Whatever toning they have is rudimental. This is not to say that pristine examples do not exist; they do. However, even pristine examples show “age.” “Age” is not wear, tear, and abuse. They are defects, and they have nothing to do with “age.” Having been in contact with air, dust, and wood, just to name a few, for nearly 200 years, they should show age. These portraits must have found a fountain of youth.
Note the cute rubbed paint on the woman’s dress. It is so realistic I am impressed (being sarcastic). Of course, without actually seeing the two portraits in person I cannot possibly make a rightful judgment. However, if I were a potential bidder, my instinct would tell me to stay away from them, as they appear to be photographic images with a bit of improvement in the way of added texture. I am sure the two, original portraits exist somewhere.
Because this pair is currently being auctioned, in order to protect the seller, current bidders, and any potential bidders from (I really do not know what), I will not disclose any description or attribution made by the seller. The portraits, however, are being offered as rare, genuine 19th century examples.
I chose two photos out of twelve. Suffice to say, I believe these two photos will support my statement.
It is safe to assume the “original” portraits were painted circa 1825, judging from their attire. Is “this” pair from that time period? If I believed this pair to be period, I would not be writing about them. Most things, if not all, reflect light. Smooth and non-porous surfaces reflect more light than those that are not. This pair of portraits is quite reflective. The support (paper stock) resembles nothing like the period paper. These portraits would gave been painted on card or wove paper. Such support does not reflect light as these two portraits do. Note the glossiness and whiteness of the support.
The support is too clean. Whatever toning they have is rudimental. This is not to say that pristine examples do not exist; they do. However, even pristine examples show “age.” “Age” is not wear, tear, and abuse. They are defects, and they have nothing to do with “age.” Having been in contact with air, dust, and wood, just to name a few, for nearly 200 years, they should show age. These portraits must have found a fountain of youth.
Note the cute rubbed paint on the woman’s dress. It is so realistic I am impressed (being sarcastic). Of course, without actually seeing the two portraits in person I cannot possibly make a rightful judgment. However, if I were a potential bidder, my instinct would tell me to stay away from them, as they appear to be photographic images with a bit of improvement in the way of added texture. I am sure the two, original portraits exist somewhere.
9/25/09
One of our readers, Ed, writes:
Your write-up got the better part of my curiosity so I did some searching and I found it on Ebay. Was I allowed to say that? If not, feel free to edit that part. At any rate after looking at all the pictures of this lot, I believe you hit it right on the nose! They look nothing like what they supposedly represent. I’m no expert like you but I totally agree with what you said about them. The seller says that the papers were trimmed to fit the frame but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Why would someone trim the tops off to have them fit into oval frames with oval mats? I agree with you that the paper is glossy stock. The portraits appear to be a page out of some catalog. My guess is that the tops were trimmed off because there were some kind of typed in printing there.
By the way, I appreciate your blog. I learn so much from your site. Please keep up the great work!
From BMJ:
Thanks Ed for your comment. I am glad to hear that you are getting something out of this blog. If all of us can learn something new every day, that is 365 new stuff every year. I am not referring to silhouettes but things in general. Just a few weeks ago, I learned that not every Walmart Super Centers are alike. They come in mini and regular. I was so excited when our local Walmart expanded from Non-Super Center to Super Center. But this one is mini-Super Center. It just does not work for me. So, I drive an hour to get to the real, genuine Super Center. Just about everything I wear comes from that Super Center: shoes, underwear, socks, shirts, jeans etc. I am not quite ready to get into their “George” brand suits, yet. But if I ever need a set of suits, I know exactly where to go! I just do not understand why wife prefers Banana Republic. That’s junk!
Getting back to the subject, I wondered why anyone would trim the tops off those papers horizontally. Ed may have a point there. Usually, descriptive printings are below the images. But for someone to trim into that area, there must have been a good reason. I have no idea what was cut off, but something was indeed cut off. Because I am narrow-minded and can only see things one way, this type of comments really help. It adds flavor to my thinking processes. Thanks Ed!
Your write-up got the better part of my curiosity so I did some searching and I found it on Ebay. Was I allowed to say that? If not, feel free to edit that part. At any rate after looking at all the pictures of this lot, I believe you hit it right on the nose! They look nothing like what they supposedly represent. I’m no expert like you but I totally agree with what you said about them. The seller says that the papers were trimmed to fit the frame but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Why would someone trim the tops off to have them fit into oval frames with oval mats? I agree with you that the paper is glossy stock. The portraits appear to be a page out of some catalog. My guess is that the tops were trimmed off because there were some kind of typed in printing there.
By the way, I appreciate your blog. I learn so much from your site. Please keep up the great work!
From BMJ:
Thanks Ed for your comment. I am glad to hear that you are getting something out of this blog. If all of us can learn something new every day, that is 365 new stuff every year. I am not referring to silhouettes but things in general. Just a few weeks ago, I learned that not every Walmart Super Centers are alike. They come in mini and regular. I was so excited when our local Walmart expanded from Non-Super Center to Super Center. But this one is mini-Super Center. It just does not work for me. So, I drive an hour to get to the real, genuine Super Center. Just about everything I wear comes from that Super Center: shoes, underwear, socks, shirts, jeans etc. I am not quite ready to get into their “George” brand suits, yet. But if I ever need a set of suits, I know exactly where to go! I just do not understand why wife prefers Banana Republic. That’s junk!
Getting back to the subject, I wondered why anyone would trim the tops off those papers horizontally. Ed may have a point there. Usually, descriptive printings are below the images. But for someone to trim into that area, there must have been a good reason. I have no idea what was cut off, but something was indeed cut off. Because I am narrow-minded and can only see things one way, this type of comments really help. It adds flavor to my thinking processes. Thanks Ed!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
This is Silly!Someone paid $860 for this on eBay. If I saw this item at a show priced at $10, I would have just smiled and walked away. Can anyone explain to me why this is an $860 item?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
J. J. Boudier and His Profile – A New FindNot much is known about Boudier, a French artist, who emigrated to America in the 1790s. We know him only as J. J. Boudier (I guess we never knew J. J. Evans’s real name either on “Good Times,” TV show of the 70s). Ellen Miles gives the best account of Boudier (pp. 64-65) in her monumental work, “Saint-Memin and the Neoclassical Profile Portrait in America.” If anyone has any interest on Saint-Memin and his works, this reference work is the bible on the subject. The copy I own contains a signed letter by Miles (see photo). I covered the addressee, who, according to this letter, was a minor contributor of this book. As you can see, complimentary copy was not provided. Obviously, they did purchase a copy somewhere along the line, as this copy contains the letter and a single “tear sheet” Miles mentions.
How many of you have ever heard of Boudier before today? None, I bet. Miles writes, “Boudier’s work is very rare. Only three examples are known today, and they are all profiles….” One of his profiles is this trade card (see photo) that Miles illustrates, which is in the collection of AAS. This profile, along with the other two examples, is an engraving. Just as Memin did, most of what Boudier sold was a set: life-size profile, reduced engraved plate, and prints from the plate. However, he also sold miniature portraits.
Gilles-Louis Chrétien invented Physiognotrace in 1784-5. This French invention became very popular and others created similar workable machines. One, in particular, was by Saint-Memin, who emigrated to America in 1796. Hawkins device soon followed and was operational by 1802 at Peale Museum. However, Boudier's advertisement in 1796 of physiognotrace is the earliest documentation of its use in this country (Miles).
This circular portrait (see photo) in its brass-over-wood frame is likely by Boudier. It is circa 1795 based on the sitter’s attire, hairstyle, and frame. This portrait seems to have always been in this frame. The portrait is on laid paper with even toning, showing woodgrain impression from having been placed directly behind a wooden backboard. The frame measures 3 1/2 inches in diameter with an opening of 2 3/8 inches.
The portrait shows detailing in graphite and ink. The sitter’s tunic appears to be painted using two shades of diluted ink. This atypical use of ink may be what Boudier advertised as “special ink for making copies of letters” (see photo taken from Groce p.68). What is more amazing about this portrait is that the profile was created using physiognotrace, which fits perfectly with his advertisements of the 1790s, and pantograph to reduce the image into miniature size. This is a very early work using such a device. Channel/impression left by a pencil held by the device is clearly visible along the sitter’s profile. Interestingly, graphite marks become intermittent in areas, leaving uncolored areas within the channels, possibly suggesting the graphite he used was quite dry.
For whatever the reason, the sitter's ear was painted grayish-white. It is period. Although from the photos his ear seems to be very white, it is more subdued in person. At the time of its creation, the paper was white/off-white and the ear matched the surrounding tone.
Boudier’s use of diluted ink to color tunics continues into the early 19th century. This miniature portrait (see photo) also seems to be painted with shades of ink. In addition, it is signed “J. J. B.” The two attributes suggest this portrait to be the work of J. J. Boudier. It is from 2007 auction by Bonhams.
Although there are matching indicators as stated above for my attribution, it is, however, preliminary. Because this type of American profile, for that matter from any country, from the 18th century is quite rare, further study is needed. What we do know is that this type of profile originates in France. The French Revolution brings a flow of artists to this country who were familiar with the newly invented physiognotrace device.
Could this portrait be one of the so-called "founding-fathers"? He looks a bit like Alex Hamilton. When we think of duels, we often think of Hamilton vs Burr, which is perhaps the most famous one of them all. But did you know Alex's son, Phillip, also had a duel? He had one with one of my ancestors, good ol' George Ecker. This duel is scarcely known, however. George survived the duel; poor Phillip did not. I bet Alex and Phillip still curse and roam Weehawken. Weehawken, being in New Jersey, I don't blame them at all (please, no letter from New Jersians...I, too, once lived in Jersey, across from GW bridge and loved every bit of it).
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Wanna Participate in Writing Anyone?
The following came from one of our readers. It came to me as anonymous.
"I guess you could call me a quiet reader. Most people are. I read your blog often but have never participated. You could also call me a quiet collector. I collect silhouettes too. I have been a collector for about 5 years now. I own some basic books about them. What is so interesting about this blog is that I am able to find out information that are not in any books. I imagine that takes a lot of work on BMJ's part.
I also enjoyed discussion between Peggy and BMJ and I learned a lot about Brown's silhouettes last year. There was a lot of participation on that subject. I also enjoy reading one of your readers' (Bob's) comments about his recent finds. I thought about writing something about my silhouettes too but not being an able writer, I am a bit hesistant and would feel embarrassed. If I get enough courage I may so so. For now more power to all of you."
BMJ says:
I thank the writer for sharing his honest thoughts about this blog. By the way, when someone leaves a comment as "anonymous," that is exactly what it is. I guess Google may know something but not me. If you want you can call yourself Joseph or Mary or whatever. Nobody would know where the comment came from. You don't even have to provide your email address. So try one soon.
I am sure "Bob" will be happy to hear that you appreciate his writing. He calls himself Bob, but I know nothing about him. He seems to be finding some nice silhouettes out there. Sometimes I feel he should find them through me, LOL (this means "laugh at loud"). I learned this lingo some years ago from my daughter!
As for Peggy, if you already did not know, enjoys silhouettes like I do. She has a site that can be accessed through the above link. There are quite a few dealers out there who say they specialize in silhouettes. But that ain't so. When I look on their web sites, nothing there. Having one or two silhouettes every now and then is not a definition of a specialist.
Being an able writer or not has nothing to do with writing. Writing is not easy. Actually, I hate writing, always did. But I figured someone had to write about silhouettes, as there is almost nothing out there about American silhouettes. It is hard to believe but this blog contains more info on the subject than everything on the internet combined. That means there is basically nothing out there.
Make sure you come back to us. Write on whatever, whenever you feel comfy. Don't worry about spelling errors and the like. I make them all the time. Peggy tells me I can't even spell "Simmons" right. Or was it "Simons"? She got me all confused.
Feel free to use pseudo instead of anonymous, Ben Franklin did.
The following came from one of our readers. It came to me as anonymous.
"I guess you could call me a quiet reader. Most people are. I read your blog often but have never participated. You could also call me a quiet collector. I collect silhouettes too. I have been a collector for about 5 years now. I own some basic books about them. What is so interesting about this blog is that I am able to find out information that are not in any books. I imagine that takes a lot of work on BMJ's part.
I also enjoyed discussion between Peggy and BMJ and I learned a lot about Brown's silhouettes last year. There was a lot of participation on that subject. I also enjoy reading one of your readers' (Bob's) comments about his recent finds. I thought about writing something about my silhouettes too but not being an able writer, I am a bit hesistant and would feel embarrassed. If I get enough courage I may so so. For now more power to all of you."
BMJ says:
I thank the writer for sharing his honest thoughts about this blog. By the way, when someone leaves a comment as "anonymous," that is exactly what it is. I guess Google may know something but not me. If you want you can call yourself Joseph or Mary or whatever. Nobody would know where the comment came from. You don't even have to provide your email address. So try one soon.
I am sure "Bob" will be happy to hear that you appreciate his writing. He calls himself Bob, but I know nothing about him. He seems to be finding some nice silhouettes out there. Sometimes I feel he should find them through me, LOL (this means "laugh at loud"). I learned this lingo some years ago from my daughter!
As for Peggy, if you already did not know, enjoys silhouettes like I do. She has a site that can be accessed through the above link. There are quite a few dealers out there who say they specialize in silhouettes. But that ain't so. When I look on their web sites, nothing there. Having one or two silhouettes every now and then is not a definition of a specialist.
Being an able writer or not has nothing to do with writing. Writing is not easy. Actually, I hate writing, always did. But I figured someone had to write about silhouettes, as there is almost nothing out there about American silhouettes. It is hard to believe but this blog contains more info on the subject than everything on the internet combined. That means there is basically nothing out there.
Make sure you come back to us. Write on whatever, whenever you feel comfy. Don't worry about spelling errors and the like. I make them all the time. Peggy tells me I can't even spell "Simmons" right. Or was it "Simons"? She got me all confused.
Feel free to use pseudo instead of anonymous, Ben Franklin did.
Unique Joseph Wood Hollow-Cut SilhouetteJoseph Wood and John Wesley Jarvis cut silhouettes as young men when they formed a partnership in 1803. This is an important year for silhouettes, as many artists started their ventures that year. Whether an artist was accomplished or not made no difference, as everyone looked for an easy, quick profit. Silhouette-cutting became very popular from 1803-1810 or so. Small, cheaply produced items are not highly regarded and were often thrown away, given away, forgotten, or destroyed. Survival rate of fragile silhouettes is very low, especially if they were never framed.
There is no account of how many silhouettes Joseph Wood cut, but the number was likely quite large. He, likely, did not sign many of his silhouettes. That would explain why his works do not appear on the market. However, I did note a single cutting about 7-8 years ago that was embossed with his name, “WOOD.” It was offered on eBay but because of its high price tag, there was no taker. That silhouette has not appeared since and may have likely found a buyer.
The current example is only the second one I have ever seen. This silhouette is signed “Wood” below the bust in ink. Beneath it is a penciled name of “Mrs. Sally Worster.” Her name can also be spelled “Worcester.” Because she seems to be in her very early twenties, she was likely born sometime during the American Revolution. The hollow-cut is circa 1803 and generously embellished with ink. The hollow-cut measures 2 1/8 inches tall. There are several old closed repairs on verso. Someone must have really treasured this silhouette, as a small piece of paper loss to the left of the sitter’s head had been carefully “backed” by cutting and using a triangular section of paper. As a result, the color of the paper matches perfectly and is very presentable.
The frame is much later, a 1/6th plate ambrotype frame. It is split. Interestingly, the cover has an American flag with 35 stars. This flag was only used from 1863-1865, the height of the Civil War, when West Virginia became the 35th state.
Peggy Writes:
I have a pair of hollow cut “Wood” silhouettes with the impressed signature, although I’ve always been a bit suspicious of them (yes, I get burned too). I’ve not seen one with the written signature before yours and, basically, have no known Wood silhouettes to compare this one to. This is a lovely silhouette but I think it is a bit later than the circa 1803 you have ascribed to it. Although women wore neck ruffs on evening dresses in the decade of 1800-1810, the early ruffs were much lower on the neckline than this lady’s ruff. The high ruff that is painted on the silhouette and the small top knot of hair, pulled very high on the head and probably held with a small comb is more in keeping with the decade of 1810-1820. Groce’s Dictionary of Artists in America says that Wood continued working in NYC for 3 years after he and Jarvis broke up in 1810. He then moved to Phili until 1816 and, from there to DC where he stayed until his death in 1830. Although he had been once held in high esteem as a miniature painter, “Wood was later reduced to making drawings for patent applications.” Perhaps he returned to silhouette cutting as a way of making some quick and easy money later in life. ….or, maybe not.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Silhouette by Mary WayThis rare portrait is likely by Mary Way. The silhouette is constructed with different materials overlapping. If this silhouette did not have such a fancy frame, it would have been affordable. Current cost? I believe it was $3600 or so.
Monday, August 31, 2009
William King Silhouettes from Massachusetts
The following was submitted by Bob, one of our readers.
I did do some poking around in antique shops and at shows this summer. I thought I would share some of the silhouette related finds in the coming weeks.
I've attached pictures of a pair of silhouettes that to my eyes have been framed together for a very long time and, I believe, have always been so. They were found hanging forlornly
in one of the back room display cases of a shop on Massachusetts' N. Shore. The typical stock displayed in the shop is French polished European and geared more towards the decorator trade.
The silhouettes are images of a mature man and woman facing each other. They can gaze into each other's eyes! To my eyes, they are well cut from woven paper placed over silk. The sight size of the silhouettes framed together is 5 9/16 inches wide and 3 9/16 high. The condition is okay. There is some foxing, toning, staining as well as 2 splits in the man's silhouette. Frankly, when it's up on the wall, I really don't notice the defects much.
There is an area along the proper left margin of the man's silhouette which is overlapped by the women's when they are framed together. It is lighter in color and follows the shape of the proper right edge of the woman's. This is as one would expect if they had been together for a while. At the top and about 1/4 of the way down the area where both silhouettes overlap, there is a roughly symmetric faint stain, also sort of what I would expect if they have been together for a period of time.
What excited me was the finding that the silhouette of the man is stamped, "W KING". This shows most clearly in the scan of the silhouettes removed from the frame.
According to some of the sources I've consulted, King stamped his silhouettes either "KING" or "W KING". The bust of the woman is unsigned. I don't know if King always signed
his work. It could certainly be by a different hand, but looking at its companion and other examples of his work on line and in books, I believe the unsigned woman's silhouette may
have been done by him as well. What do you think?
The other thing that appealed to me is the rather unmolested crusty painted moulded pine square nailed frame with brass hanger. Unfortunately, the back board is replaced with later cardboard. The dimensions are about 6 5/8 inches long, just shy of 5 inches high. In all of the photographes I took, it appears black. In fact, it is painted windsor green, which is best seen on the outer edges of the frame, which has darkened with oxidation. I have seen this same phenomenon on old chairs and furniture. The original glass is wonderful, thin, very crude and actually has a slight bow to it. The "defects" in the scan of the framed silhouettes are actually all of the bubbles and defects in the glass.
I've attached pictures of a pair of silhouettes that to my eyes have been framed together for a very long time and, I believe, have always been so. They were found hanging forlornly
in one of the back room display cases of a shop on Massachusetts' N. Shore. The typical stock displayed in the shop is French polished European and geared more towards the decorator trade.
The silhouettes are images of a mature man and woman facing each other. They can gaze into each other's eyes! To my eyes, they are well cut from woven paper placed over silk. The sight size of the silhouettes framed together is 5 9/16 inches wide and 3 9/16 high. The condition is okay. There is some foxing, toning, staining as well as 2 splits in the man's silhouette. Frankly, when it's up on the wall, I really don't notice the defects much.
There is an area along the proper left margin of the man's silhouette which is overlapped by the women's when they are framed together. It is lighter in color and follows the shape of the proper right edge of the woman's. This is as one would expect if they had been together for a while. At the top and about 1/4 of the way down the area where both silhouettes overlap, there is a roughly symmetric faint stain, also sort of what I would expect if they have been together for a period of time.
What excited me was the finding that the silhouette of the man is stamped, "W KING". This shows most clearly in the scan of the silhouettes removed from the frame.
According to some of the sources I've consulted, King stamped his silhouettes either "KING" or "W KING". The bust of the woman is unsigned. I don't know if King always signed
his work. It could certainly be by a different hand, but looking at its companion and other examples of his work on line and in books, I believe the unsigned woman's silhouette may
have been done by him as well. What do you think?
The other thing that appealed to me is the rather unmolested crusty painted moulded pine square nailed frame with brass hanger. Unfortunately, the back board is replaced with later cardboard. The dimensions are about 6 5/8 inches long, just shy of 5 inches high. In all of the photographes I took, it appears black. In fact, it is painted windsor green, which is best seen on the outer edges of the frame, which has darkened with oxidation. I have seen this same phenomenon on old chairs and furniture. The original glass is wonderful, thin, very crude and actually has a slight bow to it. The "defects" in the scan of the framed silhouettes are actually all of the bubbles and defects in the glass.
Ed.'s Comment:
Bob’s male silhouette is very recognizable as King’s work even if it did not have the embossment. Because King cut only for a few years, he did not stylize his male sitters. Most of his sitters have that typical ribbon tie and the falling strip of hair on the forehead. As for his female sitters, he deviated slightly, but they all seem to have that pointy bust tip. This woman is also by King, no doubt. However, if I were to find it without the male figure, I would have hell of a time convincing someone that she is by King. For that reason, I would describe it as just another unattributed hollow-cut.
I don’t know if Bob and the readers own essential supplies needed for collecting silhouettes and miniatures. First, those two hairline tears must be closed using archival paper tape. I think I paid about $30 for a roll about ten years ago. Since it is used sparingly, I believe my roll will last me another ten years. That’s a great investment. Check your local art supply dealer. Because the paper is very thin and curls up, it is a bit tricky to use at first.
Second, you will need a very fine painting brush for dusting the silhouette paper. This brush is also essential for dusting ivory and watercolor portraits. Do not go on the cheap and buy a brush for two bucks. You need quality here. The one I use is a bit over an inch wide. Think I paid about $20-25? Dust the silhouette paper vertically, horizontally, and diagonally.
The glass needs to be washed clean with soap and warm water using a sponge. For rinsing, use hot water. Shake out the water and fan it dry. Do not touch the glass except on its edges. In addition, the channel where the glass sits on the frame needs to be dusted and cleaned. Once that is done, place the glass on the channel and set the silhouettes. Instead of silk, I prefer acid-free black paper for silhouette backing. Cut the paper so it would be the same size as the glass. By this time, everything is clean as a whistle. Why place a dirty, acidic wooden board for securing the back for finishing?
Bob’s silhouettes are not a double-silhouette. They are two singles. Perhaps he may want to consider placing a ribbon between the two silhouettes, similar to the “Family Record” framing, or use his good imagination to divide them somehow using a creation of his own.
I don’t know if Bob and the readers own essential supplies needed for collecting silhouettes and miniatures. First, those two hairline tears must be closed using archival paper tape. I think I paid about $30 for a roll about ten years ago. Since it is used sparingly, I believe my roll will last me another ten years. That’s a great investment. Check your local art supply dealer. Because the paper is very thin and curls up, it is a bit tricky to use at first.
Second, you will need a very fine painting brush for dusting the silhouette paper. This brush is also essential for dusting ivory and watercolor portraits. Do not go on the cheap and buy a brush for two bucks. You need quality here. The one I use is a bit over an inch wide. Think I paid about $20-25? Dust the silhouette paper vertically, horizontally, and diagonally.
The glass needs to be washed clean with soap and warm water using a sponge. For rinsing, use hot water. Shake out the water and fan it dry. Do not touch the glass except on its edges. In addition, the channel where the glass sits on the frame needs to be dusted and cleaned. Once that is done, place the glass on the channel and set the silhouettes. Instead of silk, I prefer acid-free black paper for silhouette backing. Cut the paper so it would be the same size as the glass. By this time, everything is clean as a whistle. Why place a dirty, acidic wooden board for securing the back for finishing?
Bob’s silhouettes are not a double-silhouette. They are two singles. Perhaps he may want to consider placing a ribbon between the two silhouettes, similar to the “Family Record” framing, or use his good imagination to divide them somehow using a creation of his own.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
(Fig.1)
Family Record Silhouettes
In 2002 publication of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, Section III, D. Brenton Simmons writes a well-researched paper on “Profiles and the Letterpress Artist Compositions” as a part of “New England Family Record Broadsides and Portraiture, and the Letterpress Artist of Connecticut.” Not only is this a refreshing study on this rare subject, it is also of importance as Simmons has a checklist of thirty-two examples of the so-called “Letterpress Artist” compositions (1828-1834) with description and ownership. The author, I believe, did a fine job enlightening us with this scarcely researched subject.
As with any writing or research project, it is difficult to impart on any subject matter clearly without proper research material on hand. Obviously, for those who have access to institutional libraries and collections have advantages over individuals who must rely on what is immediately available, which is often inadequate at best. Because of Simmons, we now have a workable foundation for additional research.
About ten years ago, I purchased my first “Family Record” silhouettes, which I quickly traded for other silhouettes I wanted for my collection. Not being interested in writing about silhouettes at that time, I kept no records of it, regrettably. Through good fortune, luck or just being persistent, I was able to obtain another such “Family Record” silhouettes recently. With this “Family Record” in hand, I will try, first, to explain its construction, followed by sharing my thoughts on how these silhouettes could have been marketed.
The frame is very typical of the circa 1830 period with mahogany veneer, measuring 9 1/2 x 11 1/2 inches (fig. 1). Simple wood dividers on the front and back separate the frame into two partitions. The partition where the silhouettes are kept has an opening of 3 1/4 x 7 13/16 inches. The larger partition below where the printed form is kept measures 6 x 7 13/16 inches. Separate glass covers each partition.
The original backing (fig. 2, 3) is cardboard measuring 1/8 inch thick with rag and woodchip inclusion. This type of board is very typical of the period and was often used as a support for oil painting. The cardboard for the silhouette partition that came with this frame seems to be a later replacement and is not considered a part of the frame’s original construction. When American silhouettes are found in their original state of preservation, the backing board is usually that of a thin spliced wood. For the backing of “Family Record,” however, a thick cardboard, such as this example, was essential. The reason for its use will become apparent when more construction method is revealed below.
Removing the replacement board from the silhouette partition reveals light-etched, black silk with images of two silhouettes (fig. 4). As with many other silhouettes, silk is used sparingly, just large enough to cover the hollow-cut. Because silk is not a stable support for old paper, it was replaced with acid-free black paper. Although the two silhouettes are “married,” they are cut from two individual papers and are not considered a “double-silhouette.” In order for silhouettes to meet the criteria as a “double,” they must be on a single paper, which is very rare. In the last twenty years, only two examples have been noted.
The half-inch silk ribbon that divides the two silhouettes is set against the glass. Although this particular silk is crème colored, Simmons writes they “were often, but not always, divided by a green silk ribbon.” The two silhouettes are placed over the ribbon backed with black silk. Because these five pieces (ribbon, silhouettes, black backing) are all individual pieces and not pasted down, firm backing was needed to keep them in place. Rigid cardboard was essential. I have since replaced it with styroboard with acid-free paper beneath it. The original cardboard and the silk are kept aside for future reference.
(Fig.4)
The silhouettes are very typical “Family Record” style with added watercolor details. Both silhouettes are confidently cut. The man, however, has closed tears (fig. 5). Archival paper tape has been placed on the reverse to secure the tears. From the type of tape used, it seems to be an old repair. When framed, the silhouette presents itself agreeably (fig. 6). Both silhouettes are well matched with even toning and no foxing. The woman measures 2 ¾ inches tall; the man shares the same measurement.
(Fig.6) 
Simmons illustrates four “Family Record” printings; all are of one type with a column as left and right border (fig. 7). Our printing differs considerably in design (fig. 8). In addition, although different typesets are used, the preprinted texts are in similar order. From this single specimen alone, it is not possible to determine which design was created first. The bottom border includes several interesting ornamentation: beehive, basket of flowers and fruits, harp. As this document was printed on a press, the reverse shows the impression of the typeset (fig. 9). This characteristic is crucial in determining a genuine document from photocopied reproduction. This document also shares similar toning with the silhouettes.
Family Record Silhouettes
In 2002 publication of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, Section III, D. Brenton Simmons writes a well-researched paper on “Profiles and the Letterpress Artist Compositions” as a part of “New England Family Record Broadsides and Portraiture, and the Letterpress Artist of Connecticut.” Not only is this a refreshing study on this rare subject, it is also of importance as Simmons has a checklist of thirty-two examples of the so-called “Letterpress Artist” compositions (1828-1834) with description and ownership. The author, I believe, did a fine job enlightening us with this scarcely researched subject.
As with any writing or research project, it is difficult to impart on any subject matter clearly without proper research material on hand. Obviously, for those who have access to institutional libraries and collections have advantages over individuals who must rely on what is immediately available, which is often inadequate at best. Because of Simmons, we now have a workable foundation for additional research.
About ten years ago, I purchased my first “Family Record” silhouettes, which I quickly traded for other silhouettes I wanted for my collection. Not being interested in writing about silhouettes at that time, I kept no records of it, regrettably. Through good fortune, luck or just being persistent, I was able to obtain another such “Family Record” silhouettes recently. With this “Family Record” in hand, I will try, first, to explain its construction, followed by sharing my thoughts on how these silhouettes could have been marketed.
The frame is very typical of the circa 1830 period with mahogany veneer, measuring 9 1/2 x 11 1/2 inches (fig. 1). Simple wood dividers on the front and back separate the frame into two partitions. The partition where the silhouettes are kept has an opening of 3 1/4 x 7 13/16 inches. The larger partition below where the printed form is kept measures 6 x 7 13/16 inches. Separate glass covers each partition.
(Fig.2)
The original backing (fig. 2, 3) is cardboard measuring 1/8 inch thick with rag and woodchip inclusion. This type of board is very typical of the period and was often used as a support for oil painting. The cardboard for the silhouette partition that came with this frame seems to be a later replacement and is not considered a part of the frame’s original construction. When American silhouettes are found in their original state of preservation, the backing board is usually that of a thin spliced wood. For the backing of “Family Record,” however, a thick cardboard, such as this example, was essential. The reason for its use will become apparent when more construction method is revealed below.
(Fig.3)
Removing the replacement board from the silhouette partition reveals light-etched, black silk with images of two silhouettes (fig. 4). As with many other silhouettes, silk is used sparingly, just large enough to cover the hollow-cut. Because silk is not a stable support for old paper, it was replaced with acid-free black paper. Although the two silhouettes are “married,” they are cut from two individual papers and are not considered a “double-silhouette.” In order for silhouettes to meet the criteria as a “double,” they must be on a single paper, which is very rare. In the last twenty years, only two examples have been noted.The half-inch silk ribbon that divides the two silhouettes is set against the glass. Although this particular silk is crème colored, Simmons writes they “were often, but not always, divided by a green silk ribbon.” The two silhouettes are placed over the ribbon backed with black silk. Because these five pieces (ribbon, silhouettes, black backing) are all individual pieces and not pasted down, firm backing was needed to keep them in place. Rigid cardboard was essential. I have since replaced it with styroboard with acid-free paper beneath it. The original cardboard and the silk are kept aside for future reference.
(Fig.4)
The silhouettes are very typical “Family Record” style with added watercolor details. Both silhouettes are confidently cut. The man, however, has closed tears (fig. 5). Archival paper tape has been placed on the reverse to secure the tears. From the type of tape used, it seems to be an old repair. When framed, the silhouette presents itself agreeably (fig. 6). Both silhouettes are well matched with even toning and no foxing. The woman measures 2 ¾ inches tall; the man shares the same measurement.(Fig.5)
(Fig.6) 
Simmons illustrates four “Family Record” printings; all are of one type with a column as left and right border (fig. 7). Our printing differs considerably in design (fig. 8). In addition, although different typesets are used, the preprinted texts are in similar order. From this single specimen alone, it is not possible to determine which design was created first. The bottom border includes several interesting ornamentation: beehive, basket of flowers and fruits, harp. As this document was printed on a press, the reverse shows the impression of the typeset (fig. 9). This characteristic is crucial in determining a genuine document from photocopied reproduction. This document also shares similar toning with the silhouettes.(Fig.7)
(Fig.8)
Simmons illustrates four examples in his work of which one of them shares almost exact similarities in design and cutting with my recent find. Designs of other three examples, also, indicate that the same artist cut all of these silhouettes. Simmons is cautious and does not attempt to attribute the artist due to lack of period advertisement about “Family Record” artist. He does bring forth, however, William Chamberlain as having “stylistic similarities” with the “Family Record” artist but quickly dismisses him as he “was otherwise (and elsewhere) engaged during the pertinent period in Connecticut, circa 1828 to 1834.” Simmons illustrates an interesting “geographical distribution of works attributed to the Letterpress Artist.” From this map, it becomes obvious that this unknown “distributor” worked mainly in Connecticut. The “distributor” likely traveled by horse and cart, navigating the water system when necessary.
Framed silhouettes of this type, which are indicative of Chamberlain and Banton’s works, are common in Maine and New Hampshire. Although a few examples are found in Massachusetts and Vermont on occasion, such finds are unusual. Silhouettes originating from Connecticut by any artist are quite rare. Why then are “Family Record” silhouettes found in such numbers only in Connecticut?
The hollow-cuts for “Family Record” are generic. They are not the actual profiles of those who purchased the framed sets. The preprinted document, itself, was also generic and was likely ordered from a printer in lots of perhaps fifty or one-hundred. Because there are at least two varieties of this document, the framed sets must have been a better seller than the distributor originally imagined and more prints were ordered.
Some documents have the names and dates written in ink, while others have been customized with printed types (fig. 7). Whether there was an additional charge for such made-to-order piece or offered as a service is uncertain; however, the distributor (s) had to have an access to a small press with several sets of simple types. Such a small “traveling” device was simple enough to construct.
As with the pre-printed document, and based on relation of the construction of the framed product to that of what is contained within, there is a strong indication the hollow-cuts were also likely to have been pre-cut in some quantity. The distribution area of “Family Record” is Connecticut, but distribution factor, alone, is not convincing enough evidence to support the origination of silhouettes. There is no indication that a silhouettist marketed this product. Samuel Banton worked exclusively in Maine, and whatever itinerancy period he spent was in Maine. William Chamberlain, on the other hand, worked in New Hampshire; however, his itinerancy took him to the edges of his bordering states of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine. Although Connecticut was not his domain, he may have had a strong tie with a peddler from that state. Another possibility is that this Yankee peddler may have even originated from New Hampshire, and whatever the reason, he chose Connecticut to peddle his wares.
(Fig.9)
10/3 BMJ says:
First, if I offended Mr. Simons by spelling his name with an insertion of an additional “m,” my apology to him. However, I make no apology to any reader for this inadvertency. This is an article about “Family Record” silhouettes, not about elementary school spelling “gotcha.”
Peggy’s inquiry on why I consider the silhouettes generic is much more interesting to me and, I am sure, to the readers as well. Every paper has an introduction, body, and conclusion. In order to start writing, we need to know how it is going to end. In other words, we work backwards. Because there is already a set conclusion in our minds, we base the body on that conclusion. Introduction is something or anything that is written to acquaint readers about the subject matter. I am sure everyone is following me so far. This is as simple as one, two, and three. Two follows one. Three follows two. What does “one” follow?
My conclusion:
William Chamberlain cut the silhouettes
Peddler sold the packaged deal
This conclusion was based on the “body” in which Simons says that Chamberlain was nowhere near Connecticut during those pertinent years. However, he also says that these silhouettes resemble Chamberlain’s works. My conclusion is partly based on those two statements. In other words, if Chamberlain cut the silhouettes, he had to cut them without seeing the potential buyers of the packaged deal. I believe a peddler carted around an album of silhouettes, where buyers were free to choose the design they liked.
How many people in the backwoods of Connecticut had such nice suits and dresses like those silhouettes in 1830? The profiles, too, represented the general make-up of white population, nobody in particular. If Peggy were to choose from among one-hundred silhouettes of generic female sitters, I am sure she would pick one that is attractive to her eyes as her representation. As for myself, I would also pick the best-looking dude from such an album. I have never seen an ugly man or a woman silhouette by Chamberlain. I don’t ever recall seeing senior citizens either. He had a way with his profiles: please everyone with perfection.
Your theory is interesting. However, after examining photocopies of the 89 hollow cut silhouettes in Chamberlain's duplicate book which was donated by his grand-daughter to the American Antiquarian Society, I find that we have no evidence that Chamberlain did any silhouette without his signature bust termination with a convex curve to the front of the bust-line coming up to a notch at the center of the bust-line then changing to a concave curve to the back of the bust termination. None of the women in the duplicate book had uncut collars and very few of the men were fully cut without the uncut and painted lapel and shirt front. While Chamberlain may have used other bust-lines, since he never signed or stamped his silhouettes and the only silhouettes we know with certainty are in the book at the AAS, we have no evidence that he used any other bustline. After years of attributing silhouettes to Chamberlain on the basis of Rifken's attribution on pages 50-51 of her book, I now respectfully disagree with her attribution. I have changed the attributions on the silhouettes I have in inventory and my collection as a result of the duplicate book.
BMJ’s comment on above. (10/4)
Concerning misspelling, I “played” with words for the fun of it. It adds spice. Nothing is taken personally. If I did, I could not have lasted four years writing this blog. Any time when someone leaves a comment, it is highly appreciated. In order to leave a comment, that person had to read my writing. After all, that is what this blog is all about…investigation and discussion. I start an issue and readers pursue further.
Although Rifken’s catalog is interesting, not because of writing contained therein, as they are merely descriptive, but because of attractive, glossy black-and-white photos, it served its purpose well when it was first published. Today, however, better photos are found on the internet, making Rifken’s work obsolete. If she were to write a revised edition today, I am sure she would make many changes and additions based on new information available today. Her attribution of a particular silhouette cutting to Chamberlain is understandable. For Peggy to dismiss it at this early stage of investigation, I believe, is premature.
Peggy bases her decision on a group of no-question Chamberlain album. However, these 89 silhouettes are a very tiny fraction of his total production. Studying such albums is helpful for first- stage analysis. She makes a good point that this album represents Chamberlain’s work. However, Carrick wrote about this album 80 years ago. She ended her discussion there and nothing else was written about Chamberlain until I opened a query several years ago. If Peggy decides to end this investigation now, nothing is accomplished. We need to set that album aside and forget about it for now. We need to move on to second-stage analysis.
For attribution purposes, we call those cuttings “Chamberlain” or “Chamberlain-like.” Because they are not signed, we only assume. “Chamberlain” is a generic attribution, similar to the use of the term “Xerox.” “Xerox” means photocopy, whether the machine we use is Toshiba or IBM matters none. For that reason, Peggy can still call those cuttings “Chamberlain.” We can relate to such attribution. Whether the bustline has smooth curves or acute corners, at this stage of investigation, matters little. In order to know more about Chamberlain, we need to more about Sam Banton.
Because the two cutters worked contemporaneously to each other with similar cutting techniques, instead of relying solely on their bustlines, we need to take a closer look at their original frames. Frames can tell us a lot. Distribution factor is another consideration. Moreover, I believe there are connection between Chamberlain, Banton, Puffy Sleeves and the like, and Printed Body silhouettes. Investigation has not ended; it has only been started.
(Fig.8)
Simmons illustrates four examples in his work of which one of them shares almost exact similarities in design and cutting with my recent find. Designs of other three examples, also, indicate that the same artist cut all of these silhouettes. Simmons is cautious and does not attempt to attribute the artist due to lack of period advertisement about “Family Record” artist. He does bring forth, however, William Chamberlain as having “stylistic similarities” with the “Family Record” artist but quickly dismisses him as he “was otherwise (and elsewhere) engaged during the pertinent period in Connecticut, circa 1828 to 1834.” Simmons illustrates an interesting “geographical distribution of works attributed to the Letterpress Artist.” From this map, it becomes obvious that this unknown “distributor” worked mainly in Connecticut. The “distributor” likely traveled by horse and cart, navigating the water system when necessary.
Framed silhouettes of this type, which are indicative of Chamberlain and Banton’s works, are common in Maine and New Hampshire. Although a few examples are found in Massachusetts and Vermont on occasion, such finds are unusual. Silhouettes originating from Connecticut by any artist are quite rare. Why then are “Family Record” silhouettes found in such numbers only in Connecticut?
The hollow-cuts for “Family Record” are generic. They are not the actual profiles of those who purchased the framed sets. The preprinted document, itself, was also generic and was likely ordered from a printer in lots of perhaps fifty or one-hundred. Because there are at least two varieties of this document, the framed sets must have been a better seller than the distributor originally imagined and more prints were ordered.
Some documents have the names and dates written in ink, while others have been customized with printed types (fig. 7). Whether there was an additional charge for such made-to-order piece or offered as a service is uncertain; however, the distributor (s) had to have an access to a small press with several sets of simple types. Such a small “traveling” device was simple enough to construct.
As with the pre-printed document, and based on relation of the construction of the framed product to that of what is contained within, there is a strong indication the hollow-cuts were also likely to have been pre-cut in some quantity. The distribution area of “Family Record” is Connecticut, but distribution factor, alone, is not convincing enough evidence to support the origination of silhouettes. There is no indication that a silhouettist marketed this product. Samuel Banton worked exclusively in Maine, and whatever itinerancy period he spent was in Maine. William Chamberlain, on the other hand, worked in New Hampshire; however, his itinerancy took him to the edges of his bordering states of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine. Although Connecticut was not his domain, he may have had a strong tie with a peddler from that state. Another possibility is that this Yankee peddler may have even originated from New Hampshire, and whatever the reason, he chose Connecticut to peddle his wares.
(Fig.9)
One of our readers, Jim, writes: I have followed your blog for about a year now. It is great to know that you are back writing more on the subject. This is a very informative piece by the way. Looking forward to reading a lot more!
BMJ says: Thanks for your comment Jim. Will try to come up with more new stuff on silhouettes soon.
The following comment is from Peggy, one of our readers. (10/3)
Thanks for the article about the Family Records! Could you please explain why you think that the silhouettes are generic and not of the people buying the family records. Brenton Simons' pictured examples all have different silhouettes, with differing bustlines. The example found in Rifken's book shows the same bustline in the men of one example of Simons' book and the women in those two frames (Rifken's and the example in Simons' article) show similar collars. While I agree that several artists may have purchased the Family Records and frames, I am interested in the reasoning behind your comment that the silhouettes are generic.
Also for those interested in reading Simons' article, it is found in the book "The Art of the Family: Genealogical Artifacts in New England" by D. Brenton Simons and Peter Benes. The book has great by different authors about different types of fok art and American decorative arts. I highly recommend it. P.S. You misspelled Brenton's last name...it's Simons, not Simmons.
10/3 BMJ says:
First, if I offended Mr. Simons by spelling his name with an insertion of an additional “m,” my apology to him. However, I make no apology to any reader for this inadvertency. This is an article about “Family Record” silhouettes, not about elementary school spelling “gotcha.”
Peggy’s inquiry on why I consider the silhouettes generic is much more interesting to me and, I am sure, to the readers as well. Every paper has an introduction, body, and conclusion. In order to start writing, we need to know how it is going to end. In other words, we work backwards. Because there is already a set conclusion in our minds, we base the body on that conclusion. Introduction is something or anything that is written to acquaint readers about the subject matter. I am sure everyone is following me so far. This is as simple as one, two, and three. Two follows one. Three follows two. What does “one” follow?
My conclusion:
William Chamberlain cut the silhouettes
Peddler sold the packaged deal
This conclusion was based on the “body” in which Simons says that Chamberlain was nowhere near Connecticut during those pertinent years. However, he also says that these silhouettes resemble Chamberlain’s works. My conclusion is partly based on those two statements. In other words, if Chamberlain cut the silhouettes, he had to cut them without seeing the potential buyers of the packaged deal. I believe a peddler carted around an album of silhouettes, where buyers were free to choose the design they liked.
How many people in the backwoods of Connecticut had such nice suits and dresses like those silhouettes in 1830? The profiles, too, represented the general make-up of white population, nobody in particular. If Peggy were to choose from among one-hundred silhouettes of generic female sitters, I am sure she would pick one that is attractive to her eyes as her representation. As for myself, I would also pick the best-looking dude from such an album. I have never seen an ugly man or a woman silhouette by Chamberlain. I don’t ever recall seeing senior citizens either. He had a way with his profiles: please everyone with perfection.
Peggy’s comment on above: (10/4
)Your theory is interesting. However, after examining photocopies of the 89 hollow cut silhouettes in Chamberlain's duplicate book which was donated by his grand-daughter to the American Antiquarian Society, I find that we have no evidence that Chamberlain did any silhouette without his signature bust termination with a convex curve to the front of the bust-line coming up to a notch at the center of the bust-line then changing to a concave curve to the back of the bust termination. None of the women in the duplicate book had uncut collars and very few of the men were fully cut without the uncut and painted lapel and shirt front. While Chamberlain may have used other bust-lines, since he never signed or stamped his silhouettes and the only silhouettes we know with certainty are in the book at the AAS, we have no evidence that he used any other bustline. After years of attributing silhouettes to Chamberlain on the basis of Rifken's attribution on pages 50-51 of her book, I now respectfully disagree with her attribution. I have changed the attributions on the silhouettes I have in inventory and my collection as a result of the duplicate book.
The only reason I mentioned the misspelling of Simons' name was in case readers wanted to do a search of his book which I highly recommend as part of a folk art library. I'm sure that Brenton is honored that you used his research as a starting point for your own.
BMJ’s comment on above. (10/4)
Concerning misspelling, I “played” with words for the fun of it. It adds spice. Nothing is taken personally. If I did, I could not have lasted four years writing this blog. Any time when someone leaves a comment, it is highly appreciated. In order to leave a comment, that person had to read my writing. After all, that is what this blog is all about…investigation and discussion. I start an issue and readers pursue further.
Although Rifken’s catalog is interesting, not because of writing contained therein, as they are merely descriptive, but because of attractive, glossy black-and-white photos, it served its purpose well when it was first published. Today, however, better photos are found on the internet, making Rifken’s work obsolete. If she were to write a revised edition today, I am sure she would make many changes and additions based on new information available today. Her attribution of a particular silhouette cutting to Chamberlain is understandable. For Peggy to dismiss it at this early stage of investigation, I believe, is premature.
Peggy bases her decision on a group of no-question Chamberlain album. However, these 89 silhouettes are a very tiny fraction of his total production. Studying such albums is helpful for first- stage analysis. She makes a good point that this album represents Chamberlain’s work. However, Carrick wrote about this album 80 years ago. She ended her discussion there and nothing else was written about Chamberlain until I opened a query several years ago. If Peggy decides to end this investigation now, nothing is accomplished. We need to set that album aside and forget about it for now. We need to move on to second-stage analysis.
For attribution purposes, we call those cuttings “Chamberlain” or “Chamberlain-like.” Because they are not signed, we only assume. “Chamberlain” is a generic attribution, similar to the use of the term “Xerox.” “Xerox” means photocopy, whether the machine we use is Toshiba or IBM matters none. For that reason, Peggy can still call those cuttings “Chamberlain.” We can relate to such attribution. Whether the bustline has smooth curves or acute corners, at this stage of investigation, matters little. In order to know more about Chamberlain, we need to more about Sam Banton.
Because the two cutters worked contemporaneously to each other with similar cutting techniques, instead of relying solely on their bustlines, we need to take a closer look at their original frames. Frames can tell us a lot. Distribution factor is another consideration. Moreover, I believe there are connection between Chamberlain, Banton, Puffy Sleeves and the like, and Printed Body silhouettes. Investigation has not ended; it has only been started.
Peggy follows (10/4PM)
So who is abandoning the investigation? Not me.... But my view is that one needs known examples from which to make attributions and I'm just saying that the AAS duplicate book contain the only known examples that we have. The brass spandrel and brass stamped oval frames that the Chamberlain-like silhouettes are found were used by many itinerant silhouettists. The family record frames were also probably made by a frame maker, specifically for these records and could have been sold to several itinerant artists. The diary of Everet Howard shows that he bought frames from different framers as he followed his itinerant travels.
The style of cutting men's silhouettes with an uncut lapel that is later painted with detail was also apparently used by several New England artists...including Chamberlain & Banton. I'm just unwilling to make artist attributions without known examples that share similarities and all of the known Chamberlain examples share the same bust-line which is different than the ones in the Family Record examples.
I own 3 silhouettes by the "Letterpress Artist", as Simons dubbed him/her. Two are women and one 10 year old boy. One was taken in 1829 and the other two in 1838. The young boy has the Chamberlain-like uncut label with painted detail....but a different bust termination. The two women have similar cutting to the bonnets but differing bustlines. I will try to get photos of them in the next few days and email them to you.
BMJ follows (10/4PM)
I wish I had all the answers. Playing devil’s advocate is productive at times as comments keep coming. It is a great mental exercise, to say the least.
I agree with Peggy that by knowing certain bustlines, we may be able to make attributions. The problem with this type of attribution is that we can only call them “attributed to.” It is not definitive. I own a unique embossed Banton silhouette. His bustline is the same with “Family Record” examples. In fact, many silhouettes have this bustline. I wish I could say they are by Banton. I could have easily said that “Family Record” artist is Banton and formed introduction and body tailored to Banton. It is no coincidence that Chamberlain and Banton share many similarities. They likely knew each other, or at the least, one of them was aware of how the other artist cut and then imitated his work. Who came first? Chamberlain or Banton?
Monday, August 10, 2009
Carrick's "Shades of Our Ancestors"
One of our readers, Gaye, sent us a link where anyone can read Carrick's book for free online. In this economy that is a good thing. I prefer cuddling in bed and reading a real book, however. Thanks Gaye!
http://books.google.com/books?id=F-trAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0
One of our readers, Gaye, sent us a link where anyone can read Carrick's book for free online. In this economy that is a good thing. I prefer cuddling in bed and reading a real book, however. Thanks Gaye!
http://books.google.com/books?id=F-trAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0
Monday, June 22, 2009
Nice Circa 1825 Silhouette
Because warm weather lasts only for a few months here in the snow country, writing about silhouettes is the last thing on my mind. There are a lot of antiques shows to attend. Also, we have a nice vegetable garden that needs attention. Last month we were in Hawaii visiting our son, and then just last week, daughter visited us for a week from Florida. So, there will not be many postings from me until the weather turns sour.
I thank Bob for the following posting. This is a very nice silhouette from Maine or New Hampshire. I also like the brass-over-wood frame. This type is generally attributed to Chamberlain. If Bob wants to keep it in his collection for a spell, he should replace the silk with acid-free black paper and place another acid-free board behind it. This board should be cut so that it fits snugly. That way, nailing is unnecessary. Remove the wooden backboard and silk for safekeeping. For regular wooden frames, placement of dustcover is highly recommended. With this type of frame, however, making a dustcover is moot. Because of the loose brass-shell fitting, dust will enter thru the nooks and crannies anyways. The worst enemy are the bugs. Once they check-in, they never check-out.
The silhouette is a viewer's left facing profile of a woman which is hollow cut with graphite embellishment and applied over black silk. It is well cut. The sight size (do you think I would remember to measure it BEFORE putting it all back together?) is about 2 1/4 inches wide, about 3 inches tall. It is unsigned.
The silhouette is housed in an oval pressed brass applied to wood frame with a ring for hanging at the top. The wood part of the frame is unpainted. The glass is wonderfully thin and crude and crudely cut as well. The little white spots in the image of the the silhouette in its frame are in fact the numerous little seed bubbles in the glass which were exaggerated by the scanner. The rather crude thin wood back board bears a graphite inscription that I can't really make out.
To my eyes, the entire package appears to be all original and of appropriate period materials, construction methods, etc. Overall condition is quite nice.
What especially appealed to me was the handling of the bust and the way frills of the collar are cut out, given an appearance that reminds me of the roof of a pagoda.
Anyhow, that's it. I've been spreading the word about your blog. I think there are a lot of collectors and dealers who could learn a lot if they participated."
Monday, April 20, 2009
Reverse Painted Glass Silhouette
The following email came from Bob:
As I begin to dip my toes into the silhouette pool, I come across things which I find interesting and which I enjoy sharing and discussing.
I recently reasonably acquired this silhouette of a gentleman. The silhouette itself is about 2 3/4 inches tall by 1 1/2 inches wide. Only the head is hollow cut and backed with silk which has the ghost of the cut out portion. The rest of the profile is painted including the details of the hair, the bow around his neck, etc in a dark grey, almost black. The details of his clothing are rendered not in paint, but what appears to be gum arabic. The details of the sitter's hair are also enhanced with gum arabic as well. Though oxidized, the "v" like profile of his vest, just inside the lapels of his coat, is rendered in what looks like gold or bronze paint. It has a crystallized, sparkly appearance. The place of origin is unknown. It is without a signature.
Overall, the cutting and the painted details are well done.
The silhoutte is housed in what appears to be a period frame with a black and gilt eglomise decorated glass. The simple moulded frame is black painted pine assembled with cut nails and appears never to have been apart. The front edge is scuffed. The frame's paint surface is dry and looks right. The glass is quite thin and shows the imperfections typical of that period. I believe that the decorated glass and the silhouette have always been together as suggested by the shadows which are evident. I also believe that the eglomise decoration is original and period, as the black is done with asphaltum, like the boarders on the tablets of clocks I collect, rather than opaque black paint. Having looked at lots of clock tablets, it just looks right. However, as you can see, the frame "cramps" the eglomise painting, which bothers me some. However, the glass is held in a rabbit in the frame and can't be removed, as if the frame were built around it. Doesn't prove originality, but it looks like its been together for most of it's life.
I couldn't find similar examples in my limited reference library or online. Gillespie used gum arabic, but my silhouette just doesn't look like the examples of his work I've found.
Wonder if you and others had any thoughts."
I recently reasonably acquired this silhouette of a gentleman. The silhouette itself is about 2 3/4 inches tall by 1 1/2 inches wide. Only the head is hollow cut and backed with silk which has the ghost of the cut out portion. The rest of the profile is painted including the details of the hair, the bow around his neck, etc in a dark grey, almost black. The details of his clothing are rendered not in paint, but what appears to be gum arabic. The details of the sitter's hair are also enhanced with gum arabic as well. Though oxidized, the "v" like profile of his vest, just inside the lapels of his coat, is rendered in what looks like gold or bronze paint. It has a crystallized, sparkly appearance. The place of origin is unknown. It is without a signature.
Overall, the cutting and the painted details are well done.
The silhoutte is housed in what appears to be a period frame with a black and gilt eglomise decorated glass. The simple moulded frame is black painted pine assembled with cut nails and appears never to have been apart. The front edge is scuffed. The frame's paint surface is dry and looks right. The glass is quite thin and shows the imperfections typical of that period. I believe that the decorated glass and the silhouette have always been together as suggested by the shadows which are evident. I also believe that the eglomise decoration is original and period, as the black is done with asphaltum, like the boarders on the tablets of clocks I collect, rather than opaque black paint. Having looked at lots of clock tablets, it just looks right. However, as you can see, the frame "cramps" the eglomise painting, which bothers me some. However, the glass is held in a rabbit in the frame and can't be removed, as if the frame were built around it. Doesn't prove originality, but it looks like its been together for most of it's life.
I couldn't find similar examples in my limited reference library or online. Gillespie used gum arabic, but my silhouette just doesn't look like the examples of his work I've found.
Wonder if you and others had any thoughts."
Editor’s Note:
That is a nice find. I have one that is quite similar to your silhouette. Although the bust is cutout rather than painted, the construction of the frame is a match. This glass, too, was inserted when the frame was joined, so it does not come apart. In addition, note the reverse painting. The design is very similar. I had attributed mine to Chamberlain. However, that does not necessary mean it is by him. Because your piece and mine share unquestionable similarities, they are likely by the same artist.Your silhouette has nothing to do with Gillespie. From the photos, the coloring of the sitter’s tunic appears to be gouache, but it could also be watercolor with gum Arabic added for better adhesion. Your package is very original throughout. You just need to be careful with that thin glass; I cracked mine!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Raphaelle (Raphael) Peale Silhouettes
How many silhouettes did Raphaelle cut? According to his Boston ad of September 1804, he cut 350, 000 silhouettes during his itinerancy of the Southern states. Let us do some simple calculation. Peale’s Museum installs the Hawkins device in December 1802. Who used this device? Anyone who came to the Museum was free to use it. It was a simple device to use, but cutting out the image was another matter. If Raphaelle assisted the visitors in any way, it would have been quite limited. There are no indications that he used this device during its early inception.
When did he start using it? Hawkins gives Raphaelle the right to use its patent and presents him with a duplicate device in the spring of 1803. Raphaelle starts his cutting tour in the summer of 1803. To keep things simple, let us say that he starts his tour on the first day of June. There are fifteen months between June 1803 and September 1804. We simply need to divide 350,000 by 15 to get the average for one month, which comes out to 23,333. That would give us the daily average of 777 silhouettes.
That number is very large. Was that puffery? It could be; however, he may have been referring to the “actual number” of silhouettes. He would have likely cut the silhouettes in double-pairs, folding the silhouette paper twice, producing four cuttings per sitter. That is the likely scenario, so we now have to divide 777 by 4. That would give us 194 sitters per day, every day, including the Sabbath for 450 consecutive days. Should we believe Raphaelle? Of course, that number is not impossible, but it verges on being impossible.
Raphaelle also mentions that he brought 10,000 silhouettes as samples of his work out of 350, 000 that he cut. I am sure he did not sit there and count his samples. He probably saved some for display purposes, numbering perhaps a few hundred pasted into a scrapbook and showed them to his potential customers. These “samples” must have been the inside of the “donut,” the cutting waste.
How many silhouettes did Raphaelle cut? According to his Boston ad of September 1804, he cut 350, 000 silhouettes during his itinerancy of the Southern states. Let us do some simple calculation. Peale’s Museum installs the Hawkins device in December 1802. Who used this device? Anyone who came to the Museum was free to use it. It was a simple device to use, but cutting out the image was another matter. If Raphaelle assisted the visitors in any way, it would have been quite limited. There are no indications that he used this device during its early inception.
When did he start using it? Hawkins gives Raphaelle the right to use its patent and presents him with a duplicate device in the spring of 1803. Raphaelle starts his cutting tour in the summer of 1803. To keep things simple, let us say that he starts his tour on the first day of June. There are fifteen months between June 1803 and September 1804. We simply need to divide 350,000 by 15 to get the average for one month, which comes out to 23,333. That would give us the daily average of 777 silhouettes.
That number is very large. Was that puffery? It could be; however, he may have been referring to the “actual number” of silhouettes. He would have likely cut the silhouettes in double-pairs, folding the silhouette paper twice, producing four cuttings per sitter. That is the likely scenario, so we now have to divide 777 by 4. That would give us 194 sitters per day, every day, including the Sabbath for 450 consecutive days. Should we believe Raphaelle? Of course, that number is not impossible, but it verges on being impossible.
Raphaelle also mentions that he brought 10,000 silhouettes as samples of his work out of 350, 000 that he cut. I am sure he did not sit there and count his samples. He probably saved some for display purposes, numbering perhaps a few hundred pasted into a scrapbook and showed them to his potential customers. These “samples” must have been the inside of the “donut,” the cutting waste.
Monday, April 6, 2009
William ChamberlainThe following email came from Bob.
Thought I would share some images of another "Chamberlainesque" silhouette which, for what it's worth, the sitter is identified on the backboard as Dr. William Barber. It has some features that I really liked.
It is a hollow-cut bust silhouette applied over black paper housed in a pressed brass applied to pine oval frame with a ring hanger. In my usual fashion, I've carefully taken it apart and it does appear to me to be a real silhouette in its original frame.
To my eyes, it is well cut and the ink (watercolor?) decoration is nicely done. I especially like the way the pattern of the sitter's vest is suggested by the use of serpentine lines with dots. Didn't do an exhaustive search, but couldn't find that treatment elsewhere. The other feature that appealed to me was Dr. Barber's ponytail tied with a ribbon.
I've included a scan of the backboard, which I believe to be original. Note the bottom 2 lines, which indicate:"Cutter Book/Pg 214.” What do you think this is reference to? It is my understanding that silhouettists sometimes cut duplicates of their work. Could this refer to a duplicate mounted in a book kept by the artist?
Continue to enjoy the web site.
Ed., Note:
This is an interesting silhouette, and it is likely by Chamberlain. The cutting has that “Captain Kirk” -like attributes (see my earlier notes on Chamberlain somewhere on the blog). Moreover, Chamberlain often used this outdated frame from time to time.
I don’t know who added the inscription or when it was done. Let us give it the benefit of doubt for now. I do not believe the sitter kept his “ponytail” into the 1820s or the 30s, the period of this silhouette. The silhouette was likely cut using an earlier image/profile of circa 1795-1800 as source material, when Barber was a younger man. This is an excellent example showing Chamberlain’s stock body as base for his works.
William Barber was born in Worcester, Mass. in 2/1/1767 and died 7/11/1852 in Mason, Hillsboro, NH. His wife was Rachel Cutter. The page number likely refers to a genealogical book on the name of Cutter.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
A Woman with Cell Phone in ca. 1840 Portrait Painting
She finishes her sewing and decides to read a few pages of poetry. Her cell phone rings. With stern voice, "I do believe you have the wrong number. Good day." Charles, her husband, enters the door, suspecting Charity of having another affair. She was at liberty to enjoy several such instances in her past, but Charles, being a good Mormon of eight wives, had forgiven her past sins. "Oh Charity, Charity, not again." "It was just a wrong number Charles." Charles leaves. Charity is sadened.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Miniature Portraits on Ivory Substitute
(This photo has nothing to do with silhouettes. I took this photo when Northwest Airlines had engine trouble upon departure last year, and I was laid-over. They, of course, paid for this hotel. Because I used to work in Hawaii with hotels, and the front desk clerks remembered me, I was upgraded to this room with ocean and Diamond Head view room.)
When I learned how to use the internet in 1997, it changed my life. Can you imagine discovering eBay back then? I no longer had to rely solely on shows, shops, and antique periodicals for buying. I had a tremendous amount of small antiques that I had collected over the years, as I always planned to open a shop. Although I had a coin shop in the 1980s, having an antiques store was my goal.
EBay, then, was much different from what it is today. I soon found out it was a seller’s dream. Everything sold very well and the commission was low. I sold everything I owned except my portrait collection within two years. There was no need to open a shop. Buying, too, was excellent. I am sure the readers may be asking how both selling and buying can be very good on eBay. The items I had sold for high prices; the items I bought, silhouettes and miniature portraits, were bought very reasonably. I guess I was lucky. There were only a few people looking to buy portraits then. Although silhouettes are very popular today, nobody really cared about them in the 1980s or the 90s for that matter. When I saw something I wanted, I would write the seller and have the seller end the auction. That type of buying was a common practice. The problem with this type of buying, however, is that there is no return privilege; one forfeits such privilege.
What does all this have to do with the title? Please remember that with any type of writing, there is introduction, a part that leads nowhere, followed by the body, where words and thinking go astray. The last part is the best, the conclusion, in which things get more confusing than the rest of the writing with nothing proven.
I bought a miniature portrait using the above “common practice” of the time. The painting looked very “ivory” just as the seller described within the frame under glass. Upon opening the back of the frame, I noticed the portrait was not on ivory but on a thin slice of what looked like plastic. At least that was what I thought then. The painting, along with its frame that looked perfectly married to this portrait, was clearly from the 1840s. Not having much experience, or I should say no experience with this type of material, I firmly believed I was “taken” by some sort of modern reproduction. I was furious! I saved the frame; it was circa 1840. I wanted to burn this painting so that its bad taste would vanish from my memory. I lit a match to it, but it would not burn, not like plastic or celluloid anyways. The portrait just sizzled with low emission of smoke. The odor was similar to that of burning hair, organic.
If readers were to search the internet on this topic, the chances of finding anything worthwhile are slim. There are a few specialized writings on ivory, bone, and their substitutes, mostly on their material composition, but that is about the extent on this subject. Not a single portrait collector or a dealer has much to say about ivory substitutes, except for a sentence or two on ivorine.
What is ivorine? It is an ivory substitute composed of non-organic materials (mostly), an early type of celluloid. According to some sites, it was invented in 1865. There are many late Victorian miniature portraits painted on this material, but that is not the subject of this paper. I am writing about another substitute that was used before the Civil War, in the 1840s and 50s, but then, I am not talking about those brittle, rubbery materials used for union cases either.
American miniature portraits painted in the 1840s and the 50s are usually painted on paper or card. This is not to say portraits on ivory do not exist; however, they are very scarce. On the other hand, although the number has declined somewhat, ivory paintings were still being made in Great Britain. The shape of ivory changes from oval to rectangular during the 1830s, and by the 1840s, many are rectangular. Sometime during the 1840s, I believe some artists in England used ivory substitute. Because photography was in vogue during the above period in America, most American artists switch their businesses from the art of painting to daguerreotyping. As a result, portrait paintings of the 1840s and the 50s on ivory substitute do not seem to exist.
What exactly is this ivory substitute? First, it is quite thin, much thinner than those ivory plates used for portraits. Second, it is flexible. Third, it is scraped and polished quite smooth. With magnification, scraping lines can be seen. Fourth, it is translucent. Fifth, red-hot needle does not penetrate. Sixth, it is difficult to burn and emits organic odor.
I am not quite sure how this substitute was produced. It may have been made by crushing bone, ivory, or other similar organic matter, then mixed with bonding agents, and rolled-out as sheets in desired thickness. As I mentioned earlier, I have seen this substitute only from those portraits made in the 1840s and the 1850s. Because of difficulty in dating these portraits to their exact years by the sitters’ attire, and that such dating is somewhat subjective, what I consider to be from the mid-1840s may actually be from the 1850s. I believe this ivory substitute was a precursor to “ivorine.”
Although we do not know the exact year Dunlap penned the following description of ivory, as he kept his notes for many years before publishing his work in 1836, it is of interest nevertheless.
“Ivory for miniature painters’ use may be purchased at most of the ivory turners or fancy stores, sawed in thin sheets. It should be selected for the closeness of its grain, mellowness of colour, transparency and freeness from changeable streaks. It is then prepared for use, by first scraping out the marks of the saw, if any appear, and afterwards grinding it with finely pulverized pumice and water on a glass slab until all polish is removed; it is then washed with clean water, perfectly free from the pumice, and left to drain itself dry; when dry it is attached to white card paper, by dots of gum on the corners, and is then ready for use.”
When I learned how to use the internet in 1997, it changed my life. Can you imagine discovering eBay back then? I no longer had to rely solely on shows, shops, and antique periodicals for buying. I had a tremendous amount of small antiques that I had collected over the years, as I always planned to open a shop. Although I had a coin shop in the 1980s, having an antiques store was my goal.
EBay, then, was much different from what it is today. I soon found out it was a seller’s dream. Everything sold very well and the commission was low. I sold everything I owned except my portrait collection within two years. There was no need to open a shop. Buying, too, was excellent. I am sure the readers may be asking how both selling and buying can be very good on eBay. The items I had sold for high prices; the items I bought, silhouettes and miniature portraits, were bought very reasonably. I guess I was lucky. There were only a few people looking to buy portraits then. Although silhouettes are very popular today, nobody really cared about them in the 1980s or the 90s for that matter. When I saw something I wanted, I would write the seller and have the seller end the auction. That type of buying was a common practice. The problem with this type of buying, however, is that there is no return privilege; one forfeits such privilege.
What does all this have to do with the title? Please remember that with any type of writing, there is introduction, a part that leads nowhere, followed by the body, where words and thinking go astray. The last part is the best, the conclusion, in which things get more confusing than the rest of the writing with nothing proven.
I bought a miniature portrait using the above “common practice” of the time. The painting looked very “ivory” just as the seller described within the frame under glass. Upon opening the back of the frame, I noticed the portrait was not on ivory but on a thin slice of what looked like plastic. At least that was what I thought then. The painting, along with its frame that looked perfectly married to this portrait, was clearly from the 1840s. Not having much experience, or I should say no experience with this type of material, I firmly believed I was “taken” by some sort of modern reproduction. I was furious! I saved the frame; it was circa 1840. I wanted to burn this painting so that its bad taste would vanish from my memory. I lit a match to it, but it would not burn, not like plastic or celluloid anyways. The portrait just sizzled with low emission of smoke. The odor was similar to that of burning hair, organic.
If readers were to search the internet on this topic, the chances of finding anything worthwhile are slim. There are a few specialized writings on ivory, bone, and their substitutes, mostly on their material composition, but that is about the extent on this subject. Not a single portrait collector or a dealer has much to say about ivory substitutes, except for a sentence or two on ivorine.
What is ivorine? It is an ivory substitute composed of non-organic materials (mostly), an early type of celluloid. According to some sites, it was invented in 1865. There are many late Victorian miniature portraits painted on this material, but that is not the subject of this paper. I am writing about another substitute that was used before the Civil War, in the 1840s and 50s, but then, I am not talking about those brittle, rubbery materials used for union cases either.
American miniature portraits painted in the 1840s and the 50s are usually painted on paper or card. This is not to say portraits on ivory do not exist; however, they are very scarce. On the other hand, although the number has declined somewhat, ivory paintings were still being made in Great Britain. The shape of ivory changes from oval to rectangular during the 1830s, and by the 1840s, many are rectangular. Sometime during the 1840s, I believe some artists in England used ivory substitute. Because photography was in vogue during the above period in America, most American artists switch their businesses from the art of painting to daguerreotyping. As a result, portrait paintings of the 1840s and the 50s on ivory substitute do not seem to exist.
What exactly is this ivory substitute? First, it is quite thin, much thinner than those ivory plates used for portraits. Second, it is flexible. Third, it is scraped and polished quite smooth. With magnification, scraping lines can be seen. Fourth, it is translucent. Fifth, red-hot needle does not penetrate. Sixth, it is difficult to burn and emits organic odor.
I am not quite sure how this substitute was produced. It may have been made by crushing bone, ivory, or other similar organic matter, then mixed with bonding agents, and rolled-out as sheets in desired thickness. As I mentioned earlier, I have seen this substitute only from those portraits made in the 1840s and the 1850s. Because of difficulty in dating these portraits to their exact years by the sitters’ attire, and that such dating is somewhat subjective, what I consider to be from the mid-1840s may actually be from the 1850s. I believe this ivory substitute was a precursor to “ivorine.”
Although we do not know the exact year Dunlap penned the following description of ivory, as he kept his notes for many years before publishing his work in 1836, it is of interest nevertheless.
“Ivory for miniature painters’ use may be purchased at most of the ivory turners or fancy stores, sawed in thin sheets. It should be selected for the closeness of its grain, mellowness of colour, transparency and freeness from changeable streaks. It is then prepared for use, by first scraping out the marks of the saw, if any appear, and afterwards grinding it with finely pulverized pumice and water on a glass slab until all polish is removed; it is then washed with clean water, perfectly free from the pumice, and left to drain itself dry; when dry it is attached to white card paper, by dots of gum on the corners, and is then ready for use.”
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Tough Economy?
I am out of money and very mad about it. I ordered a book from Carolina Bookshop,612 West Main Street, Locust, NC, 28097( Gordon Briscoe, Jr. owner) and paid thru paypal. After a full month goes by with five unanswered emails to the seller, paypal decides in my favor. Unfortunately, this book seller had already spent my money and there is not a red cent left in his account for paypal to issue a refund. I ordered a book thru www.choosebooks.com, which is just as guilty as the bookseller. There is no customer service there at all. My complaint went unanswered there as well. I probably bought over 500 books over the years on the internet; this is my first bad experience. Most booksellers are good people, except for this thief!
I am out of money and very mad about it. I ordered a book from Carolina Bookshop,612 West Main Street, Locust, NC, 28097( Gordon Briscoe, Jr. owner) and paid thru paypal. After a full month goes by with five unanswered emails to the seller, paypal decides in my favor. Unfortunately, this book seller had already spent my money and there is not a red cent left in his account for paypal to issue a refund. I ordered a book thru www.choosebooks.com, which is just as guilty as the bookseller. There is no customer service there at all. My complaint went unanswered there as well. I probably bought over 500 books over the years on the internet; this is my first bad experience. Most booksellers are good people, except for this thief!
Monday, March 16, 2009
Honeywell Grouping Brings $1500+
IGavel auction had an interesting lot of three Honeywell items recently, consisting of a silhouette, a broadside, and Lord's Prayer (see photos). This broadside is a difficult piece to value. Although it has ugly scotchtape marks and tears, her handbills are rare and do not come on the market. According to this broadside, Honeywell is a "native of New York" and not New Hampshire (read my paper "Born Without Arms" for more info).The silhouette is a typical work by Honeywell. Again, it has scotchtape stains, but because they are on the border they could be hidden with proper framing. The best piece, of course, is the Lord's Prayer in excellent condition. This is a real dandy. For a specialized collector, $1500+ may be considered a good buy.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Three Different Artists (One-for-All and All-for-One)
This Banton appeared on auction twice. Although the high bids were no peanuts, they failed to meet its reserve and went unsold. I spent countless hours enlarging, controlling exposure and colors, and cutting and pasting the photos the seller provided. In addition, I searched all over the internet and reference material I own for other works by Banton, and any similarity that it may have with other works of art. Maybe I should have just believed the signature, as the portrait does look period, but the problem was that it was just too good to be what it supposedly represented. I had to follow my gut feeling. I feel the same way about some of those colorful and fancy puffy sleeve works. One of these days, I am sure I will be able to come up with supporting information.
I illustrate two other portraits here that were very likely painted by this “Banton.” Can you identify the similarities? Yup, all three face observer’s left, but that ain’t it. Good try though; better try harder. They all have black faces. I’ll take that, for now, kinda. Same kinda shading? You’re getting warmer. They all have bad hair days? That’s interesting! Anything else??
We find this Maurier label from time to time. This label is pasted onto one of the above portraits. The label does not authenticate the work; it means nothing. In fact, some of the profiles that I have seen with this label were outright "bad." Do you buy labels, or do you buy profiles? If Maurier label turns you on, I can print one for you: 50 cents plus SASE.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Silhouettes of Founding Fathers
EBay is a great place to find rare collectibles of all sorts, even National Treasure. Currently, we are enticed with such rarities once again. Have you ever dreamed of acquiring a silhouette of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or George Washington? I have good news! All three Founding Fathers are available, all from the same seller. I am sure you will save on postage by combining the three lots.
First, let us start from old Benjy, as he is the oldest of the trio. This silhouette even has his brown-ink signature, and it is a fancy flourish. The signature shows strength, which accompanies his equally compelling profile. Without a doubt, he must have been suffering from acute gout; yet, he seems to be extremely focused. We all know that he was very fond of Philly, but he must have been quite fond of Boston, too. How else are we to explain the frame he chose? It is clearly by Foster Brothers of Boston.
Our second subject is none other than George Washington. He was a hardheaded man, unable to change tactics during battles. As a result, he lost more battles than he won. However, being stubborn, consequently, worked well for his army. Other than establishing the U.S. mint, I scarcely know what he accomplished during his presidency.
His silhouette is described by the seller as being a memorial. I guess that black ribbon tells the tale. Is that the same ribbon George wears on his profile? Those large ivory teeth must have been hurting George; his jaws are locked a bit too tight on this cutting. However, he placed himself in what appears to be a 19th century frame. Furthermore, he must have found a remnant of old laid paper. I think he should have quit while he was ahead. How many silhouettes have you seen cut on laid paper?
Finally, we have old Tom here. I love those boots he wears. I, too, used to wear something similar with bell-bottom jeans. In addition, I had a coat just like that. We used to call it “maxi.” He looks as though he just strolled out of local tavern. Perhaps too much diluted rum? The crème colored background paper is probably in better condition than how Tom was feeling that day. As with Benjy, Tom did not practice what he preached either.
EBay is a great place to find rare collectibles of all sorts, even National Treasure. Currently, we are enticed with such rarities once again. Have you ever dreamed of acquiring a silhouette of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or George Washington? I have good news! All three Founding Fathers are available, all from the same seller. I am sure you will save on postage by combining the three lots.
First, let us start from old Benjy, as he is the oldest of the trio. This silhouette even has his brown-ink signature, and it is a fancy flourish. The signature shows strength, which accompanies his equally compelling profile. Without a doubt, he must have been suffering from acute gout; yet, he seems to be extremely focused. We all know that he was very fond of Philly, but he must have been quite fond of Boston, too. How else are we to explain the frame he chose? It is clearly by Foster Brothers of Boston.
Our second subject is none other than George Washington. He was a hardheaded man, unable to change tactics during battles. As a result, he lost more battles than he won. However, being stubborn, consequently, worked well for his army. Other than establishing the U.S. mint, I scarcely know what he accomplished during his presidency.
His silhouette is described by the seller as being a memorial. I guess that black ribbon tells the tale. Is that the same ribbon George wears on his profile? Those large ivory teeth must have been hurting George; his jaws are locked a bit too tight on this cutting. However, he placed himself in what appears to be a 19th century frame. Furthermore, he must have found a remnant of old laid paper. I think he should have quit while he was ahead. How many silhouettes have you seen cut on laid paper?
Finally, we have old Tom here. I love those boots he wears. I, too, used to wear something similar with bell-bottom jeans. In addition, I had a coat just like that. We used to call it “maxi.” He looks as though he just strolled out of local tavern. Perhaps too much diluted rum? The crème colored background paper is probably in better condition than how Tom was feeling that day. As with Benjy, Tom did not practice what he preached either.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
19th Century Silhouette Paper
The following came from Sue, one of our readers.
"I am doing some research on the paper used by silhouettists in the 1840s. I have read Penley Knipes work on the subject. A silhouette has turned up that is claimed to be from he 1840s. It is of a man of full length. The black silhouette is glued on a heavy cardboard stock. A small edge of the silhouette shows that the back of the silhouette is white paper.
What seems out of character is that, when magnified with a 10x loupe, the black surface appears to have a very fine mesh pattern that looks like threads of cloth. Would you know whether the black paper, backed with white, used to cut full length silhouettes might be likely to have been made other than by coating a white piece of paper with some form of wax and black coloring?
As you may have deduced, if all black silhouettes, with a white back, are made from coated paper, a fine, thread-like pattern in the paper would almost certainly have been covered when the coating was applied. I am aware that black paper was available in the 1840s, having seen advertisements for such, but I have been able to find no advertisements for paper specifically made for silhouette cutting. That would be a paper with white on one side and black on the other."
Ed.'s Note: First, thanks for writing Sue. Second, photograps would have helped. I don't quite understand when you say, "A silhouette has turned up that is claimed to be from he 1840s." I don't know who is doing the claiming, but, obviously, you had a chance to examine this silhouette. The first thing we need to do is to establish its age. I am sure our readers would be interested in reading about this subject further.
Email from Peggy: Unfortunately, I have no good information or answers to Sue's inquiry. However, I would like a citation to the Penley Knipes work. If Sue can pass that along, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Peggy
Email from Sue: Thanks for the quick response. Since I do not own the silhouette I emailed you about, there is no chance I can get photos. I guess the best that I can hope for is that someone will have an idea as to whether paper used by silhouettist is the 1840s was made by coating white paper with a blacking substance... or whether there were other methods of producing black paper with a white backing.
Ed.s Note: Aside from Honeywell, what other American silhouettist worked in cut-and-paste, bust-length silhouettes? I guess we could include Hubard and Hankes, but they worked in British style. Perhaps there were two or three other artists, and I have owned a few of those unattributable cut-and-paste. Although none of them was signed, they were clearly American. Basically, that is where American cut-and-paste stops.
Of those that I have seen, the blackened paper seemed to have been coated with quite an array of black substance (I refer here only to pre-1840 bust length silhouettes.) Whether we talk about blackened paper or paper used for hollow-cuts, this subject, I believe, is a very important one. By knowing this subject well, we are able to distinguish genuine silhouettes from modern imitation made to fool collectors. Although there are other factors involved with authentication, this is a very good beginning.
As mentioned above, because of so many types of blackening, the early black paper was no doubt non-commercial and made by the artists themselves. Honeywell used thinned, tar-like substance. Others used thinned gouache paste and soot with tempera for adhesion. Some mixture also seem to contain silica (sand) for texture. Again, none of the above was made for commercial purposes. In the 1840s, however, everything was commercialized, even art and photography. This period was the early beginning of American industrial period. Some may argue that industrization did not take place until 1850 or even 1860. When steam ships sail, locomotives operate, and the US mint uses steam press to strike coins, that sounds like industrial operation to me.
By this time, blackened paper may have been commercially produced, not exclusively for silhouettes, but for other purposes. Although 1840s is a bit too early for using black paper for ambrotype backings (none was needed for dags), the texture Sue describes could have been produced by a printing press. Of course, by this time the paper would contain no rag pulp, so the texture cannot be from any rag content. Perhaps Sue was seeing not the texture of the blackening but the texture of paper itself. The coloring of the paper being uniform and very thin, the texture of the underside would likely appear on the surface. I wonder if the white side, or the reverse of this paper, would have a bit of glossy texture like those machine-made paper of the period often used for stampless letters. That type of paper look quite modern.
Aside from this little, basically useless self-talk on the subject, I cannot expand on the subject at the moment.
The following came from Sue, one of our readers.
"I am doing some research on the paper used by silhouettists in the 1840s. I have read Penley Knipes work on the subject. A silhouette has turned up that is claimed to be from he 1840s. It is of a man of full length. The black silhouette is glued on a heavy cardboard stock. A small edge of the silhouette shows that the back of the silhouette is white paper.
What seems out of character is that, when magnified with a 10x loupe, the black surface appears to have a very fine mesh pattern that looks like threads of cloth. Would you know whether the black paper, backed with white, used to cut full length silhouettes might be likely to have been made other than by coating a white piece of paper with some form of wax and black coloring?
As you may have deduced, if all black silhouettes, with a white back, are made from coated paper, a fine, thread-like pattern in the paper would almost certainly have been covered when the coating was applied. I am aware that black paper was available in the 1840s, having seen advertisements for such, but I have been able to find no advertisements for paper specifically made for silhouette cutting. That would be a paper with white on one side and black on the other."
Ed.'s Note: First, thanks for writing Sue. Second, photograps would have helped. I don't quite understand when you say, "A silhouette has turned up that is claimed to be from he 1840s." I don't know who is doing the claiming, but, obviously, you had a chance to examine this silhouette. The first thing we need to do is to establish its age. I am sure our readers would be interested in reading about this subject further.
Email from Peggy: Unfortunately, I have no good information or answers to Sue's inquiry. However, I would like a citation to the Penley Knipes work. If Sue can pass that along, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Peggy
Email from Sue: Thanks for the quick response. Since I do not own the silhouette I emailed you about, there is no chance I can get photos. I guess the best that I can hope for is that someone will have an idea as to whether paper used by silhouettist is the 1840s was made by coating white paper with a blacking substance... or whether there were other methods of producing black paper with a white backing.
Ed.s Note: Aside from Honeywell, what other American silhouettist worked in cut-and-paste, bust-length silhouettes? I guess we could include Hubard and Hankes, but they worked in British style. Perhaps there were two or three other artists, and I have owned a few of those unattributable cut-and-paste. Although none of them was signed, they were clearly American. Basically, that is where American cut-and-paste stops.
Of those that I have seen, the blackened paper seemed to have been coated with quite an array of black substance (I refer here only to pre-1840 bust length silhouettes.) Whether we talk about blackened paper or paper used for hollow-cuts, this subject, I believe, is a very important one. By knowing this subject well, we are able to distinguish genuine silhouettes from modern imitation made to fool collectors. Although there are other factors involved with authentication, this is a very good beginning.
As mentioned above, because of so many types of blackening, the early black paper was no doubt non-commercial and made by the artists themselves. Honeywell used thinned, tar-like substance. Others used thinned gouache paste and soot with tempera for adhesion. Some mixture also seem to contain silica (sand) for texture. Again, none of the above was made for commercial purposes. In the 1840s, however, everything was commercialized, even art and photography. This period was the early beginning of American industrial period. Some may argue that industrization did not take place until 1850 or even 1860. When steam ships sail, locomotives operate, and the US mint uses steam press to strike coins, that sounds like industrial operation to me.
By this time, blackened paper may have been commercially produced, not exclusively for silhouettes, but for other purposes. Although 1840s is a bit too early for using black paper for ambrotype backings (none was needed for dags), the texture Sue describes could have been produced by a printing press. Of course, by this time the paper would contain no rag pulp, so the texture cannot be from any rag content. Perhaps Sue was seeing not the texture of the blackening but the texture of paper itself. The coloring of the paper being uniform and very thin, the texture of the underside would likely appear on the surface. I wonder if the white side, or the reverse of this paper, would have a bit of glossy texture like those machine-made paper of the period often used for stampless letters. That type of paper look quite modern.
Aside from this little, basically useless self-talk on the subject, I cannot expand on the subject at the moment.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
American? British? Canadian?
The following came from one of our readers, Ron.
"I hope that you don't mind me writing you like this, but I was hoping that you might help me with determining whether this is a British or American or even, Canadian, silhouette. It was acquired from the estate of a descendant of Henry Birks, whose was a famous Montreal silversmith.
I believe that the first Birks in the family emigrated from London to Montreal circa 1830. That being said, there were some earlier items, clearly of Montreal origin, that were dated to the beginning of the 19th century in the estate that might have come down from some other member of the family. This painting is in a rather delapidated frame that is being held together with wire. It is made of wood with a veneer front. The silhouette is highlighted with yellow. The back of the frame has a name stenciled on it, but it is difficult to make out - I've attached a close-up photo of it. There is old newspaper stuck to the back of the frame, and it is definitely Canadian, from some of the text that appears on it. The newspaper might have been added later, or it might be contemporary to the silhouette.
There is a judge Taschereau mentioned, and there was a line of jurists named Taschereau from the 1830s on in Canada. I was hoping that something in the style of the silhouette would provide a clue as to origin. Any help would be appreciated and certainly, you are welcome to use the photos on your website or as you wish."
Ed.s Note:
Ron’s query is a simple one: Is it American, British, or Canadian? Generally, simple queries deserve simple answers. However, there are underlying obstacles when the queries are on the subject of antique silhouettes. Silhouettes tend to have their own travel itineraries, and although their mode of travel differs today than they did in the 19th century, their journey continues. As a result, a simple query can and do become much more of a complex issue.
For instance, what categorization would a child born abroad, say Peru, to American parents hold? Would that child be considered Peruvian? On the other hand, what categorization would a Peruvian child hold if the birth takes place here in the States? Of course, the legal system differs substantially between the two countries thus affecting naturalization laws as well. However, although there are no legal concerns with silhouettes, their proper labeling is still somewhat of a challenge.
Ron’s silhouette seems to be in its original frame, which is a typical 1830-40 period in design. This type of frame often has British association. Upon closer inspection of the photograph, the gilt liner that usually accompanies this type of frame does not seem like an actual liner at all. The rectangular, gold-colored inner border seems to be “painted” on the frame itself. This becomes clear by observing the horizontal checks at 3 o’clock position. Several checks or cracks run directly into the border of this painted liner, indicating the painted surfaces are a part of the frame itself. If this liner were of a separate construction, the cracks would not have penetrated. The separation of the four corners, alone, of this make-shift liner is not an indication of painted surfaces, as the liners, too, would have been constructed by joining four pieces of wood.
The reverse of the frame shows early repair-work with two corners of the top having some time of adhesive residue. The bottom two corners also show similar residual marks but with an addition of two sets of holes. Flat metal pieces may have been nailed to secure the frame together at one time. Although, as mentioned earlier, the frame is typical British in design, the construction itself along with a use of mahogany (?) veneer is atypical, and may indicate American origin.
As for the silhouette itself, my first impression was that it resembled those works by Master Hankes. A quick comparison with those silhouettes illustrated by Carrick confirms it, or at least there are enough similarities between the illustrations and the one owned by Ron. Because the stenciling on the back of the wooden board is worn, it is not possible to determine what the inscription says. This is quite an unusual place to label. Typically, such labeling appears on the back of the silhouette paper/card. Because there are no hard evidence, this work can only be attributed to Hankes.
According to Harper, Hankes did work in Montreal and travelled to other Canadian region as well during the period 1827-31. He may have visited Canada in other years too. This Hankes is not the same artist as Jarvis Hankes (see my write-up about them somewhere on the blog). Most silhouette collectors believe this Master Hankes was British; I do not.
Based on everything above, Ron’s silhouette may today be termed a “global” work. The silhouette is worked in British manner. The frame, too, is in the manner of British design, though likely made in America or Canada. The cut-and-paste work could have been finished somewhere in Canada by an artist with whom I believe to be an American.
The following email came from Robert (3/20) By the way, I, too, would have taken the frame apart to fix. Chips in veneer can also be fixed or made "eye-clean" by using wood filler and stained to match:
Some follow-up on the cut and pasted with gilt detail silhouette on the web site from 2/24/09.
I have since acquired the silhouette and just wanted to share some observations.
First of all, there is definitely stenciling on the back board which appears original to the frame. After staring at it, bright lighting it, etc, I believe I can make out the first word of the center line "Look[ing]" and less clearly I believe is "glass". I also believe the first word of the last line of stenciling is "Print". Was this the mark of the person who supplied the frame?. Often these craftsman supplied looking glasses, frames, and framed decorative prints. In addition, there is a graphite inscription on the backboard in florid script which looks like "Mrs Tho[rest illegible]"
The bevelled frame is veneered in old (nearly 1/16 of an inch thick!) rosewood on what does appear to be pine, similar to that seen in furniture, frames, clock cases of N. American manufacture. The gilt gesso inner liner is carved from and integral with the pine of the frame. I believe the outer edge is ebonized?
The frame was quite dilapidated. The wire wrapped around the perimeter to hold the frame members together was insufficient to the task and I believed put the silhouette and glass at risk for a mishap. It was decided to disassemble the frame, clean the joints of many years of accumulated old glue, and reassemble. It actually looks okay. During the disassembly, the broken remains and holes left by old square nails were found.
The undisturbed hanger was removed (okay, maybe I should have left it undisturbed), revealing the that the threading was somewhat crude, thick, and the tip was flat rather than a later gimlet point.
There are the remains of Canadian newspaper glued to the edges of the back. I found a date, September 1896, with mention of Toronto elsewhere. Also mentioned are various events including the planned unveiling of a monument in Chateauguay, parts of obituraries, the names of various people, etc. Based upon the relatively uniform oxidation of the back, I believe that the newspaper is a later addition made in attempt to seal the frame from dust.
Overall, it appears to be a genuine 19th century (1830? 1840?) N. American frame made in a British style.
The silhouette appears to have been in this frame for a very long time judging by the usual shadows and ghosts. The cut and pasted gilt highlighted black paper silhouette is mounted on card stock, the edges of which are gillded. It is unsigned.
Anyhow, with some TLC, it makes a nice "package".
Don't know if this info provides any further clues to the origins of the silhouette. My wild guess is Canadian with a Canadian made frame.
Monday, February 23, 2009
William Chamberlain?The following email came from Robert:
"I continue to enjoy your website. Learned a great deal about W.H. Brown from the responses to my earlier posting.
Found another silhouette locally which I'm hoping you and other folks might educate me about. It is a hollow-cut silhouette bust of a gentleman backed with black paper. Site size of the image is 4 inches by 3 inches. It is housed in what appears to be an original or at least period flat mahogany veneer on pine frame with brass loop hanger which it fits perfectly.
I refer to it as "Chamberlain-esque" as the head and shoulders are hollow cut. The collar and shirt front are uncut and part of the back ground paper. The hair and shirt front are detailed in graphite somewhat crudely, rather than in watercolor.
In examples of Chamberlain silhouettes I can find on line and in books, the men's heads are round with details of the hair added in watercolor. In my silhouette, the hair outline is cut (he sort of has a small pompadour) with further embellishment in graphite. Overall in reasonable shape with some staining, a small puncture near the right lower corner, and fly spotting (?). Judging by the fly spotting on the paper, it must have spent some time without the protection of the glass, though the current glass in the frame is thin and has ripples."
Ed.'s Note: When silhouettes are not signed, it is very difficult to identify their artists. It is, however, possible to pinpoint some artists by period, bust style and curve, quality of cutting, inking or penciling habits, etc. As for Robert's silhouette, it can only be called, borrowing his term, "Chamberlain-esque." Beside Banton and Chamberlain, I suspect there were one or two others who cut in this style, all with very similar working dates, ca. 1825-40. These artists all seemed to have worked only in rural New England, navigating the Connecticut River system and travelling the back roads of its valleys as true itinerants.
Although Chamberlain is known today only as a silhouettist, he may have also painted miniature portraits on paper as Bandon did. Furthermore, Banton, Chamberlain, and a few others who worked in this style may have painted large portraits in oil as well. As many of the large portraits painted during the second-quarter of the 19th century are not signed and are unattributed, there is a very good chance that some of those paintings are the works of one or more of these silhouettists.
Friday, February 13, 2009
More on Foster Brothers of Boston
Just found an interesting page from Smithsonian Archive of American Art called, "A Finding Aid to the Foster Brothers Records, 1875-1973 (bulk 1893-1942), in the Archives of American Art, by Catherine S. Gaines."
Gaines writes:
"Established by Stephen Bartlett Foster (1856-1932) and John Roy Foster (1863-1931), Foster Brothers opened in 1893 at 164 Boylston Street, Boston. By 1896, Foster Brothers had moved to 3 Park Square, just around the corner from its first location. Eventually, the business relocated to 4 Park Square, where it stayed for the remainder of its existence. The original Foster Brothers factory was housed in the old Parkmans Market building on Cambridge Street in Boston. In 1918, the Fosters built a new factory in Arlington, the suburb in which the brothers lived.
Foster Brothers was known for high quality frames that featured expert carving and gilding by fine craftsmen, consistent with the esthetic and philosophy of the Arts and Crafts movement of the time. Their frames that incorporated elements of early Dutch frames especially appealed to Boston School artists such as Edmund Tarbell and William MacGregor Paxton. Custom orders were welcomed from museums, galleries, collectors, and artists. In the 1890s, Foster Brothers operated a small gallery that featured watercolors and sketches by local artists; sporadic exhibitions continued throughout the 1930s. Early business cards and advertisements indicate that the company sold "wedding presents, etchings, engravings, water colors and picture frames." Among its best selling merchandise were mirrors in a wide variety of styles. As early as 1898, Foster Brothers began to copyright and publish reproductions of paintings, drawings, silhouettes, and miniatures. These were framed in sets and sold by Foster Brothers in its retail shop and by mail order; in addition, they were distributed through department stores, furniture stores, gift shops, and interior decorators.
John Roy Foster was in charge of promotion and merchandising, designing the retail line, and managing the companys wholesale and mail order businesses. Stephen Bartlett Foster managed the factory and oversaw all aspects of the manufacturing. Helen J. Foster, Johns daughter, studied art at Smith College and by the late 1920s was a successful manager and saleswoman in the retail store. The Depression brought a sharp decline in sales. After the deaths of John and Stephen Foster, Helen and her husband, Shattuck Osborne, owned and managed Foster Brothers for another decade. Although the business closed in 1942, Foster Brothers frames continue to command high prices and are highly prized and sought after today."
I disagree about their frames being "highly prized." The wooden silhouette frames that I have seen over the years are only slightly better in quality than those frames made in China sold at dollar shops. Of course, this is only my opinion.
For further reading, this is the link to their site. It is quite interesting. http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/findingaids/fostbrot.htm
Just found an interesting page from Smithsonian Archive of American Art called, "A Finding Aid to the Foster Brothers Records, 1875-1973 (bulk 1893-1942), in the Archives of American Art, by Catherine S. Gaines."
Gaines writes:
"Established by Stephen Bartlett Foster (1856-1932) and John Roy Foster (1863-1931), Foster Brothers opened in 1893 at 164 Boylston Street, Boston. By 1896, Foster Brothers had moved to 3 Park Square, just around the corner from its first location. Eventually, the business relocated to 4 Park Square, where it stayed for the remainder of its existence. The original Foster Brothers factory was housed in the old Parkmans Market building on Cambridge Street in Boston. In 1918, the Fosters built a new factory in Arlington, the suburb in which the brothers lived.
Foster Brothers was known for high quality frames that featured expert carving and gilding by fine craftsmen, consistent with the esthetic and philosophy of the Arts and Crafts movement of the time. Their frames that incorporated elements of early Dutch frames especially appealed to Boston School artists such as Edmund Tarbell and William MacGregor Paxton. Custom orders were welcomed from museums, galleries, collectors, and artists. In the 1890s, Foster Brothers operated a small gallery that featured watercolors and sketches by local artists; sporadic exhibitions continued throughout the 1930s. Early business cards and advertisements indicate that the company sold "wedding presents, etchings, engravings, water colors and picture frames." Among its best selling merchandise were mirrors in a wide variety of styles. As early as 1898, Foster Brothers began to copyright and publish reproductions of paintings, drawings, silhouettes, and miniatures. These were framed in sets and sold by Foster Brothers in its retail shop and by mail order; in addition, they were distributed through department stores, furniture stores, gift shops, and interior decorators.
John Roy Foster was in charge of promotion and merchandising, designing the retail line, and managing the companys wholesale and mail order businesses. Stephen Bartlett Foster managed the factory and oversaw all aspects of the manufacturing. Helen J. Foster, Johns daughter, studied art at Smith College and by the late 1920s was a successful manager and saleswoman in the retail store. The Depression brought a sharp decline in sales. After the deaths of John and Stephen Foster, Helen and her husband, Shattuck Osborne, owned and managed Foster Brothers for another decade. Although the business closed in 1942, Foster Brothers frames continue to command high prices and are highly prized and sought after today."
I disagree about their frames being "highly prized." The wooden silhouette frames that I have seen over the years are only slightly better in quality than those frames made in China sold at dollar shops. Of course, this is only my opinion.
For further reading, this is the link to their site. It is quite interesting. http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/findingaids/fostbrot.htm
Thursday, February 12, 2009
More on William Henry BrownJust got a new comment from Peggy on this continuing subject. She writes:
"At the risk of running this Brown discussion into the ground....the signature for litho for the man with the hat (Neal auction 12/08) is in the rock in the lower left corner. I have another man on the same litho. It was signed on the original, not hand-signed on the litho. You really have to look for the signature…it is fairly well camouflaged. I have owned two Browns without lithos, similar in style and signatures to Jane's two silhouettes. A young girl named Helen Chambers and a man, Edward Robert Harrison. Both are signed "Brown" (no “W.H.”) and undated.
By the way, I get the feeling I insulted Robert in my first discussion about his silhouette and the Neal silhouette. I certainly did not intend to do so and apologize if I did. Perhaps referring to the “quality” of the cutting was not the best choice of words. I think the quality of Robert’s silhouette is very good. What I meant is that Brown tended to add flourishes to his work, like the seated woman’s braids and the basket of flowers (Neal silhouette), the collar on the back of the standing woman in Jane’s silhouette, the top hat held in the hand of Edward Robert Harrison as well as his cane. Robert’s woman is holding a fan, which is an interesting flourish. But, it doesn’t seem like a Brown flourish to me. I am sorry that I did not explain myself very well the first time."
Sunday, February 8, 2009
More on Brown!
It is getting difficult to keep up with all the feedbacks I am getting on the subject, but if you, the readers, are enjoying, that is what counts. Jane sent me the above photos and says:
"Attached are the photos of my pair of W.H. Brown silhouettes. They are Mr. and Mrs. William J. Florence, and they were taken in the Boston Athenaeum in 1847. They measure 10 3/4"h x 7 1/2"w. They are in their original gold leaf frames, which are quite worn."
"They are the best I've ever seen, and it is rare to have a pair! I have not done the genealogy as of yet...I've had them for about 6 years...ah well...when time permits! They may have been on vacation in Boston, which will make it more difficult."
Robert responds
: "Jane's wonderful pair of silhouttes are dated 1847, 11 years after the date of creation of my silhouette as stated in the note on the back. If I recall correctly, Brown's Portrait Gallery was published in Hartford, CT in 1846. I wonder if he more consistently signed and dated his later silhouettes as part of the promotion of this effort, or that's my theory."Saturday, February 7, 2009
William Henry Brown Cont. (see below for original post)Note: Email from Robert. He attaches three silhouettes from the auction with comments and says, "Found on line the silhouettes referred to in the response to my posting. They were sold by the Neal Auction Co., 12/08. All are full length silhouettes. I assume that the figures are cut and pasted to the background?"
On this conversation piece he writes, "Lot 854 is an unsigned Brown attributed silhouette family grouping on a lithographed background which is virtually identical to mine. Given whom I believe "Peggy" to be, I must be deferential. However, I actually like the quality of the figure on my silhouette more. It sold for $1347.50."
On the military man he writes, "Lot 855 is an unsiged Brown attributed full length silhouette of a man in full uniform with a sword at his side. It has a rudimentary free hand background. Once again I'm the amateur, but he sure doesn't look American to me. The frame bears the label of a Liverpool frame maker. Seems like someone was making an extremely optimistic attribution. No price listed, assume didn't sell."
On the military man he writes, "Lot 855 is an unsiged Brown attributed full length silhouette of a man in full uniform with a sword at his side. It has a rudimentary free hand background. Once again I'm the amateur, but he sure doesn't look American to me. The frame bears the label of a Liverpool frame maker. Seems like someone was making an extremely optimistic attribution. No price listed, assume didn't sell."
On the man with hat, "Finally, lot 855A bears the signature of Brown in the lower left. The silhouette is mounted on a lithographed background. It sold for $1175.00."
"Another request to take a look at the figure in Carrick between pages 154-5, "A young lady from Gloucester", and compare the handling of the figure to that in my silhouette."
"Another request to take a look at the figure in Carrick between pages 154-5, "A young lady from Gloucester", and compare the handling of the figure to that in my silhouette."
Jane's response to these silhouettes: "On the "man with the hat", I can't see a signature at all! I zoomed in as far as I could...to no avail. The young man with the gold highlights looks like a "attributable" Master Hubbard, and may be English. The family silhouette is American, with the tomb of Washington picture on the wall, but I'm doubtful that it is a Brown, again, because there is no signature. It could be a Metford, but he usually signed his work too! The owner needs to take it out of the frame to check to see if there is a signature on the back, or is that the one he reframed? The background does not look like Kellogg's work, either. I don't believe it is an Edouart...again, he signed most of his work. There are many fake Edouart silhouettes, where the signature has been faked.
The mystery continues..."
William Bache's Scrapbook
Just found this on National Portrait Gallery blog. I would love to go through this scrapbook for sure! NPG writes:
"In the 1920s, Alice Van Leer Carrick, the pioneering authority on American silhouettes, came upon an album kept by William Bache (1771–1845) as a record of his work and expressed her delight in “turning the pages of this century-old treasure-trove of nearly two thousand shadow portraits.”
There she found images of Chancellor George Wythe, President Thomas Jefferson, and Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, as well as “hundreds of other profiles of everyday people, less well-known, but equally well cut; all of them vivid and interesting.” This duplicate book of 1,846 images, which had long remained in the hands of Bache descendants, came to the attention of the National Portrait Gallery’s Curator of Prints and Drawings Wendy Wick Reaves and was acquired in 2001."
Monday, February 2, 2009
Inquiry from a ReaderThe following email came to me yesterday from Robert M. If any of the readers have answers, let me know. He writes:
Hi,
I have recently discovered your wonderful and informative web site and was hoping I might get your opinion on a full-length silhouette with a possibly identified subject I have acquired, which I believe may be the work of the peripatetic William Henry Brown.
All references I make to plates and page numbers refer to the 1968 Tuttle edition of Alice Van Leer Carrick's book, A History of American Silhouettes; A Collectors Guide-1790-1840.
The silhouette was acquired in a period beveled mahogany veneer on pine square nailed frame. Because the frame was in rather poor condition, I have "transplanted" the silhouette into a virtually identical period frame with its old glass, while storing the other. I have reused the backboard from the frame in which the silhouette was acquired due to the note pasted to it, which is transcribed below.
It is a full-length cut and pasted silhouette of a woman holding a fan applied to a "stock" lithographed background. Streaks of ink or black water color on the floor behind her suggest shadow. The figure's details are highlighted (now faintly) in "Chinese white" (?). Sight size of the entire image is 13 3/4 inches high by 9 3/4 inches wide. No form of signature was found.
The figure is well rendered. I believe the handling of the figure is quite similar to that of the full length silhouette in the plate between pages 154-4, "Brown's silhouette of a young lady from Gloucester." Note the handling of the hair, neck line, bust, hands, waist line, etc. In the instance of my silhouette, she holds a fan. The young lady from Gloucester holds a parasol.
The lithographed background depicts, moving from the viewer's right to left, the border of a Gothic revival mantel upon which a decorated vase of blossoms rests and above which there is a large ornately framed mirror, and in front of which is a scroll decorated hearth rug. Above the subject's head is represented an ornately framed picture depicting Mount Vernon and Washington's Tomb. She stands on what was probably meant to represent a then fashionable floral pattern ingrain carpet. She appears to gaze out of a draped window with vines. A cityscape in the distance appears to be Washington, DC with the US Capital in the distance? A publisher's mark was not found. The lithograph is mounted on a card stock, which I believe to be of the period. I collect antique American clocks, and it looked to me like the type of card stock used behind mirrors in clock doors of the 1830's and '40's.
The plate between pages 160 - 161 illustrates a family group by Brown on virtually the same stock background. Carrick states that Brown used stock lithographed backgrounds, possibly printed by Kellogg.
There is a later note on the backboard written in script with an old fountain pen dated "Worcester/July 1947":
"This picture is one taken in 1836 and is a portrait of Flarilla Russell who was later married to Jacob Hatch of Harmony, Me. His son, Chas J Hatch later became the owner of this picture, and now I, the widow of said Chas J. want the daughter of my son, Stanley H Hatch, (her name is Sally Ann Hatch) to have this picture with my love and good-will. Blanche Arnold Hatch."
Born in Charleston, SC, Carrick reports Brown travelled throughout the east, including New England. It is known that he was in Salem, MA in 1832.
I have attached some pictures. Curious to learn what you think.
I have recently discovered your wonderful and informative web site and was hoping I might get your opinion on a full-length silhouette with a possibly identified subject I have acquired, which I believe may be the work of the peripatetic William Henry Brown.
All references I make to plates and page numbers refer to the 1968 Tuttle edition of Alice Van Leer Carrick's book, A History of American Silhouettes; A Collectors Guide-1790-1840.
The silhouette was acquired in a period beveled mahogany veneer on pine square nailed frame. Because the frame was in rather poor condition, I have "transplanted" the silhouette into a virtually identical period frame with its old glass, while storing the other. I have reused the backboard from the frame in which the silhouette was acquired due to the note pasted to it, which is transcribed below.
It is a full-length cut and pasted silhouette of a woman holding a fan applied to a "stock" lithographed background. Streaks of ink or black water color on the floor behind her suggest shadow. The figure's details are highlighted (now faintly) in "Chinese white" (?). Sight size of the entire image is 13 3/4 inches high by 9 3/4 inches wide. No form of signature was found.
The figure is well rendered. I believe the handling of the figure is quite similar to that of the full length silhouette in the plate between pages 154-4, "Brown's silhouette of a young lady from Gloucester." Note the handling of the hair, neck line, bust, hands, waist line, etc. In the instance of my silhouette, she holds a fan. The young lady from Gloucester holds a parasol.
The lithographed background depicts, moving from the viewer's right to left, the border of a Gothic revival mantel upon which a decorated vase of blossoms rests and above which there is a large ornately framed mirror, and in front of which is a scroll decorated hearth rug. Above the subject's head is represented an ornately framed picture depicting Mount Vernon and Washington's Tomb. She stands on what was probably meant to represent a then fashionable floral pattern ingrain carpet. She appears to gaze out of a draped window with vines. A cityscape in the distance appears to be Washington, DC with the US Capital in the distance? A publisher's mark was not found. The lithograph is mounted on a card stock, which I believe to be of the period. I collect antique American clocks, and it looked to me like the type of card stock used behind mirrors in clock doors of the 1830's and '40's.
The plate between pages 160 - 161 illustrates a family group by Brown on virtually the same stock background. Carrick states that Brown used stock lithographed backgrounds, possibly printed by Kellogg.
There is a later note on the backboard written in script with an old fountain pen dated "Worcester/July 1947":
"This picture is one taken in 1836 and is a portrait of Flarilla Russell who was later married to Jacob Hatch of Harmony, Me. His son, Chas J Hatch later became the owner of this picture, and now I, the widow of said Chas J. want the daughter of my son, Stanley H Hatch, (her name is Sally Ann Hatch) to have this picture with my love and good-will. Blanche Arnold Hatch."
Born in Charleston, SC, Carrick reports Brown travelled throughout the east, including New England. It is known that he was in Salem, MA in 1832.
I have attached some pictures. Curious to learn what you think.
The following just came in from Peggy, another reader. She writes:
The reader's litho background is the same as another unsigned silhouette which Neal Auction Company sold on Dec. 6, 2009 (2008? ed.) and labeled "attributed to William Henry Brown". The Neal Auction silhouette was a family of four. The multi-figure silhouette sold by Neal displayed great quality of cutting, right down to a detailed braid of hair hanging down from the side of the woman's face. The work was similar to Brown's.
The reader's silhouette is certainly similar to Brown's work, including the use of faint Chinese White embellishment. My concern with both silhouettes is the fact that they are unsigned. Brown was quite successful during his lifetime and, for much of his career he was promoting his published book "Portrait Gallery of Distinguished American" (both good reasons to sign all of his sold work). I'm not aware of any published discussions about work attributed to, but not signed by, Brown and I'm at a loss as to why he would not have signed any single piece of his work. In fact, most of his litho backgrounds were printed especially for him and bear his signature as part of the printed lithograph (signed on the original from which the print was made).
If it were not for my doubts that he would have sold pieces without a signature, I would be tempted to attribute both the Neal multi-family and the reader's silhouettes to him--more so based upon the quality of the work sold at the Neal auction and the repeat of the litho background than by the quality of the reader's silhouette alone. But, because of the lack of signature, I am not convinced that either is by Brown. It might be noteworthy that, at the same December auction, Neal also sold a very English-looking full-length silhouette with much stronger, darker embellishment. From photos, the embellishment appeared to be gold. The auction house also attributed this very unBrown-looking silhouette to Brown. They also sold a signed Brown on a litho background....signed in the litho.
Ed.'s note:
Because I know very little on the subject, I did not even know that "most of his litho backgrounds were printed especially for him and bear his signature as part of the printed lithograph." However, Peggy says that this is true with "most of his litho background." Does that also mean there are possibilities that some of his work are unsigned too? I do not know much about Brown's work, but there are many nice unsigned bust-length silhouettes by well-to-do artists. I always wondered why. I believe I wrote something on the subject.Robert responds:
The following came from Jane. She writes:
I have a pair of signed and identified W.H.Brown silhouettes. I can send a photo as soon as my photographer is available! I agree with Peggy, as far as I know, he always signed his silhouettes "W.H Brown" in the lower left of his figures. Many have no background at all, just a shadow of the ground the sil is standing on! I owned one that was quite large, with a background, that was signed in script on the back. I was always suspicious if it was a Brown or not...the backgrounds, when they were present,were drawn by Kellogg, and the silhouette was cut and pasted on the background.
W. H. Brown reproductions are everywhere, they were reproduced by the thousands. True "W.H. Brown" silhouettes are very rare. Some of these "Brown" silhouettes could have the bottom cut off, where it is identified as a lithograph reproduction, and placed in a frame. Always remove a silhouette from its frame before you buy, if you can possibly do so! I think Carrick has a lot written in one whole chapter on William Henry Brown. Unsigned full length silhouettes can also be English...I don't buy "attributed to" silhouettes. I have been burned too many times!
Ed.'s Note: Robert responds to Jane as follows:
I did read it and I look foward to seeing Jane's photographes. (see above post for Jane's photos, ed.)
She refer's to Carrick's chapter on Brown which I reference in my original posting and examples therein to which I compare my silhouette.
I am also familiar with the lithographed reproductions to which she refers. These reproductions can even appear to be gilt or Chinese white highlighted. I have examined my silhouette carefully out of the frame at the time of the transplant I mentioned in my original posting and it is definately not one of those. It is as described, a cut and pasted full length lithograph highlighted with Chinese white. I do not recall seeing a signature, but I am now tempted to remove it from the frame again to see if there are any traces of one that may have been trimmed when the silhouette was first framed. I would also argue that many artists, not just silhouettists, did not always sign their work.
I have also seen a number of the English full length cut and pasted silhouettes she mentions. As I say in my original posting, the painting above the head of the figure is of Mount Vernon and Washington's tomb. I also believe the cityscape out side of the window may be Washington, DC (not as sure about that). In my opinion, these coupled with the note from Worcester, MA, and the provenance pasted to the back board mentioning Harmony, ME are good evidence that my silhouette is American.
Rarities do sometimes turn up.
By the way, has anyone noticed that Brown seems to endow his subjects with anatomically impossible long narrow feet?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Full Length Silhouette on Twilight Zone
Did you know a silhouette appeared on the Twilight Zone? This is a full length silhouette, probably by William Henry Brown. I am only guessing. It seems to be in a gold-leafed frame. Is it a print? I don't know.
I froze the video and took a snap of it. This is from January 13, 1961 episode called, "Back There." It is about a fellow who travels back in time to stop Lincoln's assassination. The man on this snap is John W. Booth. Although he appears to be looking at the silhouette, he is not; he is just about to exit the door.
If you want to see this episode, this is the link. It is free. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6258051CwhRaBsB?rank=9&order=
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Which is 19th Century? Which is Modern?I illustrate two portraits here. If framed in 19th century frames, they both would look very 19th century. Buyers would not even question their authenticity at antique shows or even internet sales. So tell me, which one do you think is good?
I will identify these two portraits soon. It is so easy to leave a comment, and it is all left anonymously. Nobody, including me, will know who you are. I don't think anyone really cares either.
Cute Pair of Silhouettes Attributed to "Wm Chamberling"
I sure ain't the best writer around, but I did work as a college writing tutor for a few years. When I saw this, I had to pick it up for the blog. The seller seems sincere. I gotta give him an "A" for his effort. His grammar is not very attractive and neither are his silhouettes. The seller writes:
"these two fine silhouettes are beautiful. bought at in estate sale. I tried to find some research the closes i could come up with is attributeing these toWm.Chamberling. Chamberlings work is hollow cut. He cut the heads of his men and left the collar and shirt front as an uncut part of background paper.Then cut the sholders to the end of the bustline. He drew and painted shirt and collar details. His women are sometimes completley hollow cut from the top of the head to the bottom of the bustline.Chamberlins woman all seem to have long swan like necks. The man has the letters OCHIURS. The women has the letters DEMURS"
I am sure the readers will recall the name, "DEMURS." I did a write-up on it a while ago. We also have a new name here, "OCHIURS." That is a new one on me. I guess this man and woman compliment each other. Where else can one find another? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we found their children's silhouettes to go with this pair? That would be mind-boggling!
Friday, December 19, 2008
Peale Museum Frame?
The idea of Peale Museum marketing frames, as suggested by Carrick, had bothered me for a long time. Oh, the idea is perfectly legitimate; they cut silhouettes by the thousands and should have marketed frames in all sorts of styles. The problem is that I never ever came across a frame that could have been sold at the Museum. Many silhouettists actually made a decent living, not by selling hollow-cuts but by selling the frames. For that reason, I cannot understand why the framing was not done at the Museum.
Carrick says, “Peale occasionally marked the little ornament which held the hanging-ring in place with the word “Museum.” She illustrates this particular frame on plate facing page number 186. That is a very typical frame made in the UK. Of course, there is a possibility that Peale could have imported such a frame type and had the hanger custom stamped with the word “Museum.” I doubt it, however. The cuttings at the Museum used rectangular paper; whereas, this particular frame type has an oval opening. We do not find this type of frame for American silhouettes, unless the silhouettes have been reframed.
When I saw this photograph (above), I knew my hunch was correct. This photo belongs to Joseph Topping, a specialist in portraits. He writes, “The hanger is engraved with the word 'Museum' which was used on frames of silhouettes taken by artists working for William Bullock at his museum in Liverpool.” Because he specializes in British subjects, I am sure he is correct with his attribution, although his use of the word “engraved” is incorrect. “Museum” is not engraved; it is a part of a die or a mold.
I am currently working on a short article on brass silhouette frames and their parts. Although many collectors and dealers use the term “embossed,” this is a tricky term. First, we need to know whether there was only a female die involved, or was there a pair of dies, male and female? Were the parts embossed or struck, or were they cast? I have been a coin collector all my life of struck and cast coinage, so I know a bit about their differences. I hope to make some good sense on the subject of silhouette frames soon.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Foster Brothers, BostonWhen Carrick wrote her monumental work on American silhouettes in 1928, silhouette collecting was a very big fad. Can you imagine her paying $200 for a silhouette by King? I do not know its exact equivalency in today’s terms, but that was a lot of cash to dish out for a silhouette. Granted, any silhouette cut by King is scarce; however, again, $200 for his work, even during the roaring twenties, was no bargain.
I loved hanging around a local pool-hall as a young teen. I recall this old-timer in his seventies telling me he made ten cents an hour working at a local mill. Although I am no wizard when it comes to calculus (yuck) and statistics (yuck), I am able to do basic math. Ten cents an hour multiplied by eight hours would be eighty cents for a day’s work. For this old-timer to earn $200, he had to work 250 days! When you add two days of weekend, idle time, it would be just about a year’s worth of earnings.
I really like Carrick, but she had no sense of what an average hard working person was able to make back then. If one “fooled” with stocks in the twenties, it was easy money. However, we know its history as well, speculation and borrowing (buying on margin) leading to the Great Depression. Carrick, making a very good living writing books on collectibles, and having a “paid” connection with the Magazine Antiques, and, in addition, her supportive husband working as a language professor at Dartmouth, living at a so-called “cottage” (quite a historical one at that) really had no “sense” of money (can’t afford bread? …eat cake!).
So what does Carrick have anything to do with the title of this blog, “Foster Brothers”? If you recall, I did write something about “orange chicken” about two years ago. One reader complained that the subject matter was not related to silhouettes. Perhaps it did not. I really do not remember the context of it now. If interested, I guess you can “Google” the subject: “orange chicken” and “antique silhouettes” or something close to that nature. Whether it “caches” to its appropriate link is another matter. By the way, I stopped going to that take-out Chinese restaurant. Why? One day the owner’s daughter says to me, “You’re getting fat.” I told her I owe my weight gain thanks to her orange chicken. I have yet to go back there; other places serve similar flavorful stuff. If she would have said, “You’re looking younger every time I see you” or something to that nature, I would have continued to eat there.
At any rate before I drift off the subject, these photos from Foster Brothers suggest they made many reproductions. Please pay attention to their stock of frames too. Furthermore, some of these silhouettes when framed and under glass are very difficult to tell apart from genuine ones, especially so is the one cut by William King with his “King” embossment (silhouette number 13). Under glass, the embossment seems very genuine. I saw two at different shows last year.
Another one I really had to examine closely was one by Doyle (number 25). Again, under glass it looks so real. This exact reproduction was actually sold on eBay last year for quite a sum. I also saw another at one of the major shows as a genuine example. Another very good looking ones are those by William Bache (number 30, 39, 40 and similar types). If one or more of you really believe you can buy silhouettes of George and Martha Washington, think again, unless, of course, those silhouettes were “produced” by the Fosters.
There are many reproduction silhouette frames out there too. Some of them are “cut-downs” where framers cut down a large gilt frame into small sections. They do it wonderfully. They are attractive and great for displaying silhouettes; however, those frames are what they are and worth only a fraction of genuine, period, silhouette frames.In addition, there are those made by Foster Brothers. Age-wise, they are approaching antique status, but those frames have cheap look to them with heavy glass, and where black painted from the reverse, it looks nothing like the genuine blacking from the early 19th century.
Perhaps the commonest type of frame is the black painted paper Mache (If you want to get fancy with this term then it would be papier-mâché.) with acorn type hanger (see the frame with Lincoln in it). The easiest way to check if the frame is early 19th century or 20th century is to measure the opening. The oval opening of the 20th century frames are larger and taller, more oblong than it is oval, if that makes better sense. In addition, the brass- plated hanger is crudely made using thin base metal, tin.
One of the rarest early frames is the stamped brass, rectangular frame (Foster has “Silhouette No. 45”in it). They call it, “All metal, gilt finish – copy of an old design.” From this photo alone, it is not possible to tell apart the differences between this frame and one from the early 19th century. When it comes to something like this, one must rely on experience of having examined the genuine article.
I hope this Foster’s Brothers tidbit was helpful. Since very few of these fliers were saved (Does anyone save Wal-Mart fliers?), I thought I would share with you here. I hope to do something on identification of silhouette frames soon with lots of photos.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Is This Type of Silhouettes the Work of William Chamberlain?
I always had a hunch that this type of hollow-cut face with painted body (and printed body) is something Chamberlain would and could have done. Whether I am a bit closer today with the attribution or relying too much on this particular coincidence is yet to be determined.
The first set of images is a hollow-cut of a woman in my possession for comparison that is being attributed to Chamberlain. As you can see, it is framed in an oval, embossed-brass-shell over wood frame. Please do note that the wooden sides and the back are painted in mustard yellow. This paint is contemporary to the silhouette, ca.1825, although the frame itself is older.
The second set of images is from a recent auction where the seller had this to say: "The head is one piece and the body being another that is painted with watercolor. Gilt metal front with painted mustard yellow sides. This came from a lot of early items with Salem, Mass history that I recently purchased from an old Maine home."
This frame, too, is painted in "mustard yellow." Another key word here is "Maine."Furthermore, this seller also had a pamphlet-type eulogy of George Washington that was "pronounced" at a church in Portsmouth, New Hampshire that came out of the same Maine home. We now have three key words: mustard yellow, Maine, and New Hampshire. William Chamberlain is well connected with Maine and New Hampshire. If we add the two, yellow painted frames, I see more Chamberlain behind this mystery, not less.
What was Chamberlain doing with these outdated frames that were popular from around 1780-1800? Because I see enough of these frames with Chamberlain's silhouettes, he must have had a good supply of them, likely bought from a jobber at a very fair price.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Funky Glass Paste Portrait
This is a portrait of David Hume with no attribution to its artist. It came up on eBay recently. Because I like 18th century Tassie portraits, I know a bit about his works and buy whenever I can. If you note the bust truncation, there is a very tiny inscription that says "David Hume...." This is very typical of Tassie's works. Tassie made two portrait designs of David Hume, but this one here is not one of them.
This portrait looks genuinely old, but Tassie's two portraits of Hume lacks the shirt frills. In addition, he never handcolored his portraits. Does this mean this piece here is a later fantasy? Could this be a very rare third portrait of Hume that is unrecorded? I am sure the coloring was done by someone other than Tassie and perhaps even contemporary to the piece. Could someone shed a better light on this item?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Who is J. Banton (T. S. Banton) (S. Banton) (Samuel Bradburn Banton)? 
Carrick says Banton’s profiles are “black and unadorned.” She further states, “I can say little of Banton’s work except that is has nothing but age and rarity to commend it.” That is the extent of Banton by Carrick. Jackson (1938) and McKechnie (1978) add nothing new and repeat Carrick: “Worked in New England, generally all black and little is known of him.” “Silhouette cutter who worked in New England; most of his work is in solid black.” Groce does no better and includes only a partial quote from Banton’s advertising based on Nina Little’s Itinerant Painting in America 1750-1850: The profiles “shall be perfect if the sobriety of the person admits, or no pay for them.”
The possibility of Carrick having seen any silhouette by Banton is unlikely. If she did, she would have surely mentioned the many similarities with those works by Chamberlain. Furthermore, Carrick fails to mention Banton’s embossment. It is unique, as the embossment includes the words “Cut by.” There is not a single instance where American silhouettists used this particular type of embossment. From this photograph (see close-up of embossment), Banton’s embossment has a curve that matches his bustline. This may be a crucial feature in separating his works from those of Chamberlain. Why Banton rarely used his stamp is still a mystery. This particular stamp or any stamp by Banton seems to be unrecorded. However, Barbara Luck writing for the January, 2001 issue of Magazine Antiques, must have had an access to a pair of embossed Bantons: “Samuel Bradburn Banton was among New England's more adroit snippers; his hollow-cut paired profiles of Mr. and Mrs. John Whitten of Waldo County Maine (Pl. XI), demonstrate the finesse and enduring appeal of his work.”
Banton, like Chamberlain, may have worked in cutting single pairs (AAS owns a collection of so-called “duplicate cuttings by Chamberlain). Each of their finished work was unique because of embellishment, but most hollow-cutters worked in multiple cuttings, quadruples being the norm. For those types of cuttings, only the topmost paper received the full, clear impression of the embossing. The second folding received only a ghostly image. Being unable to penetrate past the second paper, the stamp did not even leave a shadow on the third and the forth folding (more on this subject under Peale embossment somewhere on this blog).
There is no record of Chamberlain having used any type of embossing stamp, and his embossed work is currently unknown. Similarly, Banton’s embossed work, too, was unknown until the present example appeared. In fact, his full name had never been identified until recently.
In New England Family Record Broadsides and Portraiture, and the Letterpress Artist of Connecticut, D. Brenton Simmons attempts to identify an artist responsible for cutting profiles for the “Family Record” series, circa 1830. Simmons writes, “Unlike several itinerant profilists in New England, including Samuel Bradburn Banton (1795-1864)…for whom printed handbills exist…the Letterpress Artist has not been identified by way of a surviving handbill, broadside, or newspaper announcement.” Simmons bases his finding according to a posting by a descendant, David C. Dearborn, entitled, The Banton Family of Maine (www.jenforum.org/banton/messages/9.html) and further states that Lynne Bassett, curator of Old Sturbridge Village doubts the authenticity of Banton’s handbill that belongs in their collection: “It is a modern museum interpretation of Old Sturbridge Village staff.”
Although the silhouette cuttings very much resemble those works by Chamberlain, especially the cutting of men, Simmons eliminates Chamberlain as a possible “Letterpress Artist” because during the period circa 1828 to 1834, his itinerancy took him to regions other than Connecticut. Simmons refers to Dana K. Ball’s William Chamberlain, Silhouettist of Loudon, N.H. as reference, which belongs in the collection of American Antiquarian Society.
Banton also worked as a miniature portraitist, as illustrated by this painting of a young man, signed, “S. Banton 1824” from Garth’s Auction. His “S” does resemble a “J.” Perhaps this is the reason why he is also sometimes known as “J. Banton.” If this portrait is indicative of Banton’s miniatures, he was not a very good artist. In fact, there is nothing desirable about this painting.
Like many other silhouettists, Banton never exhibited at PAFA.
The possibility of Carrick having seen any silhouette by Banton is unlikely. If she did, she would have surely mentioned the many similarities with those works by Chamberlain. Furthermore, Carrick fails to mention Banton’s embossment. It is unique, as the embossment includes the words “Cut by.” There is not a single instance where American silhouettists used this particular type of embossment. From this photograph (see close-up of embossment), Banton’s embossment has a curve that matches his bustline. This may be a crucial feature in separating his works from those of Chamberlain. Why Banton rarely used his stamp is still a mystery. This particular stamp or any stamp by Banton seems to be unrecorded. However, Barbara Luck writing for the January, 2001 issue of Magazine Antiques, must have had an access to a pair of embossed Bantons: “Samuel Bradburn Banton was among New England's more adroit snippers; his hollow-cut paired profiles of Mr. and Mrs. John Whitten of Waldo County Maine (Pl. XI), demonstrate the finesse and enduring appeal of his work.”
Banton, like Chamberlain, may have worked in cutting single pairs (AAS owns a collection of so-called “duplicate cuttings by Chamberlain). Each of their finished work was unique because of embellishment, but most hollow-cutters worked in multiple cuttings, quadruples being the norm. For those types of cuttings, only the topmost paper received the full, clear impression of the embossing. The second folding received only a ghostly image. Being unable to penetrate past the second paper, the stamp did not even leave a shadow on the third and the forth folding (more on this subject under Peale embossment somewhere on this blog).
There is no record of Chamberlain having used any type of embossing stamp, and his embossed work is currently unknown. Similarly, Banton’s embossed work, too, was unknown until the present example appeared. In fact, his full name had never been identified until recently.
In New England Family Record Broadsides and Portraiture, and the Letterpress Artist of Connecticut, D. Brenton Simmons attempts to identify an artist responsible for cutting profiles for the “Family Record” series, circa 1830. Simmons writes, “Unlike several itinerant profilists in New England, including Samuel Bradburn Banton (1795-1864)…for whom printed handbills exist…the Letterpress Artist has not been identified by way of a surviving handbill, broadside, or newspaper announcement.” Simmons bases his finding according to a posting by a descendant, David C. Dearborn, entitled, The Banton Family of Maine (www.jenforum.org/banton/messages/9.html) and further states that Lynne Bassett, curator of Old Sturbridge Village doubts the authenticity of Banton’s handbill that belongs in their collection: “It is a modern museum interpretation of Old Sturbridge Village staff.”
Although the silhouette cuttings very much resemble those works by Chamberlain, especially the cutting of men, Simmons eliminates Chamberlain as a possible “Letterpress Artist” because during the period circa 1828 to 1834, his itinerancy took him to regions other than Connecticut. Simmons refers to Dana K. Ball’s William Chamberlain, Silhouettist of Loudon, N.H. as reference, which belongs in the collection of American Antiquarian Society.
Banton also worked as a miniature portraitist, as illustrated by this painting of a young man, signed, “S. Banton 1824” from Garth’s Auction. His “S” does resemble a “J.” Perhaps this is the reason why he is also sometimes known as “J. Banton.” If this portrait is indicative of Banton’s miniatures, he was not a very good artist. In fact, there is nothing desirable about this painting.
Like many other silhouettists, Banton never exhibited at PAFA.
NOTE: November 2009....The above painted portrait signed by Banton is now considered a fantasy!
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Honeywell Silhouette
This is from Pook and Pook auction. It brought $325 + 22% + postage, about $450 total. It was described as: "M.A. Honeywell silhouette, mid 19th c., inscribed. M.A. Honeywell silhouette, mid 19th c., inscribed 'Cut with the mouth by M.A. Honeywell (New Hampshire)', 4'' x 3'', 1/2" tear to right edge, sporadic small stains, period frame with some abrasions."
It is a decent buy if one could live with those "sporadic small stains." The tear should be no problem. The frame is awful. With Honeywell silhouettes, one would want a nicer paper backing, as it is a part of the deal. In this case matting does not work; it will hide the inscription. It is a dilemma. Reasonable price, yes, but a good period frame would be an additional cost. Even with a nice frame, those "sporadic small stains" stick out like a sore thumb. I, for one, would lose sleep over it. Since we all now know that there are stains to the left of the sitter, I bet all your eyes are focused on that part and not on the cut-and-paste silhouette.
If I knew of a paper conservator who could eliminate those stains for a hundred, I would be making a call. Yes, $450 is a good price, but is it?
Did the Buyer Know?
The hammer price of this lot was $108. I wonder if the buyer of this lot knew these two silhouettes were nothing more than modern decorative items. Perhaps this buyer wanted them as decoration. These silhouettes are after Bache but created long after he died and in a different manner.
The seller had something else in mind when he described the items: "MID-1800s PAIR OF SILHOUETTES IN ORIGINAL FRAMES"
"Here is a pair of silhouette frames of a man and woman. The silhouettes are shadowed with watercolor as is the man's collar. Frames show signs of age - black paint shows wear. Very attractive couple - in intricate cut silhouettes. Frames measure appx 5" wide x 7" high."
That is not a fair description at all.
Monday, August 18, 2008
George Washington Silhouette by PealeRecently spotted this item on ebay. This is what the seller had to say:
"An original and beautifully hand-cut silhouette on rag paper of an unknown gentleman, probably over 100 years old. Embossed blind stamp below image reads PEALE'S MUSEUM under a spread eagle. Size 5 1/2 x 6 1/2, irregular cut paper. Early Peale's Museum silhouettes were done in the period 1820-40, and later images of famous people were made around 1900."
That's an honest seller who does not "play" dumb. I hope it brings a good price for him.
I discussed this stamp somewhere on my blog before. You can also read Carrick for more on the subject. Although this sellers's dates for early Peale material is off by 15+ years, and the reproduction Peale date is off by about the same number of years, they are close enough coming from a non-specialist.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
HUGE Fried Onion
We just came back from Bouckville, NY show today. Whenever we go there, we buy this huge onion petal (wife holding it). It costs six bucks. We hate to waste any food, but this is just too much and end up trashing at least a third of it. I don't think I want it next year. That is what I say every year but always end up buying it.
As we also brought home-cooked lunch to the show, we just did not have any room for those giant eclairs that we always eat at the show. They are soooo GOOD! After the giant onion today, we just said, "nah." And those Italian sausage plate also looked terrific, as well as huli-huli (BBQ)chicken. Huli-huli is a Hawaiian word. On the same note, I could not believe Hawaiian shaved ice was also being sold. Since we lived many years in Hawaii, we consider anything Hawaii to be good.
Monday, July 21, 2008
High Priced Pair
This pair brought $510 recently. I fail to understand why. These are inked hollow-cuts. From the attire and the bustline, they appear to be English from the 1840s with no special attributes. Perhaps the early American frames justify the price. When two bidders go against each other, anything can happen.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Over $3000 for Honeywell?
I guess a bit of write-up really takes up the hammer price. I am sure this silhouette graces someone's collection. It better be at $3080 plus commission and postage.
"RARE VIRGINIA SILHOUETTE OF A GENTLEMAN (Lot #135 - $3,080), inscribed "Solmon Truby?" below image and "Cut with the Mouth by M. A. Honeywell" across the lower edge, in what appears to be its original black painted frame. Martha A. Honeywell (c. 1787-1848?) was a severely handicapped itinerant artist who advertised her services at the Indian Queen Tavern, Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Va., in 1807. See MESDA Journal, Summer 1996, pp. 1-41, article by Mona L. Dearborn, for more information. Early 19th century. 5" x 4" overall. Excellent overall condition. Provenance: Bedrooms of America Museum, New Market, Va."
Monday, July 7, 2008
William Henry Brown's Portrait Gallery of Distinguished American Citizens
This illustration was taken from the Bulletin of The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, Winter 1965 edition, which was forwarded to me by Brenton Simons of New England Historical Geneological Society.
The illustration is a part of an article entitled Silhouettes at Beauport Museum by Elizabeth Clay Blanford. This is what she has to say about Brown's book in part:
"William Henry Brown, by far the greatest American-born silhouettist, was among the foremost of the scissors men, His work is represented at Beauport by two splendid profiles attributed to him by Hannah London, author of Shades of my Forefathers, and by a very rare book entitled Portrait Gallery of Distinguished American Citizens by William H. Brown, published at Hartford, Connecticut, by E.B. and E.C. Kellogg in 1846. The latter consists of twenty-six reproductions of full-lengths silhouettes cut by Brown plus a reproduction of a copy after a silhouette of Washington by an unknown machine silhouettist, taken in 1798. The profiles are mounted against lithograph backgrounds by the Kelloggs, and each portrait is accompanied by a facsimile of a letter written by the subject. The twenty-six portraits by Brown are also accompanied by biographical sketches written by the author of the book."
"Nearly the entire edition was destoyed by fire, so very few copies are in existence."
Note: Some years ago I had a chance to buy Brown's original edition, along with Edouart's very rare Treatise, but I did not. They are nowhere to be found today at any price! However, there is a very scarce 1931 Brown's reprint available for $600. If anyone is interested, I can guide to it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Rare Carrick Letters to Morse
I thought I would share these photos with readers, as it is not every day that we have a good fortune to read firsthand account of highly motivated collector/researcher on the subject of antique silhouettes. Carrick was quite a persistent gal!
A copy of “Shades of Our Ancestors” I own has a bookplate of Glenn Tilley Morse (see photo), who was considered at the time to possess the finest collection of silhouettes, and his holding of Edouart was unmatched. These letters originally belonged to him tucked inside this copy of the book until his death. His collection was dispersed in two-part, public auction in 1951 (see photo of one of the sales). It is quite sad to know what will become of our loved collection after our demise, “Removed from His Residence and Sold by Order of Lee Carter Morse, Executor.”
In the first Carrick’s letter written on 9/2/27 before her book was in print, she writes, “I meant to spend weeks in West Newbury working with you, whether you liked it or not; I was going to sit on your doorstep until you found me such a nuisance…When can I come?...When may I come down, and is there a quiet little inn at West Newbury where I can stay?”
Both letters are typed on her husband’s stationery, where he was a professor of language at Dartmouth College. The letters are a quaint reminder of days gone by.
In the first Carrick’s letter written on 9/2/27 before her book was in print, she writes, “I meant to spend weeks in West Newbury working with you, whether you liked it or not; I was going to sit on your doorstep until you found me such a nuisance…When can I come?...When may I come down, and is there a quiet little inn at West Newbury where I can stay?”
Both letters are typed on her husband’s stationery, where he was a professor of language at Dartmouth College. The letters are a quaint reminder of days gone by.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Chamberlain?
The faces are very nicely cut, and they are in the style of Chamberlain, ca.1830. However, I do not ever recall seeing a Chamberlain's cutting with a portion of the man's jacket in white, meaning "uncut" at that particular portion. Of course, the frame is no indication of how old the silhouettes are in this case. From this photo alone, it is difficult to determine their true nature. The silhouettes must be removed and examined.
The seller says:
"Here we offer a recent estate find. These come from an estate in Southern Lower Michigan. No artist name or family name. The glass in the frame is convex, curved. I did not remove them from the frame to photo them as they appear very delicate and I do not want to damage them. The hair drawn on the man's picture is drawn with what appears to be early to mid nineteenth century ink. Look at the pic, read our feedback, and bid with confidence. I guarantee these to be old and as described."
Family Portraits
These are typical cut-outs done by an amateur. From the type of paper used and the fading of the black paper, where the images have been exposed to light over the years, the cuttings seem to be old. I would guesstimate late Victorian to Edwardian. The frame seems to be made of oak indicating that the whole package was likely made during the mission furniture period (?).
The seller had this to say:
"This auction is for a Rare & Unusual Folk Art Portrait of a Family! These are quite extraordinary hollow cut silhouettes of a father, mother, daughter & son! At first I thought maybe these were newer silhouettes put into an old frame but once examined out of the frame for the photos it became clear that these silhouettes are very old and are original to the frame. Unfortunately there are no id's that I can see but there may be one that I didn't dare to try and see under the artwork. I would estimate these silhouettes at being from the late 1700's to early 1800's."
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Honeywell with Eyelash
This comes from one of the readers, Sharon. She writes:
This comes from one of the readers, Sharon. She writes:
“This is not my silhouette but a picture of one I have saved in my pictures. It sold for $300.00 at a Brunk auctions sale on Ebay. It looks like there is an eyelash on the lady...even though there is also a smudge close by. I think I can see an eyelash. Just passing it on because in one of your comments you asked if anyone had a Honeywell with an eyelash. I do own two of my own but neither has an eyelash added. I am the one who won the bid on two F.P.Jones silhouettes which you had some doubt about. My slant on it is that since two well known authors referred to both T.P and F.P. Jones...perhaps there were two different cutters. The F. looks like there is a flaw in the center line of it, maybe a T. with a flaw making a F. They are old and the real deal....I have looked at enough to recognize that. At any rate, I love them and am pleased as can be to be the winning bidder! Thanks for your great blog...keep up the valuable work.”
We thank her for this information. There is F.P. Jones listed in Groce as an “itinerant silhouettist of early 19th century in New England.” In addition, McKechnie lists him as, “Jones, F.P. (or T.P. Jones, 1808) worked in New England. He produced hollow-cut silhouettes mechanically and frequently added lines representing head-dress or laces on the edge of the portrait. A silhouette is owned by the Pennsylvania Historical Society.”
The problem with most authors is that their writings reflect those that came before them (“two well-known authors referred to both…). Soon, their writings are etched in stone and are repeated many times over. This, however, does not make them right. It is a good start, but we have to know the truth. Nothing has been written on silhouettes in 80 years since Carrick. This blog attempts to change it. We are not the judge and the jury. We offer opinions and challenge the readers to support those opinions or disprove them.
Nobody really knows anything about F.P. Jones, but we have early advertisement of T.P. Jones. They, being contemporary to the period, are good proof. However, we must prove that F.P. Jones also existed. The past neglect for the better part of the twentieth-century is a haunting reminder that this field is still in its infancy, and extended work is necessary to explain the discrepancies.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Honeywell in AuctionS.G. writes, "I saw this item [Honeywell silhouette from Garth's auction] on eBay and thought you might be interested. Perhaps this is on your blog and I missed it....just wondered what your thoughts are..looks like a Foster Bros. frame...just a hint of the familiar hanger sticking up. No curve to the signature at all." Photos from Garth's Auction Inc. 
That's an interesting observation. When I first saw the silhouette, I had a feeling it would go quite high so I really did not bother to study much on it.
That's an interesting observation. When I first saw the silhouette, I had a feeling it would go quite high so I really did not bother to study much on it.
Now that you mention it, I do see a part of hanger hanger sticking out. And yes, the inscription is not curved as you said. I took a close-up of the hanger and the inscription, as well as a photo of another Honeywell in very similar frame
. I do agree that the brass hanger looks quite modern, as it does not have that look of age. This may be just a simple replacement part.
. I do agree that the brass hanger looks quite modern, as it does not have that look of age. This may be just a simple replacement part. Many of Honeywell's inscription are indeed curved, but there are some that are written straight as well. Perhaps the best explanation for this is how she held the paper. I did note something new here though, which are the two heavy dots after her initials M. A. The letters look properly formed, however.
There are still many mysteries surrounding Honeywell's work. Every bit we can learn sure goes a long way. For instance, nobody knew what SKG Nellis looked like until a few years ago. Everything requires time and research, and a lot of luck.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Unusual Family Grouping Silhouettes from Maine
This group, I believe, represents some of the earliest cuttings by William Chamberlain. From the notes contained here, it becomes obvious that Chamberlain started his career in the 1820s, not the 30s. The attire of the sitters can sometime confuse the working dates. Although clothing style does indicate a rough period, it is not exact. ( I have been wearing my set of same clothes for the last 15-20 years.)
We see many cuttings of men by Chamberlain. We also see those of women with the frilling around the neck with ink or pencil detailing. Here we have a good representation of how he cut his children....hollow-cut head with penciling, in this case, or inking of the bust area.
This set came from a dealer in New Hampshire. She tells me she found the cuttings in an old trunk and had them framed, using a wooden frame from the 1800s. She did the right thing, and the framer did a very good job. When I saw this set in Catskills show, I had to have it. Wouldn't you have done the same? It's a dandy!
Gladding Newspaper Ad
"This is an advertisement that appeared in the Cooperstown, NY, Otsego Herald for July 30, August 6, and August 13, 1808."
From: Hugh MacDougall, Cooperstown Village Historian
From: Hugh MacDougall, Cooperstown Village Historian
We thank Hugh for this rare ad.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Unique Miniature Portrait of Dwarf Woman (Sally Rogers?) This miniature is watercolor on card with a good use of Chinese white on the bonnet and her lace dress. The frame is a typical paper mache, black lacquered with brass acorn hanger and measures 4.5 x 5.25 inches. The opening is about 2.5 x 3 inches.
Although at first appearance the sitter looks like a pre-teen child, this is not the case. She is actually a "little person," a dwarf, who is probably in her mid to late twenties. Her face is fully developed, but her upper body, along with her arm, are indicative of dwarfism. This is how the artist saw her and painted accordingly. The image has nothing to do with the artist trying to be folky wanting to create off-balanced proportion.
If you recall, not a single silhouette collector knew that SKG Nellis was also a "little person" until a few years ago. This became evident when I wrote a paper on those artists born without arms. Circa 1860 CDV I found made it very clear. In fact, only a few even knew his existence.
Could this young woman be someone that I have been searching for years? Sally or Sarah Rogers who worked with Honeywell and cut and painted with her mouth? I say this because this young lady seems to lack her right arm. There is not a slight indication of her right arm in this portrait. Of course, you may argue that this is a side portrait of her left side so it would not show her right side. That is a good argument. However, if you look closer, she tilts towards the observer at an angle, perhaps 15 degrees or so. With this angle, we should be able to see a part of her right arm. The laced shoulder of her right is raised higher than her left. This indicates that she lacked support of a limb, thus she had to wear the dress a little higher up than her left side. Moreover, she leans ever so slightly to the observer. This is because her left side with arm is heavier than her right side without an arm.
With her high waistline, the bonnet, and the necklace, it likely dates to the middle first quarter of 19th century. Sally Rogers would have been in her twenties. It is a good match. I do not believe this portrait was painted in America. Just as Honeywell did, I am sure Rogers travelled abroad as well, especially to England. I wonder if they still travelled together as a team post 1808.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Decorative ArtsI am sure you have come across quite a few of these decorative silhouettes. This pair is from a recent auction and brought $200. The desciption is as follows:
"Offered today is a pair of lovely framed under glass silhouettes of a gentleman with walking stick and a woman with a fan, done on art paper. There are no dots or lines composing the figures so I am assuming they are ink on paper. I don't know a lot of this area, so I can only describe what I see. I don't see any bleeding of ink on the outlines, but they are not laser straight either, having slight irregularities under an 18X loupe. They are framed in gesso gilded wood frames, the back of which have a partial label which looks like the ones on the boy and girl silhouettes I also have listed today, reading "Borghese". This may mean they are from Rome, as I think I saw this same label on mementos from the Borghese there. There is light wear to the frames, and very slight yellowing of the paper, I believe. Frames is 6-5/8" x 7-3/8" x 1"D."
I believe Borghese was a high-end retailer specializing in decorative arts in the 1920s and 30s. Although their artwork is purely decorative, similar to those of Foster Bros., Borghese did, at times, use genuinely old frames. These frames, I believe, are from the mid-1800s.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Hubard?
The following is a description by the seller:
"A Rare "MASTER HUBARD" Silhouette ~ Dated 1824 ~ Untouched condition beautiful Original Black and Gold Glass Frame ~ Silouhette of Anthony Bleeker ~ back reads: CUT WITH SCISSORS BY MASTER HUBARD WITHOUT DRAWING OR MACHINE ~ (MASTER HUBARD WAS A YOUNG TEEN) SILHOUETTE AND FRAME MEASURE 5.5" X 6.25" ~ READY TO HANG ~ BRASS HOOK ON BACK MADE BY FOSTER BROTHERS BOSTON~~i HAVE NOT SEEN ONE OF THESE AT AUCTION FOR LESS THAN $1,000.00 - $1,500.00 ~ THERE IS A REASONABLE RESERVE ON THIS WONDERFUL PIECE OF DOCUMENTED AMERICAN FOLK ART..."
The description is confusing at best, as the seller says that the brass hook is made by Foster Bros. In all reality, the frame and the painted mat are also by Foster Bros. This type was their best frame in the 1920s. Their ads from the period illustrates such frames. In the roaring twenties, a print in this type of frame was selling for $35! That is a hefty sum. Perhaps, what is contained within the frame is really by Hubard, but from the photos alone, it is difficult to say. The seller does, however, illustrate the reverse with some inking or writing, but it is out-of-focus and small.
Monday, April 21, 2008
On the Market Again
This silhouette came up on eBay a few months ago (see the framed version below). If I remember it correctly, there was a small piece missing from her profile, nose and lip areas. However, this time those defects are not there, but there is an increasing white area around her profile. What does that mean? I am sure you can figure that out.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Funky Doyle-Like SilhouetteThis should not fool anyone, I hope. The image closely resembles that of William Doyle’s work. It is in the style of and likely directly copied from one of Doyle’s subjects. I am glad to see that this reproducer signed it. From the photo, it is difficult to determine the type of paper used for this medium. The frame seems to have gone through some distressed aging, hurried, for imparting that antique look. It is a good study piece.
Unusual Silhouette
This silhouette, I believe, is a work created by a Chinese artist, the so-called Chinese export item. The term, “Chinese export,” however, is a misnomer in this case, as it was not made for the sole purpose of commercial export; it was made “to order” for someone visiting China. In this case, the depiction is that of a black man, which is very unusual for the period. From his attire, the image is ca.1815. He must have been a quite prominent man. I do not ever recall seeing such a silhouette. The background color, which is quite unusual, is typical of contemporary Chinese artwork, unlike those made in the west. Furthermore, the brass cartouche surrounding the image is unique, having definite attributable origin to the east.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Another Moses Chapman Silhouette Discovery
Brad, one of our blog readers, writes:
"The Chapman silhouette was purchased at a recent auction. The auctioneer had no idea what it was. I can thank your site as well as Peggy's for giving me the knowledge to spot it. I have a friend who was a Latin major. He has not been able to translate the second word in the mark. I also picked-up a Peale at the same sale. I have been collecting for 13 months and have tried to be selective in my purchases. I attend every antique show within a 4 hour driving distance of my home town of Madison, Indiana."
Madison Indiana Visitor and Tourism Shopping Antiques Art Galleries
"I was at a show in The Cincinnati area recently and saw a silhouette for sale by a reputable dealer. He had it marked as a "Master Hanks". I told the dealer that Hankes was misspelled and that he did cut and paste. His was hollow cut. He dismissed me out of hand and said that one of the foremost silhouette dealers in the United States had sold it to him. I told him to check out Carrick's book. The moral of the story is: choose your experts wisely. I try to keep all the major reference books close by. Thanks for the good work you do with this website!"
Friday, February 8, 2008
Three Silhouettes NOT from the 19th Century
Objective? Subjective? You be the judge. Although these three silhouettes are “in the manner of 19th century,” they are quite modern. The frames are also “in the manner of 19th century,” but they are quite modern. No need to agree with me. They are up for auction on eBay now. The painted (?) silhouette with embossed brass frame should be worth $500 and up. The Chamberlain looking piece should be worth $250 and up. The other lady? …? These things are worth whatever they are worth to you, the buyer. If I were buying, however, they would be for decorative purposes only…perhaps $10-15 a clip?
Objective? Subjective? You be the judge. Although these three silhouettes are “in the manner of 19th century,” they are quite modern. The frames are also “in the manner of 19th century,” but they are quite modern. No need to agree with me. They are up for auction on eBay now. The painted (?) silhouette with embossed brass frame should be worth $500 and up. The Chamberlain looking piece should be worth $250 and up. The other lady? …? These things are worth whatever they are worth to you, the buyer. If I were buying, however, they would be for decorative purposes only…perhaps $10-15 a clip?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Monster Peale SilhouetteDidn't we see this before? I believe I wrote about it on my blog. It came up again on Ebay and brought $178! Perhaps it did not meet the reserve the last time around? It looks nothing like period Peale...not the cutting nor the stamp.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Amazing Price for Nellis Silhouette
James D. Julia's auction of 2/1/08 contained a pleasant surprise, lot # 868. Their description is as follows:
"LOT OF FOUR FRAMED EARLY SILHOUETTES.1) 5" x 4-1/4" black silhouette of a boy with the following: "Cut by Master Nelles without arms, Boston, Feb 4 183_". 2) 5-1/4" x 4-1/4" silhouette of man. 3) 5" x 4" silhouette and watercolor in black frame with brass hanger, written on back "Revd JH Pring A.B.". 4) 4-3/4" x 3-3/4" silhouette of a lady, "Miss SJ De Velasco 1837". CONDITION: Generally good."
The key to this lot is obviously the one inscribed, ""Cut by Master Nelles without arms, Boston, Feb 4 183_." The lot realized $1600 plus 20% commission and shipping charges. That is about $2000! Two bidders really wanted to secure this lot.
Because of the appearance of this lot, we can now add another bust style by Nellis, with slight reservation. The inscription needs to be examined, as this is the sole criterion for its attribution.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Decorative Silhouettes
When I went to the antiques show in Syracuse last week, I saw this pair. The lots were from 1/26/08 auction. The one on the left brought $80 ($96 with commission), and the other brought $50 ($60 with commission). This pair is likely from the 1920s or 30s with images being a sort of transferware. The plastic-like frames are ugly at best.
I hope the bidders got what they wanted.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Recent Auction Purchases by Peggy McClard
The Chapman handbill is framed with 3 profiles attributed to him (but not signed). I find his work amazing. Look at the cut detail of the bows of the woman’s bonnet, the cravat’s of the man and boy, and the tiny cut eyelashes! The profiles themselves 2 ¾” for the woman, 3” for the man, and only 1 1/8” for the boy! As you can see, the woman has a chunk of paper missing at her back. The handbill is 6” x 7 ½”. It is printed with a pressed letter press. The only other one I’ve seen is at Colonial Williamsburg, so I am rather proud of this one. The silhouettes are set behind a mat cut from 19th century paper. The site size of the entire framed piece is 8” x 10”. Framed size is 10 ¾” x 13”.
The pair of silhouettes framed together each has the embossed signature “A. Wheeler”. I can’t find anything about this artist and have never seen this signature before. It is in a period frame that has been repainted. I can’t see whether the frame has been cut down, but I doubt it is original to the silhouettes. The silhouettes have been glued to a 19th century paper with script—this holds them together as they are separate silhouettes with separate fabric backing. I’ve attached a scan of the paper backing—this is attached to the silhouettes, not the frame.
The single man is signed by J.Bruff. The silhouette has been framed backward, so the signature is backward. I can flip it for you if you would rather just have it the way it was supposed to be. It says “J. BRUFF” under which there is what appears to be a star, then “BALTIMORE”. The silhouette is in a frame that I suspect is turn of the 20th century instead of contemporaneous with the silhouette-cutting. The back of the frame has a trade label of the framer, also from Baltimore. I have not taken it out of the frame because the trade label is glued to the backboard, the nails are under the trade label, and I haven’t figured out how to get it out without harming the trade label. I generally take everything out of their frames to add archival ragboard….but, even though I suspect this trade label is later than the silhouette, I would like to preserve what history it has.
The pair of silhouettes framed individually in period brass frames are signed “W. KING”. The frames are obviously not original to these silhouettes. Both silhouettes were cut on the top to fit the oval, then folded on the bottom so they could fit without losing the family history, written in the late 19th or 20th century by an apparent relative. Apparently, these silhouettes were originally in a frame or frames with an oval mat of some sort because they both have light darkening at the original opening. The man must have originally been framed backwards because the family history is written on the back of him and the fabric backing has a ghost of him facing the wrong way. But the direction of the embossed signatures King meant for these silhouettes to face each other.
The silhouette in the gilt frame is a signed silhouette by Everet Howard. I hope you can see the signature. The silhouette is cut from very thin paper and the embossed signature is incredibly light. Please note that the hair is cut by slashing the paper with a pen knife (a Howard trademark). This Everet Howard silhouette is backed by 3 locks of hair. I have my doubts that the hair is original to anything as the frame is cut down, indicating that the silhouette has not been in it for terribly long. The locks of hair are not creatively arranged and they were simply held in place by a piece of glass in the back. I don’t think they could have managed to last as long as the silhouette in the condition in which they were laid down. However, I have left them in the back of the frame, taping the glass to the paper that backs them with archival tape. I have recently added a biography on my website about Everet Howard. I think he is my favorite American silhouettist. He did the silhouette that I use for my logo.
The pair of silhouettes framed together each has the embossed signature “A. Wheeler”. I can’t find anything about this artist and have never seen this signature before. It is in a period frame that has been repainted. I can’t see whether the frame has been cut down, but I doubt it is original to the silhouettes. The silhouettes have been glued to a 19th century paper with script—this holds them together as they are separate silhouettes with separate fabric backing. I’ve attached a scan of the paper backing—this is attached to the silhouettes, not the frame.
The single man is signed by J.Bruff. The silhouette has been framed backward, so the signature is backward. I can flip it for you if you would rather just have it the way it was supposed to be. It says “J. BRUFF” under which there is what appears to be a star, then “BALTIMORE”. The silhouette is in a frame that I suspect is turn of the 20th century instead of contemporaneous with the silhouette-cutting. The back of the frame has a trade label of the framer, also from Baltimore. I have not taken it out of the frame because the trade label is glued to the backboard, the nails are under the trade label, and I haven’t figured out how to get it out without harming the trade label. I generally take everything out of their frames to add archival ragboard….but, even though I suspect this trade label is later than the silhouette, I would like to preserve what history it has.
The pair of silhouettes framed individually in period brass frames are signed “W. KING”. The frames are obviously not original to these silhouettes. Both silhouettes were cut on the top to fit the oval, then folded on the bottom so they could fit without losing the family history, written in the late 19th or 20th century by an apparent relative. Apparently, these silhouettes were originally in a frame or frames with an oval mat of some sort because they both have light darkening at the original opening. The man must have originally been framed backwards because the family history is written on the back of him and the fabric backing has a ghost of him facing the wrong way. But the direction of the embossed signatures King meant for these silhouettes to face each other.
The silhouette in the gilt frame is a signed silhouette by Everet Howard. I hope you can see the signature. The silhouette is cut from very thin paper and the embossed signature is incredibly light. Please note that the hair is cut by slashing the paper with a pen knife (a Howard trademark). This Everet Howard silhouette is backed by 3 locks of hair. I have my doubts that the hair is original to anything as the frame is cut down, indicating that the silhouette has not been in it for terribly long. The locks of hair are not creatively arranged and they were simply held in place by a piece of glass in the back. I don’t think they could have managed to last as long as the silhouette in the condition in which they were laid down. However, I have left them in the back of the frame, taping the glass to the paper that backs them with archival tape. I have recently added a biography on my website about Everet Howard. I think he is my favorite American silhouettist. He did the silhouette that I use for my logo.
NOTE: Peggy says these silhouettes are going to her collection and not for sale at this time.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Reproduction Silhouettes and Miniatures
I found them on eBay. The seller sells these and others as, " Authentic looking facsimile PORTRAIT MINIATURES and SILHOUETTE PORTRAITS dating mainly from the late 18thC, presented in a traditional acorn hanger frame with brass fittings and convex glass. The frames have been slightly antiqued to give a pleasingly mellow finish."
I do not know what "facsimile" means here. It could be color prints (Xerox) from books and catalogs. If interested, check out the site. The eBay ID: maxw1664.
Strange Shadow Appears
I write this not to frighten anyone. The following account is real. We did witness a presence. This may have something to do with what we collect, the long ago deceased memories in a form of silhouettes.
Darkness falls upon us. The clock is ticking, approaching the witching hour. We sit on the sofa watching a television show that we can scarcely recall today. There, I rest my head on the left arm of the sofa, prone positioned, while wife sits on the other end.
I see it. It appears to me as rectangular bright light about a size of a credit card. It makes it appearance from wife’s shoulder area and moves slowly across towards her back in a straight line. “Did you see that?” “Yes, I did.” “What was it?” “I don’t know.”
The following day she tells me, “it had legs!” What I saw was just a rectangular bright light. What she saw was a shadow with legs moving slowly. How can that be? We both saw it, exactly at the same moment. This is strange. I must have seen someone’s soul, and she, an entity.
I swear this on a stack of antique silhouettes! No, we were not “high” either.
I write this not to frighten anyone. The following account is real. We did witness a presence. This may have something to do with what we collect, the long ago deceased memories in a form of silhouettes.
Darkness falls upon us. The clock is ticking, approaching the witching hour. We sit on the sofa watching a television show that we can scarcely recall today. There, I rest my head on the left arm of the sofa, prone positioned, while wife sits on the other end.
I see it. It appears to me as rectangular bright light about a size of a credit card. It makes it appearance from wife’s shoulder area and moves slowly across towards her back in a straight line. “Did you see that?” “Yes, I did.” “What was it?” “I don’t know.”
The following day she tells me, “it had legs!” What I saw was just a rectangular bright light. What she saw was a shadow with legs moving slowly. How can that be? We both saw it, exactly at the same moment. This is strange. I must have seen someone’s soul, and she, an entity.
I swear this on a stack of antique silhouettes! No, we were not “high” either.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Puffy Sleeve Artist
This set of 12 silhouettes, along with the blown-up photo, comes from Northeast Auctions website. The Todd's Patent is mine. I was a bit surprised to find that my frame is the same as 8 of theirs. I do not recall which silhouette came in this frame, but it was not Todd. I just "snuck" it in there.
Anyways, for larger images of the above 12 silhouettes and complete descriptions, go to their HP. It is a PDF file. Puffy
Are these silhouettes really what they depict? They have a sort of pedigree. If I were spending my money, I would not want to rely just on pedigree. If it were your money that I am spending, pedigree may suffice. On the same note, there are some silhouettes that are stamped, "From Nevill E. Jackson Collection" or something to that nature. She may have once owned them, but it proves nothing. Perhaps 20 years from now, you may see silhouettes stamped, "From B.M. Jones (me) Collection." I may have bought them as copies or study pieces.
What was the motive of this artist to depict everyone in a similar style? Let's have Hanna hold a flower, Prudence a book, Eliza an umbrella, and Jonathan a hat. Furthermore, let's have the men face to observer's left and women to the right. Puffy Sleeve artist says, "All dun. My price, usualy, is ten bucks each. But since y'all give me much bizines, one hunred bucks do me fine."
The man with a red jacket, being well-to-do, pays the artist the whole sum. BUT, he keeps all the silhouettes. He places them in a container. Now long forgotten, someone finds them all intact as a group in the second-quarter of 20th century or was the third (?).
I wonder just how many puffy sleeve artists were (are) there?
COPYRIGHT © 2005-2009 Robert M. Jones
All Rights Reserved
Archives
