American Silhouettes © 2012

Miniature Portrait Talk

Sunday was a beautiful sunny day. It was like one of those mid-summer days. Anyhow, we stopped by at Albany Institute to hear Elle Shushan give a talk on miniature portraits. This talk was loosely based on Albany artists. Before her talk began there was show-and-tell, show-and-ask kinda deal, where local collectors brought their little treasures to show around. This photo was taken during that session.

I did not take my reading glasses so they all looked blurry to me. I couldn't tell whether I was looking at encased insects or people's faces. Shushan would take a quick look and make attributions. Someone asked her how she was able to make attributions by just looking at them. She says, "It's a gift." I agree with her 100%. This kinda stuff is whether you got it or you don't. Of course, reading a lot on the subject and seeing many examples help, but it really comes down to whether you got it or you don't. And that's the truth.

I believe there were three portraits with cracks. There was a question as to whether those cracks could be fixed or not. If they could be fixed, how do they go about doing it was the follow-up question. Shushan says they glue them together, and its cost would be $500 at most. She continues, "Cracks won't go away; you will still see them (paraphrasing)." She was referring to cracks on borders and surrounds and not of those that are mortal (cracked face). Another question was about replacing a glass. I thought I heard she say that would run $125 or $150. She also touched upon weeping or crying glass, where the inpurities in glass would eat away the paint. She highly recommends replacing such glasses.

Albany Institute has a couple of special exhibitions going on right now. One is of George Washington; another is "Great, Strange, and Rarely Seen: Objects from the Vault," where you find some nice miniatures on display among other neat items.

James Sanford Ellsworth Miniature Portrait


Looks like someone tried to imitate James Sanford Ellsworth's work here in wash. Can you believe this pair brought $371? The buyer must have thought this work was really old and had something to do with Ellsworth. This work is a terrible attempt!

Never Buy Silhouettes Stamped WILLIAMS

For more on WILLIAMS, check out my older posts. If you ever have a chance of buying silhouettes stamped "WILLIAMS", do not think for a moment that you are buying silhouettes cut by Henry Williams from the early 19th century. Cause it ain't gonna happen.

This example appeared in a major auction firm a few years ago and was described as:

Silhouette Portrait of a Gentleman, attributed to Henry Williams, Boston, early 19th century, hollow-cut bust-length portrait backed with black fabric, the name "WILLIAMS" embossed at l.c., 4 1/2 x 3 1/2 in., in a period mahogany veneer frame.

It sold, so someone owns it now. I am sure it is proudly being displayed. The problem is that this silhouette is from the 20th century, and it was made to fool collectors and dealers. This artist was very good and made many fakes of all sorts. These fakes are quite easy to spot once you get a feel for them. Some of the fake embossment this artist used include Peale, Williams, Jones, Bache, King, and Chapman. In addition, this artist produced a whole slew of other off-beat silhouettes and painted profiles. They are signed using famous (and not so famous) names that are quite diverse. One of the prime suckers for these portraits was Elizabeth Maurier.

Someone paid $750 for this pair of fake WILLIAMS. OUCH!!

More Appraisal Work More Cat Food

This food donation was made to a local woman who cares for over 60 cats in her house. This photo was taken at her back shed where she spends most of her time mixing foods and doing regualr cat chores. Although the donor sent us enough to buy two large bags (I charged him one bag's worth but he was kind enough to provide extra), I took only one bag to her. I wanted to make sure that she was a kosher cat person. She is. Next week I will donate another bag.

I learned something new today. Dry cat foods are not equal. Many of them are made from corn, and the protein comes from that corn. She showed me a bag where the main ingredient is chicken. She says she mixes the cheap corn stuff with chicken ones. I have been a cat person all my life but lacked even the basic knowledge. I'm sorry cats; I will stay away from corn products and get you some real stuff from now on. She tells me the Tractor Supply Co. is a good place to buy pet foods.

If any of you are interested in antique silhouettes appraisal, check me out!

Antique Silhouette by William Doyle

I found this Doyle silhouette at Brimfield show yesterday. I believe this is the only time in which I walked and looked through all of the dealers. It was a perfect day for it: sunny, cool and pleasant. I walked for six hours. Usually, I give out after 3-4 hours. I probably came in contact with a dozen or so portraits. They were either way overpriced or had condition issues.

I was gonna pass on this Doyle yesterday because its price was not in tune with what I wanted to pay based on today's market. But wife says I should be buying while there are ones to buy, as the market will adjust itself sooner or later. She believes good silhouettes may all be gone from the marketplace in the near future. I agree with her on both points. Heck, that is what I used to tell her!
Anyways, this silhouette seems to be in its original frame. It is a British frame. I guess the original owner preferred this frame over the usual American pine frame. How do I know that this is not a replacement frame? How do I know that this silhouette was not placed in this frame last year or a few decades ago? When silhouette paper is cut to fit a frame, the cutting produces very sharp edges. It takes many, many years for that edge to mellow. Furthermore, the black backing paper of this silhouette, blackened on one side only, was sewed onto the paper (note pin pricks at left border). That was done 200 years ago. To boot, the back was fitted with an oval slice of pine. And this slice shows 200 years of age. Believe me, I've seen enough pine backings from that period to make a very good judgment (I always wondered why there is no "E" after "G" of the word "judgment").

The cutting of this Doyle is excellent with just the right amount of inked details. He uses the same ink to sign DOYLE. I am very particular when buying a Doyle, as there are many wanna-be's, fixed-up pieces, and just plain wrong ones out there. The paper has a watermark (partial?) of "CW."

Are these two silhouettes from the early 19th century? Are these two silhouettes from another time made to fool collectors? Click them to make them bigger. Everyone is welcome to answer but please provide why you think so.

One of our readers, Jen, writes:You have a great blog and I learned so much from you. I am no expert on silhouettes but I do collect them. From what I can see, these two silhouettes are likely from the early 1800's. I say that because the cuttings are finely done and the papers also seem to be from that period. If they were offered to me, I would have bought them as good 19th century silhouettes.

B. M. Jones writes:We thank Jen for writing us. Maybe she nailed it...maybe not. I wanna wait for a few others to respond before I offer my opinion on them.

One of our readers, Bob, writes: To me they look like fakes done on old paper. The way they're cut just looks all wrong. Now watch this. They're actually real, incredibly rare and incredibly valuable.

B. M. Jones writes: We thank Bob for writing us. Let's wait and see.

One of our readers, Horace, writes: Let me first say that you have a very informative blog. Having said that, I believe I would have bought these silhouettes as good 19thc items if they were in period frames. I say that because the cutting lines are well done without having wiggles or crudeness. Toning of the papers seems right too.

B. M. Jones writes: We thank Horace for sharing his thoughts.

One of our readers, Janet, writes: I tried to leave a comment on your May 8th post, but it said that comments are restricted to team members. Anyway, here's my take:
Hard to tell exactly without seeing the actual object, but I'd say they are modern silhouettes cut using old paper. They just don't look right to me.

B. M. Jones writes: We thank Janet for writing us. Will check into that comment thingy. Think I got it fixed now.

Donut Hole Silhouettes

One of our readers, Bob, sends us the following.

On 9/27/09 my “donut hole” silhouette was posted on this blog.  I’ve attached 2 pictures.  Recently I came across some additional information which may or may not shed some light upon it?

If you go to the Historic New England web site and search the collection, they have about 10 pages of silhouettes.  As you would expect, they all have a New England connection.  Some were collected, some were handed down.  There are some nice things.  They have 11 donut holes in their collection.  See especially accession numbers 1925.635, 1942.2527, 1942.2528.  Just nice to have some examples for comparison.
Finally, there is an article by Michael and Suzanne Payne, “The ‘New Delineating Pencil’: Silhouettes by William Jennys”.  I have attached a PDF version of the article (Ed.: readers are able to read it by googling the title).

As you know, William Jennys was an itinerant painter and silhouette artist.  According to this article, he produced what they refer to as “hole in the donut” profiles.  These were apparently not the left-overs from producing a hollow cut, but were made as such. 

Comparing mine to the examples of the donut holes in the article and seeing the handling of the front and back hair lines, the band around the neck, the profile, the sort of pursed little lips (hard to see in my images)….I wonder.  However, what  gives me the greatest pause is the shape of the lower bust line of my donut hole.

Yes, probably just wishful thinking that's of little merit.  Thought I would put it out there anyways to see what people thought.


B. M. Jones writes: We thank Bob for writing us. Looks like he has been up to some net surfing these days.

I hate that term "donut hole." I guess Van Leer Carrick came up with it. I hate it because a "hole" is a hole, an empty space. How could that empty space be a silhouette? Proper term would be "munchkin." Munchkin is a left-over created by punching out a circular piece out of the donut's center. A donut hole could never be a silhouette; however, munchkin, a left-over piece, could be one.

In the above Jennys article, the authors write, "Using the same white paper, William produced a combination of hollow-cut and “hole in the doughnut” inside profiles for the different members of the family group. A close examination of the group reveals that the “hole in the doughnut” inside silhouettes were not the center of the hollow-cut examples, but were produced independently" and mounted on black cloth.

How did they determine those white silhouettes were not munchkins "but were produced independently"? What the heck does that mean? Produced independently? Since they do not tell us how they determined it, we just do not know. So, if they were not cut from the center, they had to be cut from either near the center or alongside the paper's borders. I totally disagree with them. The white silhouettes are left-over munchkins that were cut out from the center. Some family members took the hollow-cuts, and some got the munchkins.

I don't know whether these silhouettes were found framed or not, but these frames (see photo) are common 20th century el-cheapo type. Some collectors think these things are liners (liners are small frames within larger frames), but these are real frames made as frames to be used as frames. At any rate, I do not believe for one moment that Jennys had cut the white silhouettes "independently" and mounted them on black cloth.

Robert Burns Silhouette

I found this silhouette on eBay. It looks like this seller had done some research on this piece. This seller is an honest one to boot, calling this silhouette for what it is. This silhouette would date to early 20th century. The frame is veneered. Eight out of ten silhouettes of this style come in this frame. As I have mentioned several times in the past, the dustcover would have had a stamp of "MADE IN ENGLAND." This one brought $165. The following is its description by the seller.

ROBERT BURNS Antique Silhouette Painting on Reverse Glass BIRDS EYE MAPLE FRAME

An antique silhouette of the famous Scottish Poet Robert Burns.  This is probably from the late 19th century. It is a replica of one made by John Mier when he visited Edinburgh in 1787, the original is held in the Leeds University Library Collection.

This was painted directly onto the glass in reverse.  It has some gold embellishments at the robes collar. The Mier silhouette that this replicates was a cut paper silhouette and had the words "Mr. Burns Kilmarnock, 1787" underneath.  As on the original, the artist that painted this silhouette added that statement ... which had to be done in reverse on the glass!
The frame is also an antique, a beautiful birds-eye maple with a gilt liner, retaining the original wooden backing and hanging loop at the top.

Silhouette Appraisal for Cat Food

I just did an appraisal for one of our readers. No, I did not charge all this to appraise one or two silhouettes. There were a bunch of them. This photo was taken at a local Humane Society (20 Friskie cans, 3-13 pound bags). Every dollar I charge goes to buying cat food. They are donated in your name. Everyone wins: you, shelters, and the cats. So, if you need appraisals for your silhouettes, drop me a line.

One of our readers, Bob, sends us the following finds. He tells us he found two silhouettes recently.

After some research on line (including of course your "blog" and your on line paper about artists without arms), looking in Carrick, Rifkin, and some other printed sources, I believe they may be genuine Honeywells.

Both are cut and paste black paper silhouettes of men mounted on wove paper facing to the view's left.  Both bear the same ink inscription "Cut with the mouth by M.A. Honeywell."  On the reverse of both, there is a graphite inscription in old fashioned script and in a different hand than Martha's  that I can't make out.  The overall form, bust line, inscription, hand writing all seem consistent with other other examples.  I forgot to see if the reverse of the actual bust is white as you mention in your paper about artists without arms before I put them in the frames.  However, will have to opportunity to check at a later date.

There is a Honeywell previously posted on your blog 7/12/08.  Look at the profile and the shape of the nose.  Now look at the profile and shape of the nose of one I'm posting.  Sort of similar??

They both do have condition issues.  When first acquired, they were installed in a late 19th or early 20th Century double divided frame backed by CDV photos of children and bits of cardboard to serve as filler.  Both silhouettes are, sadly, glued just by the very top 1/4 inch to a now very faded blue heavy paper, like construction paper.  Judging by the shadows, they have been so mounted for a long time.  There are some stains, toning, ripples, and the boarders are cut unevenly.

They're currently housed in a pair of old frames that were handy.  They're scheduled to go to a buddy who does very good period framing such that the visible staining, etc, will be, well, somewhat obscured.

As you know, Carrick has a good section about Honeywell, pages 104-109 with examples illustrated therein.  I have to agree with her assessment when she writes,  "Elegant her silhouettes could never be called; the ones that have come to my notice are a trifle clumsy, but the marvel is that she should have done them at all."

This may be old information, but 2 interesting web sites with information about Honeywell include the Missouri History Museum which has 5 Honeywells:
(Note: Bob inserts two links here. I appreciate that, but links often go bad. Worse yet, they sometimes get re-linked to totally different sites. For those reasons, I prefer not to embed links on my blogs.)Also see the New York Historical Society Museum & Library web site:
Besides a gilt enhanced Honeywell silhouette, they have 2 fabulous examples of the other types of cuttings she did (you mention these in your paper as well).  Very much worth a look.

B. M. Jones writes:First, let us thank Bob for submitting his finds here. Second, these two silhouettes are, indeed, by Honeywell. Third, a mystery has been solved.  I had always wondered which came first: silhouette or inscription. Did Honeywell paste the silhouette first and then inscribe? Did she inscribe first and then paste the silhouette? If you were to look closely at the clipped and enlarged photo, you will note that the loop of the letter "C" of "Cut" is clearly under the bust tip. I believe she carted around a stack of pre-cut papers that had already been inscribed.

 Elizabeth Morse (Demors) Silhouette

Here we have another Demors. I like Demors (Elizabeth Morse) works because they are cute. Someone thought this one was worth $50. This one is her run-of-the-mill work, and I believe this type is her earlier work. She did British silhouettes, too. They are done better. The scary ones are the ones she did not sign, as they are good enough to pass as 19th century silhouettes.

I am unable to prove yet, but I am sure she "worked" on some of those colorful so-called "puffy sleeves" silhouettes, too. Personally, I would not dish out any serious money for them kinda deals. I just don't feel any "kosher" in them. But then, that is just me. If you think they are genuine and can spare huge amount of cash for them, more power to you. Someone has to get suckered-in. It is like buying frozen shrimp that sit on ice for $15 a pound at grocery stores. The fish guy will try to sneak in some ice with the shrimp. I yell, "Hold the ice; I ain't paying $15 a pound for no ice." Fish guy replies, "Someone has to pay for it."

Master Hubard Silhouette of Dr. Oliver Hubbard

Sometimes it is worthwhile to hit local antiques shows. Although I did not expect to find any silhouettes at this show, I was able to go home with one (by the way, I almost ended up not buying it, as the seller and I did not quite agree on the price; another seller had a rare pair of full figure cut-and-paste by Hankes that was a bit pricey). This is one of those silhouettes of a historical figure that every collector dreams of owning.  This particular sitter is a well-known medical doctor from Salem, Massachusetts. Anna Claypoole Peale painted a miniature of him, so that means something. In addition, there is a silhouette cut by Master Hubard in the collection of the Peabody-Essex Museum in Salem. That silhouette is so famous it was reproduced many years ago as a print on glass. So, if you happen to own one, enjoy it for what it is.

At any rate, I believe this silhouette is a new discovery. It comes in a period, American pine gilt frame that measures 6 x 7 1/2". The opening measures 4 x 5 1/2". The silhouette is a cut-and-paste that has been blackened using gouache. It is pasted onto a thicker than normal paper (not a card) and mounted on cardboard. The period inscription in ink reads, "Dr. Oliver / Hubbard / Salem, Mass" and "Cut by / 'Master' Hubbard." This silhouette dates to circa 1825. The inscription is likely not by Master Hubard, as the inscriber spells his name with an extra "b." By the way, Dr. Hubbard (1770-1849) and Master William James Hubard (1807-1862) are not related. They just happen to have similar sounding names.




This type of silhouette really belongs in a museum. Because Hubbard was from Salem, Peabody-Essex Museum is its righteous place. Instead of a private collector owning it, it would be better served if it were to be displayed for public viewing.

Silhouettes in the City

 One of our readers, Janet, sends us the following:

I am writing this because so many of you reproach me, gently it is true, but, none the less reproach it is and nothing else. “Of course,” you say, “you live in country and it is easy for you to find these lovely old things in garrets and attics, and at the wayside collector’s shrine of auctions. But we who live in city, what are we to do about it?” Now I am happy that I live in the country; I am a converted cockney, and I would not for one moment dispute the happiness of my antique pursuits here among the hills. But the real truth of the matter is that the better bargains are in the city. You must of course, know how to look for them and where. . .

Any city, particularly one along the eastern coast, is full of small inexpensive old-furniture shops, and places where second hand goods are sold, and little auction rooms – even big auction rooms on a rainy day or at an off season – hold many genuine bargains, things that you might seek for years in the country and never find. (Alice Van Leer Carrick, Collector’s Luck, 1919)

Very little has changed in the almost 100 years since Carrick wrote these words. I have lived in Washington for almost 20 years and have indeed had some incredible luck in the city. Church rummage sales, Goodwill, consignment stores, apartment sales – and even some of the most upscale antique stores and auction rooms – can yield some true treasures.

Case in point: last weekend my husband and I were in Alexandria, Virginia, leisurely strolling along Old Town’s main drag, perusing the fashionable boutiques and ducking into fancy antique stores to “ooh” and “ahh” over Chippendale chairs and fine Federal dressers. While my husband was wincing over the $15,000 price tag for an Empire sofa, I noticed a group of silhouettes in the corner. Two hollow-cut pieces in particular caught my interest. No price tags (of course), and I almost walked out without inquiring. But then curiosity got the better of me. Well, let’s just say that we left with both silhouettes in hand for less than the cost of our lunch and two glasses of wine.


The second, a simple hollow cut, has overall water damage, as well as some insect damage along the edges. There is also a small loss to the paper, just above the gentleman’s collar, where his tie should be. When I opened it up to clean the glass and replace the wood backing with acid-free board, I discovered some old pieces of newspaper, dating to 1834, including an announcement for Nicholas J. Ash’s famous hot-air balloon ascent in Washington on July 30, 1834 (a real bit of local history), and the summer steamer schedules to Norfolk and Charleston. The insect damage on the newspaper is consistent with the damage on the silhouette.
B. M. Jones writes:

These two silhouettes are a good find. The frames are certainly period, if not original to these silhouettes. Worn spots can simply be replastered and paint to match. The trick is to use a bit of primer before replastering. Take it from me. I once had to replaster the living room ceiling three times cause I was too stupid not to prime the first two times. Finally, got it done right on my third try. I wasted a lot of time and energy.


I don't know what dine and wine in Alexandia go for, but I am sure these two frames alone are worth more than the lunch.

Janet follows:

That is awesome! I love your solution to the mold problem. It made me laugh! My husband is now plotting how to make an eglomise mat. Incidentally, he said the exact same thing about the frames alone being worth the price. I doubt we'll have such a good find again. BTW, there is one small typo (my fault), the date of the balloon ascent was July 30, 1834 (not 1934).

Then B. M. Jones:

Any black construction paper will do. Like most things, I get mine from Walmart. The paper package contains about six different colors and sell for about two bucks. They are acid-free! The most difficult thing is cutting a perfect oval. You could buy a plastic gadget that cuts ovals in different sizes; however, the problem is that it cuts tall ovals. 

But I guess Janet's husband is thinking of making a glass mat? First, he would need a glass. I suggest buying a glassed frame at a dollar store that is more than twice the size of what he needs to cut, just in case he messes up in his first try. He would need to use the two "true" sides of that glass. This way he needs to cut only two other sides. I hope he does not work using inches. Gotta go metric. He has to remember, too,  that silhouette frames are not perfectly rectangular. After correct measurements are taken, it is time to cut. If he draws cutting lines, do not cut the glass outside of these lines. If he does, the glass will be a hair bigger than the frame fitting, and it ain't gonna fit. And, it is impossible to cut off the tiny excess. In other words, it is best to cut the glass slightly smaller. For blackening it, he needs to get baking kinda gouache. Unbaking kind will smear and peel. Perhaps he would send us a photo once he completes his project.

Janet responds:

Just a quick note on construction paper. I would strongly advise against using it anywhere near something you want to preserve long term. Even though it says "acid-free" does not actually mean that it is. All construction paper is made primarily from recycled papers, most of which contains wood pulp (which is bad, bad, bad) and degrades quickly. So even if it actually starts off as "acid free" it will not stay that way for long. Certainly the newer construction papers are better than they used to be, but they are still bad papers. To be on the safe side, always use archival quality, acid-free (or buffered) cotton rag board for mounting or backing works on paper or paper documents.
Construction paper is the bane of my existance, so I feel pretty strongly about it! 

VERY RARE c1830 Printed-Body American Silhouette (UPDATE)

Thanks to Janet, one of our readers, I am able to update the posting of Sunday, July 3, 2011. I thought my find was unique, but Janet had found an exact same bust in the collection of Connecticut Historical Society. It is therein described as: about 1830; silhouette and wood-engraving; cut paper with black printer's ink on black painted paper in gilt frame under glass; half-length profile portrait of a girl, facing right, wearing a dress with a high waistline and long sleeves with small puffs at the shoulders.

So, there are now two examples of this rare bust. Janet also guides us to another interesting printed body silhouette of a man. This, too, is in the collection of CHS. This silhouettes is described as: early 19th century; bust-length portrait of a man, facing left, wearing a coat with a broad collar, a striped cravat, and a shirt with a high collar.

The note attached to this silhouette reads, "The use of a wood-engraved body in combination with the cut-paper silhouette portrait is reminiscent of the work of the Letterpress Artist of Connecticut. However, only the family registers associated with the Letterpress Artist's work were printed; the bodies and clothing of the sitters were either part of the cut-paper silhouette or were drawn by hand. (Finlay 8/31/2010)"

Say what? I get the first sentence. I also get the second sentence. Basically, those two sentences say the same thing. I have no idea what the third sentence means. That semi-colon between the two sentences must mean Finlay is still on the subject of the Letterpress Artist, but there is no relation there. Whether there is any relation or not, I still do not understand what she/he is trying to say. Can someone explain to me?

Samuel Banton Silhouettes?

One of our readers, Janet, writes:

I am attaching some photos of a pair of silhouettes I found in Michigan over Christmas. Both are hollow cut, on wove paper, measuring about 4 x 3 1/2 inches. They are not signed. The frames are painted black and are just slightly mismatched. The glass is a light purple color ~ like that wonderful purple glass one sees in the old windows of Federal houses on Beacon Hill in Boston (the discoloration of the glass caused by adding too much maganese oxide added during the manufacturing process).

Anyway, I have followed the discussion on your blog regarding Banton v. Chamberlain, and wonder what you think of this pair (I think HE looks an awful lot like a Banton). While the color and body of the man seem typical, I have never seen anything quite like the the cutting of the woman's bodice and her pleated collar.

Many thanks again for your fabulous blog. I wish there were more resources like it for specialized scholarly discussions such as you facilitate.

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Janet for sending us nicely taken photos. Because they are not signed, we do not know who the artist is. But I believe Banton is a fitting attribution. These silhouettes would date from the 1820s, based on the woman's frilled collar. It is amazing how this pair stayed together all these years, condition matching. It is unusual to see this frilled collar done so nicely on silhouettes. I once owned a fully painted silhouette with this type of collar (it was illustrated in the blog some years ago).

The cloth backings have faded. Replacing them with black velvet would do wonders. Also, the wooden backings have toned the paper. I would highly suggest inserting acid-free paper or card between the board and the black cloth. This pair is a great find!

 
 Antique Silhouettes by Henry Williams


This pair takes the cake for tonight! Someone paid $160.49 for them. Nothing about these silhouettes is kosher. They are decorative, good for someone who wants to hang or display them at the darkest corner of a darkest room. One good thing about this pair is that they come with Maurier label (LOL). This pair is NOT 19th century but 20th century, made to fool the unfortunate. Unfortunate it is for this winning bidder.

Silhouettes Stamped WILLIAMS are NOT by Henry Williams

I realize this title is strongly worded, but after many years of following Williams I have yet to find a silhouette that is Williams-like, whatever that is. What do his cuttings look like? Nobody knows. This is not to say genuine Williams does not exist, but all silhouettes stamped with a large WILLIAMS die are not his work. The ones I have seen with WILLIAMS stamp are divided into two groups: fake hollow-cut silhouettes with fake WILLIAMS stamp; genuinely old hollow-cuts stamped WILLIAMS. Here are the problems with the latter: genuinely old hollow-cuts differ so much in quality, technique, and design that they show no consistency; another problem is that WILLIAMS stamps on those genuinely old silhouettes are the same (not similar, but the same) as those WILLIAMS stamped on fake silhouettes. Conclusion: all silhouettes, both good and bad, with WILLIAMS stamps are not by Henry Williams.

They are likely the product of the Roaring Twenties. So, with this in mind I would highly suggest you buy them on the cheap. For a fake silhouette with WILLIAMS, the value is with the frame. If it is in early 1800s frame, the price would be determined by its condition and scarcity. If in a 20th century frame, then very little, price of a burger at best. For genuinely old silhouettes with WILLIAMS, the price should be determined by the value of such unsigned silhouette, based on their condition, detailing and appeal, minus 25% for having been compromised with a stamp (treat it as unsightly defect), plus the value of the frame.

Antique Silhouette


Someone just paid $50 for this one on eBay. Whenever you see silhouettes with mouth opened, such as this one is, you can just about bet your last dollar that they ain't good for nothing. Check out my past posts for open-mouthed silhouettes. Why pay $50 for this one? Cut one yourself! Silhouette artists from the 19th century would never cut something this ugly. Remember, they did it for a living.

 

Antique Silhouette by Joseph Wood


One does not see this gem often. This silhouette is by Joseph Wood. To top is all off, it even comes with a Maurier label. How can you beat that? With a whip I'd say. Someone paid $53 on eBay. That is money very well spent, if you have been searching for a worthless whatchamacallit. What was it that P. T. Barnum supposedly have said? For $53 this buyer could have bought a nice copy of Carrick's silhouettes book to read and study.