Black & White 2 - game update v.1.1 - Download. This will launch an installer that will patch your version to the latest version of Black and White 2, version 1.1. - Fixed a Technical Hang on Land 3 when trying to create disciples after killing off your population.
Back in June I posted a. One of the things I discussed was that many of these prints were in bad condition and needed 'fixing up.'
I've had a number of follow up questions on this topic, so today I'll discuss in more detail the issue of print conservation and restoration. The first thing to say is that for prints it is crucial that those with condition issues at least be conserved (the difference between conservation and restoration is that the former concerns not allowing the print to get worse and the latter with trying to take the print back to its condition before it started to deteriorate). I love the Antiques Roadshow and this program has been helpful in raising people's awareness of antiques and various issues related to antiques. However, there is one 'lesson' people have learned which is sometimes misapplied to prints. Anyone who has watched the program a number of times will probably have seen at least one segment where the appraiser comments that the item being examined was nice, but would have been worth considerably more had it not been restored. A table that would have been worth tens of thousands in 'original condition,' but now worth only thousands because it was cleaned and its patina lost. As a result of this, we often get people coming in to the Roadshow proudly showing us a print which they didn't restore because they wanted to preserve its value.
Unfortunately, the lesson about not restoring furniture does not apply to. The 'problems' associated with furniture aging are not generally destructive of those objects; in contrast, the 'problems' associated with the aging of prints often are destructive. Acid, mold, foxing, waterstains and many other problems one typically finds with prints will eventually cause those prints to be destroyed. Thus prints with aging issues, in contrast with furniture, do need to be conserved to retain their value. A print that is acidic will have its paper continue to breakdown, eventually becoming brittle and falling apart. Foxing and mold will spread and will also lead to the eventual destruction of the print.
Waterstains can cause the paper to weaken and eventually rot away. A print glued to a backing will be harmed both by the glue used, and also by being attached to a backing which likely will eventually fall apart itself, at the same time destroying the attached print. What this means is that for almost all prints with condition problems, it is important to conserve them in order to, but their existence.
Sometimes the condition problems will not progress very quickly, so that the destruction of the print may be far off in the future, but these problems do not go away unless the print is conserved. Restoration goes beyond conservation, by trying to return the print to its earlier condition and appearance. This is more a question of taste and value than conservation. One has to conserve a print for it to continue to survive, but once conserved a print needn't have its foxing spots or waterstains removed, the darkened paper lightened or whatever. Our usual policy is that 'tasteful' or 'moderate' restoration is desirable.
Certainly, in most cases, restoration increases the value of prints (again, unlike in many cases with furniture). For one thing, most conservation processes will restore the print at the same time, so if one sees a print with the appearance of condition problems, one assumes it is in bad shape. Also, one of the main purposes for which people acquire prints is for decoration and a print that has been properly restored looks better than one that hasn't. Still, with prints some of the same factors come into play that cause furniture collectors to seek out antiques that don't look too pristine, that look like they are wearing their age.
Many print collectors want their prints to look like antiques, not modern copies with bright white paper, etc. This means that any restoration done should be done with care so that the print is not over-restored. Foxing and stains can be removed and acidic paper lightened, but the print shouldn't end up looking bright white and spotless.
Likewise, one can make repairs and fill losses, but there is nothing wrong with a print showing some signs of its age. This is a subtle matter and it is important before having any print restored that you and the restorer have the same idea of how you want the print to end up. Conservation/restoration is a fairly expensive thing to have done. For a typical small folio Currier & Ives print, with just standard condition issues, it might cost about $150 to $200 to restore.
Those prints with worse conditions issues (if they are laid down or badly stained, for instance) or prints of a larger size, will cost even more. This obviously means a serious expense for the owner of antique prints and it is something that is a regular concern for us at the Philadelphia Print Shop. There are some prints where it just doesn’t make sense to spend the money to fix them up unless they have a lot of sentimental value. If a print is worth only $50 or so, then it seems ridiculous to pay $250 or more to fix it up. However, even if a print is worth only about the same as the cost of the restoration, or even a little less, it might make sense to fix up the print if you like it or it means something special to you. It is not always easy to find the same print in better shape, and antique prints do retain their value (assuming they do not deteriorate in condition), so it is reasonable to make the investment in preserving the print even if the value doesn't quite equal the cost.
Some people resolve this problem by trying to restore the prints themselves. We do not recommend that owners do this, as most of the means that non-experts use to 'restore' their prints actually cause the prints harm in the long run. If the print is worth restoring, it is probably worth having a professional do it. If an owner really wants to do his/her own restoration, then do some reading and get the proper materials so that the job is done right. While we do not encourage non-professional restoration, a good resource for anyone interested in the subject is the.
A final few thoughts on this subject. First, you should keep this issue in mind when looking to buy an antique print. Many prints that you find in antique shops or at auction need restoration. You might, for instance, be able to buy a nice small folio at an auction for, say, $50, which might seem like a good deal when you know that a print gallery might sell it for $150. However, if you figure that you need to spend $150 or so to restore it, it becomes clear that this isn't such a good value. Finally, we hate to see antique prints be destroyed by inaction.
Certainly there are some prints of low value or that are relatively common where the cost of fixing them doesn’t make sense, but if you own an antique print that needs to be fixed and don’t want to pay to have this done, perhaps you should consider selling the print to someone who will fix it up and then buying something that doesn’t need any work. It is not good to simply ignore the issue of prints that have condition problems. Whatever value they currently have will leach away as the prints continue to deteriorate.
Find more information and antique prints here at. You can get an appraisal or 'email appraisal' (the latter of which is less expensive, but that does cost money. Generally free appraisals are worth what you pay for them.
Because of the size of the print you have, it will probably cost a fair bit to conserve. There are a couple questions on whether it is worth spending that money. If you plan to sell the print, the question is whether you would gain extra value in the sale compared to what you spend.
I doubt that would happen. The second question is whether you could buy the print in better condition for less than the cost of conservation. I doubt it in this case.
So, if you like the print and want to keep it, I would say go ahead and have it conserved. If you don't like the print, it makes more sense to sell it as is. This is a terrific print, which I have written about elsewhere in the print blog. It is definitely worth restoring and preserving. It is interesting you say 'widely available.' This is, of course, a relative term.
This print was issued in greater numbers than most nineteenth century engravings, but it is still not in any sense 'common.' You tend to see it around because it is such a great print than anyone who has one for sale publicizes it quite a bit. It is a wonderful print and does have some significant value.
Please fix it up or at least sell it to someone who will fix it up. It should not be left to die! Anonymous I bought a print in its original frame. It seems very old and has a very old canvas back with a fancy 'copyright picture' monogram on the back of the canvas and a very old label on the frame that says 'My 'first ear-rings' and further 'published fine art association,London' amongst other things.The print is signed Richard A.
The print has many areas that are cracked from something probably pushing haphazardly here and there on the back canvas but no real chips or pieces missing. Could you tell me what kind of print this is when it is over canvas an should I have it professionaly restored. And lastly,What is its possible value? It isnt and doesnt look like it has ever been under glass.Should I at least conserve it by having a framer put it under glass. I have never seen a print like this,its definately not an oil painting but its not like any pressed prints ive seen. What do I have,Help!
Thank You, Ron. It sounds to me like this is a chromolithograph.
The facts that it is on canvas and that the surface is cracking and that it was framed without glass are all things that are fairly typical of chromolithogrpahs. As to having it restored, that is something you will have to decide for yourself. I do not know the print in particular, but it sounds like a print that would have 'decorative' value (as explained elsewhere in my print blog).
If it is attractive and can be fixed to good shape, then this value will be reasonable and if you like it, then it is worth fixing. If you plan to sell it, I doubt you would get back your investment. I hope this answers your questions. In general it is not financially worthwhile to conserve any facsimile, except perhaps some of the better Audubon elephant facsimiles. A facsimile, not matter how made, is a reproduction. This doesn't mean they are not nice, but they do not have any value beyond decorative.
Most facsimiles do not have enough decorative value to warrant the expense of restoring. Also, facsimiles are much more common than originals, so there is often a chance you can find another example in better shape for less than the cost of restoration. If you love a print and cannot find another and it is worth it for you (in terms of enjoying the print) then there is no reason to not spend the money on restoration, but on a pure financial basis, it just doesn't make sense.
Anonymous I recently came into possession of an old German prayer book titled 'Die ewige Anbetung'. It has a separate page that states it was printed in Colonia,8/21/1866.Its publisher I believe is Baudri.It measures 4.5'x 3'. It`s leatherbound with a cross( broken) with some kind of pearlized flower and branch treatment in metal adorning the cover.The pages are gilded. It has a small springloaded closure. The condition of the binding is entact and reasonable except for the fact that the text is completely unglued.So my question becomes should where do I begin.I live in southern NJ.
Chris, I have an antique print of a bird's eye view of my hometown in Italy that was printed in the mid-1700's. I made the mistake of inserting it in a clear plastic sleeve that was supposed to be for 'long term conservation' of works of art, but the end result was not too good. The print started darkening, especially at the folds, within a few months. I since then removed it from the sleeve (obviously) and put it back in an album I bought years ago in Italy and meant specifically for the preservation of antique prints. The print is approx. 17x20 inches, but I can easily get you the exact measurements.
How can we get to an estimate for restoration? What a wonderful service you provide here. I have an etching of a cottage with a creek in the foreground. It has the artists name in the lower right corner of the actual etching.
It is signed 'E. Field' in pencil below the etching in the lower left corner. A horseshoe is drawn in the center of the boarder below the etching.
In the lower right hand margin below the etching, it is signed in pencil 'W. In the top left boarder it reads Copyright 1887 by 'C.ner, 17 E 17th St.
It measures just under 9' x 22'. The paper is brittle and has several tears but to me they look repairable. This print has been in my possession for 50 years or so but I don't recall where it came from. I'm not particularly enamored with the subject, but I hate to see i deteriorate any further and would like to have it retored/preserved to the extent affordable. What do you advise? Denise, your print is what is called a Remarque (or remark) proof.
The printer is C(hristian) Klackner who was a very successful and reputable dealer in the 19th century. I have read that the Remarque Proofs he printed numbered only 25.
That little horseshoe is the 'remark' which is a graphic engraved just for the remark proof print run. It is then sanded off prior to the next run which is called the artists proof run (and has the original signatures of the engraver and also sometimes the artist of the original work. This was another limited run prior to the general printing which would not have been signed. Also, the remark and artists proof runs do not have the title of the work in the lower margin as the general print run does. So, in short, your print is fairly rare.
Anonymous I have two old prints. Both are in poor condition, with much foxing, torn edges, creases, etc. One is the Mater Dolorosa (printed in block at top of print) and (bottom left of print says: Painted by Reni) and on the back is pencilled in a date in 1862. This has been in my family all those years. The artist was Guido Reni. The second print we found hidden inside a frame on the back of an old watercolor (also had been in our family for years).
It appears to be a lithograph for an advertising product or play (is in color), says Mr. Pickles across the top and bottom left corner (partially torn off) it appears to say?P.
It shows a turn of the century gentleman sitting relaxed in a chair. I am not particularly interested in either print, but cannot find any estimates of their value (or of their value if repaired) so I can decide if it would be worth the cost to have them repaired. Can you direct me to any sources of information about these subjects?
Anonymous I purchased 2 Redoute prints from the Paul Victorious Framing Shop in Charlottesville, Virginia, around 1973 when I was a graduate student at the University of Virginia. They were sold to me as original hand-colored engravings. The ones I purchased were flowers from the 'Choix des plus belles Fleurs-1835'-the Bigonia (plate 11) and the Coreopsis (plate 24). My prints are identical to the ones I recently viewed on antique print web sites, except that they do not have the plate number beside Redoute's name in the lower left hand corner.
I am wondering what this signifies. Does this mean these prints are from a later printed edition? If so, how does this affect their value? Also, I unfortunately put them in antique walnut frames with an oval wood liner and the wood has darkened part of the prints. Can this be removed and is the process expensive? Anonymous I have a J.
Voyet print of a 'Boat' framed in a nice green gold frame with material band in the center of the frame. The picture is one prominent large boat with masts no sails, it is by its self in a harbor.
The buildings to the left appear to be a town. The sticker on the back Academy Arts 1840 N.
Clybourn Ave. I think it is a print formed on hard backing cardboard or some kind of material. The print is yellowed and appears dirty, what is the best way to clean this print. Kathyloo I have a large print (25' x 29' overall - the picture itself being 19' x 22')titled An Autumn Landscape, which is printed below the picture along with the following text in the white margin. Painted by John Constable Esq R.A.
Published by George Stinson & Co. Portland, Maine Engraved by Robert Bowyer Parkes Also, in very tiny font in the bottom boarder of the picture is this text: 'Entered according to act of Congress by George Stinson & Co.
In this year 1888 in the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington' The print is covered with tiny light foxing stains but has no tears or creases, etc. The Constable painting it reproduces is titled 'The Cornfield' A little internet research found this painting has be reproduced by several engravers, in various styles. Mine looks like the method used by engraver C.
I haven't been able to find one online by Parkes or as large as mine. Also interesting that this publisher changed the title. It could be an 'original' antique print, but seller couldn't prove it.
It certainly looks old. LOL Do you think it's value might warrant a restoration? I purchased a print of Oppenheim's Wandering Wayfarer at a thrift store. It is in pretty rough shape because it was glued to a board and the sides taped down. I love the picture but I am unsure about paying for an estimate of getting it restored with the local restorer since I can find nothing about prints of his online. Since it is probably not valuable (unless I am just a terrible googler), should I try to peel it off the board myself and clean it well enough to be matted and framed or do you think I should take it to the restorer? Anonymous I have an 18th century English print by printmaker Samuel Cousins After Edwin Landseer, painter, title (object) 'Return from Hawking'.
There is no title on the print and no margins. It is just one large beautiful scene. It is a gorgeous thing, however, it has need of conservation work (chips along the edges and in some small places on the surface/staining in some places, cleaning, etc.) I received an estimate for conserving the piece of $800-$1200 and that was from sending photos of the piece via email, not actually seen in person by the conservator.
Does the technique used to create the print enhance its value (stipple/etching/engraving/mixed method) or is it soley based on the artist, its age and the content of the piece? I am trying to determine if the cost to conserve would supersede the value of the print. If a print is worth $800 then it would make no sense to spend that or more to restore.
In that case, how does one value an un-conserved piece? Hence the reason to ask about the technique used when the print was made. I need some info if it is possible. I purchased 7 prints of Cries of London. These prints look to be very old the paper is really brown in color and feel like it could be brittle, the images are done in stipple with color. Around the edge you can see a depression of the plate. The images have a plate number on each one.
I have plates 1, 3, 7,8 10, 12, 13. Plate 7 measures 40 x 30 cm, Plates 8,10,12,13 measure 35.5 x 30.5 cm and Plates 28 x 34 cm. All plates have Painted by F. Wheatley R.A. Engraving has been done by different engravers: Plates 7,8,10,12 are engraved by G. Vendramini Plate 13 is engraved by T.Gaugain Plates 1and 3 are engraved by L.
Schiavonetti All images have the title in English and French, also each has the plate number below the text Cries of London. Three of the images are on heavy cardboard. Maybe mounted that way at sometime but they look like they were like that from the beginning.I don't know. There is a depression on the top, bottom and along the sides that appear to be a depression mark form the plate.
Any info would be of great help to me. Thank you for the time you have taken to read this letter. You do not say what your question is, so all I can do is make some comments. First, this series is one of the most often reproduced series of British prints there is. There are tons of reproductions of these (almost all of which have the plate mark you mention and the same printed information). That doesn't mean you have reproductions, but it is fairly likely. This is especially true because of the way you describe their condition.
I have seen many of the repros of this series turn a deep brown; this seems to be because of the type of paper used. The originals rarely turn that color, though it is possible.
In terms of restoration, the prints can probably be restored, but it would be rather expensive, both because of the browning and because some are glued to boards. If they are originals, this might be worth while, but I would make sure of that before doing anything. Unfortunately, there is no easy way we can tell you how to tell.
You really need to show them to an expert. Carol I have a collection of 18 framed and 6 unramed Piranesi etchings which is a small part of a larger collection belonging to the estate of my late father. The collection was appraised in 1990 by Fisk & Borodin with fair market values listed. While many of the etchings were restored at that time, my collection was not restored or conserved. I have State 1 and some State 2 prints which are in pretty good condition aside from some spotting.
The values in the appraisal range from $1,200. To $3,000 each which, again is described as fair market value at he time. I would like to sell but am wondering if I should invest in 'cleaning' first. The works are visually appealing, as is.all identified by Hind number and State. I would appreciate any coment you may have.
Anonymous I have a print by Benj Lander which is similar to one I saw online called Partegot Pond but a bit different. I have had it for 40 years. My dad found it somewhere in the Boston area. He was always out looking for 'stuff'.
This print is 24.5' W x 13.25' H. It is glued to a backing board and in what looks like a plaster type of frame 2.5' in width.
On the far left lower edge corner of the print it gives his name BENJ LANDER. Then below the print on far right it is signed in cursive Benj Lander in what appears to be pencil. It is quite a good size signature.
I have been told it is a vintage engraving print by the artist. And that a cleaning bath is risky (it is very brown) as the image is done on thin tissue, mounted to board and may separate in a water bath. Further, below the name in the lower left edge is a miniature about 2.5' wide by 2' H of a similar landscape but not the same one in the main body. There is water stain in the lower left portion of the print probably over about 15% of the work. Besides a bath, could this be conserved / restored in a different process.could the print actually be separated from the backer board (looks like a early form of mat- it is really brown) I am told it could be deacidified but it would not change the appearance. This print can be restored by a professional conservator (it sounds like it is a chine applique, and putting it in a bath unless you know what you are doing, is very risky).
Unfortunately, that is very expensive. The print is from the etching revival period and these are nice prints, but they do not in general have a lot of value.
I would guess that proper conservation would cost more than the print is worth, even fixed up. If you love it, it is worth doing, as you would preserve the print for the future and it would look better, but from a purely financial viewpoint it doesn't make sense. This is, unfortunately, quite a common thing for largish etching revival prints. Anonymous Mr Lane Thank you very much for you reply.
I am not too concerned about a cost to restore/conserve. To a certain point. Can you provide a 'ballpark' estimate on the work on the print.
The frame has a few chips (quite small) which I have been told could be filled in, color matched, and the frame cleaned. This print was framed sometime around 1908 as 2 copies of the Hartford Courant newspaper were found behind the wood backing.
If you would prefer to talk on the phone regarding these specifics, please advise. Well I found a big old print at the back of a thriftstore, it has seen better days.
It has crazing in places. I can't find a name, it's rather dark. 2 people are sitting on a log playing cards, and one is holding a crying baby. I know this probably means nothing to you haha, but I have always wondered if lithographs or prints can crackle? Or do paintings only do that? I also found a original portrait drawing by Hilda Cowham is that worth preserving?
I can see a few brown spots just starting to appear. Thank you for your time! Anonymous Hello, I am an antique dealer and have 2 etchings by Luigi Rossini (Veduta di Fianco dei Portici d'Ottavia and Interno del Pronao del Tempio di Vesta, in Roma). They were dry mounted to a cardboard backing many years ago and are showing discoloration. I did look up their recent auction results and the hammer price was around $300.00 for each.
I understand if I have them conserved, they will remain discolored. I hate to see them in this state, however, their value is so borderline. What do you recommend. I am in the midwest. Chris, thank you for your reply ( a full year ago no less!!). I actually took the print up to NDCC in Andover, MA. Turns out the ink was iron gall, which I guess is fairly non-fugitive to moisture so they were ably to submerge the print and remove much of the discoloration and foxing.
It was not inexpensive, but in this case worth the effort. I have recently found a 19th Century John Clark print utilizing a process called 'Aquatint' which has some foxing and wanted to know if that process can be safely restored by professionals? Thank you so much. Joyful I have some John Gould prints. The hummers are my favorite but also the least pristine of my prints. There is some browning of paper; some have staining of some kind around the edges; some have light foxing; some have little tears on the edges or 'ragged' edges, especially where the print was bound into the book. The hand painting on these lithos is bright, and the picture part of the prints doesn't have damage-only the background paper seems affected.
Prints are about 21x14 and considered to be 'good' to 'very good' conditions-inspite of the browning, foxing, staining, tearing. About what would be the cost of conservation/restoration of a handpainted litho of this size? I don't know where in OK I could have conservaon/restoration done and if I could trust it.
Any advice would be most welcomed. Anonymous I just purchased a print by Geo. Burgess, titled '1849 San Francisco', Litho H.S. Copyright 1894. It in rather poor condition, the paper is wavy, probably from moisture. It has some heavy water stains. It has two tears one on the left side that is almost 9', and one on the right side that is 5'.
I have done some research and seen the prints selling for anywhere between $1000 to $2800. It is currently in it's original frame. The print measures 20' x 40'. Would I be better off having it restored or just trying to have put back in its frame with archival materials? With the tears would this need to be relined. What would be a ball park for restoration of a print of this size and condition? There really is not good book which would answer all your questions.
There are plenty of good books about the history of printmaking and a fair number about the history of etching in certain periods. Also, there are books about particular artists. A visit to a good book store or library is the place to start. As for evaluating values, that is something you will only be able to get by watching the market, viz. Auction houses and dealers.
Once you focus on a particular area, then start paying attention to what those prints sell for. There are also web services which do have auction prices and you can sign up for those and start exploring by artist. In the end, it is really a matter of experience, which you can gain by visiting the web sites of dealers, shops of dealers, and watching auctions. Anonymous Hello Chris, I am the collections manager for a small museum and I have been concerned with light damage to Edward Beyer colored lithographs which are on permanent display. They are very popular.
Light issues are pretty serious. Can they be taken out of their frames (not antique) scanned and the scanned copy reframed and the original put in proper storage?
Is it possible and how much do you think it might cost. They are apprx 11 x 20 and we have 22. We are applying for a grant in March 2015. Thanks so much. I have 9 large format (mostly French) antique books featuring fine etchings from 1721 through 1830. The etching pages have obvious plate marks. One pair is 'Tableaus, statues, bas-reliefs et cameos de la Gallerie de florence et du Palais Pitti (etc)'.
The covers are in bad condition and the pages are browned and foxed. I see an ond auction price of $8841, but I am sure this is in good condition. I cannot afford to have them conserved. I am considering cutting out pages and restoring them for resale. What do you think? In general paper restoration is not inexpensive.
![White White](/uploads/1/2/5/3/125364200/708447284.jpg)
You should use only a trained restorer and they, like most trained professionals, are not inexpensive to use. Also, when you say 'largish' that is a hard term to know exactly what you mean. Finally, it also matters whether stains go into the color, whether the paper is of such a tone/color that to clean one section would make it look funny (in which case the entire print would need to be cleaned) and whether the print is laid down (that is glued) to some sort of backing board. All that factors influence the cost, but my guess would be that you are likely looking at a cost between $100 and $400. Anonymous Hi Chris, I recently acquired a Picasso print signed in pencil Epreuve D'artiste on the bottom left, with Picasso's signature in pencil on the bottom right of the print. The print is on BFK print paper that I think has been glued or attached somehow to a backing board.
The paper is either watermarked or embossed BFK in the upper left side of the print. The print name is Faune Aux Branchages. If this is indeed an original Picasso proof, what is the possible impact to the value because it is attached to the backing board? Can the print be removed from the board? Appreciate any insight that you can give on this. Any print which is attached to a backing is worth less than one that is not. 'Collectors' want prints that are loose.
This is one issue, but just as important is the fact that often the backing board and/or the way a print is attached can harm the print in the long run. There are ways a print can be backed 'archivally' and that takes away the second issue, but not the first. As to whether it can be removed, that depends on how it was attached and the type of backing board, but in general prints can be safely removed from backings. I have just discovered what looks like a chromolithograph reproduction of Raphael's Sistine Madonna which appears to have 2 additional scenes attached either side to make it look like a triptych - the central image is separate from the rest of the picture and watercolour columns appear to have been added to create the triptych effect. Though it is in fairly good condition colour-wise bar a few pin prick holes in the centre, it is within a mount that is attached that has suffered water damage. It has been set in a simple dark wood frame that appears late 19th century and backed with 2 pieces of wood rather roughly. I need to take the back off to inspect it further but I'm scared to in case the mount board gives way and damages the picture.
Should I get it looked at? Anonymous First I like to thank you for this site and helping those who are I need of it. I have enjoyed reading your site and blog. I have a print by Andrew Wyeth called Winter 1946. The print appears to be done in the 50's (only a guess). Its truly beautiful it appears to be black, white but the boy running has a tinge of blue - No Dot Matrix. On the grass and background, but the boy’s hand have like a hexagon pattern using a 30x lupe.
Well this print suffers from aging and foxing and I love to clean it. I sent it to a restorer and they recommend an Acid bath. The print came from a fine gallery that is no longer in business. So I am concern what course of action to take.
Would it be ironic to spend $200 or $300 to destroy the print. Any recommendation or suggestion is deeply appreciated. Is an Acid bath the proper course? I recently purchased 4 prints taken from a book, “Portraits, Memoirs and Characters of Remarkable Persons”, published 1819. The work has obviously been mutilated and little care exercised in removal of prints evinced in the condition of the bound edge. The subjects all depict highwaymen and are copies of earlier C18th examples – the idea being to use them as part of an interpretive display when giving talks on the history of the highwayman.
So, didn’t really want to frame them but wondered if prints were ever fixed into cardboard mounts during the C18th? Anonymous Hi Chris, I recently purchased a Rembrandt etching called 'Christ Healing the Sick', aka the Hundred Guilder Print. Unfortunately the seller did a lousy packaging job and the framed print arrived damaged by broken glass that caused scratching and some gouging of the print. I am aware that some Rembrandt etching done after his death can still have value and my research indicates that this was one of his rare prints. Given this brief information, is there value in getting this print restored and if so, any sense of costs?
Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide. Anonymous I have been collecting the early 1900s prints from the French artist/caricaturist Jean Veber. I recently picked up a print from a seller in Paris, which is showing some pretty significant foxing. However, they're all fairly rare at this point, so it's a nice addition to my collection, even with the condition issues. These were also hand colored printed. Are there any special considerations that need to be taken when you're dealing with restoration of hand colored prints? I would hate to lose any of the colors that are already there, but would really like to remove the spotting and discolorations that have formed over the past 115-120 years or so.
Your thoughts? Hi Chris, I am amazed that you have spent all these years answering comments. That speaks VOLUMES about your character and you as a person.
So thanks from everybody! Now for my question. I have this large, and I believe old, map. It is 35' by 51'. It is in an old frame.
I believe it's old because the screws used to keep the backing on are not like each other. The heads look like a person used a saw to cut the top groove.and the top grooves are different on all the screws. The map is in Latin and from research I believe it was originally made in 1665 by William Janszoon. Across the top in large letters it says 'Nova Totius Terrarum Sive Novi Orbis Tabula, avc G. Translated I believe it says something like - 'A new map of the whole world.' Sadly my ex let water get to it on one end and it started to show black spots (I think is mold).
I took it apart and cleaned the glass.the frame.the backing. I let the map itself sit out and then lightly wiped the back with a clean cloth.
I have not and will not try to remove any stains on the map itself. Luckily, the water stain does not show through the to the front. The map is made on what seems to me like really thick paper.
My question-actually 2-is do you know how I can find out the age of this really nice map? And should I take any further steps to remove the black spots? Thank you sir for your time. Thank you, sir, for the reply. I will check around to see if someone can look at it.
I live in Maine.close to Portland. If you happen to know of a person in my area, and would like to share, I would appreciate that. I would not of thought that it was possibly that old.or possibly original.
It's just always been around. The back of the paper looks yellowed.
That's surprising to me because it's the back and most likely has been framed. But I wouldn't know anyway. Thanks for your time. Lane, About ten years ago I had a signed and numbered aquatint etching by A. Lafitte (Manuel Robbe) re-matted and returned to it's original frame. The print lived in two different houses of smokers for years. The new matting definitely helped make the color pop a bit more, but then I found one on a print website making mine look like it was doused with bleach.
There used to be so much aqua and blue coloring of the sky and water! They told me when re-matting that it was in pretty good shape with no water damage.
With restoration, is paint actually added back onto the print? If it is that faded, is it even restorable? If not, where do I even go about finding someone who would want to buy it? Thanks so much for your help. Anonymous I have an old family photo portrait, probably from the 1800s. It is in an elaborate frame, multiple frames recessed, has a couple of layers of matting, and is recessed in an oval cut-out.
The outer frame is about 14 x 16 inches. The photo in the oval is about 8 x 6 inches. The back of this photo is wood rather than paper. The photo has blue tinted eyes.
The photo has mold on it. What type of person do I need to find to ascertain whether or not the frame can be taken apart and the mold removed from the photo?
I've been thinking of contacting a museum or an antique dealer. The photo probably is of no value other than sentimental family value. First off, they will not be chromolithographs, but rather hand colored engravings.
Secondly, the short answer is that they are probably not worth spending a lot of money on to restore unless you really like them. This is not certain, but highly likely. There are two problems. First, the prints are likely either restrikes or reproductions-this is very common with British sporting prints. If you do a search on this blog for 'British sporting prints' you can read about this.
Secondly, the paper that a lot of these prints were made on is not very good and it can be very hard to restore so they look good. So if you try to restore them, you might spend a fair bit of money and get bad results. Do not mean to be so negative, but professionally, I will almost never buy any British sporting prints which have condition issues for just these reasons.
In pure financial terms, you almost always can make more by selling the individual prints-once you sell a sufficient number. The issues are that currently, natural history prints are not doing well, it is not easy to sell a lot of Thornton prints in the best circumstances, and some of the Thornton prints are just very difficult to sell because of their appearance. If you want to 'go into business' that still might make sense, but it would be a lot of work and probably take a lot of time to make the money you could make by selling the book complete.
In terms of that, in general it doesn't make sense to restore book before trying to sell it, as you are investing more and might not make it up in the sale. I think you'd do just as well selling it as is. I have a print dated 1972,16/65, titled 'Red Sky in the morning, Woodmen Take Warning', and signed.
The best I can make out the signature is 'Albert Sowy' or 'Albert Sawyer'.It is approx.36' tall by 28' wide framed. We had a dampness problem in our house that has been corrected.The print is beautiful and in very nice shape, but the paper looks a little like it has a wave to it.I think I see some mold under the glass also.Would it be worth having it professionally cleaned and looked at? Should I have the matt replaced? It is not that difficult a thing to clean a print of this size, but we do not provide information for individuals on how to do so, as the process can lead to the destruction (either short-term or long-term) of the print and we do not want to be responsible. You can find sources which provide information on this, but if you do this, make sure you learn not only how to remove the stain, but how to neutralize any process you used so that the print will not fall apart over time. These prints do not have a huge amount of value, so it usually does not make sense to pay a paper restorer, so it is something you can look into.
Darrell I have 2 prints of etchings by Erhard Amadeus Dier. One is from a series done in 1919,'Zwolf Fantasien Aus Ernsten Tagen'; the other is from the same period and appears to be from the same series but I am not sure. Each print is signed in what seems to be pencil. I also have vellum sheets for each print. They are in fair condition but have started to yellow/brown uniformly over the whole print( lightly, not too dark yet) and one has 2 slight wrinkles. Size is approx 11x 14. I also have a Vivitone print #286 'An Uninvited Guest' in it's original frame and mat that has started to darken slightly.
I have no idea of the value and have no interest in selling or otherwise profiting from them: but I would like to know the best action to take to ensure they will survive a while longer. Just conservation or restoration? I have just learned a very expensive lesson. A litho sepia print by Maude Goodman was in my husband's grandparents house.
Somewhere in a move the glass was broken. It has been in sheds, attics, hot, cold etc for many years. Now my daughter is interested in having this and several other prints for her home.The silver fish, bugs and time have not been kind and the damage is probably irreparable.
NOW I find that these prints are more valuable than I thought. Please encourage people to look after their prints better than I have done! Thank you for your blog. I came across it because I hoped it would be possible to restore the print.but now I do not think it is.
Farrah Brink I recently acquired a pair of 9' x 12' Maxfield Parrish prints titled 'Bellerophon' from 1909 and 'Jason and the Talking Oak' from 1908, both published by Collier & Son. They are in matching frames from that time period, one of which has broken open and let in a good bit of dust. Even so, the prints look to be in near fine condition, with some fading on both and loose dirt on the one but no apparent big issues.
They don't even seem to be glued down. Now, I got these in an auction lot with no idea that they were valuable - they were grouped with a couple of antique frames I wanted and were a surprise bonus. I intend to sell them, but I am seeking advice regarding what to do about their frames. I can't afford to go the extra mile and get the acid in the prints themselves neutralized, but I figure it might be worthwhile to see them refitted with protective glass and acid-free backing. Is this a good thought, or would it be better to leave them as-is and let the collector who purchases them look after those details? I am especially concerned about the one that has gotten dust inside.
The frame is still generally whole, just broken open a bit in a back corner, so I can't safely access the inside to clean it out without the help of a professional framer anyway. I am very new to this topic. I have what I believe to be a print. I have seen a replica of it, which looks like a photograph copy titled 'Apple Blossoms' online. The artist is Carrier, signed bottom right. Bottom left is a copyright F.A.INC. I can't seem to find any other information about it.
I dusted it with a soft bristled brush which livened it up some, but it seems to have an overall yellowing, including the frame. Perhaps nicotine. It is not under glass and has some scratches. Can you offer any suggestions as to finding out what it is and if it is worth cleaning and/or restoring. I love the work.
It seems to be an excellent quality of paper on board. Anonymous A really interesting blog, having recently acquired an original engraving by Lumb Stocks RA of the Wellington & Blucer Meeting at Waterloo, originally painted by Maclise I set about researching this huge piece, I after much searching discovered that the Art Journal 1875 reports a cost of £7872.00 to produce including Lumbs fee of £3500.00 for the engraving and a total of 19000 impressions from the plate of which not many survive today.
There is some brown discolouration, I am seriously considering some restoration work in order to preserve it, any suggestions? I have recently purchased a Stuart Davis work. Summer Landscape.
I believe it is a lithograph. However it is not signed in pencil. The signature is in the plate. The frame verso has Summer written in pen and 6/13 also in pen. Has a copyright symbol MMA. I have done research and during that time 1952 the Museum of Modern Art's owned the original Summer Landscape. What I'm wondering is how do I find out if this was a print or a lithograph.
Also would it be worth restoring has some damage? Came from a public library. Measures 18 1/2' h x 26 3/4' w thank you. Good morning. I apologize if I’ve missed this elsewhere, but I have two lithographs that I believe to be original issue Gould hummingbirds from the Monograph of the Trochilidae works. I paid virtually nothing ($2 + shipping from someone online) for them as they were framed “incorrectly” with oval matting covering the title and maker, etc.
When unframed the paper seems sturdy but the acid darkening in the off-center oval is quite dark. I’m wondering if these can realistically be restored to a point where they can be framed with matting correctly centered and showing the inscription along the bottom “Hullmandel & Walton, Imp” etc. Without creating other issues with the artwork.