American Silhouettes © 2012

2012-02-08T15:17:00.000-08:00

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!

2012-01-10T16:04:00.000-08:00

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.

2012-01-10T15:44:00.000-08:00

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.

2012-01-10T14:50:00.001-08:00

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.

2012-01-10T14:28:00.000-08:00

Advertised as "Antique Silhouette by King"

We covered William King and his silhouettes, as well as fake KING stamps, in the past. This piece of crap is one more for the road. This stamp is NOT William King (check out earlier posts to determine what his genuine stamps look like). Someone just paid $68 for this FAKE on eBay. Not a lot of money, but still that's 68 McChickens worth. This silhouette, along with a few I listed here, were sold by a seller who knows nothing about antique silhouettes, and bought by buyers who know even less. That is a deadly combination for sure!

2012-01-10T14:01:00.000-08:00

Why Settle for a FAKE Peale Silhouette?

Peale silhouettes are not rare. If you want one, you should be able to find a decent GENUINE silhouette for not a lot of money. What do fake Peale silhouettes look like? What do genuine Peale silhouettes look like? Someone just paid $96 for this FAKE PEALE on eBay. Obviously, this buyer knows nothing about silhouettes. In addition, this buyer did not even bother to spend a few minutes googling about Peale silhouettes. If this buyer had done that, she/he would have found this blog. Lazy silhouette buyers get what they deserve: worthless junk backed by even worthless Maurier label. Incidently, the same buyer won this gem and another treasure listed below.

2012-01-10T13:48:00.000-08:00

Why Buy a FAKE Peale Silhouette?

When you go shopping for shoes, don't you try them on first before buying? Of course, you do. So why even try to buy a Peale silhouette if you don't know anything about silhouettes? There is a lot of info on this blog about silhouettes. All you have to do is spend some time reading this blog. Someone just paid $117.50 on eBay for this fake silhouette. It is basically worthless! This one even comes with that Elizabeth Maurier label. I've covered this label several times in the past. When you see this label, watch out!

2012-01-05T16:24:00.000-08:00

Another FAKE Augustus Day Silhouette

This thing came up for sale on the internet auction. It is NOT real. Check out the face of this sitter. This face type is commonly used by this creator. You can find plenty of this face type on our older posts. It comes with PEALE stamp and other stamps and signatures as well.

2012-01-03T17:23:00.000-08:00

Watermark on Silhoutte Paper

One of our readers, Vincent, would like to know if someone can identify this particular watermark..

2011-12-05T10:05:00.000-08:00

EC Cook Silhouette

One of our readers, Mike, writes:

I found this silhouette in Oregon and it is signed "EC Cook" (I'm pretty sure that is what it reads. Also it says "'30" below the signature. I have taken the silhouette out of the frame and there are multiple pieces of paper that when you put them together and hold them to a light they read "CERTIFICATE ECC MADE IN OLD HAMPSHIRE, U.S.A." this is really weird to me since I have never heard of Old Hampshire U.S.A.

Also the white part of the silhouette is thick then there is paper I believe glued to the back of it and I was wondering if this is normal. Any answers you may be able to help me with I would appreciate it tremendously and really I quess I would just like to know how to see if it is from 1830 (I don't think its the original frame).

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Mike for writing us. I am sure this silhouette is something EC Cook "cooked" up. And it was likely done in 1930, not 1830.

2011-12-01T13:33:00.000-08:00

Letton Silhouette

One of our readers, Janet, writes:

First let me say how much I have enjoyed reading your silhouette blogs. They truly are a great source of information!

Second, I am writing you regarding a hollow-cut silhouette in my collection, of which I am attaching two images. I found the silhouette this summer in Maine. The frame was a mess. . . the original finish coated with a horrible layer of gold radiator paint. My husband was able to remove the paint and the result you see attached. The silhouette itself was in very good condition however. It is not signed or embossed. I had been thinking it could perhaps have been done by William King. . . the lock of hair, the tie, and the treatment of the ruffle on the shirt. But, then I saw your post on the possible Letton silhouettes in your own collection (posted 13 December 2005), and the Letton that sold at auction a few years ago (posted 21 March 2007). The similarity of the ties and that pointy bust got me thinking. So, I thought I would share. The sheet is 4 5/8 x 3 1/2 ; the cut is 2 3/8 x 1 3/8.

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Janet for writing us. Looks like she had done a bit of research on her piece. That is great. Also, her photos are great. "King" is a good guess, but Letton is better. By the way, the frame is 20th century.

2011-11-14T19:14:00.000-08:00

Identification and Valuation of Silhouettes

Due to overwhelming demand from readers of this blog for identification of silhouettes, I am unable to offer that service any longer. The whole process is taking too much of my time. For that reason please do not forward me questions regarding attribution, rarity, values, etc of silhouettes. This plea includes auction houses as well. However, readers are free to submit their rare and unusual finds as usual for publication.

2011-11-07T13:03:00.000-08:00

Unknown Silhouette

One of the readers, Barry, sends us the following:

I found, which at first glance I thought was a silhouette, what turned out to be an ink drawing. The subject appears in costume of late 1700s. The “Embossed effect” of the ink is caused by layering. The piece is pencil signed “Stanton.”
I know nothing of these things. I bought it because it was cool. Were they popular? Are they valuable? Am I right in my above assertions?
Thank you. I really appreciate your help and I think, with the love you show on your site, you will enjoy my submissions.

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Barry for sending us this interesting silhouette. Although Barry may not think this piece to be a silhouette, it is a silhouette. My definition of a silhouette is any profile image done in black. The sitter's "costume" is definitely NOT from the 18th century. I would guess it to be from the 1840s. From the photo it looks to have been worked in gouache, ink and watercolor. I have no idea who Stanton is. It looks like Stockton to me, still no idea. It is kinda cool, and I am sure Barry paid what was worth to him.

Barry comes back:

Thank you. You were right on the name. Is this style silhouette common? Do they have value or historical significance? I find my stuff at a swap, this piece was $5, so I give a lot to places that honor the piece(s). If not, I’ll just enjoy it myself.

B. M. Jones:

This style of silhouette is uncommon but not historical; unless, Barry erases the penciled name and scribbles-in one of his ancestor's name from that time period. Then he would have a family treasure with historical significance. Many people do it. That is one of the reasons why collectors should never trust what is inscribed on silhouettes and their frames. Some are real kosher, however. I am sure his silhouette is worth what he paid.

2011-11-01T10:11:00.000-07:00

Antique Silhouettes Book MASSIVE the BEST Work

We have a gently used copy here of Sue McKechnie's work on antique silhouettes: "British Silhouette Artists and Their Work: 1760-1860." Other than a few small tears of the dustjacket, the book is very sharp and clean. This copy is NOT ex-lib.

This is a massive volume published in 1978, large hardcover with 798 pages, some color plates, and easily over 1000 photos, all printed on quality glossy stock. The book weighs over 8 punds! McKechnie starts with an intro on the subject and covers the types and varieties of antique frames, as well as dating of silhouettes based on clothing. That is just the beginning. This volume contains everything you ever wanted to know about British silhouettes and their artists. In addition, she lists bio of over 100 American artists and those British artists who worked in America. $150

Postage by priority mail is $15. Bookrate is $8. No overseas.

Click images to enlarge.

2011-10-26T16:25:00.000-07:00

Silhouette Collectors Club

One of our readers, Jason, writes us.

Hello, my name is Jason and I am a graduate student in art history at Concordia university. I am working on a virtual exhibition for a class on curatorial practice, and the topic I am working on is silhouettes. There are two in particular that are located in the Canadian National Archives that are unattributed. I have looked through Emma Rutherford's Silhouette and have found an image that looks incredibly similar to my mystery pieces. The book attributes it to be in the collection of Diana Joll, secretary Silhouette Collectors Club. After a brief online search the only information on the club I have found is on your blog. I was wondering if the address that you posted on your blog is still current? The silhouette in her collection is by an artist named George Angelo Crowhurst, and is listed as sold on the Christie's auction house site. I have attached my Images from the national portrait gallery for in case you are interested. Thank you for your time.

B. M. Jones writes:

First, Crowhurst is covered by Sue McKechnie. Jason should check WorldCat for a copy of her book nearby. Second, I have not been in touch with Diana Joll for about five years now. She does not have an access to the internet. I do not know that club even exists today, as she was quite of age then, and it was my understanding that she was not feeling well. Third, I did check your photo of a full figure silhouette. Because it is British, I will not be able to cover it here.

2011-10-21T17:45:00.000-07:00

Worst Kinda Plagiarist on eBay...Thief

We had a terrible plagiarist a few weeks ago (see older post), but this seller takes the cake. She goes by the name of "nynykra" on eBay. The problem: she uses my description to sell something that she does not even own! How do I know that? Hey, she even stole my photo from my eBay listing. This is criminal.

The following is her description. She probably thought she could get away with it by capitalizing all the letters. She could not even copy my words correctly. Does she have any understanding on how sentence structures work? NO! If you wanna cheat people, at least do it with a touch of class, please.

1792 CALENDAR MEDAL GEORGE WASHINGTON 2ND ELECTION

IT IS A MEDAL IN BRONZE AND MEASURED 38MM 1792 WAS A LEAP YEAR MAKING THIS CALENDAR WORTH EVEN MORE. THIS A A GREAT YEAR FOR AMERICAN POLITICS, IT WAS THE SECOND ELECTION FOR AMERICA WHICH GEORGE WASHING RAN UNOPPOSED

The following is my original description.

1792 Calendar Medal George Washington 2nd Election

We have a nice calendar medal here for the year 1792. This is an important year for American politics, as it was the second election for America in which George Washington ran unopposed.
Let us take a look on what else happened in 1792. Here are some of the more important ones relating to early United States: post office opens its doors; United States Mint was created; Kentucky becomes the 15th state; French Revolution takes place.
Our medal is struck in bronze and measures 38mm. It is in high grade. In addition, 1792 was a leap year, making this calendar medal even scarcer.

2011-10-20T11:42:00.000-07:00

19th Century American Silhouettes Books For Sale

This is a MUST HAVE book for anyone interested in 19th century American silhouettes. It is packed with illustrations. The book is just the right size to read in bed with good sized fonts to boot. Alice was a good writer with flair. She will entertain you while you learn about silhouettes.

Contents to include:

American Profile Types
The Earliest Shadows
Three Early Nineteenth-Century Profilists
The Profiles of William Bache
Painted Profiles and Profiles Engraved on Gold
"The Celebrated Master Hubbard"
Three Other Prodigies
The Lesser Lights
Profiles by Amateurs, Gifted - And Otherwise
Augustin Edouart
William Henry Brown
Saint-Memin and His Profiles
The Framing and Hanging of Profiles

With this book and my blogs, you could become an expert, or at least a wanna-be expert, on silhouettes within a few days. Do not buy antique silhouettes until you educate yourself first. There are countless fakes, reproductions, and fantasies out there. Be smart!

Amazingly, many collectors and dealers always hesitate to spend a few dollars for good reference works. Yet, they will spend big bucks to add something to their collection and inventory. That is what I call "poor spending habit." As a result, some items they buy turn out to be "rogue" at best. Education is cheap; mistakes are costly. Consider building a fine library on your specialty, whatever that may be. The return on this investment is big, very big, and infinite.

For a 1968 reprint edition with the original dust jacket (few taped repairs). This copy is NOT EX-LIB but does have prior ownership mark or two. The book has 205 pages with 52 black & white plates. Condition is very good with matching dust jacket (see photo marked "2"). $40 plus $4 shipping domestic, paypal only

For the original 1928 edition without the dust jacket (see photo marked "1"). This copy is NOT EX-LIB. The book has 205 pages with 52 black & white plates. Covers has stains, very good interior. $45 plus $4 shipping doemstic, paypal only

For the original 1928 edition with the dust jacket (see photo marked "3"). This is a clean copy with nice jacket with a few taped repairs, price clipped. This book is tough to find with its clean original jacket. Believe me, this price is a bargain for this book! $75 plus $4 shipping domestic, paypal only

2011-10-13T17:35:00.000-07:00

Reverse Painted Silhouettes of Famous Americans

Found the following on the net. It sold for $424. The seller writes:

Antique Early 1800's Silhouette Portrait Miniature Vice President Aaron Burr Probably After John Vanderlyn's 1802 Portrait Painting

It is portrait miniature silhouette of Aaron Burr, marked Aaron Burr beneath the portrait. It is reverse painted on glass, in a period frame held together with flat nails. It looks to be after the 1802 portrait painting of then Vice President Aaron Burr. Famous not only for being Vice President, but for his dual with Alexander Hamilton. It measures approx. 2 3/8" x 3" for the oval area and framed approx. 5 3/8" x 6 1/2". There are some small paint loss to the blue banner that says Aaron Burr, and the N is backwords.

B. M. Jones writes:

That's a lot of burgers for this silhouette. It was the buyer who determined the final price. If this buyer is happy with it, more power to him/her. But, I have a beef with the description. The seller describes it as being "early 1800's." However, it is NOT from the early 1800s. It was made in the late 19th century thru the early 20th century.

We covered this series in the past. We will cover them here once again... for the last time. These silhouettes were a part of a series of famous early Americans. Many were produced in England in factory settings to be exported here. Basically, these silhouettes were "paint by numbers" kinda deal. Some workers made the frames, others cut the glass, others sealed the backs, and others painted. These painters had "on the job training."

I know a few of you are saying, "How does Jones know they are not from the early 1800s. He must be drinking again and talking out of his ass." Yup, wine. You guys can read me like a book! Wife likes those costly wines that come in tiny bottles. I must admit that sometimes they taste great. Quite often, however, they taste like any cheap wine. It all depends on the batch. But with Rossi 4 liter jugs, one cannot go wrong. The taste is consistent. One time, though, I hit a bingo with Rossi. They must have mixed up the batch, as the one I bought for $12.99 (4 liter) was better than any wine I had ever tasted. Wife agreed.

At any rate, many of these silhouettes with original dust cover are stamped, "MADE IN ENGLAND" in very large letters. McKinley Tariff Act of 1891 required it (revised in 1914 to include "made in"). Of course, sellers remove those dust covers cause they ain't "cool." All of a sudden that circa 1900 factory produced silhouette becomes early 19th century. I say it again.That's a lot of burgers for this silhouette.

2011-09-23T16:56:00.000-07:00

Plagiarism is the Lowest and the Laziest Form of Stealing

Readers may say this one has nothing to do with silhouettes. Actually, it does. I write about silhouettes, and readers are free to use my words as long as they have my permission to do so, or they can cite it. I am very flexible. However, when someone uses my words without permission or without citing to SELL AN ITEM, that irkes me a lot. I find a lot of paraphrasing of my writing on the net. They are kinda ok though, as they have spent some time reworking my words. But when someone STEALS an entire paragraph from me to sell an item, that is not ok.

On 2/16/11 I sold a token on eBay, and its description has been "found" by worthpoint: http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/scarce-1803-quarter-eagle-pattern-133314574

For them to provide this info as a research tool is ok. But it is NOT ok for someone to use my words to sell a similar item. There is a big difference there. This clown, mike_felts, on eBay uses my words to sell an item. Here it is:

Scarce 1803 Quarter Eagle Pattern Token

This little token was once believed to be a genuine US pattern of 1803 gold coin, an off-metal strike. However, today, we know it was made by Kettle and Son as a gambling token-counter. This came in two sizes: quarter eagle and half eagle. This offering is for a quarter eagle that measures 20mm - 3/4inch in diameter. These are quite scarce even for low grades. This example is a sharp one with lots of muted original gold color remaining in the field and within devices. A high grade piece. Heritage had one called "Improperly Cleaned XF" in their 12/2010 auction. It sold for $126.50. Stacks had "AU-55" in their 11/2009 auction. That one brought $184.

I probably spent an hour or more researching and writing that description. This eBay seller, mike_felts, comes along and steals it. Plagiarism is a low-down thing. It ain't bad if you could get away with it. But when caught, it is embarrassing as heck. I instructed him to remove my words, but he did not. In fact, he even blocked me from sending him anymore eBay mails. A very childish plagiarist we have here. It is mike_felts.

I called eBay about it, and the listing was thrown out! This seller relists it the next day by changing a few words around but still keeping the same format. That is called paraphrasing. He writes:

Rare 1803 Kettles Quarter Eagle Pattern Token
The Kettle Coin /token was once mistaken to be a US pattern of 1803 quarter eagle 2 1/2 gold coin & half eagle 5.00 dollar gold coin, we now know that it was made by Kettle and Son as a gambling token-counter. This example is a quarter eagle. These are quite rare in any condition. This example is a very nice sharp strike. A high grade piece.

I don't know why he is so content on using my description. I guess he just cannot think for himself! Because he used his small brain just a little here, I guess I will let him be (LOL).

2011-09-23T15:06:00.000-07:00

Antique 1800s Silhouette Print Rosewood Lemon Gold Frame

We have a very honest eBay seller here, "mattymarble." It is very unusual to see such a clear, refreshing description. The seller also includes nine large photos to illustrate the ware. I was so glad to see this print being sold as a print! The following is a desciption:

Here is an antique silhouette print in circa 1850 empire rosewood with lemon gold frame in fairly good condition. This frame has a dark aged appearance with the original brass ring hanger on the top. The inner frame is lemon gold which looks much better in person with proper tone. The silhouette is a printed image cut in an oval and fixed to a brown paper but looks quite old and the visible paper on the back has classic deterioration on the edges from age and movement. The back of the frame has been reworked and reworked with evidence of multiple papering, taping, nails pulled and replaced and the usual story an old frame shows. The corners of the frame are stable but have been worked with a bit of glue here, an extra nail there leaving a couple minor cracks and gaps but its 150 years old. I like the look of this piece with it's unusual half color lady with the jet black face & hat silhouette with the hair fading into darkness. Like usual the paper and back panel are undersize and do move in the frame as you see by the placement of the oval under mat. The glass is very thick adding to the weight. Frame measures approx 7+5/8" x 6+3/4" x 1+1/8" thick

2011-09-20T13:19:00.000-07:00

Silhouette Appraised for $1200

One of our readers, Joe, writes:

I am helping my uncle XXXXXXXXXX research and possibly sell an antique silhouette lithograph that has been in his family for many years. I have attached several photos and will send a second email with some more. As you will see, he had this silhouette appraised in 1998. My question: Do you think this was done by William Henry Brown? Any thoughts you have on the artist, would be very appreciated. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

B. M. Jones says:

We thank Joe for writing us and sending good photos.

First, appraisers will even appraise a balogna sandwich if you pay them to do so. Second, appraisers' abilities are very limited, as they cannot possibly know everything about everything. For proper appraisals, one needs to search out for specialists. Having said that, this appraisal we see here, if a genuine appraisal from THIS appraiser for THIS silhouette, is piss-poor at best. In fact, it ain't even that! Of course, William H. Brown could have done this piece, but any chances of him doing it is 100% none. I hate to disappoint Joe, but the frame is probably worth more than what is in it. If I were Joe, I would take it a local dealer with its appraisal paper, get whatever I can for it, and go eat a buffet dinner, for one, somewhere.

2011-09-16T17:10:00.000-07:00

More Silhouettes From The Same Fantasy Artist

We covered this artist more than a few times in the past. We do not know who he/she is, yet. We suspect this artist worked in the 1920s, when collectors knew next to nothing about 19th century silhouettes. When everything was "roaring," money was cheap. This artist took advantage of that market condition and sold these works to unsuspected dealers and collectors. We find these silhouettes quite often today. All sorts of artists are represented. We illustrate a pair of FRITH here. This pair is available for a cool $1,000 on the net.

If you ever come across any works resembling this style, stay away. They all share certain similarities (check out my archives for a lot more from this faker). Some dealers consider these things as genuine 19th century silhouettes. Do not trust sellers when buying no matter what they tell you. They will all try to sweet-talk you into it. "I've been dealing in this stuff for 20 years...30 years." That is moot. It is whether you got it or you don't. Hey, I've been playing a guitar for 45 years, but I suck. There are many better players than I am out there, who have been playing it for only a year. I just ain't got it. BUT, when it comes to American silhouettes I got it!

2011-09-12T09:32:00.000-07:00

Full-Length Silhouette with Lithograph Background

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

Hi, I came across your website while trying to learn something about silhouettes. I bought a silhouette (see attached scans) this summer in New Hamphire. I collect 19th Century photography & recently became interested in silhouettes because they were a pre-photography means of capturing an image. I liked the background & highlighting (if that's what it's called?), plus I liked the full profile, so I bought it. The paper measures 8 x 11 inches. I plead extreme ignorance when it comes to silhouettes. I took it out of the frame (see scan) & see that the right side and top have been trimmed. I presume the background is a lithograph of some sort. What are your thoughts as to age or origin? If you tell me it's a fake I'll chalk it up to experience (educations always cost money), but hopefully it's authenic. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Is the background a lithograph? How common is this? Thanks for your help.

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Keith for contacting us. Yup, it's a fake alright; "educations always cost money," and let that be a lesson to you. Seriously, education in silhouettes comes cheap. One needs only a few reference works on the subject. But most people are just too cheap to even do that. Buy a few, cuddle up in bed, and enjoy reading about silhouettes. BUY THE DAMN BOOKS BEFORE BUYING SILHOUETTES!!

Keith missed the first step (buying books), but I believe he did fine with "this" purchase. I am sure he paid what it was worth to him. That's what counts. This silhouette looks A1-genu-wine to me from the photos. From how the woman is dressed and her hairdo, I would place it to the mid-1840s. It is not 1840's but 1840s. There is a big difference between the two. Many people write "1840's" to represent something that was made in the eighteen-forties, but that is wrong.

Anyways, I am glad Keith took it out of the frame to scan/photo. That is Basic-101. In addition, he manages the size well for attaching the image files. They are 150-200kb. Many a times I get images that are just too big like 5mb, which is equal in size to a few dozen photos. Then I gotta go thru some steps to resize them. Moreover, Keith takes an image of the back of the paper. That is another "good." So, he has 3 points here from the get-go.

The frame is typical British in design of the period. It is probably original, even though the paper has been trimmed. I bet the inner wooden mat is in four pieces that separate when the glass is removed. In other words, this mat is not an integrated part of the frame. Litho "background (this is a proper term tho some wanna be[s] use fancier terms)" looks to me like a good litho. It shows a painting of a delapidated castle from somewhere in the English countryside (it could be continental as well). The steeple observed from the window could be from anywhere and everywhere. The woman is cut-and-paste with bronzed/gilt embellishment. I am sure this litho was used for other sitters. With luck one may be able to find one that is signed. This work was probably done by a British artist working here in the 1840s.

What Keith wanna do now is lightly dust-off the silhouette, including the litho, with a very soft paint brush (not da kind to paint a house with), wash the glass with soap and warm water, and place an acid-free paper/card between the silhouette paper and the backboard.

Comment from a reader:
Hello ~ I've just been reading your comments about this silhouette. It looks very much like the work of Samuel Metford. Not all his silhouettes were signed. He often used the device of having a view seen through a window in his backgrounds. Given that there's a (Scottish?) castle in the view, it would suggest it's from his second British period which would date it to post 1844. Depending upon what the owner paid for it, I would say he has bought well. Wigs on the Green

2011-08-18T12:19:00.000-07:00

Rare Printed Body Silhouettes

This pair is from Skinner's auction, 8/14/11.

Here we have an extraordinary pair of printed body silhouettes that went begging for $858, that is $429 each. If this was not a bargain, I don't know what is! Someone got real lucky here. At this price, I would have bought them every day until I went broke (I guess I could have handled them for a week or so, LOL). Printed body silhouettes appear so infrequently. I think I have seen about twenty of them. And, that includes illustrations in books.

At any rate, let us take a look at their tonings. The one on the left has an oval toning. It means that it was in a frame with an oval opening for many years. Light source constantly hit that opening, giving it a sunburn of sort. So, we know this frame is not original to this silhouette. Someone reframed it. When? I have no idea.

The toning of the silhouette on the right has a rectangular white toning. This I call reverse toning. Actually, it is not a toning at all. It is an "untoned" area surrounded by light brown toning. This happened because the white area was protected by black cloth behind the silhouette. It was a small piece. If that cloth was full-sized, the silhouette paper would have been whitish in exposed area. However, the paper would show some toning around its periphery due to it being in contact with the borders of the wooden frame.

At any rate, this pair of silhouettes was described as follows:

Two Silhouette Portraits of Ladies, America, c. 1830, both hollow-cut profiles with applied lithograph bodies, (toning, stains), sight sizes 3 7/8 x 2 3/4, 3 1/2 x 2 1/2 in., in pressed brass frames. Estimate $200-300

That was a very low estimate, when the estimate for a pair of 20TH CENTURY Chapman silhouettes (with tattered original (?) broadside) was $2000-3000.

2011-08-17T08:09:00.000-07:00

Old Hickory Silhouette

I found this one on the net. It is illustrated here for the purpose of understanding what it is, and what it is not. Whenever one sees this type of frame, it is good to remember that the frame is not from the early 19th century. This is a typical frame made in the early 20th century (1920s). Ditto for reverse painted glass. Actually, the whole package works fine, and it is quite decorative. In another 10-20 years, this one could legitimately be called an "antique." However, it could NEVER be called "early 19th century" or "circa 1820" etc. The image is crude. It, supposedly, illustrates Andrew Jackson. I am sure that was someone's intent. This silhouette belongs in this frame. This package is what it is.

Below is the seller's desciption. It is MIS-REPRESENTED to the max.

1820 Folk Art of President Andrew Jackson Silhouette

Rare c.1815 Hollow-Cut Silhouette of General Andrew Jackson with lock of hair. Housed in his original period gilt frame with eglomise glass. Period inscription on the verso states Gen A.Jackson. Without question Andrew Jackson. That face,profile and hair are very distinctive.
There is a crack in the glass not affecting the silhouette. Since it is likely that the original glass has the eglomise design reverse painted,I would not replace it.
Old Peg nails still retaining the back. Museum quality item.

2011-08-14T15:23:00.000-07:00

Hollow-Cut with Watercolored Body Silhouette

From Skinner's 8/14/11 auction.

Someone paid $1422 for this example. The frame with its reverse painted glass seems to be original to this silhouette. The wear and tear are even throughout. Of course, I am not able to note the condition of the paper by just looking at this one photo. The description states that "under the eglomise mat there is a small loss to the background paper." I am pretty sure the auctioneer did not take it out of the frame, and I don't know what that means..."background paper"? So we have to judge it from what we can see only.

Everything about this piece is kosher. It is authentic and from the period. The hollow-cutting is confidentially done. Inking of the hair details are well-done and just what we should expect from this period. Watercolors show correct age with inked details matching.

This form of American art is one of the rarest.

On a different note, I just remembered an editor of antiques magazine/journal made a comment about "American Pickers" some months ago, saying that those two fellows offer next to nothing for vintage stuff and are basically robbing people. I watch that show regularly, and I completely disagree with that editor. I thing they pay too much. Gas is expensive. They gotta eat, too. If I came back from a buying trip after a week on the road with expenses of $500 and possible sellable items worth $3000 that I paid $2000 for, my wife would kick me out of the house. I wonder what Danielle does when her chubby hubby is on the road! Please guys and gals....no letters on this one....we're all grown-ups here, ain't we?

2011-08-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

Rare Family Record (Letterpress Artist) Silhouette

From Skinner 8/14/11 auction.

This one got $2015. This silhouette package is one of the major rarities of American silhouettes because of its rarity and presentation. For a good write-up on this subject, check out my archives. It is in there somewhere. I've done an autopsy on it, where I disassembled everything and noted my findings.

This particular frame has some checks. I wonder what the smaller silhouette is hiding behind it....more checks? When veneering goes on these frames, it is tough to fix. Last month I found a very similar, divided frame with mirrors instead of silhouettes in it. It was absolutely made that way. Now I wonder if these silhouette frames were originally made for mirrors. At any rate, I came very close to buying that mirror. It was very reasonably priced; I think it was $35. It had one or two small slivers missing so I passed on it. It was at an antiques shop somewhere in Schoharie Valley.

These family register silhouettes are rare, and most belong to institutions so they won't be coming out anytime soon. Very few are in collectors' hands.

2011-08-14T14:08:00.000-07:00

Augustus Day Painted Silhouettes

From Skinner 8/14/11 auction.

This pair of Augustus Day painted silhouettes went begging at $267. Someone got a real bargain. He is a very tough artist to find. These two people must be siblings (note their noses). Although the cards are flecky, I could live with that. Throw away whatever is backing these silhouettes and replace with non-acidic material. Make sure the cards are dusted with fine brush. I would be buying them all day long at this price!

2011-08-14T12:48:00.000-07:00

Moses Chapman Silhouette My Eye

This is lot 462 from Skinner's 8/14/11 auction. This package had an estimate of $2000-3000. I have seen it hammered for $1900 plus commission (that is $2250), but it went unsold due to higher reserve on it. This top bidder must have been born with the angels! But some lots are sold after the auction as well. Auction houses have horse-trading hours sometimes.

If these bidders had followed my blogs, they would have known that this pair of silhouettes is NOT by Moses Chapman. They are nothing more than fantasies created one-hundred years later. This auction had some interesting silhouettes, and I plan to cover some of them soon.

2011-08-14T11:32:00.000-07:00

1842 Family Silhouette

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

found your blog thought I would send a photo over a recently aquired
silhouette I am attempting to research...
seems authentic to me, I have a bit of experience with 18th century paper...
What do you think? I was able to find an almost identical chest in an
auction catalog of American Antiques, so must be American???
My thoughts are this must be a very fine example with value from $300
of higher maybe even a few $1000???
Signed: S. Krieb 1842.

B. M. Jones writes:
Mike sends us an interesting photo. If it is indeed from 1842, this is a super find. I have no idea if this piece is authentic or not from just one photo. Mike needs to take it out of the frame and take some good photos. Is it on paper or card? Are the black figures cut-and-paste?

Mike comes back:
its a laid paper, figures are painted...

finally pulled back off frame and while I am experienced with old paper, having handled thousands of items working for a print and map dealer about 15 years ago, this work has been backed onto card, hard to tell without seeing both sides of paper...

AND I say:
ummmm...painted black figures in that style worry me...kinda late to be on laid paper...wonder if he could spot a maker's watermark of the paper...everything about this work is too nice for what it represents....need more photos

One of our readers, Bob, writes:

Just wished to comment on the 1842 family Silhouette. I have not examined the piece and I certainly don't consider myself the absolute last word in silhouettes.

The blanket chest over 2 drawers has been widely published in Fales' American Painted Furniture, page 261, figure 459.

The theorem like arrangement of fruits in a bowel seems to be derived from a very similar to an image created by Emma Jane Cady and widely disseminated in American Folk Paintings From the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Collection, page 155, figure 96. One little problem with including this in the family grouping: the original wasn't created until about 1890. Whoops.

The boldly patterned carpeting is a bit like that in a Davis watercolor, though he did his in color.

I can't lay my hands on Little's book on wall stencils right now, but betcha I would find a similar pattern in there that's on the wall behind the happy couple and child.

I believe the piece is a pastiche of images of well known images antiques all put together to create what I have refer to as a "dream piece", ie, it just has everything in it. Someone was sitting there with their books open and making something with representations of all their favorite folk objects all brought together like the happy human family depicted.. a dream come true!

The use of well known objects resonates because somehow it looks familiar engendering comfort and sometimes is used to create a false connection and validity, ie, "A similiar example is shown in so and so's book".

The use of laid paper, etc, means nothing in this instance. People who create this sort of thing often have a supply of old wood, old veneer, old paper, old glass, old hardward...no problem.

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Bob for doing competent research on this piece. I knew it was not from 1842. If readers would only do some work (research) on their own, they would be able to find tons of info on just about any subject. It is like writing a school research paper. Gotta do some things on your own.

I highly suggest everyone to at least buy Carrick's book on silhouettes. If people are just too cheap or lazy about it, don't come here looking for answers. Cause I ain't gonna give it to you. Show me that you have done some work first, then we can get things rolling.

We have a huge blog on silhouettes here. If you were to read all the archives plus three other site links here, you will find most of your answers. Get your fingers moving and your eyes rolling !

Anonymous left a comment:

Its a very nice painting, despite being new: any idea on who might have done it? workmanship is of quality... Are there many noted artists doing this kind of modern re-working such as this one?

B. M. Jones says:
I agree; it is a nice piece. I have no idea who did this.
Many art major students are capable of doing it.
I can't even draw a stick-man. But for those students who have
a knack for painting, this should be a breeze. Check your local college.

Anonymous writes:

no, I was wondering if there we any noted artists working in this genre...
I myself have a painting degree from a local art college: I doubt many of my fellow students or myself would be able to whip these up without a lot of practice.

And I say:
I appreciate your continued interest on this subject, but this is not the place for it.
I am sure there are blogs and sites out there that may cater to your specific needs. Good luck!

One of our readers, Gaye, writes:
You may be interested that this picture is on Ebay right now. I googled S. Krieb and found the reference in your blog--that was nice as it is always fun to see what you have posted. I also wonder whether it is really of that period--would a blanket chest be the piece of furniture the family would have highlighted? Seems like it's usually a nice parlor table or other parlor furniture. The bid is up to $82 as of today, August 24. Also, are the people in real silhouettes ever pictured having as much fun as the baby being held up in the air?

B. M. Jones writes:
Yeah Gaye, I found it a few days ago. He asked us for our help. He got us running all over the place so that he could get more info on it for him to sell on eBay. That is like kicking a man in his balls when he is down (my metaphor ain't the best but gets the message across). But I am not surprised. This had happened more than a few times in the past. That is one of the reasons I no longer get too involved with offering my two cents worth.

2011-08-14T10:45:00.000-07:00

William Bache Silhouette

One of our readers, John, writes:

I found these two silhouettes at a 2nd hand store, and noticed the embossed Bache's Patent on one of them. They are obviously not period frames, but do you think they are genuine Bache? even the one that is not embossed? Is there a way to date his work? I am fascinated and delighted with your web site!

B. M. Jones writes:

John had done good. I believe I know who the artist is with the one with pointed bust, but I am not 100%. So, I will keep my mouth shut on it, but it is definitely NOT Bache. However, the other silhouette is 100% genuine Bache. Everything about it is kosher. His fake embossment is known and is often offered as genuine Bache even by specialists, which is a very sad thing. Gotta know what you're doing in this field; otherwise, you will pay for it.

As for dating Bache, I suggest John do a bit of investigation himself. Information is out there.

2011-08-09T08:02:00.000-07:00

Silhouette Questions

One of our readers, Edward, writes:

My wife and I have (2) silhouettes (they are attached - we scanned them in and tried to get the best color contrast we could from our equipment)

The man is wearing a red military jacket with gold epaulettes and buttons, etc; and The lady is sitting on a chair and wearing a light blue dress with a white fluffy collar
Both frames are 7 1/2" x 8".. they are black with gold trim
there is no apparent signature on the pieces that we can see and we haven't removed the frames to see if there is a signature under the frame or not
they were my parents and we would like to know the value of the pieces
when we reviewed your website, they appeared to be similar to the Maurier Collection (I think)

We live on Cape Cod in Massachusetts and would like to know if you can furnish us with
an approximate value of the silhouettes. In addition to the value, we are just as interested
to know the history of them; when they were created, by whom (if you know) and any other
information you might be able to determine from the attachments and description.
If not, are you aware of an art dealer in the Boston area that could look at them.

You have a great website with loads of silhouettes that we loved seeing.
Thank you for your help

Editor's comment: Let me at least thank Edward for looking thru my blogs, but he must not have
looked very carefully, as his queries have nothing to do with pre-1850 American silhouettes. I wrote many times in the past that I do not place dollar values on what others own. If the owners really wanna find out what their stuff is worth, I suggest they place them on eBay auction (I am being sarcastic here). How am I suppose to tell if they are real watercolors or prints from these photos? I suggest submitters to at least take the darn things out of the frames before photographing or scanning. Why don't people just invest a few dollars first and buy a copy of silhouettes book by Alica Van Leer Carrick? You can buy it on eBay, Amazon, and other sites. That book has wealth of info. If you own something similar to Carrick's illustrations and wanna know more about it, then come here. Do your own research first!

I do appraisal work for pre-1850 American silhouettes. What you would get is a descriptive analysis of each silhouette with authentication and valuation. This valuation is market value, based on my experience. It is NOT auction based, as auction prices are all over the place. For appraisals, you need to mail me the silhouettes. You also need to enclose two checks: one for the return postage, and another for a donation to Humane Society. Donation is $10 per silhouette appraisal. If you wanna add a few extra dollars, more power to you!

2011-08-08T14:08:00.000-07:00

Rare William King Stamp

This is a very rare stamp of William King, "W. KING." It measures 2mm high and 11.5mm in length (border to border).

2011-08-03T17:44:00.000-07:00

Another Fake Peale's Museum Silhouette

This is the last time I will cover these fake Peales (for others, check out our archives). I do not want to waste my time and yours with these fakes. I am sure we both have something better to do.

At any rate, this one brought $209. It is a good thing to remember that whenever you see antique silhouettes with the sitters' mouths open like this one is, that is a good sign for 20th century fakes. Are there any 19th century open mouths? Perhaps, but I have never seen one yet. For $209 I could buy about 400 apple pies from McDonald's, or 200 McChickens, or 200 McDoubles. How about 40+ super Big Breakfast with pancakes? This kinda talk is making me hungry!

2011-08-03T17:03:00.000-07:00

Fake Jones Silhouette Worth More Than Genuine

Genuine Jones pictured here brings $114, while a fake one brings $165. Although the cutting is fine and without defects, this genuine Jones had some problems: the frame has crude repairs and has been repainted; silhouette paper is toned and mottled. He is still a scarce artist, and I believe someone got a good buy on it.

As for the fake one, what can I possibly say? It looks nothing like it could have been cut by someone who was making a living at cutting silhouettes. Look at her face! This ain't how it's done. The embossing stamp is an imitation die. Watercolored frills are added for show. This 20th century silhouette was made to deceive collectors, and it did its job. The frame is a cut-down from a larger frame, made to fit this silhouette. This silhouette looks cute, but it is not an antique silhouette. If someone thought it was worth $165, let it be.

2011-08-02T11:01:00.000-07:00

Here We Go Again: Maurier Collection - American Revolution Soldier

I guess people do not get tired of this stuff. Someone just paid $521 for this painted profile. I've voiced my two cents worth on Maurier collection several times in the past (check out our archives). This work is supposed to be by George Rouse. I believe Desmond Coke was the first writer/collector to touch on this artist in 1913. Other writers who followed him only repeat what Coke had written. In other words, nobody really knows anything about this George Rouse other than he might have worked around 1750 (this portrait is dated 1781).

If any of you think this portrait was really painted in 1781, you are blessed! This work is very typical of those profiles painted in colors in the 20th century. If you would check our archives, you will see 5-6 such examples. This painter signed the names of those rare artists that very few people know anything about. This type of work is not a fake because originals of them do not exist. I call them fantasies painted to decieve collectors, who have a knack for rare artists but know next to nothing of what they are getting into.

2011-07-30T18:11:00.000-07:00

Unbelievable Price for 20th Century Demors Silhouettes

This item came up on eBay recently and brought $255. The seller described it as follows:

"19th Century Silhouette of Two Children both signed but hard to read looks like QeMors or DeMors, both painted and are both 2 ¾ in. x 2 in. each silhouette is separate but framed together, Both are excellent. Glass has been reversed painted, paint loss on glass, frame has expected wear and is 6 7/8 in. x 5 ½ in."

Anyone following my blogs would have known this item is NOT 19th century. It is mid-20th century. The frame seems to be mid-Victorian. The ugly glass mat is crude and lousy at best. No, it is NOT naive or folky, and it is recent as well. Some silhouettes produced by Demors are not too shabby, but this pair here is not one of the better ones. Demors tries to imitate Doyle bust here with the girl. Prices are determined by bidders during auctions. One winning bidder thought this one was $255. That is fine with me, but I would have passed it at ten bucks.

On the same note, I just came back from a show in Vermont. I saw a silhouette attributed to Edouart for $985, or something like that. I looked at it, and it looked a whole lot like a print. Closer look revealed a "C" within a circle with initials beneath it. That stands for "copyright." I wonder if some lucky collector bought it and took it home to be displayed...alongside Demors!

I saw six American silhouettes at this show. Four were unsigned, and the other two were from the Peale's Museum (one with "MUSEUM" stamp and the other with an eagle with "Peale's Museum"). Five of them came in modern one dollar frames, only one frame was period. So, no picking for me at this show. If you think genu-wine American silhouettes in their period or original frames are easy to get, you are wrong. Fakes abound! If you don't even own a Carrick's book on silhouettes, you should not be buying silhouettes.
Comments from a Reader
Kathy, writes:
Earlier this evening (much earlier) I stumbled upon your website when I googled "pair of cut paper silouettes" in search of a little information about a pair of nicely done (modern) silouettes that I bought at Goodwill today. Wow! and Double-Wow! Your website is addictive! Even better than the wealth of information about a pretty obscure (to me) topic, is your writing style. You are a wonderful writer. Your "voice" is so distinctive and clear, and you can be pretty funny too.

I marked your website as a "favorite" and I'm sending links to a few friends whom I know will LOVE it. If I ever do stumble across any silouettes that I suspect might be of the age and type you collect, I now know who to talk to about them.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with those who love silouettes, or just love a great read!

Ye Editor: We thank Kathy for writing us. "Silouettes" is actually spelled with an "h" inserted between "l" and "o." Although I have used this word many times, I, too, miss-spell it now and then. All of a sudden I forget how to spell it. But then these days, I scarcely remember what I had for supper the night before. There is a term for that, but I cannot remember what that term was.

2011-07-12T13:48:00.000-07:00

American Revolution Period Silhouette

One of our readers, Laura, writes:

Hiya! Would be very grateful if you could offer any information on a silhouette I bought today at a market, I don't know anything about silhouettes and bought it purely because I think it's so lovely, but i'm intrigued to know more about it especially the age. I bought it here in England, so I'm guessing it may be British and out of your area of interest, but it seems that the bust part is cut away like those on your site so thought you might be able to help! I've tried to take some photos but theres a lot of camera glare sorry, the back is sealed shut and the frame looks old and fragile so I didn't want to open it and risk breaking it. The frame is about 13cm long at the longest point. The black part is cut out with black paper behind, and part of the black is cut away under the hair ponytail to show brown paper beneath. Thank you for any information you can offer! I didn't pay much for it, so if it's a modern copy I wouldn't be too disappointed, I still think it's lovely!

Editor writes:

Not again, I thought. Was gonna take a quick look and delete her email. Been awful hot these days, but wait. Laura made a very good find here! She needs to open the back, clean the glass, and dust off the silhouette with soft brush. While at it, she may want to remove that white paint from the frame. The frame looks to be original to this silhouette.

At any rate, this is a really early hollow-cut. Yes, it is British. Actually American silhouettes originated from this type of silhouette. This silhouette would date from the American Revolution period ca.1775. I believe it is a work of Sarah Harrington. Laura may even find a sitter's name if she were to open the frame. I like this silhouette; I would be proud to add it to my collection if I could. Laura made a very good buy!

2011-07-05T17:59:00.000-07:00

Edouart Conversation Silhouette

One of our readers, Kathy, writes:

I have an old conversation silhouette and would like your thoughts on it’s origin. I have attached some pictures for your examination. The silhouettes are black ink (not cut), the background is graphite and watercolor painted, along with a sepia wash. I inspected it closely with a loupe, the background is not a lithograph. The work is pasted to cardboard. You can see the brush strokes from the sepia wash that covers the paper and the board so I am guessing the work was pasted before the wash. The paper looks to be correct for the period, not smooth like modern paper & cardboard, but with some texture. It measures 11” across by 8 1/2” tall. I found it framed, but feel pretty sure the frame is not original.

What baffles me is the date and place written on the bottom. I know Edouart came to the USA in 1839. This silhouette is titled… (looks like) George Horace Johnson and Family - Albany 1836. Signed on the lower left corner is…Aug Edouart fecit 1836. In doing some online research, I found that Edouart did many silhouettes in Albany, NY but none before 1839. Do you know where he was in 1836? Could it be the Albany House in Dublin or maybe the St. James & Albany Hotel/Spa in Paris? Both buildings were built in the 18th century.

Can you shed any light on this for me? Thank you in advance for any help you can offer.

Ed: I'm gonna be blunt here! My take on this piece: either Kathy needs a better loupe, or she had some wacky tobacky, or both. All I see here is a very low-grade print of no artistic value. If any readers think otherwise, I would like to hear. I am sure Kathy does, too.

2011-07-03T13:31:00.000-07:00

VERY RARE c1830 Printed-Body American Silhouette

This is a super find! I cannot recall ever seeing this particular bust type before. If I did, I sure do not remember. This silhouette may be unique! This is either a litho or a woodblock printing. Actually, I do not know how to tell the difference.At any rate, let us do the frame first. It is American made pine frame that appears to be original to this silhouette. Gilding is original and is untouched. Where worn, the color has turned to attractive glossy plum. The thin wavy glass is original, and I have decided not to replace it with modern glass. The frame measures 4 x 5 inches with the opening of 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 inches. Everything is in very fine condition. There is a penciled name of Edith Delano written on the top back of the frame. I have no idea who this is. This silhouette came out of Enfield, New Hampshire, close to Vermont border.

This silhouette of a young woman dates to circa 1830. It is on wove paper that has evenly toned to a light paperbag color. There is a small repair at the top of the silhouette. The frame covers it well. Hair details are embellished with graphite. Light yellow hair is pressed against the glass; it is likely this sitter's hair.

It may be difficult to see from the photos, but the stylus that traced this subject can be seen to the left of the sitter's comb. Obviously, the cutter improvised the detail and cut the comb to the 11 o'clock position, rather than to its original 10 o'clock position. We often find such improvised details on silhouettes cut at the Peale's Museum. The printed-body is strong with good inking. Her dress is ca.1830 puffy-sleeve type.

I washed the glass, inserted acid-free card behind the black cloth, and finished the framing with styroboard backing. Everything is tight. Because there is a name on the back of the frame, I did not place a dustcover.

2011-06-27T13:45:00.000-07:00

Oval William King Silhouette

One of our readers, Julie, writes:
Hi - I just want to say THANK YOU for your wonderfully informative site. I'm a freelance writer and the manager of an antique shop. Recently I acquired a silhouette from my former landlord who has moved south ( I live in upstate NY in the Adirondack Mountains.)

It has inspired me to write about silhouettes for my newspaper column called Collection Reflections. I am also considering collecting now since somewhere in my things from "Grammie's House" is a circa 1920 silhouette. At any rate - the silhouette I have in my possession at this time is attributed to William King - according to an evaluation done by the Boston Museum of Fine Art in 1955. I found the information folded up behind a piece of cardboard tucked into the back of the frame. The piece is stunning - and although I do not know all the terminology yet - It looks like it is an oval hollow cut out profile set
against black silk . The framing is incredible and ornate: a reverse painted black and gilt motif encircles the silhouette and lovely gold roses with foliage square up the corners.

The frame it rests in is also gilt with scallop like shell motifs in each corner. I want to do an article on the piece - finding information about King has piqued my interest - it appears he was a Scallywag ! I have Alice Carrick's book on the History of American Silhouettes. It's informative but not easy reading !

At any rate - wondering if you might be willing to look at a digital photograph of the piece and comment on it. Also wondering, when the time comes, if you would mind me sharing your comments and website in my newspaper column?

Ye Editor writes:
First, I would like to thank Julie for writing us. She sent us some good photos of her King. I don't know whether she wants to hear the good news first or the bad news first. But we will go with the good news first. Then, we could get to some creepy stuff. By the way, anyone is free to use anything from this site for educational purposes. This blog is copyrighted, but you do not need our permission for fair use. However, you MUST cite this blog's address. We discourage plagiarism to the max. Plagiarism is for mental midgets!

Alright! I know how King worked, and this silhouette is his work (one point for Julie). Julie sends us a close-up of the embossment. It is not the best close-up shot, but this stamp is kosher (another point for Julie). She tells us that she is from upstate New York. Although I would like to give her an extra point for that, I cannot. So far Julie has earned two points. Can she make it to the goal line with those two points intact?

Now the "creepy" stuff. Julie writes, "The framing is incredible and ornate." This is subjective. Personally, I think it is ugly. The problem with this frame is that it has nothing to do with this silhouette. The silhouette is ca.1805, but this frame is fifty-years younger. I do not know how old this reverse painted mat is, or how it was made. It is, however, well done and likely made when the silhouette was reframed. So, no point added and none taken away for this frame, as this frame is moot for this silhouette.

As for the typed letter, it proves nothing. It is nothing more than a letter that quotes Jackson. It is neither an attribution nor an authentication for this particular silhouette. What is that..."p. lol" on there? Doesn't that mean "laugh out loud"? Boston Museum of Fine Arts must have been really ahead of its time! There is no point deduction for this letter. It is moot at best.

On terminology, Julie writes, "oval hollow cut out profile." This terminology is half accurate. Without the usage the the word "oval," she would have been 100% accurate. With this silhouette, some clown decided to cut a rectangular silhouette into an oval. We know it was not this particular clown who framed it, as the opening calls for a rectangular piece. In other words, it was cut into an oval by some previous clown. My good guess is that this silhouette once resided in British paper mache frame with an oval opening before it was reframed into this frame. Anyone who cuts an American silhouette into an oval to fit into an oval opening is guilty as charged. We take away a point here for that.

This silhouette is probably stuck to the blackened glass and cannot be removed without tearing the paper. Let us say he had found a home. Afterall, a man's home is his castle. He lives with his rose decorated neighbors. Ex-governor Arnold would call that a "girly man." Here in New York, Cuomo just passed matrimonial rights. So, this silhouette is a fine example of what it is and what it is not. No points added or subtracted here.

Julie finishes the race with one point. She has a "King." It is not the best "King." The frame sucks, but this "King" has to remain there.

2011-06-25T17:49:00.000-07:00

Ca.1830 Really Folky American Silhouette

This is one of the best hollow-cuts I ever came across! It is unsigned, and it is by an unknown artist. What "makes" this piece is its extreme folk flare (see close-up photos for highly embellished details). This type of American silhouette is very rare. This artist tries very hard to imitate those flaired-out tunics of the day worn by well-to-do men. He does a fine job with it, though comically presented. This hollow-cut is on laid paper, which is very unusual for silhouettes, as most are on wove paper. Perhaps one in a hundred comes on laid paper, so it is quite rare.

The frame is period. It is brass-over-wood that measures 4 1/2 x 5 1/2". It has brass tacks on four corners to hold together the brass from coming loose from the frame. The contruction seems to be period and everything matches well.

I just found this silhouette today at a show in upstate NY. It was raining cats and dogs (been like this for 3-4 days now), and almost decided not to go. Good thing I went! The dealer knew he had a good American silhouette, but he did not know how good. You know what? I forgot to take my magnifying glass today. That had never happened before. Without it, I don't know if I am looking at a print or what. I mean there are some really fine fakes out there. I am basically blind without a good magnifying glass. I done good today. Actually, even better than good, as I came back with a pair of Sam Metford's silhouettes too! Good thing I went!

Anonymous writes: So who do you think did this silhouette? Warner? Williams? Really nice!!
Ed: Because of the bust termination, I was thinking Banton.
Anonymous follows: Ah, I've been having trouble distinguishing between Banton's tight arm curve (per your November 2009 post on Banton, I should have considered that as well) and deeper front and the almost half-and-half curves of Warner (on Peggy's site there's a "We are one" Warner-attributed set with a very similar curve on the male bust). You showed a possible Williams-attributed sil. in your November 2006 post, which was why I considered Williams--but he used so many different bust lines!

I forgot to tell you in the last post...thank you so much for this site, it's been so useful to me as I research!
Ed: We need to be careful when attributing unsigned works. We can "think" about who it could be, but that is it...just think. Unless we can come up with a "stamped" example, it is mostly guesswork.

Bob writes:

Banton is an interesting thought but the handling of the inked details (hair, ruffles of the shirt), the cut details (the lapels, lash) and the proportions of the parts seem to be rather different?

I guess the best way I can summarize is the Bantons you have posted are more refined, restrained, were actually probably a more accurate likeness. The folky silhouette and what makes it so much more "folky" is that some of the elements are a bit crude and simplified, exuberant, exaggerated proportions...like a lot of good folk images.

Ed: I have no idea if it is by Banton. I just thru out the first name that came to mind with that bustline. I think Bob is right. It is too crude to be a Banton.

2011-06-14T17:29:00.000-07:00

Ca.1805 WILLIAM KING Hollow Cut SILHOUETTE

The frame on this silhouette measures 4" x 4 3/4"and is guilded wood with a metal hanging loop. The mat is dark blue with gold around the oval cut out portion and measures 3" x 2". A few pieces of the top layer of the mat have been damaged (the lighter parts of the mat). Glass covers the silhouette, but not the blue mat. The silhouette is of a young woman hollow cut over black wove. The paper that it is cut from has some discoloration probably from the woven material underneath it. It is impressed with the signature KING contained within a rectangle. This appears to be the original frame. William King worked in Salem and Boston, Massachusetts 1804-06.

Editor's Note:

Uncooth knowledge is a dangerous thing. This silhouette is from an on-line auction, and the description above is from the seller. First, this silhouette is a forgery (for a more complete discussion on William King, check out my older posts). Second, this seller does not know what he is talking about. Please remember this profile of a woman. Etch it in your head, as this woman appears from time to time on other forgeries. I have seen her with embossed Peale Museum stamp and Bache's Patent. I am sure there are others.

I wish I could say to you to trust the sellers. But I can't. You should only place your trust in yourselves, armed with good reference works, experience and knowledge. With antiques and collectibles, the key word is CAVEAT EMPTOR (buyer beware). Spend some money on good reference works! But remember this too: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

2011-06-13T17:14:00.000-07:00

White Silhouette

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

I recently came across a silhouette that I've tried researching and cannot find a thing out about it. I'll attach a picture, but it's a white silhouette on a blue jay blue background. I've searched and searched and I cannot find any colored silhouettes like this. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks and hope to hear from you soon.

Ye Editor writes:

Last week I did not reply to four emails on silhouettes, as they had nothing to do with pre-1850 American silhouettes. I make no apology. You gotta remember; this blog is for antique silhouettes. If you are not sure whether your silhouette qualifies as antique American silhouette, please read the guidelines below under another post.

I will take up on Kyle's subject here, as this silhouette looks like it could have been made in the 1820s, based on the sitter's hairstyle and collar. But it is NOT from the 1820s. Although this silhouette looks to be a hollow-cut with white backing, it is actually a tracing on white paper that had been blue-washed around it. The frame looks to be mid-Victorian. It is architectually very heavy. If this work were presented in a single border frame, it would look much better. Someone made this silhouette for decorating purposes. The entire work is crude. It was someone's hobby project. This is NOT an antique silhouette.

Follow-Up from Kyle:

I'd like to thank you for taking the time to look at the silhouette. A few things to supplement and confirm what you said after taking a closer look at it today. The outer frame is definitely newer, but there is a second frame within the larger that I deem to be the frame that originally came with the piece. Upon further inspection, I open up the back of it and found that the white border is actually an invitation
from 1859 to visit a Brooklyn National Guard target practice, which would make sense with your Victorian date. Thanks again for the help, I appreciate it.

Ye Editor:
The second frame that you refer to is actually what I call a "liner." It is part of this entire frame. It would have been bright-gold-gilt originally. Although you may have found a date of 1859, this date has nothing to do with when this silhouette was made. Obviously, it could not have been made before 1859. However, it could have been made anytime after this date. My point is that someone could have made it last week using a piece of old document. This is not to say it was made last week either. It was made between 1859 and last week. Unless there is reliable further documentation, one cannot date it.

2011-06-03T14:49:00.000-07:00

No, Not This Kinda Stuff PLEASE

One of our readers, Christine, writes:

First of all, I have never found a silhouette, so this is all new to me. Second, I love your sense of humor. Third, be kind about my photography skills. They are sadly lacking. I have searched on google. but have been unable to find this signature. I know that it is old, but pre 1850, I have no idea. So, forgive me if I have wasted your time. Your website is wonderful, by the way. I really enjoyed looking through it and reading the blogs. I have included six photos. Thank you in advance for your time.
B. M. Jones writes:

I place this inquiry here purely as an example of what not to send me. If others

have this type of framed silhouettes, please keep them for yourselves. These things are not what I call antique silhouettes (pre-1850). They are Woolworth stuff; they are not old. Before sending me emails, please look over my blogs to see what I call "antique silhouettes." If you do not see your type of item on the blog, the chances are what you have are decorative, factory-made stuff for gracing toilet walls. They are great-looking stuff for them walls, but we do not discuss or spend time on them here.

2011-06-02T08:40:00.000-07:00

T. P. Jones Silhouette from New Jersey

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

I found this hollow cut at a garage sale in Hopewell, NJ. I don't know who the person is but the silhouette is embossed "T.P. Jones". The piece was framed with black silk behind the silhouette and a piece of nasty old wood behind that. I removed the wood and silk and reframed it, in the frame I bought it in, with archival cotton mat board I cleaned the old glue (that hinged the paper to the silk) from the paper and cleaned the surface to brighten the piece. There are some small tears that I tended to also. The glass is nice, it has seeds and is wavy. I don't know if the frame is original to the piece but it looks good. The frame is made of thin brass with a brass piece soldered to the back (I had to open the solder to access the piece). Thoughts?

B. M. Jones writes:

Keith made a good find, as silhouettes by Jones is quite scarce. He took some nice photos, but a photo of the silhouette out of the frame with measurements would have been a big plus. The frame is certainly period. It went thru some alteration during its life. From the front it looks nice with no corrosion. Personally I do not like original or old glass because of impurities in them. They are not archival and should be replaced with modern glass. Glasses with reverse painted decorations are another matter. Keith mentions "garage sale" so I suspect he snatched this one at a good price.

2011-05-27T13:16:00.000-07:00

Dartmouth College Silhouettes

One of our readers, Peter, writes:

I came upon your blog while researching old silhouettes. I have a group of them that were loosely inserted into an 1815 booklet that is a roster of the Phi Beta Kappa fraternity at Dartmouth College (Hanover NH). I am interested in getting your evaluation of them as well as an appraisal of their monetary value. I have had these stored away for at least 25-30 years, and now because of the economy am interested in eventually selling them (probably on ebay). I believe I originally found them at an estate sale in Buffalo NY or somewhere in western NY.

What I have is 2 pieces of folded old paper that each contained a loose group of silhouettes plus a few hollow cut silhouettes. Again, all of these were loosely laid into an 1815 booklet entitled: CATALOGUE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEW-HAMPSHIE ALPHA OF THE (Phi) B K SOCIETY. PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE SOCIETY. Andover, Mass., Printed by Flagg and Gould. 1815.

There are a total of 24 silhouettes. Along with all of these there was also a Dartmouth student's hand-written account book that covered the period 1813-1815.

My response:
I can not authenticate without looking at the actual cuttings. They were probably done around 1820 if authentic. The guy with ponytail may have been cut looking at another silhouette that was done 1790-1800. They seem to be all by the same artist. Cutouts of the insides are of interest. As for valuation, plain silhouettes with no artist name is quite common, especially unframed. Actually, on many
silhouettes, it is the frame that makes it.

NOTE:
We attached a sample image from this collection above. If they had embossed artist's name, such as Peale, Day, King, Jones and the like, they would be considered scarce to rare, depending on the artist. However, hollow-cuts by unknown artists represent about 95% of silhouettes out there. Unattributed silhouettes without their proper frames are not worth a whole lot. One can try to find a nice pre-1840 frames for them, but they are very tough to find. I sometimes find them at antiques shows priced from $100-250. So, are these silhouettes worth buying frames for? That decision is up to each owner.

2011-05-27T08:36:00.000-07:00

1777 Silhouette American Revolution Officer

One of our readers, Cal, writes:
I’ve looked at your site and it is very interesting and informative. I’m looking at a silhouette on ebay which is supposed to be of a man from my home town in NH – I collect memorabilia from that town, so my interest is for the connection to the town more than the silhouette. But, I don’t like to overpay dramatically for items, so am wondering if you can give me some help on whether this listing is reasonable or not? It is listing # xxxxxxxx and claims to be Lt. Col. Josiah Stevens, a revolutionary war soldier. According to published town histories, Josiah was a land owner and farmer in the town in the late 1700s. The frame looks “right” to me – I’ve been buying antiques for 40 years, that doesn’t make me an expert by any means, but one does get a feel for things over time – so I am inclined to believe the seller in terms of age, etc. What I have no idea of is the value of silhouettes in general. Your site has some values on it, but I didn’t see any values for silhouettes of this age, if indeed it is from the late 1700s. Any help you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

My response was:
If you like what you see, you should get it. It is your money! How do you know this guy is who he represents? Frame is not period or original. Silhouette dates to 1825-30.

Cal replies:
Thanks so much for the immediate response…I very much appreciate it. The dating really helps…makes me wonder if the silhouette is of the older Josiah’s son…the dates are almost too late for the older man as he died 1827; the son died in 1864, so it seems more likely that it is of the son by the same name. All I have to go by in terms of whether the silhouette is of Josiah Stevens is that there is evidently a name on the silhouette…I realize anyone could have put it there…but it is not like someone wrote George Washington on it…seems unlikely to have been made up just to put a name on it, but who knows. As you say on your website…it is hard to know on a lot of these. Do you have any idea who did the silhouette? Again, thanks so much – I have always found silhouettes interesting; wish I had one or two from my family, but I don’t think any exist other than a couple of my sons done at Disney!

NOTE: Cal is one of many people who places too much emphasis on what is written on silhouettes. Obviously, the silhouette does not date from 1777. In addition, we really do not know who this sitter is. In order to prove he is indeed the named sitter, one must back up with a known portrait painting or published engraving of him. As for the values of silhouettes, I actually have no idea what any silhouette is worth, because values are determined by buyers. The only value I know is what I would pay.

2011-05-16T14:16:00.000-07:00

Questions NOT Answered

I am always happy to answer questions regarding pre-1850 American silhouettes. Lately, I have been getting a lot of questions on modern silhouettes (modern means post-1900...even if they are 100 years old, they are modern). Sometimes, I answer them back saying they are modern. Sometimes, I do not even reply. If you have a hollow-cut silhouette, there is a 99% chance of it being American and pre-1850. If you do not have a hollow-cut, there is a 99% chance of it being modern, British, copy, or something else. I am talking about bust length silhouettes, not full figure ones. But then, I usually do not get myself involved with full length silhouettes, as they are mostly of English origin. A chance of you having a cut-n-paste American bust length silhouette is nil, unless you have one by Honeywell. So please keep the above in mind before sending in your questions.

Also, I no longer do an indepth write-up thingy for you. I used to do quite a bit for fun. However, too many people have been taking advantage of me. They list the silhouettes on eBay using my descriptions and write-ups. Why should I spend hours of my time and bust my butt for you? So that you can make money on eBay? That ain't right! For that reason, I am limiting my words when answering questions from now on. AND you need to promise me that you will NOT use my words if you decide to sell on eBay and other sites. If you want a good appraisal from me that you could use to sell your silhouettes, you can hire me on the cheap. Ask me if interested.

2011-04-15T14:28:00.000-07:00

$220 for Prints!

These things are nothing more than prints! Anyone with a copy machine could make these, except for the one done on glass, which was mass-produced. The seller writes:

For your consideration we're pleased to offer a grouping of framed silhouettes from the mid 1850s or before, four cut out paper silhouettes and one painted on glass, the Captain Barr, extremely well done, nice. Three oval miniature 5" tall silhouettes of two men and one woman, have original frames, with many chips to the wood frames, silhouettes themselves look to be in great condition, the backs on these do not look original, but we did not remove to see if there was any artist signature on them, will leave that to new owners. The square gold framed man silhouette is 4 1/2" tall, dollar shown for scale only, not included. 6" X 4 1/2" wood framed oval silhouette is of "Captain John Barr 1792-1826 Son Of John & Sarah (Peirce) Barr Silhouette By Bache, No 107 Tallimit Art Frame 4003 Boston, Mass." on small tag on its back. This has a very nice easeled frame, in good shape, and silhouette looks to us that it was painted on the reverse of the glass, correct us if were wrong, but it sure looks that way, very nice quality. All for one bid, we only wiped the surface dust off of these and that was it, they have been in an attic for years.

2011-03-21T17:34:00.000-07:00

Here We Go Again!

If you have been following our blogs, you have seen this artist's work. I believe we have five or six listed. Although this artist pens an array of artists' names, his (her?) favorite one seems to be Jarvis. These things are nothing more than decorative art and quite modern. I am sure we have all been to antiques shows where a few dealers offer nothing but recently made folk items. This artwork fits that description.

This one never met the reserve at $910. Just look at this thing! The frame is very modern, and it has been distressed. This is what the seller had to say about this thing:

1816 Miniature Portrait Of Aaron Burr By J.W. Jarvis

You are viewing a very rare 1816 miniature portrait of America`s 3rd Vice President AARON BURR(1756-1836). Burr was vp under Thomas jefferson but is probably best remembered as the man who killed Alexander Hamilton in the famous duel. This portrait was done by leading Knickerbocker painter JOHN WESLEY JARVIS(1780-1840) who was very famous by 1808 in New York City. Jarvis was great friends with Washington Irving and painted a famous portrait of him. I will include a biography of Jarvis below. The painting is a mixed media work that appears to be watercolor and guache and the painting is contained in it`s original period frame. The painting is in excellent estate condition with no visible flaws. Please consider the many photos as an important part of the description. Overall size is approximately 5" by 4" and image size is about 3" by 2.25".

YUCK (my word) !!

2011-03-09T13:28:00.000-08:00

Good Picking or Slim Pickins

One of our regulars, Bob, comes aboard with another find. He writes:

Thought I would send along another silhouette. I generally like to find silhouettes in their original, or at least appropriate period, frame. Well, I guess this time I broke that rule.

It is a double cut silhouette of a gentleman facing left. It is done on wove paper. What I like about this particular one is how the hair is done (really like those curls in the back) and the embellishment of the collar is blue. What also appeals to me is the bust is outlined in blue as well. I don't recall seeing that treatment before. Unfortunately, it does have some stains. It is backed with wove paper, one side of which is blacked with what appears to be ink?

The frame is black painted wood with a carved scalloped edge with gilt decoration. It's not orginal to the silhouette and of a later period. None the less, I think it's a nice folk art painted frame. I felt that combined with what I found to be an interesting silhouette, the whole "package" works.

As always, would love to hear the thoughts of others as I continue to try to climb the learning curve.

BMJ says: This is a tough call for me. The silhouette cutting and its embellishment are tip-top A+. If the foxing was a little more to borders, and not so much towards the silhouette, I would have given this silhouette a pretty high grade. It is the displaybility that counts. That can be accomplished by a smart use of oval mat so that foxing would not show. But with this type of foxing, not even a miracle mat could cover the foxing. As for the frame, I take my mother's advice: if you ain't got nothing good to say about something, keep it shut.

Thus my title for this post, "Good Picking or Slim Pickins." Silhouette: A+; its paper: C-D; frame: ?.

2011-03-02T14:13:00.000-08:00

Silhouette with Prized Bull

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

I purchased the accompanying silhouette on Ebay in 2006. The seller stated that it was purchased in the late 1960's near Harrisburg, PA. She thought it was from the 1860's though I feel it is somewhat earlier based on the clothing. The sight dimensions are 15 1/2" by 10 1/2." The background seems to be watercolor. It is unsigned. I recently found your excellent blog and am hoping that you find this piece interesting enough to post it to see if there are any readers who might shed more light on its origin, date, and/or possible artist.

BMJ writes: I love the bull. We do not see many silhouettes with large animals. The work seems to be English or Irish. Although the whole package is interesting, the work is crude. I had something a bit similar once that was dated in the 1880s. I believe this one, too, dates from the 80s. Can anyone out there shed better light?

2011-02-08T14:45:00.000-08:00

Unattributed American Hollow-Cut Silhouette ca.1820

Once again we thank Bob for sharing his latest silhoutte find with us. He writes:

I continue the local search for silhouettes but must admit nothing too exciting turning up these days.

Recently attended a large event that fills a rather large local Shriner's Auditorium (actually not a traditional auditorium, but really a capacious hanger like space). Used to be called an antiques show, now called an antiques and design show to accomodate people selling mid-century and later designer items.

Not really much in the way of silhouettes. Most were modern or to me, fakes. Did find the attached one which if not too exciting, I believe is genuine.

It is a hollow cut wove paper profile of a younger gentleman facing right over a piece of black silk. The hair is embellished with details in black ink. There is a graphite inscription below the lower edge of the bust that looks to me like "Nathaniel Corsby" with a nice llittle flourish below it. I assume that is the name of the subject.

It is housed in what appears to me to be the original black painted molded pine square nailed frame with a brass wire loop hanger. The glass is wonderfully thin with "straw marks" and bubbles. The eglomise surround is gold with a black asphaltum ground. The glass cannot be removed as it is retained in a rabbit, like the little silhouette you attributed to Banton in a previous post. The sight size of the surround and silhouette is 3 1/2 inches wide by 4 1/2 inches high. The overall dimensions are 3 7/8 by just shy of 5 inches.

Overall, I thought it to be a nicely done period silhouette with a nice eglomise surround in good condition purchased for a reasonable price. The lower edge of the bust reminds me of the one of a hollow cut silhouette you have listed for sale.

Hope the winter is being kinder to you then to us. Spent the weekend dealing with leaks from melting ice dams and dangerous amounts of snow on the roof.

BMJ writes: First, winter is not very kind to us here in upstate. Have been shoveling, blowing snow, and breaking thick ice formation from the driveway almost every day since Jan. 7. The worst part is those snow mixed with salt and sand that town snowplows throw into the entrance of driveway. It is too wet for the snowblower so gotta be hand-shoveled. Man, that is heavy back-breaking stuff!

As for the silhouette, anytime one finds a hollow-cut in its original frame that is a good find. We need to remember that early American silhouettes do not grow on trees. Good ones seemed to have dried up. Guess we have to wait for some collectors (or dealers) to travel to the "other" side. We are definitely in dry spell now.

2011-01-10T10:15:00.000-08:00

Major Andre Silhouette 1778

We thank Bob once again for sharing his newest find. He writes:

In my area, not finding any decent silhouettes. However, I am finding photographes of them which I consider interesting, too. I have attached scans of another ambrotype of a silhouette I recently stumbled upon.

I guess the plate size would be called a 1/16 plate. I'm not to up on the nomenclature for this sort of thing. The image is on a glass plate. It is backed by a tin sheet, the side behind the silhouette painted black. All is contained within what looks like it may have orginally been housed in a small "Union" case. However, the current arrangement with little wire loop hanger appears to be the one present for a very long time. The inscription "Major Andre/ 1774" though in old script and ink on the paper backing does not jive with the period silhouette in my opinion.

BMJ: This is a cute ca.1830 American silhouette that was photographed in the third-quarter of the 19th century. Most ambros of silhouettes are boring at best, but this one is folky and is a keeper. The inscription has nothing to do with the silhouette. So, I repeat my favorite words, "Caveat Emptor." One should never buy a silhouette or any portrait based on inscriptions. They can be casually added by anyone at any time. Browned ink is just that, browned ink. It does not spell "age."

2010-12-13T09:39:00.000-08:00

Photograph of Joy Family Conversation Piece (Edouart)

We have an interesting item here from Bob. He writes:

Have recently found something that might be mildly interesting which I thought I would share.

It's a sepia toned photograph on paper of a group silhouette of the Joy family by Edouart. Sight size is 5 1/2 inches wide by 3 5/8 inches tall. It has been mounted to a cardboard backing with a thin now crumbling paper tape, remnants of which are present around the edges of the image accounting for the ragged appearance. The hole in the viewer's upper right hand corner of the image, which sadly extends through the gilt liner, was caused by someone carelessly repositioning a threaded eyelet for the frame's hanging wire.

It is housed in what is probably an early 20th century ebonized gesso glazed frame with a gilt gesso liner. I don't believe that it's just an illustration cut out of an old book. I speculate it was created for descendants of the family. Note the meticulously pencilled names with dates of those depicted. I haven't had a chance to research the Joy or Thorp families.

Finally, Historic New England (previously know as SPNEA) has a website from which one can search their collections. Here's what turned up for silhouettes:
http://www.historicnewengland.org/search-results/search?SearchableText=silhouette&hnesl=1&includecap=on

One of our readers comments:

I have actually handled the original Edouart silhouette that this is a copy of. It is currently in a private collection in Ireland. So here is some more information on the family - The Joy Family hailed from Holywell near Oxford. The sitters are: Thomas Joy (1785-1833) seated with his second wife Maria (née Thorp, 1796-1832) also seated, and their four children - Elizabeth Phené (b. 1818) standing behind her father’s chair, Sarah Thorp (1822-1841) holding a book, Mary (1824-1890) reaching out to Baby Susan (1825-1878). Elizabeth was the sole child from Thomas's first marriage so it's significant that she is standing apart from the others. The silhouette was dated 1828.

Bob responds to the above comment:

My thanks to the reader who provided additional information about the original conversation piece.

That the eldest child, Elizabeth, stood apart from the other children indicating that she was from a previous marriage of the father (so she stands behind him) is an interesting piece of information. As an amateur psychologist, also make one wonder how well integrated she felt into this blended family? Separated from and observing the happy goings on of the other children.

It is also an example of the subtleties that may be found in old portraits and silhouettes which I believe were readily recognized by people in their time of creation and may be lost upon us today. It's especially sad when one looks at a charming folk portrait of a young child and you realize it contains symbols of their mortality indicating it was probably rendered postmortem!

The reader's identifications of the sitters is just as was written on the photograph.

2010-12-01T16:25:00.001-08:00

T.P. Jones: Good Silhouette Gone Bad

This is a great example to show you what you should never do. This silhouette by Jones is genuine and very scarce. I bet this silhouette was in want of a frame for quite a spell. Not having access to a good period frame, someone went on a cheap. This modern, reproduction frame was used. In order to fit the silhouette into this cheap frame, the silhouette was cut into a small oval. Someone wanted to show the embossment to its fullest. So, the top of the sitter's head and the bust tip were compromised. By the looks of this silhouette, there is perhaps a few millimeters of paper left on those two parts.

In other words, even if you got him a nice period frame for $200-250, he is too far gone to properly fit in it. What you can do in that case is to make an oval mat and fit him into a rectangular frame. It would display okay.

2010-11-19T17:33:00.000-08:00

Ugliest Doyle Silhouette

Is this really by Doyle? I believe it is. The sitter resembles Eric Clapton. Did this guy really have that bull-neck? Was he wearing eye glasses? The answer is "no" in both cases. Although his head and the back of his neck are original, his profile suffered from hard times, torn up in places. He, at one time, had a real chin with much narrower neck. So, he is a defective Doyle on badly preserved paper. Someone paid $72 plus shipping, so it was worth at least that much to the buyer. Heck, it's a Doyle !

2010-11-04T16:50:00.000-07:00

Genuine William King Silhouette Not So Hot

I found this silhouette on ebay a few weeks ago. It brought $96. For a genuine King, that is a real bargain. Or is it? When we consider nice Kings are worth $400-800, depending on the subject and how well the silhouettes are cut, $96 for one seems to be very cheap. BUT, with this silhouette the frame is worth only a few dollars. Although someone worked on it, everything about it is modern and ugly at best. So, in order to make this silhouette come to terms, one has to get a nice period frame. That is additional $150-250, depending on the type of frame.

Let's say you got lucky and found a nice frame for $150. That would mean your investment into this package is $250 now. That would have been a very good buy for a King. HOWEVER, note the defects (circled). There are chinks out of hollow-cut. If someone tells you those "chinks" are a part of the sitter's hairdo, and you believe that, you were born with angels!

So, how much is this silhouette really worth in this modern frame? Ninety-six dollars is a fair price. Every collectible has its personal price of sort that comes from ownership. The thing is, if you are happy with it, that is what counts.

That reminds me. When I got married 30 years ago, I had a B&W TV that only worked when it was on its side! So, we watched it with our heads turned 90 degrees. What does this have anything to do with King silhouette? You go figure.

2010-10-24T13:31:00.000-07:00

Day Fecit? My Eye!

Found this on eBay a while ago. Several years ago, this type of silhouettes would have been bought by eBay bidders. I don't care what anyone else tells you, but these things are all 20th century. See below (August 22 post) for more of this type in which I had some heated discussion with one of the readers. These silhouette are all NO GOOD!

2010-09-20T08:39:00.000-07:00

Silhouette Identification

One of our readers, Sandra, writes:

Hello B.M. ~ I found your blog last night doing some research on this silhouette I recently found. It's my first ;) I so enjoyed reading your blog and your funny personality that shines through your writing, not to mention the comprehensive education you offer. I honestly don't know if this is 20th century piece or not, so if it is, my apologies in advance.

So I'm sending 3 pictures to you to view and comment if you care to. Thank you and keep up the good work!!

P.S. I forgot to add that I can see that the silhouette is not on the original mat as it appears that it has been re-mounted at some point, however it appears the original mat is behind the new one. I hope that makes sense!

B. M. writes:

First, we thank Sandra for reading our blog. Second, I love her fingernails! She has fingernails of a kind, smart person.

I can work magic sometimes with silhouettes, but in this case I cannot. This one is either British or Continental. Taking photos over glass is tough to do. Measurements can really help. How tall is the bust? There are only three loose nails holding the cardboard backing. They are easy to remove. The answer may lie just behind the backing. I suspect it is a modern print of some sort. The breast badge was likely painted in gold on the original. If Sandra were to take a photo outside of its frame, I am sure we can come up with something.

2010-09-12T16:18:00.000-07:00

J. H. Whitcomb Silhouettes

The following came from Sylvia, one of our readers.

I recently purchased a pair of framed silhouettes at a yard sale in Maine while on vacation. The more I studied them, the more interesting they became to me and decided to try to do some research online which fortunately brought me to your infomative web site. Maybe you can help me to determine if they have any value?

Both appear to be handpainted and are signed in pencil (I think) "by J.H. Whitcomb 1831". The frames measure 5" by 6". The frames are backed with brown paper, and there is no writing on the backs.There is delicate gold painting along with maybe pen in the oval surrounding the silhouettes. I am attaching photos and hoping they are detailed enough to help you.

The lady from whom I bought the pictures said they belonged to her mother who enjoyed antiques, but she had no information other than that.

Any help you can provide to me will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

B. M. Jones writes: We thank Sylvia for finding our blog.

They are good for garage sale finds. They are what they are, and you should enjoy them as such. As for their value, I am sure you paid what they were worth to you. Although they are not from the 19th century, they make for nice display as a pair.

2010-09-08T10:13:00.000-07:00

Fantastic and RARE Banton Portraits

The following photos of genuine Banton come from May 1, 2010 auction by Gould Auctions of Maine. I attach another photo, a funky portrait signed "S. Banton" and dated "1824," for comparison. If anyone still believes this one was painted by Banton in 1824, it would be wise to memorize what Coke had written so many years ago (see below).

Desmond Coke (The Art of Silhouette, 1913) writes: "There is in good things, as old Plato knew, an intrinsic quality, unimistakable and indescribable, so that a man who has once learnt the meaning of the Good will know instinctively good china, good prints, good silhouettes, good anything at all. The tragedy of this world is that most people have a fair only for the bad."

Desmond is absolutely right! Collectors of silhouettes must learn what is good. Just because someone has been "into" silhouettes for many years means nothing. Experience is not measured in years. It is measured by quality of knowledge.

2010-09-07T10:38:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth L. Maurier Collection of Silhouettes

Who is this woman? I cannot find anything on her. Likewise, I cannot find anything on her old man either, who supposedly started collecting silhouettes in the mid-19th century. However, we do find plenty of silhouettes and painted portraits with the label (see photo of this label).

Although I would like to get into discussing hollow-cut silhouettes from this collection on this post, I need some more time to do so. For now, we will look into painted silhouettes from Maurier collection.

Incidentally, none of these portraits is from the first-half of 19th century. They are all 20th century fantasies and likely painted by one artist. If you believe the inscriptions on these portraits, or have bought any of these items for mega-bucks, you need to reassess your wisdom. I guess they are cute artwork to have for $50 or so, if the frames are nice.

I list below three examples that actually sold for mega-bucks along with their descriptions. They are from major auction companies.

1. "profile of young man in detailed jacket, signed at bottom in ink "M. Beasley 1829 Charleston, S.C.", gouache on paper, 2-3/4 x 2-1/4 in.; painted gold frame. Toning, minor foxing; frame with abrasions. Provenance: Label verso indicates silhouette was part of the Elizabeth L. Maurier Collection" SOLD $800

2. "profile of gentleman titled at bottom in ink "Mr. Henry R. Jackson, Savannah, 1841", signed at bottom in ink "Allison, Newburgh, N.Y. 1841" (possibly Henry Rootes Jackson, 1820-1898, U.S. District Attorney for Georgia, 1844; [Charge d'Affaires] to Austria, 1853-54; U.S. Minister to Austria, 1854-58; delegate to Georgia Secession Convention, 1861; General in the Confederate Army during Civil War), hollow cut cream paper with ink highlights over black fabric, 4 x 2-7/8 in. (sight); gold-painted wood frame. Fabric and ink faded, light toning. Provenance: Label verso indicates silhouette was part of the Elizabeth L. Maurier Collection" SOLD $2000

3. “Pair John W. Jarvis miniatures (John Wesley Jarvis, New York, 1780-1839), profile portraits of gentlemen, one titled at bottom "Senator Mr. Rufus King, Massachusetts" and signed at bottom "J. W. Jarvis, Fecit 1817", both watercolors on paper, envelopes attached verso with typed notes "Maurier Collection/Kurtz-Gettysburg, PA./J.W.3-Jarvis…", envelopes dated "Dec. 1, 1939", 6-1/2 x 4-7/8 in.; original matching red-painted ogee molding frames. Toning, light foxing; frames with abrasion, flaking of varnish. Provenance: Christie's, The Contents of Craig and Tarlton, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina, November 5-6, 1985, Lot 436, with receipt; Long Collection” SOLD $1400

Wonderfully cute descriptions for sure! Let me state here again that this is only my opinion. If you believe they are genuine period stuff, that is fine with me. Because it is your money, you spend it anyway and anywhere you want.

One of our regulars, Bob, writes:

Just some random comments on the recent Maurier Collection posting.

First of all, I found it chilling. I consider my current level of knowledge of silhouettes just enough to be dangerous. It is possible, then, that I may have been "suckered" into some of the items you posted. Can't say for sure as I hadn't examined any of them in person. I'm fervently hoping if I had actually done so, they would have been rejected.

I attended "Antiques Week" in Manchester this past August. It is a series of shows culminating in "the big one", the NHADA show in Manchester Center. Those shows draw antiques-craving collectors from all over the country. A lot of the items you posted would have fit right in and some sold at top dollar, having been "blessed" by their presence in the booth of the "right" dealer. By the way, saw more "puffy sleeved" silhouettes then you could shake a stick at. Even if I had the funds, I didn't think most were right, but that's just me.

I have also been aware of the creation of some ultimately very high priced spurious antiques. The technique of creating provenance, adding spurious and at times genuine old labels, including with the object additional heirlooms from the supposed creator or the family from whom it was said to be departing from for the first time in 200 years, a supposed bill of sale which in fact had nothing to do with the item in question but was found in a boxed lot of old papers and retained for use until just the right opportunity came along, etc., is a time honored technique to make something seem real. The package is then released onto the market place, often a general auction, without claims of authenticity. In the instances I'm recalling, they were wonderful objects of wish fulfillment that frankly, no one wished to believe couldn't be real. If they are declared "right" by the right person, well, they're off and running.

Sometimes these items have genuinely come from important collections where they were undetected for what they were or they were jettisoned for a reason that does not get revealed, allowed to enter the marketplace but have the respectability and cache endowed by having once been owned by an important collector. If it makes its way up the food chain and is finally placed in the hands of a respected dealer who may unknowingly sell it as genuine, well, that's that.

So, it pays to always have the thinking cap on. I find it helpful to consider everything questionable until I can feel comfortable otherwise. And I've still been burned.

B. M. Jones writes:
We thank Bob for his comment.

In coin collecting, there are three commandments.

1. Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware)
2. There is no Santa Claus in numismatics
3. Buy the book before the coin

I started collecting coins when I had my paper route at age 13. By the time I was 16, I owned more than 100 coin books on every subject. On top of that, I subscribed to every coin publication there was at the time. I also became a member to many numismatic organizations. But I only owned a handful of coins. I figured buying can come later. Having knowledge in historical coins, token, and medals was much more fun to me than having the best collection in the world.

I feel the same way about silhouettes. I use the three numismatic commandments for silhouettes, too.

Bob writes, "It is possible, then, that I may have been "suckered" into some of the items you posted." Actually, sellers very rarely sucker buyers into anything. It is the buyers that sucker themselves into something.

Bob is exacto about provenance and the like. We can create such things overnight. Why should anyone care about provenance? Provenance is moot. We buy silhouettes; we are not buying provenances.

Currently, I have so much info on "bad" silhouettes that are floating around. Bob calls it "chilling." If I were to publish all of what I know, I am sure he would call it "freezing."

Today was a perfect day to clean house and work outside. I took out the aluminum framing from the bathtub and removed the glass doors. Took them to backyard and cleaned them the best I could. I reassembled the framing and gave them a fresh silicone chalking. I did a better job than the contractor I hired to do this before.

Then, I removed the bathroom entrance door, bathroom closet door, and all the hinges. I cleaned all the hinges and spray-painted a double coat of metal primer. We finished them with a coat of white enamel paint. We may have the smallest bathroom in town, but we have the cleanest!

Next week I scheduled myself for some masonry work in and around the house.

2010-09-06T16:44:00.000-07:00

Antiques Shows Part II (See below for Part I)

I often wonder why there is not a single antiques show in Albany (see photo), capital of Empire State. Its location is simply the best around, as all the major highways intersect there whether you are coming from west, east, north, or south. But, there are no shows there!

In Syracuse, a few hundred miles west of Albany, there are a number of larger shows throughout the year. Incidentally, the first antiques show I ever attended was there in 1980, where I lived for a few years in the early 80s. I believe that show was held inside a dome close to SU. Nowadays, most of the shows are at New York State Fairgrounds. I used to venture out there for every show, but in the last few years, I cut down the number of trips to once or twice a year at most. Again, I just cannot seem to find the type of material I like there. However, I am sure some collectors will have a field day there, and that goes for Brimfield and Bouckville shows as well.

There are many smaller shows held throughout the year in this state. I tend to find better items at these shows than I do at large shows. The reason for that is probably due to many of the dealers who set-up at small shows is not “into” the business side of the trade and stay away from doing the circuit. Many of them tend to be local pickers.

I believe the best show in NYS is Rhinebeck, which is held three times a year. The one to attend is their spring show. Summer show is a drag. Fall is just ok, but the autumn foliage drive is worth the trip. If you have never been to this show, you should check it out for sure. Parking is free! Admission fee is reasonable. Food court is lousy, but nobody goes there to eat. The trickiest part is the “circle” after you get off the thruway. This show ain’t no flea market; the booths are set-up like rooms. Be prepared to spend some serious money here.

By the way, this year’s Bouckville show netted only a few militaria, so, again, it was not a good show for me. On our return drive, we stopped at an outcrop near Cherry Valley for a bit of fossil hunting. Check out the photo. Found myself a graduated set of brachiopods. These cast and mold fossils are 500 million years old! That is way before the dinosaurs existed. This area was under water (shallow sea).

Our next show post will be about Vermont.

2010-09-06T11:46:00.000-07:00

20th Century Silhouette of a Girl? Boy?

One of our readers, CLM, writes:

I found your site while researching silhouettes after I found one in a local shop. Did not know if you had seen one like this. As you can see it has a name and date written on the front. I assumed it was the name of the person in the silhouette. It is on the same weight stock usually found on the old cabinet style photos that had a photo on the front and post card on the back. This one does not have the postcard style on the back- it is blank except that someone wrote in pencil 9421 Miller on it. Was not sure where to start looking for info and not sure you would be able to help, but I decided to send you a copy to see as you seem to enjoy them so much.

B. M. Jones writes: We thank CLM for writing. I am afraid I know nothing about 20th century silhouettes. These genuine 20th century works seem to be scarcer than those from the 19th century, but the demand for them is just not there. I guess they are not yet old enough to be seen as good collectibles. There was a man who did a lot of research on 20th century silhouettes and was gonna publish a book on the subject. That was 6-7 years ago, and I really don't know what ever became of him. The sitter is cute so would look great once framed.

2010-09-06T09:23:00.000-07:00

20th Century Demors Cut-n-Paste Silhouettes

Here we have another work by our friend "demors." This "demors" was a prolific artist. You can find many of his/her works on our blogs. They are all 20th century productions. If works are well done, they are quite collectible as original artwork.

The description below is by the seller followed by Q&A between the seller and potential bidder.

ANTIQUE SILHOUETTE OF TWO CHILDREN SIGNED

Here is a very nice antique Silhouette of very well done Young Girl and Boy cut paper Silhouette and some ink or water color painting, signed under boys foot, what may be Deniors or something close, see photo, has tag on back Emerson Greenaway collection no. 147 Richard W. Withington Inc. wrote on back also is Bought at French show April 1980, frame is pine 10 ¾ in. x 8 ½ in. Silhouette is 9 ½ in. x 7 ¼ in. and is excellent.

Q: Hi, just to clarify... you estimate the age of the frame as early 1900s, but the silhouette is earlier? Or the whole thing is early 20th c.? Aug-31-10

A: Silhouette looks to possibly be earlier as it has some fading at edges & a couple small water stains at very edge. But I'm not sure so bid only if you like it, I had hoped someone knew the name. It did come from a good collection.

Q: Hi, I am assuming cut paper means Hollow-Cut. Also, is the frame and glass original. How old do you think this is? Thanks. Mary-Claire Aug-30-10

A: They are cut & layed down with only the collar being hollow cut. part of head highlites & ground at bottom have black hand painted decor. Frame & glass looks original. I would guess age at early 1900s. May be French.

2010-09-05T16:54:00.000-07:00

On Show and New Acquisition

One of our regular readers, Bob, sends us this post.

First, would like to respond to your comments about Brimfield and Madison-Bouckville shows.

I think the last time I was able to attended "Brimfield" was 12-13 years ago. For the 8-9 years before that, I was a regular attendee. I arranged my vacations to be able to attend the full week in the spring and fall (summer just too hot). At the end of some weeks, I vehemently swore an oath that I would NEVER go again. Others, I was amazed at all the goodies I had found. Still have some of my best Brimfield purchases 20 years later.

I used to attend a yearly event that would bring me to central upstate NY, the date of which coincided with the activities along Route 20 in Madison and Bouckville, then culminate in the Bouckville show over the weekend. I would make a point of arriving a few days early to pick along Route 20, then attend the Bouckville show on Saturday. Great show, nice people! Once again, still have some wonderful goodies bought there over 20 years ago. Alas, haven't been back in > 10 years.

Now for a silhouette.

It is a hollow cut silhouette of a woman. Her hair and 2 combs are inked in. What especially appealed to me about this silhouette is that the body is an uncolored lithograph. I have a fair amount of experience with lithographs (Currier, Currier and Ives, Kellogg, Gould, Audubon, etc) and feel very comfortable in stating that the body is a lithograph on wove paper. It appears to have been cut out from a larger sheet, then applied to the primary wove paper support from which the silhouette is cut. On the scan of the silhouette taken out of the frame and resting on the backboard, it appears that there is a line across the top of the sitter's head. That's a scanner artifact.

See the picture of the reverse of the silhouette. Another profile of what appears to be the same sitter is on the lower part of the main support. I believe that the first effort was deemed unacceptable and rather than discard the paper, it was rotated 180 degrees and another profile was cut. The first attempt was then covered over by the applied lithographed body. For what it's worth, see American Folk Portraits:Paintings and Drawings from the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Center, pages 266-7, entry 266. Described is a hollow cut silhouette with a lithographed body (body is of a different style). Besides the fundamental similarities of construction, this example also has an aborted attempt at a profile on the primary support as well.

The silhouette is housed in a gilt gesso over pine square nailed frame with brass hanger, eglomise gold leaf decorated mat, and a chamfer edged pine back board. The gilding on the frame is quite worn, especially on the bottom stile. The eglomise mat is on wonderful thin old glass. The black is in fact asphaltum rather than paint.

Everything looks pretty kosher. Love to hear what others think. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

B. M. Jones writes: We thank Bob for this post. Actually, I was wondering who it was that snatched this wonderful silhouette out of my hands in July. I own one exactly like that and wanted to have another to make a matching pair. I had to go to Hawaii for a class reunion when this silhouette came up for bids. I left an ok bid before I left and was gonna catch the rest in Hawaii. Wouldn't you know it? Hotel computers were so slow and froze often. I realized I had no chance of securing this silhouette. Talk about American folk art silhouettes...this is one of the best out there.

I had fun in Hawaii so it did not bother me a bit about being outbid on this one. AND, it went to our blog contributor! That sounds good to me.

No, I did not go to school in Hawaii. This year's reunion just happened to be there. Ten classmates showed up out of thirty, which is about average for these reunions. Next year is San Francisco.

2010-09-04T09:40:00.000-07:00

Antiques Shows One

I am sure many of you look forward to attending antiques shows wherever you live. If you live in the Northeast, as I do, you are blessed with many shows. Some are good; some are not so good. Others are not good at all to attend. I am sure you all have your favorites. Here is my opinion on some of the shows I attended.

Brimfield is a large show in Massachusetts, held three times a year. This is a very difficult show to navigate, as it is not one large show but made up of many shows that open on different days on different fields. The earliest ones open on Tuesday, and the latest one opens on Friday. The best day to attend is Friday. This way you get to see all of the shows. If you chuckle down there on Saturday afternoon, you will note many dealers had already packed up and left.

What is the general make-up of this show? I would have to say 50% are modern trinkets, newly created lawn ornaments, and reproduction items of every sort. Vintage items make up about 20%, consisting mostly of jewelry, glass, and decorative items. There are about 25% genuine antiques that I consider having little value. Many items are just too dilapidated, or in need of restoration, or just plain too common. So, we are left with about 5% of good collectible antiques. I have to say 80% of that 5% are priced way above normal retail. Now we are left with only 1% that is good and buyable.

The problem with this show is finding that 1% of good stuff. They are there, but where are they? Navigation at this show is a real problem. To go through all the nooks and crannies of this show would probably take about six hours of good walking. I doubt if anyone ever saw all there is to see at this show. After the first two hours of walking, one tends to get lazy and start skipping some booths. If all of the dealers had good antiques, walking six hours is enjoyable. However, the junks will overwhelm you, and you lose any motivation you had before entering the show after the first two hours.

In the last ten years of attending this show (spring and fall shows), I probably spent less than a thousand dollars total for antiques. I spent more on gas, thruway, and admission fees. When I left this year’s spring show, I told my wife that I would never attend this show again. What did I buy at the spring show? I bought a dozen small cardboard boxes for $5, which comes very handy for storing silhouettes. That was a bargain, but when I add the expenses of $75 to it, they get to be very expensive boxes! I swore I would never attend another show there, but there is one again next week. Would I go? Hope it rains!

The above map (click it to enlarge) is from the Bouckville antiques show in upstate New York. It is the largest show in the state. The make-up of this show is somewhat similar to that of Brimfield, but much less junk. Dealers under the large tents have nice items. Nice thing about this show is that parking is free on a very large field that could accommodate about 10,000 cars. Another big plus is that the show is very well constructed, and it makes navigation a snap (see photo). One can see all the booths without missing a beat.

Although this is a very large show, I have not found very many folk art items. Money I spent at this show over the years is probably about the same as what I spent at Brimfield. This is a fun show, and it is only once a year, so I never miss it.

Part Two of “shows” coming up soon.

2010-08-24T10:47:00.000-07:00

Rare Peale Museum Medal-Token

This token is a rare one! It is about a size of a 50 cent piece. One of the Peales designed it and had Christian Gobrecht (later became chief engraver of the US mint) engrave the dies. Hard to believe today, but this token was struck at the US mint in Philadelphia.

This Philadelphia Museum was called the Peale's Museum once. However, after a few years the name changed from Philadelphia Museum to Peale Museum once again. At any rate, this token was likely sold as a pass (annual pass?) to the public. I am sure a few pieces were given out to Peale's friends as well.

2010-08-23T11:45:00.000-07:00

More Comment on Two Silhouettes

I have a new comment here from Peggy about the two silhouettes we have been discussing. Usually, I place comments under the post, but comments for this particular post is getting too long. So, I will use this space.

We thank Peggy for her follow-up here. I will insert my voice within her comments.

I am completely bewildered as to how you can compare silhouette to silhouette when it suits you and totally dismiss someone else’s comparison. I dare to say your “Peggy is all over the place” is a more than a bit insulting after your replacement of the boy’s bustline and then unsupported conclusion that they are done by the same artist. Where are you seeing that? Did you give us any support for that argument? I fail to see your evidence. Of course they are not carbon copies but the features that I point out point much more to different artists than your replacement of a bust line points to the same artist. The bobble-headed look of the boy is quite substantial evidence that the artist was of much lesser talent than the artist of the young lady.

(I re-read my earlier response, and I fail to find any insults there. I clearly stated that people should look at these two silhouettes as a "whole." How can "the bobble-headed look of the boy" be a "substantial evidence" of anything? People see things differently. I see these silhouettes one way; Peggy sees them another way. I cannot bring in the artist of these silhouettes and have him/her confess. So, let us conclude this discussion about these two silhouettes. I say they were done by the same artist. Peggy says they were done by different artists. We will end it here.)

Peggy continues: As far as whether I have ever seen a reproduction stamp, you are the person who told me that Foster Bros. used a King stamp in their reproductions. The stamp would have either had to be a reproduction or the original being reused…..the exact same point I made.

(Peggy is mistaken here. I never said that. Many of Foster's reproductions are photographed prints of the original. They never made or used reproductions stamps. Perhaps her memory is based on my earlier posts. Here are the two cache links to those posts.)

http://antiquesilhouettes.blogspot.com/2005/11/foster-bros-decorative-silhouettes.html
http://silhouettesamericana.blogspot.com/2008/12/foster-brothers-boston-when-carrick.html

Peggy continues: The clothing on the silhouette I own is not “clearly post-1825”. We cannot see the lapel, but the jacket collar is high and rounded as men’s jacket collars were in the middle of the decade of 1810…and really Bob, do you realize that “circa” means that the date could be 20 years off either way?

(I don't know what Peggy is referring to here about "circa." Did I use that term on this post about these two silhouettes in question? The word "circa" is a subjective term. If she wants it to mean 20 years either way, that is OK with me.)

Peggy writes: Clothing styles did not change suddenly one day….they evolved and there is always leeway for dating. Further, you have no way of knowing when Moses Chapman quit cutting silhouettes—he might have cut until the day he died. We also need to remember that Alice Van Leer Carrick was a pioneer in the area of silhouette cutting. Much information has become available about the silhouette artists she studied since her death and many other artists have come to light. Perhaps the “Chapman Sicciaut” stamp is not Moses Chapman….perhaps we’ve even found another 19th century silhouettist whose name was Chapman Sicciaut. But I have no doubt that my silhouette was made and stamped in the 19th century. I think you are awfully quick to disparage works that you have never seen except by photograph.

(Peggy is correct about the clothing style. Sometimes it is very difficult to date portraits based on clothing. It is true that I have no way of knowing whether Chapman cut silhouettes till he died, although all the reference works mention him working up to around 1810. After that he vanishes, similar to many of the silhouette artists who worked the circuits from 1803-10 period. We are rewarded with another group of cutters, mainly working in New England states, who took hollow-cuts to another level starting in the early 1820s.)

Peggy writes this “Chapman Sicciaut” (actually, Siccavit) may not be Moses Chapman.

I agree with her 100%. There is a chance another Chapman existed. I agree there, too. Whether this group of silhouettes with CHAPMAN SICCAVIT stamp is from the 19th century or not is something we still have to investigate. I am not 100% on it, but I am 99.9% sure that they are not from the 19th century. I hate to bring out the business end on this blog. But I put my money where my mouth is and reduced the selling price of my CHAPMAN SICCAVIT from $750 to $250. I am calling it a rare 20th century original artwork.)

As for Peggy's comment of "I think you are awfully quick to disparage works that you have never seen except by photograph," I can only say that my batting average is excellent. Readers are very welcome to search thru all of my past posts in which I made "calls" based only on photographs. In fact, because I was so 100% on this call about Honeywell silhouette, Peggy thought that I was there to examine this silhouette in person.
This is the link: http://moresilhouettes.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html

Peggy left a comment there so make sure you click the comment link!

Whatever readers may think, Peggy and I are good buddies. We do this for fun, and I am sure our fun shows!

2010-08-22T13:45:00.000-07:00

Comparison of Silhouettes

Let me first say that I have been a collector of coins by varieties, sub-varieties, and minute varieties for about 35 years now. When I say “minute,” I mean it is like splitting atom. If I were to show you ten different varieties of coins, you would say they all look the same, even if they are not. Because to untrained eyes, they do look the same.

With silhouettes, too, and many other collectibles, it takes many years to develop a “feel” of things. However, time alone is not able to develop this feel. One needs to look at many examples and study them in scrutinizing details. When viewing or comparing silhouettes, one needs to look at them as a whole. I had a few questions as to why I thought the same artist did the two silhouettes on my earlier post. I see things in simpler ways than many of you do, because I look at silhouettes as a whole.

When you look at Plate 1, where do your eyes go? I bet they go straight to the boy’s bust area, where the angles are acute. This is natural because of our animalist instinct. For both sexes, we find chiseled faces much more sexy and attractive compared to round faces. That is why your eyes went to the boy’s bust. Having been mesmerized with the angles, it is now very difficult to imagine the same artist could have cut these two silhouettes. Instead of looking at this pair as a whole, you saw in fragments.

Look at Plate 2. I changed the boy’s bustline slightly and took off the angles. Where did your eyes go first in this instance? I bet your eyes did not dissect these images into fragments. Instead, your stereo vision saw this pair as a whole, and you likely did not concentrate on any one particular area. Because you were not brainwashed in this instance, your views are more moderate. Let me ask you now. Did the same artist cut these two silhouettes? I am sure you will now find likenesses in the facial structure, the necks, inked details of their hair, and the “cheated” bustlines.

We thank Peggy for the following comment.

Sorry but I’m not seeing them as done by the same artist. The boy’s head seems to sit on the strait, columnar neck like a bobble-head. The woman’s neck is much more naturally shaped. The boy’s chin adds to the bobble-head effect while the woman’s chin is much shorter and still gives a more natural look. The inking details around the figures is similar, but I don’t think this is enough to lead to the conclusion that it was the same artist.

The boy’s nose is quite upturned and his lips prominent while the woman has a longer nose and less pronounced lips. The buy has almost no eyelash and the woman has a very long and distinctive eyelash. I just don’t agree that there are enough similarities to say it is the same artist.

I’m not saying that either of them are real 19th century silhouettes, but I don’t think they are the same artist. And, having had a silhouette with the “Chapman Siccauit” stamp and also being quite knowledgeable and experience with early silhouettes, I am quite certain that the stamp was used by a 19th century silhouettist.

The boy with the blue tie may have a reproduction stamp that was used in the early 20th century or the artist who cut the boy might have come across the original stamp that was then reused. The fake early 20th century silhouettes stamped with “Peale’s Museum” and the eagle were cut by a couple by the name of Collins who acquired the original stamp in the 1920s and set about making and selling hundreds or perhaps even thousands of fake silhouettes. You have not convinced me to discount the “Chapman Sicciaut” stamp in all cases.

B. M. Jones responds:

First, let me thank Peggy for her comment. She was nice enough to spend time writing it, and I respect her opinion.

However, Peggy is all over the place with this one. I don't even know why she is comparing the size and design of the sitters' facial features. Nobody is saying these two silhouettes are carbon copy of each other. I am sorry to say Peggy is completely missing my point.

Furthermore, she writes, “The boy with the blue tie may have a reproduction stamp that was used in the early 20th century or the artist who cut the boy might have come across the original stamp that was then reused.” If either of what she writes was true, that is very scary. Can Peggy provide us with one image of this so-called “reproduction stamp”? As I wrote before, I am not questioning the stamp. I am questioning the nature of these cuttings.

Peggy further writes, “And, having had a silhouette with the “Chapman Siccauit” stamp and also being quite knowledgeable and experience with early silhouettes, I am quite certain that the stamp was used by a 19th century silhouettist.” Since she brought out this subject, I illustrate it here as “plate 3.” She sent us this image for our post on 1 May 2007. I, for one, did not even know the existence of such a stamp until 19 Feb 2007, when one of our readers, Jane, sent us a couple of images from her collection.

We need to understand working dates of Moses Chapman. He died in 1821, but he was not cutting silhouettes after 1810 or so. For that reason, any silhouette we attribute to this cutter must resemble those cuttings by other artists of the time. Pre-1810 silhouettes share many similarities. So, if Peggy were to attribute her silhouette (plate 3) to Moses Chapman, she must explain why this sitter is wearing clothing that are clearly post-1825. This silhouette looks nothing like 1803-1810 period.

2010-08-19T17:31:00.000-07:00

Amazing!

Perhaps, having done this for the last 5 years is paying off; I get about 1200-1500 hits a month nowadays! For such a specialized site, that is super-duper if you know what I mean, and this site is ad free! There is no wheeling-dealing going on here, unlike some other sites.

A few readers may question my views and conclusions on some subjects. First, I do not make up stuff. Second, I do not live in fantasy world. Anyone is free to make an argument on what I write, and I welcome every argument. I do play the devil’s advocate at times, however.

Sometimes, I question authenticity of silhouettes. I feel such challenges are good. I realize some dealers and collectors prefer to feel comfy with what they own, and they either hesitate or would not open a Pandora’s box for any reason. However, such boxes are quite fun to open. We may be rewarded with treasures, or goblins. The thing is we would never know if we keep the box locked.

Investigation of scarcely known silhouettes is like buying a watermelon. When it is priced per pound, we tend to pick the lightest watermelon out of the bunch. On the other hand, if they are all priced the same, say $5 each, we pick the largest. We can agree on this point more or less, can’t we? You may be wondering…what is this guy talking about? I am talking about how we usually pick watermelons based on price and price/weight. What does this have to do anything with “investigation of scarcely known silhouettes”? You have to read between the lines. Think about what I just wrote in bed tonight. You will know!

2010-08-10T12:38:00.000-07:00

HEADS UP!

Before one of our readers decides to go out and buy these silhouettes, I offer you my two-cents worth on this series of silhouettes. This type of painted silhouettes on glass (someone paid $1000 for this pair a while ago) are not circa 1800 as sometimes advertised. There was a whole series of these made, mostly of historical figures.

These were produced in factories in the late 1800s and up to the early 1900s. So, I guess we can call them antiques today if we follow the definition guideline. If found in original frames, most will be in this type of veneered frames. They are hefty and good-looking frames. Because all of the frames I have seen had great age to their backs, I am inclined to believe early 19th century wood was used. Veneering was newly applied during the manufacturing process.

Not many are found with their original dustcovers, but if you do find one, there will be a large ink stamp that says, "MADE IN ENGLAND." Of course, if someone is selling it as circa 1800 or early 1800s piece, such paper wrappers would have been quickly disposed of.

The workmanship differs considerably even for a same subject. Some are much better painted than the others are. If you want to add one as a decorative piece, pick one that is well done. What are these things worth? Whatever they bring, I guess.

2010-08-10T12:08:00.000-07:00

Chapman Siccavit NOT Moses Chapman

I used to think this stamp belonged to Moses Chapman. I was very wrong! Because there are no known silhouettes with Chapman stamp, I jumped the gun when I saw this particular embossment. However, the more I saw the more I began to doubt.

It is not that these silhouettes are fakes, or that this stamp is a fake. They are what they are. Perhaps, these items were actually made by someone named Chapman, but they are not by Moses Chapman.

What did it for me was this silhouette of a boy with hat (see photo). I recently found this on the internet. It has CHAPMAN SICCAVIT stamp, though a bit weak. I believe this particular silhouette is 20th century. This type of cutting is very much in line with other fantasies of the 1920s and 30s.

Note: See photo of a girl with fake PEALE stamp. No question whatsoever about this girl and this boy done by the same artist.

After 80-90 years, stock papers have acquired good age tone, not dissimilar in some cases to those of the early 19th century. The artist seemed to have covered many bust styles, some in imitation of 19th century works. Others, like this illustrated example, are new lines. Carrick mentions J. Brown also used SICCAVIT as a part of his stamp. Perhaps, Carrick meant to say Chapman. But if such stamps exist, there is a good chance it is another early 20th century fantasy, likely created by the same artist. Now I believe this SICCAVIT is two words: SIC CAVIT. This may be defined as, "thus beware" or "so beware." I got the message loud and clear now.

Because I misattributed these lesser works to Moses Chapman, who was many times better than this artist, my apologies to him. I just placed some flowers on his gravestone (see photo).

2010-08-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

William Doyle Silhouette

This silhouette brought $944 recently at Northeast Auctions. There were some nice silhouettes there this past week. I will list a few in the coming days from this auction.

But today, we will talk a bit about this Doyle silhouette. I thought $944 was a lot of money for this silhouette, but in auctions bidders get carried away sometimes. This brass-over-wood frame is worn and drabby. The silhouette is very mediocre for Doyle. I wonder who was the lucky winner. I am being sarcastic here! Because....

Would someone be interested in learning why I said that? If so, let me know.

Our faithful reader/contributor Bob writes:

Yes, I would like to know why you said what you said about the Doyle.

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Bob for his inquiry. No, Bob and I do not work the circuits. I know his email address but that is about all.

In August 1, 2007 post I did a write-up on this baby. You can find it on "19th Century American Silhouettes I Homepage." WOW, that was three years ago already. Time sure flies. Since I wrote that, I saw another one at a show. I may have written something about it somewhere (I really need to index my posts). Then we have this baby over the last weekend. So, that is three strikes for this Doyle. They are all PRINTS!! This one here even has some of the oil/ink marks I talked about. This newest one looks to have been cut into an oval; I can see right thru the frame.

Why would anyone pay $1000 for a print? I can offer them at $5 each, postpaid. Seriously, there are tons of reproduction silhouettes in collections and dealers' inventories. New collectors should invest in good reference books first, read this blog, and attend shows and auctions for educational purposes. Buying of silhouettes can come later. Collectors must arm themselves with knowledge. Although of British artists and their works, I highly recommend securing a copy of Sue McKechnie's book. This is a massive volume full of information one can use. If you cannot afford to spend a few hundred bucks on this book, but can afford to spend much more on silhouettes, there is something wrong there. I call that sad.

Last year at shows, I saw two different Doyles from two dealers that were not Doyles. They both had penciled hair details and penciled signatures. Someone is turning authentic, unsigned 19th century hollow-cut silhouettes into Doyles. They both had altered bustlines with that Doyle notch. I was able to detect them with a 20x glass. In addition, there were erasure marks on head and the signature areas, meaning the alterer kept on writing and erasing until he/she was satisfied with the results. Those alterations are impossible to see with naked eyes, even if you had eagle-eyes.

Let me tell you a real story that happened last year at a show in Connecticut. Mourning items are hot today, very hot. So, when I saw a nice miniature in an unusual frame that was priced at about 50% of retail, I wanted to buy. This dealer has some nice stuff, but they are usually not on the affordable side, at least not to me. I looked at it and looked at it, and wondered why he was pricing it so low. Believe it was around $500 or $600. Obviously, he wanted a quick sale. I looked at it some more. This dealer was trying to sell me a glossy color photo behind a thick glass ! I was furious. He knew what he had. This dealer ain't no fool. I think he got stuck with it and was trying to get out of it. I am like 6'3" and 235 pounds with a very loud, natural voice without raising my voice. I believe he got the message! I just hope none of the readers is a happy owner of that mourning portrait.

So, when I say some of those puffy sleeves just don't jive, I am saying it from the bottom of my heart. Can I prove it? Not yet, but things happen. You know that by reading my blogs.

2010-08-08T18:56:00.000-07:00

More Kings! But no Queens!

One of our readers, Brad, writes us. The six photos are his.

For your consideration, I have enclosed photos of another pair of Kings. These were a gift from a dealer friend who purchased them at auction a couple of years ago to get the frames. I have not done anything with them because I own five genuine Kings. I have a collector friend who tells me I am foolish to think that there was only one King cutting silhouettes. But they remain in a drawer.

B. M. Jones writes: Thanks Brad for your contribution. These days I am being overwhelmed with my blog. That's a good thing though.

Without embossing, most American silhouettes are impossible to attribute. However, if you remember my earlier post on Banton silhouettes, quest for truths does pay off sometimes. I am 100% on those Bantons. But that happens only once in a very blue moon.

Your friend is right about King silhouettes having more than one type of bustline. Every artist had at least several. That is why it is so tricky! But the thing is, a car is a car no matter what kind of a car it is. When you see a truck, and someone calls it a car, you know that ain't right. Same with silhouettes. Readers may say I am talking mumbo-jumbo again, but sometimes mumbo-jumbo makes a lot of sense.

Some of his works are so very obvious even without his stamp, because they look very Kingish. On the other hand, some of his works are attributed to him based on his embossment. In that case, the stamp better be a genuine one. I know there is a stamp with W.KING. I have not seen enough of them to do a good investigation. So, we are limited to one stamp that spells KING here. There is only one genuine stamp with KING. This is a very discreet stamp (see photo) and measures only 10mm across and 2mm high. Also, note how there is twice as more space before the letter "K" than there is after the letter "G." This is the ONLY genuine stamp that I recognize.

Nobody has to believe me. You may say that I am talking out of my kazoo once again, and I may be. But the thing is, it is YOUR money that you are spending. Believe me, it ain't no sweat off my kazoo in that case. I, for one, will not spend my money on them.

Although I cannot identify the man's silhouette here, I am a bit secure in saying the woman's silhouette was cut by one of the trio, the trio that applied for a patent, all together. Did these two silhouettes originally had those falling hair over their foreheads? This is something we need to consider, too. Were they cut by this forger with his/her penknife so that they would be more King-like? Detective work continues!

One of our readers, Bob, comments:

I have to agree that the silhouettes don't look like those by William King. To my eye, there's something about the type face (if it's correct to use that term) that looks relatively modern and not of the period as well.

There's ample precedent for faked die stamps on both spurious and genuinely old silhouettes in order to increase their commercial value. I suspect that's what's going on here.

In the clock world, same thing at work. A convincing "E. Howard" stamp on movement of a Howard "style" banjo or on a replacement movement that's been stuck into a genuine case has the effect of moving the object from momza to hot ticket.

2010-08-08T14:31:00.000-07:00

Tintype Photographs of Early 19th Century Hollow-Cuts

We have another nice addition from Bob, and we thank him for sharing them with us.

He writes: "Thought I would send along 2 tintypes of silhouettes, one of a man, another of a woman. I consider these early photographic images of silhouettes interesting "go withs" to a silhouette collection.

The tintypes are in their original paper frames with arched openings with embossed star boarders. I had them framed by a friend and dealer who specializes in period frames so they were protected. The silhouette of the man is in nice condition. That of the woman has suffered from flaking but I consider to be in presentable condition."

2010-08-07T18:30:00.000-07:00

Silhouettes by King: But which King is this King?

I found this silhouette on an internet auction. It brought $316. This is a double-silhouette. Because I did not examine it in person, I have no idea whether this is a genuine, period double-silhouette or not. Genuine double-silhouettes are very rare!

However, whether it is genuine or not at this stage of its life is really moot. Someone made a copy die (embossing stamp) and stamped the paper twice. Genuine "KING" dies are well recorded. This ain't one of them. You may say there is a chance of an unrecorded die existing. Yup, there is always that chance. BUT, silhouettes cut by William King must look like silhouettes cut by William King. There is nothing here with these two silhouettes that point to King. You may say the falling hair on their foreheads is a sure sign of his work. I'd say so what; many silhouette artists worked in similar style.

This embossing die is very crude. If everyone knew what genuine stamps looked like, and what genuine King's silhouettes looked like, nobody would have placed bids on this item. We should attribute this work not to William King but to John King of CNN instead (LOL).

Alice van Leer Carrick is my idol. She left us her monumental book on American silhouettes, but she was not a researcher on the subject. She wrote her books in casual manner, almost like diaries, with dreamy flairs of fiction added in. She wrote authoritatively, but some of what she wrote was pure BS. She made it sound as though she knew much more than she actually knew. Her intention was good, and we should thank her for her contribution. After all, nobody has written about American silhouettes since 1928!!!

Yes, I have more bad news about another group of silhouettes. This group had me going around in circles for a few years now. My reasoning is somewhat similar to the above King double-silhouette: good silhouettes (some are) but with bogus stamp. For a while, I really thought this particular stamp was good. It is good, actually. It is a good stamp that occurs with some good silhouettes. In other cases, it is a good stamp that occurs with some bad silhouettes. I know this stuff sounds confusing, but you will see what I mean when I get it all together. When? Real soon I hope.

NOTE: The following comment comes to me anonymously. Writers are not required to identify themselves when leaving comments. They can use pseudo, if they wish. Believe me when I say I have no way of tracking them. This comment is very good and deserves to be answered. I will find the time to do so soon.

Hello - first I want to continue the praise that others have given you regarding this blog and all the amazing insight that you bring to the field of silhouette collecting. Your views and facts are really eye-opening and educational.

Under the banner of open discussion, I thought I'd add a different opinion regarding the double silhouettes with the large KING stamped signatures. In my humble opinion, I believe these are legitimate King silhouettes.

These silhouettes were first sold at a Leslie Hindman (IL) auction and I was able to preview them before the sale. I actually did take the portrait apart to examine the insides. In the end I chose not to bid but only because this silhouette was lotted with another large family group portrait which I had no interest in purchasing. Anyway - the paper was early wove with some warbling/warping on the outer edges (it was quite large). The backside had a large misshaped piece of silk that covered about 75% of the paper. When removing the silk backing the entire area that was covered remained a white light color while the non-covered areas had toned darker due to sunlight/acids/time. I believe this was a solid indication that the paper and silk had always been together, had great age and the cuttings were indeed early 19th c. (I guess with science these days, someone could potentially replicate this effect but that just seems like a lot of work for little payoff.) As you mentioned in your blog, though, the question of their age wasn't the overriding issue - it was whether these rare double-cut silhouettes were true William King examples.

Next, in prep for the auction (since there were many lots of silhouettes), I broke out my reference books and refreshed my memory on artist styles. In this blog there was some question reqarding the bustlines and overall style of the cuttings. I normally think of King's male bustlines having a curving backside coming to a point on the front bustline. But, in Carrick's book betw. pages 54-55 there are images at the bottom of a male King silhouette with curving front AND back bustlines. And, more importantly, the female bustline shows a stepped-down bustline nearly identical to the woman's bustline in this silhouette we're discussing. Carrick's attribution of these silhouettes to King isn't explained fully (were they stamped or was it oral history that these were from King?) ... we have only her original investigation and declaration to go by, but I feel the early scholarship of these silhouette collecting pioneers can't be discounted easily. Also - back near page 48 there is a King broadside pictured which also shows curving front and back bustlines on a female image. So, I believe we do have other sets of documented examples with these same bustlines.

This leaves us with the question regarding the stamps. I have to admit I am rather uneducated when it comes to stamps and validating early 19th c stamps vs modern ones.

All I can offer is two thoughts: 1) itinerant artists often traveled far and wide and made countless silhouettes (King apparently wildly exaggerated that he cut over 20k examples). Is it possible that the artists broke, lost, or wore down their stamps over time and had to replace them? When traveling to the next large town could they have had new stamps made by different makers, creating the situation where the size of the stamps differed slightly? We know that various artists used multiple signature styles - Peale is an obvious example: as you know many of their silhouettes were unsigned or used at least 3 different stamp styles. King used at least "WKing" and the smaller "KING" styles. Is it possible that he could have used the larger "KING" style too? Your blog shows two sets of examples with the larger stamp and I have seen this stamp on other silhouettes over the past 20 years, so more examples exist (but I realize this still doesn't prove the larger stamp is REAL).

2) after reading about your doubts on the larger "KING" stamp, I started wondering if the few signed silhouettes in my collection were real. I own both "MUSEUM" and "Peale's Museum" stamped silhouettes. In those examples the letters are all capitalized and raised with the background area depressed / flattened - similar to the large KING stamp. Over the years, I've seen stamped signatures being very clear and crisp with strong indentations while others are very light and almost illegible. You allude to the idea of genuine stamps but I can't seem to find much information regarding early 19th c stamps on the internet. I (and I'm sure your readers) would be very grateful if you could shed some more light on this topic. Correctly validating 19th c stamps could effect the appraisal of many signed silhouettes crossing various silhouette artitsts (Bache, Peale, Todd, etc). At this point in time, though, I just don't think there's clear evidence invalidating these large King stamps.

As I mentioned earlier, this is just my opinion and I thought it would be fun to throw out some additional thoughts on the subject. Thanks for reading - and good luck with your research and blogging - keep the posts coming!!

B. M. Jones writes:

First, I need to address this writer in my reply, so I will name him/her “Jan.” I am sure this name works for both sexes. We thank Jan for his/her interesting analysis and inquiry on this subject. For the sake of easiness in grammar, I will just imagine this Jan to be a man. Using “his/her” term is awkward at best. So, in the future (everyone) please just make up a name when leaving comments.

Because Jan says he was able to examine this silhouette in person, I must imagine he lives in Chicago or a drivable distance away. In addition, he must be a regular attendee there and knows the staff. If they saw me trying to remove the nails from the back of the frame, I would have been stopped right there in my tracks. If I had asked the staff to disassemble it, I am sure they would have told me, “We can’t do that, buddy.” I can understand that. If everyone had their paws inside the frames during previews, something may tear or break. After all, if they allowed something like that, I would demand every silhouette to be opened for closer inspection. So, Jan is a lucky man! I, for one, have difficulties removing the nails sometimes, even in comfort of my own home.

Let’s get back to King silhouettes. This frame is not original and not period to this silhouette. It may even have been cut down from a larger piece. Nevertheless, the frame is an OK piece, if you like heaviness in display.

Jan writes, “I believe this was a solid indication that the paper and silk had always been together, had great age and the cuttings were indeed early 19th c.” Jan bases his analysis here upon his examination of the silhouette paper and the toning it acquired. That is good. However, I need to play the devil’s advocate at every opportunity.

Toning of paper is not proof of age. Toning does not indicate age. Toned paper simply means the paper is toned. Some papers that are 100 or 200 years show very little toning. Lack of toning does not mean the paper is new either. As for judging age of the actual hollow-cuts, Jan must know something I don’t. For me, trying to guess the age of paper-cutting using penknife is mind boggling at best.

Our good friend, Jan, further writes, “I feel the early scholarship of these silhouette collecting pioneers can't be discounted easily.” Here, he is referring to Carrick. Jan makes a good point. Carrick did a fine job describing and illustrating many of the stamps, along with many examples of bustlines. However, if we were to follow Jan’s theory, then we must not allow ourselves to believe this “large” KING stamp even exists. Carrick describes King’s stamp as being very small. She does not mention this “large” KING stamp. There would not even be a need to discuss this subject. In all fairness, however, Jan was referring specifically to several styles of King’s bustlines. On the other hand, the relation between King’s stamps and his bustlines are all in relation to each other.

Carrick was very good, but she was like a little kid going around in circles (read my post on her letters written to Rev. Morse just before she published her book on silhouettes). She had a very limited access to loose silhouettes in the 1920s, but she did have good access to some major holdings. Today, we have much more access to silhouettes, thanks to the internet. What took her ten years to accomplish can be accomplished in a year today. That is, if we knew what we are doing.

Jan asks, “Is it possible that the artists broke, lost, or wore down their stamps over time and had to replace them? When traveling to the next large town could they have had new stamps made by different makers, creating the situation where the size of the stamps differed slightly?”

I have to answer “yes” to both questions. There is a possibility for anything and everything. I could buy a lottery ticket and win $5M. We need to look not at possibilities but at probabilities. Jan writes the Peales used three different stamps, so there is a possibility that King, too, used three different stamps. Again, I have to say “yes.” However, such comparison is moot. There is no relation whatsoever between the Peales and King.

Jan also adds, “Over the years, I've seen stamped signatures being very clear and crisp with strong indentations while others are very light and almost illegible.” I’ve written several times on my blog about this subject. If readers are interested, you gotta backtrack to find them. They are there. I just do not know where. This blog series is quite large.

Finally, Jan closes by saying, “At this point in time, though, I just don't think there's clear evidence invalidating these large King stamps.” Jan is absolutely correct! We do not know whether this stamp is from the early 19th or the 20th century, yet. Things come around eventually. Someday, it may be proven this large stamp is real kosher. On the other hand, it may be proven to be from the 20th century. But for now, I would want a known bust style by King with his known tiny stamp for my money. If readers prefer to buy what I call “un-Kingish” bust style with this large stamp, that is fine with me, too. I said this many times: with your money, you do whatever you want with it; with my money, I will do whatever I want to do with it. Basically, that is what it comes down to.

2010-08-05T08:28:00.000-07:00

Another Discovery Very Rare PEALE Silhouette

There are three distinct embossment from the Peale's Museum: Museum, Peale's Museum, and Peale. We have no problem locating silhouettes embossed with the first two stamps; they are around. However, genuine"Peale" stamp is another matter. Silhouettes with "PEALE" embossment are the rarest American silhouettes. The following is a portion from by blog post, "Embossing and Stamping of Silhouettes at Peale’s Museum," that I wrote a few years ago.

Others have suggested that an embossed “Peale” belonged to Raphaelle Peale during his itinerancy who established the “Peale’s Museum” in Baltimore during the late 1790s and, again, in 1814. With an arrival of the new pantograph invention by Hawkins in 1802 to the main “Museum” in Philadelphia, Rembrandt and his older brother Raphaelle traveled throughout the south and parts of New England for a profile cutting tour. This was a short-lived tour lasting less than two years. The craze of a “machine-assisted” contrivance was also quite short-lived. This was due to infringement of its patent. Every profile cutter during this period possessed one, making minor adjustments to the original patent and attaching fancy scientific labels, thus avoiding patent infringement.

It is quite plausible that “Peale” stamp belonged to one or both of the brothers, and its use was limited only during their period of itinerancy. The rarity of those silhouettes embossed with this stamp is an enigma. Whether the brothers enjoyed a brisk or a sluggish business is difficult to determine. If a survival rate is any indication, the latter speculation may be in order, or perhaps, some or even most of the cuttings were never embossed. Is it possible that the stamping device was misplaced or even stolen during their travels?

Our example here is a very well cut silhouette of a young woman in her teens with falling forelock. The wove paper is nice, slightly off-white with one or two small toning spots. The embossment is quite sharp for these, even more so in person.

The frame is a killer, too. It is pressed brass-over-wood that is in very fine condition. The glass is original with its inclusions and waviness. It has an unusual greenish-gray tint.

CAVEAT EMPTOR: There are plenty of fakes out there of this PEALE type. So, buyer beware!

2010-07-19T13:58:00.001-07:00

Puffy-Sleeve Silhouettes: Puff, Puff and Away

On January 17, 2008 I posted a group of puffy-sleeve silhouettes. This is the link to it:
http://silhouettesamericana.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

This set of 12 silhouettes, along with the blown-up photo, comes from Northeast Auctions website. The Todd's Patent is (was) 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.

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?

Note: When I wrote the above 2 ½ yrs ago, I am sure some dealers and collectors thought I was talking out of my kazoo. Look at these silhouettes! Does anyone really believe they were made circa 1825? I am no expert on silhouettes, but I would guess they are 20th century productions.

Also, check out my December 2006 post: http://antiquesilhouettes.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

The following comment comes from Peggy, one of our readers.

Having inspected many of the Puffy Sleeve Artist silhouettes, including some from the collection sold at NE auctions, I believe them to be early 19th century silhouettes. Some are in museums, and while museum curators can and do make mistakes, I have inspected many of the museum pieces closely and I still believe they are real early 19th century pieces. I believe your judgment is clouded by the fact that you don't like them....sorry but I very much disagree with you.

B.M. Jones writes: Again, we like to thank Peggy for her comment. As 99.9% of people who read my blogs never comment, comments are always much appreciated. Because we learn from investigation, comments to the contrary are much more appreciated than those comments that just praise what I do.

Peggy suggests I may be biased or subjective about these silhouettes because I do not like them. If that were the case, Peggy, too, may be biased because she likes them too much. I believe there is a middle-ground somewhere. We should first remove all the biases out of this equation.

Let us concentrate on one image here of a woman with yellow dress, as this photo is the clearest (click it to make it larger). When I see this funky portrait, I see two different artists: one who cut out the head, and another who did the coloring. The coloring of this portrait looks as though a fourth grader did it. Could all of these portraits have been done as children’s school project? The art teacher cut out the heads. The boys painted the men, and the girls painted the women. It’s a thought!

Note the rich, highlight yellow color of the dress. I have never seen such bright yellow on ca.1830 watercolor portraits. However, this is not to say such vivid yellow did not exist. I just have not seen any. Has anyone seen it? Has Peggy seen one beside this example?

From the internet, I learned that there were basically two types of rich yellows from this period, Indian yellow and Cadmium yellow. Cadmium yellow did not come in wide use until 1840 or so. So, it could be Indian yellow. If a rocket scientist could find traces of mango juice from the yellow pigment used with this portrait, that may do it. But I believe this yellow is synthetic. If every painted silhouette had to go thru chemical analysis to determine its genuineness, that would take all the fun out of collecting.

If I had a chance to buy this portrait, I would never buy it as ca.1830 item. Furthermore, I would never try to sell it as ca.1830 silhouette. If Peggy had this item, would she be comfortable in selling it as genuine ca.1830 example? I realize sellers and buyers create antiques markets (working on a post right now about antiques market, coming soon). Sellers sell stuff; buyers buy stuff. If buyers are satisfied, then everything is kosher. Is it?

Do any readers have opinions on these silhouettes? We would like to hear.

One of our readers, Jane, comments:

I have owned 2 of these folky folks, and sold each for 4 figures. They command a lot of money, but a collector MUST know what they are doing when they consider buying one! The paper must be period, and more often than not, there is some foxing on the genuine silhouette. There are some very fine reproductions out there, made by artists who specialize in contemporary folk art. The best way to see the repros is to go the a show which features these artists. I've seen them, and they are stunning! Some shops that carry reproduction furniture, samplers, and theorems have them also. They advertize in the magazine, " Early American Life."
In the sale a few years back that you took photos of for your blog, there is a repro, unbeknownst to the collector or auction house! I can't remember which one, but the yellow dress lady sold for $12,000!! Might have been her...it was discovered after the sale!

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Jane for her insight. Actually, most auction houses are not able to authenticate silhouettes. They will leave that to the bidders. That is why they allow previews (inspection) of auction lots to potential bidders. If one lives close-by, that may work; however, majority of bidders bid on-line without inspecting the lots. Sometimes we get lucky; sometimes we get stuck with pure junk and are not able to demand refund.

Yes, the genuine ones are "stunning." I saw two of them at a show today priced at four figures. Within the frames, they looked great. However, I will not buy one unless I can examine it out of frame. Perhaps, Jane would tell us where she found her information on one of those puffers not being genuine. I wonder who that judge was. Jane writes, "it was discovered after the sale." So, in this case the auction house could not or did not authenticate it. In addition, the winning bidder had no idea what she/he was buying.

I am surprised to hear only one silhouette got the bogus tag. There gotta be more there within that group.

One of our regular readers, Bob, comments:

I have followed with interest the recent exchange surrounding the puffy sleeved figure silhouettes. I will qualify my comments by saying I am the amateur here, one who has a rather steep learning curve littered with less than wise choices to boot.

First a word about my process. When I go to auctions and shows, I try to look at as many silhouettes as I can find. In the latter instance, I also try to talk with the dealer selling the silhouette. Upon returning home, with the mental images still fresh, I then "hit the books", look at your blog, peruse on line, etc.

Please excuse my blunt general assessment, for what it's worth then, is that for all categories of silhouettes, there are a significant number of spurious examples, some out right fakes, some older reproductions, being marketed as genuine. I have come across a number of puffy sleeved figure silhouettes as well. My feeling is that most were skillfully made to deceive as the cost of the effort can be paid back many times.

There is sometimes another aspect of human nature in play here as well that I have seen occur time and time again. Sometimes a spurious antique is so well done and is just so "wonderful", no one can stand to believe it's not right. Once it is marketed by the "right" person who blesses it and genuflects over it, well, that's that.

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Bob for his comment. Antiques market is flooded with questionable items for sure. I am hoping the Chinese stay away from American folk art. If they ever get into this market, they would be able to produce very accurate reproductions. There are plenty of capable artists there. I know their rare coin reproductions are very good. The coins that used to be graded, authenticated, and placed in airtight holders by third party professionals were considered "safe." However, such items are being produced in China today. This is scary stuff!

We have a follow-up from Jane.

My best recollection, is that a dealer friend of mine told me the story of the discovery of the fake. She was at the sale, and the puffys went so high, she couldn't buy one! This was 5 years ago, and the puffys have suffered from a bad economy. They bring $1500-$2000 right now. There is a lovely genuine one offered in an upcoming Northeast auction next weekend. The lady has a blue dress, (blue always brings a lot of money, as opposed to a black dress) and holding a book with the date "1830" printed on the book. Again, there is a some foxing on the paper. One of mine was so foxed, from never being rescued from touching the wood on the back, that the paper was a light brown and very fragile. She was a lady in a blue dress also, and a gift from a long time dealer friend! She held a book with her name imprinted on it! A dealer kept "dropping by"for years to see if I was ready to sell, and I finally did! They are fascinating!

B. M. Jones writes:

Thanks for your follow-up Jane. We always welcome any news or thoughts about silhouettes. Toning (foxing, spots etc.) of paper is one of the things we consider when trying to authenticate silhouettes. However, there is danger in basing authentication on condition of paper alone. Old, toned papers and cards can be found easily. We can acquire thick papers or cards from blank pages or parts of old books, documents and letters. With painted and inked silhouettes (I won't get into hollow-cuts here at this time), we really need to look at the quality of work. In addition, we have to note whether the colors and inks are just as old as the papers are. I believe this is the most important one. Then, we need to look at the swiftness of the inking and coloring. If the inked hair details seemed to have taken quite a long time, we need to question it. Artists back then worked fast, very fast. If we detect any hesitancy, that may spell trouble.

2010-07-19T13:16:00.000-07:00

One Mystery Solved!

Thanks to one of our readers, one mystery was solved. This is the link:
http://antiquesilhouettes.blogspot.com/2007/01/more-questionable-items.html

For a long time I suspected many of those so-called puffy sleeve silhouettes to be 20th century productions. This Elizabeth Morse may have done quite a few of them. I see likenesses in these two portraits with some of those puffy-sleeves.

One of our readers, Peggy, comments:
I doubt that the stamp for Elizabeth Morse was done contemporaneously with the silhouettes or that Elizabeth Morse was the artist. Why would she sign Jemors or Demors or whatever the signature is on the front and stamp a different name on the back? I find it unlikely.

B.M. Jones writes: We thank Peggy for her input. Actually, Peggy has a point. We do not know anything about this Elizabeth Morse. I am skeptical about this Elizabeth Morse being Elizabeth Morse Walsh. However, there is a possibility. From what I have seen, Demors deviates quite a bit with his/her workmanship. Some of them are very crude. When I say "crude" here, I do not mean primitive or folky but crude as in lousy. Yet, there are very fine ones, too. I have seen some imitations of British silhouettes by Demors at shows. So, whoever this artist was, Demors seemed to have worked in all sorts of silhouettes.

Peggy inquires about discrepancy of the signed name and that of the stamped name. I think they match ok, kinda, Morse with Mors. Maybe if was her pseudo. If her better works were not signed, I am sure they are believable enough to be in musuems and private collections.

2010-07-14T14:38:00.000-07:00

ALL THREE BLOGS RECOVERED

I wrote hundreds of posts on my 3 silhouette blogs (plus born-without-arms blog) over the years. Being not too bright, I did not notice my older post was being deleted each time I posted a new one. I believe I was able to recover all of my lost posts by archiving. So, check out my silhouette blogs I, II, and III. Click monthly archives either on left panel or all the way to the bottom for posts that do not appear on the pages. There is a lot of good information available within these posts.

2010-07-10T10:06:00.000-07:00

Cheap American Hollow-Cut Silhouettes?

I get many questions about market value of silhouettes. There is no real way of answering them, as I just don’t know. Because prices are subjective, the buyers determine whether a silhouette is a good buy or not. There are certain guidelines I follow in determining prices of what I buy for myself.

Many new collectors believe a silhouette is a good buy if it can be had cheaply. Again, the word “cheap” is subjective at best. However, for the sake of understanding each other, let us first determine the definition of “cheap.” Because there is value in everything, “cheap” may mean something that can be had below its natural value. So, that is how we will use it here. Next, we need to determine what that “natural value” is. For simplicity, we will base the natural value to what sellers ask on the average on a retail setting. Instead of using a number here, we will assign a value of “$ X.”

This “$X” will be for an average, unsigned American hollow-cut silhouette in its period frame. If you were able to buy such a silhouette for 50% of “$X,” you got lucky. There is no argument whatsoever you got it “cheaply” too. On the other hand, what I see on many occasion are the purchases in which the buyers thought was “cheap” that turned out to be not cheap at all. In fact, in many cases they paid prices of “$X++.” How did that happen?

With real estate, it is location, location, location. With silhouettes, it is frame, frame, frame! Early 19th century, American silhouette frames are very scarce. That is where the money is. An average frame with some minor wear and tear is worth $100-250. A simple hollow-cut that is unexciting and without inked details in average paper condition is worth perhaps $50. But to be worth $50, it has to be either rectangular or circular. If it were cut oval to fit into a modern frame, that is trouble. You will never be able to find a period frame to match. Of course, those British artists who came here to work brought those black, paper mache frames with oval openings, so they are the exception. Hankes and Hubard sometimes used those frames. We must remember those silhouettes are cut-n-paste. Hollow-cut silhouettes with convex glass just do not work! Hollow-cuts must go against a flat glass.

During the first quarter of 19th century, circular black wooden frames were popular here. As far as I know, they were imported from England. Many American silhouettes were trimmed to fit into those circular frames. They are perfectly period and original. These frames are simple wood turned with recesses added for decoration. Similar oval frames also exist. These frames, however, were made for miniature portraits and have domed glass.

Silhouettes in 20th century frames bought in the neighborhood of $100 - $200 are not bargains at all. That is like buying a house with no roof. As discussed above, the silhouette, itself, may only be worth $50. Now, a period frame must be secured. If the silhouette paper is oval, it can get very tricky, as ovals come in many different shapes: tall oval, wide oval, and everything in-between. The best bet is to secure a rectangular frame and mat the silhouette with oval opening.

Part two of this discussion coming soon!

2010-07-07T13:19:00.000-07:00

Charles Louis Barber Silhouettes

One of our readers, Jan, writes:

I discovered your newsletter several weeks ago. I have so enjoyed the information it contained. We have collected silhouettes for about ten years. In our collecting we have come across a matted page of 20 silhouettes from the record book of C.L. Barber c.1820. I have been unable to find any information about C.L.Barber. The page contains silhouettes of men, women, and children. A note on the back of the frame states, He cuts "the most striking likenesses in the short space of ten seconds! With a pair of scissors, without drawing or machine. It also states that Barber, like Edouart, cut two silhouettes at once, one for the sitter and one for his record book. We acquired this grouping from a long time collector. If you know any information about Barber, or where else we can look it would be so appreciated. Thank you for your time.

B. M. Jones writes:

We thank Jan for writing us. We see Barber's silhouettes regularly. If Barber were an American artist, we would take up on him, but he is British. There are just too many British artists, and we just do not have the resources to discusss them on our blogs. For those interested in British works, I highly recommend Sue McKechnie's book on the subject. The photo above on Barber comes from her book.

2010-07-07T09:41:00.000-07:00

Decorative Silhouettes

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

I came upon your blog last night while doing some research on silhouettes and found it to be very interesting and informative. I have no experience with them whatsoever but a pair of painted silhouettes recently came into my possession so I was trying to find out more information online. I went to all the pages you provided but I was unable to find any silhouettes like the ones that I have. I'm afraid I don't have a lot of history on these two items.

The 80 year old father of a dear friend of mine gave them to him when he was cleaning out some storage are at his home. I am not sure where and when he came into possession of them but we both live in Florida so it probably came from a local estate or garage sale. My friend said they are not relatives and his father doesn't remember where he got them. Since I have been unable to find any just like these, I wondered if they are reproductions meant to fool the casual collector. They are of a male and female child each with full names and dates directly under the silhouette.

Most of the silhouettes I noticed on your blog as well as other sites on the internet do not have names and dates displayed in this exact same manner. I don't know if you can tell by the pictures I am attaching but the date on the female child silhouette is 1837 and the male is dated 1840. The wooden frames appear to be nailed together, not stapled. The material that they are painted on does not appear to be the same kind of cardboard I am used to seeing in framed photos in the last 30 years (I'm 47 years old), they are almost like a pressed board and definitely yellowed with age. I see no maker mark or initials like some that I've seen on the silhouettes on your blog. The frames appear to be oak with some gold trim in the very inner part of the frame. The black spots on the hardboard near the silhouette seem to be coming from the deteriorating, rusted nails holding the board in place in the back.

My question for you is have you seen any like these before and if so, can you tell me who the maker could be? Can you to tell me if they are 20th century reproductions or authentic 19th century? Thank you for reading my email and any information you can share with me would be greatly appreciated.

B. M. Jones writes: I thank Michelle for sharing these two silhouettes with us and for writing detailed description about them.

When I first started collecting silhouettes, I took an interest with "Mildred," as I believed this silhouette had to be from Troy, upstate New York town. I almost bought it! That was many moons ago when I knew next to nothing about silhouettes. I believe I am a bit wiser today.

I don't know if these two silhouettes originally existed in the 19th century. If they did, then these two silhouettes would be considered copies or reproduction of those originals. On the other hand, if your silhouettes are not based on originals, they would simply be called prints. I know they appear to be painted, but they are not. They are 20th century decorative items. So, you should enjoy them as what they are, and display them facing each other. If I had them, I would put a coat of primer and paint the frames mustard yellow. That would take the "heaviness" out of the frames.

2010-06-27T10:56:00.000-07:00

Lots of Honeywell Silhouettes!

One of our readers, Brad, sends us some very nice Honeywell silhouettes. We thank him!

He writes, "I am enclosing photos of some recent additions to my collection. One is a grouping of eight family members all cut by Honeywell. There is also a single framed Honeywell. I have thrown in a pair of silhouettes with lithographed bodies. The full length silhouette between the pair is by Hubard. I truly enjoy your website and comments. You are a great source of information. Please keep up the good work."

2010-06-19T18:15:00.000-07:00

Hollow-Cut Bache Silhouette with Painted Bust

Our site should work fine now, I think. We are back in business once again, and I thank Bob for sharing his new find with us.

He writes: It's hard for me to choose a favorite silhouette artist, but I guess that William Bache comes pretty close. Wonderful silhouettes, historic subjects (eg, Jefferson; did George and Martha really sit for him or did he derive those images from other sources?), and an interesting story (eg, poor guy lost his arm as the result of a tree falling on him).

Recently, I was fortunate to add a hollow cut Bache silhouette to accompany the pair the fully painted ones I own. It is the portrait of a younger man facing towards the viewer's right. The black background is enhanced with Chinese white decoration. The details of his hair have been added in ink. It's really well cut. The actual bust is about 3 inches or so tall. The signature stamp is quite clear and crisp. It is housed in a pressed brass on wood frame that unfortunately was missing the hanger. I was able to fashion one from some wire using the original hole. It retains the original back board. The outer edge of the wood to which the pressed brass front is mounted is painted a mustard color. I'm not sure that the frame is original.

As you can tell from the pictures, some unfortunate things were done to the silhouette. It has been mounted with tape to a later acidic matte. It may have undergone some trimming as well. Note the stains which I believe are from the tape. These are things that will need to be attended to inorder to prevent further damage and conserve the silhouette. However, overall, the important parts are fairly well preserved and it looks okay on the wall.

My comment on this silhouette: Because I am not able to inspect this Bache in person, all I can do is work from the photos. This silhouette has lots of good going for it. Unfortunately, it does have a few drawbacks as well.

The Good: It is Bache; his stamp is sharp as a tack; it comes in a nice period frame that is worth $200 even w/o the silhouette; this is a hollow-cut by Bache.

The Bad: The rectangular silhouette was cut into oval in order to accommodate it into this frame; gluey paper tape was used; silhouette was matted.

My guess is that it was the hired framer who did all this work many years ago. Framers frame stuff. That is how they get paid. As long as the framing looks good, that is what matters. Unless, we decide to tear off the dustcover. Then, we find all sorts of nooks and crannies. We have to remember hollow-cut silhouettes were meant to go right against the glass. Matting does not work for hollow-cuts.

I don't know if the framer had this particular frame in stock at the time, or that the silhouette owner had it and wanted this silhouette placed in it. We don't really care, do we? We do know, however, that this silhouette was "worked on" for this frame.

We have to do some detective work here in order to figure out what is going on with this silhouette. Do you see black stains on the back? What are they? How did that happen? If you look closely, you will note another stain that is not black but brown. How come? Why is the embossment on the backside so sharp? We know this silhouette is a hollow-cut. Why then do we see the backside of the embossment but not the hollow-cutting of the silhouette? After all, embossing was done on the silhouette paper itself. We will try to answer those questions here.

Hollow-cuts with painted busts by Bache are not painted on the silhouette paper. They are painted on black backing paper (hair details excepted). This type of black paper was usually made by the artists themselves. This paper was one-sided affair, meaning the blacking was done only on one side. After all, why would anyone go thru the extra step of coloring both sides if only one side would be used. During the heyday of silhouette collecting of the 20s and the 30s, Bache reproductions (fakes?) were made. They were this type of hollow-cut with painted busts, complete with his stamp. Those things have a value of their own as imitation art today, though the value is a fraction of genuine Bache. The black backing paper on those imitations are black on both sides. This is a good point to remember. In addition, there are differences with the embossment.

First, let us determine the nature of this particular embossment. In most cases, 99.99% that is, a silhouette artist would stamp the silhouette paper of his hollow-cut. The reason is simple and obvious. In this case, however, Bache uses a black paper to back his hollow-cut. I would imagine he would have stamped his silhouette paper normally like the rest of them. But alas, he sandwiches the silhouette paper with his backing paper in this case, and stamps them as a set. In other words, he treats the two papers as one. I did not know he did that until I saw this piece. So, this is a brand new info! We should examine all of his hollow-cuts for this type of embossment, from the back!

The stains in this case are easy to explain, or are they? From what I see, the brown stain is nothing more than the gluey residue left by the tape. You will note that the tape has been severed in that position, leaving a ghostly image of what it once was. That small part is a part of the mat; it does not touch the silhouette or the black backing paper. So, one mystery solved.

The black stains under the taped area seem to be the leakage of the black material from the other side. I cannot tell if this is flint paper, tarred paper, or simply inked paper without examining it in person. The gluey substance from the tape penetrated the backing paper. But what about the black stain on the bottom? It is possible that area, too, was once taped? It does not appear to be, as there is no brown stain on its border. Bache may have spilled some ink. I say this because the ink color matches with that of the ink he used for the sitter's hair detailing. He may also have placed a cloth or tissue-type paper to blot the spill (note the two distinct colors of the ink). By the time he finished blotting the central area, the rest of the ink just seaped thru the paper. It was too late!

So, there you have it, at least my explanation of what happened to this silhouette.

2010-05-25T08:47:00.000-07:00

Questions and Comments

Many people read this blog but nobody ever comments. That is how it is with blogs. But, many people write me with questions. I do not reply to those one-line questions like, "What can you tell me about this silhouette?" and "What is this silhouette worth?" They get deleted. If you want me to spend my time answering your questions, you have to spend your time writing a well thought-out mail. I do not reply to questions about 20th-century silhouettes. I know nothing about them.

If your question is about 19th-century American silhouettes, please follow these guidelines. First, you need to address a person. If there is no salutation, I will not read it. I will just assume it was not intended for me. Second, you need to tell me what you know about the silhouette in question. Third, you have to sign your name. Otherwise, I would not know who to reply to. The above things are real basic stuff that we learn in grade school. E-mails are letters.

2010-03-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

Major Andre

We know he enjoyed drawing and cutting portraits. This one illustrated here is his self-portrait. But today, I am not here to discuss his portraits. That can come another time.

Looky here! I was able to find a pass made out to Andre (John Anderson is pseudo) by Benedict Arnold. Of course, where else but on eBay? Someone just paid $160+ for it. Did the buyer think it was genuine? I know the original (see photo) is in the New York State collection of documents. Why would anyone pay $160 for a reproduction? That would have been a lot of pizza for me!

2010-03-14T15:38:00.001-07:00

Another Rare Peale ... Indian Chief!

Note the seller's atypical placement of commas!

I believe I know this chief; he is Chief Protruding Lip. In his younger days, however, he was known as "Smiling Wolf." Has anyone ever seen a smiling portrait of Native-Americans from ca.1800? I am sure this is an "extremely rare treasure." It is worth many times his starting bid, at least a few hundred times anyways. I wonder what this will bring??

The seller writes:

"An Ultra Rare "Peale Museum" ( Signed) ,Hollow Cut Silhouette Of An American Indian Chief, Made of Hand Laid Paper and extremely well done !!! I have never seen or Heard of any other known Indian Subject Hollow Cut Silhouette !!! The Peale Impressed Stamp was hard to photograph ,and it is seen just under the Shoulder ,like most other Peale examples. I'm selling this extremely rare treasure with NO reserve ,and only one penny to start."

Comment from a reader: I do not know if this silhouette is truly of a Native American, but Peale's studio did a whole series. And I believe many from the series are at Monticello. I bid on this, but was outbid at about $250.00. I am not a collector, but because of the history--all the chiefs were done at once, had visited DC as part of a delegation when Jefferson was president, etc. I was interested. But this may be all wrong.

BMJ says: When I wrote it is rare and worth several hundred times the seller's staring bid, I was being sarcastic. Because his starting bid was, I believe, a penny. I figured it was worth at least a few dollars. It's a good thing you did not win it. If you displayed that as a genuine Peale silhouette, you would have been laughed at by those who know something about silhouettes.

Comment from a reader: I am the unsuccessful bidder on the Peale "native American" silhouette. I would love to know more about why it is NOT likely to be an authentic Peale. And i did not check the collection at Monticello to see if there is anything like this one there. Maybe I should have. thanks for your comment. I do not mind at all now having been outbid!

Comment from a reader:Thanks for the tip. I would love to know more about how we know this was not authentic. thanks. js

BMJ says: The two comments above are fair questions on authenticity. First, I never said this silhouette was “NOT likely to be an authentic Peale.” Second, Monticello is moot. For the sake of argument, let us just say there is a silhouette in Monticello that shares similarities with this silhouette, or a silhouette that is a matching pair to this one. That means nothing. It does not prove authenticity. The only thing THAT silhouette in Monticello proves is that there is a silhouette there. There are silhouettes everywhere.

If the above silhouette appeared in one of the major auction houses as 19th century silhouette, and you bought it, you own it. I guess “as is” policy prevails. If you bought the above from an antiques dealer that does not specialize in American silhouettes, you might be able to get your money back. That is, within a certain time period. American silhouette specialist would have never sold it as ca.1800 silhouette from Peale Museum. I can count the number of American silhouette specialists in one hand, with one or even two fingers left over. If I sold the above silhouette as genuine Peale, you would see me hanging from a gallows before sundown.

If you read my blogs from cover to cover, I am sure you will find answers to your question as to why the above silhouette is not ca.1800 silhouette. I scarcely care who owns it now. I am sure its owner thought it was worth what he/she paid at that time, or even more. That is what matters. We all have different sets of values. If that silhouette makes the new owner happy in any way, that is good.

2010-03-08T11:37:00.000-08:00

William Bache!

Thanks to Bob again, we ca enjoy his latest addition. This is a very nice pair of fully painted Bache!

When I go to auctions, I either get thoroughly stomped upon or overpay. The attached Bache silhouettes may be a prime example of the latter. I'm not a fan of the left bid and I've had technical problems with internet bidding. So, I after sitting through 463 lots and patiently waiting nearly 6 hours for these to come up, I wasn't terribly receptive to leaving empty handed. As my usual luck would have it, even though it was late in the auction, the crowd had dwindled, things were quieting down, and I thought this is going to be good, when these came up, the room woke up and the phone bidders were on the line!

They are fully painted profiles of a man and a woman on woven paper which is a bit heavier than usual. To my eyes, the man's head, hair, and face are black and his coat looks to be deep gray with black details and blue-gray buttons, His cravat is a lighter gray or bluish gray. The woman is in black except for a deep gray band along the bottom of the bust. I believe that this was highlighting the high bodice of the woman's dress. Her high ruffled lace collar and bib are finely painted in shades of blues and grays. Both silhouettes bear Bache's oval stamp. I feel both are finely wrought.

The silhouettes are contained within matching gilt gesso on pine square nailed frames with brass hanging rings. The frame openings are decorated with an applied beaded boarder. The sides of the frames are painted yellow. They have matching eglomise and gold leaf decorated surrounds. The glass is old. The black is not paint, but asphaultum. The various shadows indicate that they have been so framed for a long time.

On one back edge of the man's frame is a pencil inscription in old script "Mrs. T.G. Moulton H. F." The woman's frame is similiarly inscribed. The wood back of the woman's frame bears additional pencil inscriptions "Mrs. Flander's mother" and "Mrs. Flander's mother/given to E.S. Moulton".

The silhouettes compare well to examples and descriptions of Bache's work in Carrick and Rifken.

Comments welcome.

One of our readers, Jane, comments:

I'm very impressed with Bob's latest silhouettes! They are quite rare and in fantastic condition! I have only owned one painted example of Bache, who I consider one of the best artists.
Congratulations to Bob!

Bob's reply to Jane:

My thanks to Jane for her generous comments about the Bache silhouettes.

2010-02-08T12:40:00.000-08:00

Unusual Circa 1825 Silhouette

This silhouette appeared on on-line auction recently. It was described as follows: 19th century accented hollow-cut silhouette portrait of woman.Circa 1825. Silhouette is shown to the hip, which is unusual. Painted-on collar.

The way I saw it: First, the head is hollow-cut.Second, her dress is worked in gouache.Third, the white, untoned area is due to black silk backing with that exact shape.

I do not recall ever seeing another such work. I wonder if the head was originally painted as well. Was the head cut-out at a later period because there were defects on it? If so, it was done many years ago. Was this artwork Americanized? Could it have been a British silhouette once? If this were painted on card, I would say it could have been a work of some British artist. However, because of minor crinkling effects, the painting appears to be on wove paper. So, we are back to square one again.

Without having it in my hands, I can only speculate. What do readers see with it?

Comment from one of our readers Peggy:

I can't imagine someone doing hollow cutting on card....that would be extremely difficult. I find the painting similar to several others with hollow cut heads and painted bodies that I have although the additional cuts above and behind the bonnet adds some class that I haven't seen before in these painted body silhouettes. Anyway, I'll let you know when she gets here. Peggy

BMJ writes:

I am sure this portrait is all original. However, if we were to go forward with any investigation, we must also consider the other side as well. What would happen if we all just formed an opinion, and believed everything that was ever written about silhouettes in the past? That would be like hitting a brick wall riding a moped at 50mph. We need to drill a hole, or several holes, in that brick wall to see if we can really trust its construction. If it is solid, it will stand firm. If not, it will crumble. We must inquire.

The word “card” is confusing at best. When I wrote, “If this were painted on card,” I was thinking about thin, stiff paper. Peggy’s definition of it is something much thicker. Hollow-cutting on thin card is easy to do. In fact, it is much easier to cut than paper. On the other hand, cutting out a thick card is more difficult. So when does paper become a card? My definition may differ from that of readers. Twice the thickness of normal construction paper is a card for me. Many British portraits are painted on cards that are not much thicker.

When I wrote, “I do not recall ever seeing another such work,” I was referring to hollow-cut heads with bodies painted in “gouache.” I have seen plenty of bodies painted in watercolors, and I am sure Peggy owns some fine examples. Those examples tend to be American. However, American silhouette artists using gouache to paint just the bodies are very atypical. There are examples of American works using gouache, but those works have the heads painted as well. Moreover, although painted in gouache, those works use flat black. Delineation of creases on dresses and tunics using light reflecting dark gray color is, again, atypical for American silhouettes, which this silhouette in question has. Before any reader writes me saying there are plenty of miniature portraits by American artists who used gouache in such manner, please be reminded that I am not talking about such portraits on ivory here.

A new question to ponder: Could this silhouette be a work of an artist who originally came from England?

When Peggy receives her new miniature, I am sure she would agree with me with what I said about it initially. That is: The way I saw it: First, the head is hollow-cut. Second, her dress is worked in gouache. Third, the white, untoned area is due to black silk backing with that exact shape.

May I remind the readers that the seller mentioned none of the above in the description. In addition, I had no idea Peggy had bought it. Small world!

Peggy responds:

Just opened the silhouette. She is cut from and painted on thin wove paper. The dress is outlined in pencil and then it painted in black watercolor(somewhat inside the lines as the artist seemed to have decided her sleeves and skirt didn't need to be quite as big as drawn). The highlighting of the dress folds is done in thin white watercolor with a medium thick brush....not gum arabic. The lack of discoloration directly around the head is caused by the fabric which gave some protection from the acidity of the wood backboard (although you can see that the outer most part of the protected paper was starting to discolor from acidity leaching in from the unprotected edges inward. I feel sure she is American.

2010-01-11T10:18:00.000-08:00

Images on Glass Plates

One of our regular readers, Bob, makes another fine contribution to this blog:

Over the years, I've seen daguerreotypes and tin types of "ancestor portraits". It is my understanding that they were created so that other family members could have a copy of a portrait of important ancestors. Examples of these I have seen over the years run the gamut from more "academic" style portraits to ones which would be considered "folk art".

I've attached what I believe are ambrotypes of silhouettes, one of an elderly man, the other of an elderly woman . I think the silhouettes are later 18th or early 19th century. The ambrotypes are on clear plates backed by what appears to be another piece of glass reverse painted black. They are mounted in oval surrounds all contained within elaborately moulded grain painted gesso frames which appear to date to about the middle of the 19th century. The seals on both appear to have never been violated. There are no labels or signatures. The images are 3 3/8 inches in the longest diameter. The frames are 9 by 8 1/4 inches at their greatest dimensions.

Overall condition is okay. My scanner is good for obtaining images, but it also highlights every little speck or bubble in the glass. They actually look better in person. The frames have suffered losses which are visible in the images. Some of these losses occurred long ago as the edges have darkened. The reverse painted glass backings demonstrate flaking. That could probably be "fixed", but I am loath to break the seals. I'll live with it.

I'm not sure of their place of origin or if the silhouettist is identifiable to anyone. Wonder what you or your readers might come up with as well as any other comments.

Thought these were interesting silhouette related objects. I also own a pair of tintypes of silhouettes which I gave to someone to fit up with appropriate frames. Some day when I get them back I'll probably send pictures of those along, too.

BMJ comments: As always, our thanks go to Bob for sharing his finds with us once again.

Whether the silhouette images are on copper, glass or tin plates, or on albumen prints, they are much scarcer than the actual silhouettes themselves. Although I have seen quite a few folk portraits copies on copper plates (dags), I have yet to see a dag of silhouettes. As for silhouettes on glass plates, I have seen only a few. The most common ones seem to be silhouette images as cabinet cards, followed by images on later CDVs. I do not recall having seen one on early 1860s CDV, however. Furthermore, I have yet to see one on ruby ambro. So, Bob's finds can be considered quite rare.

2009-12-14T08:26:00.000-08:00

Rare Day's Patent Silhouette Find

One 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.

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.

2009-11-12T06:45:00.000-08:00

Samuel Bradburn Banton Bustlines

Banton 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.