E.a.s douglas , a view halloo watercolour info

Okkk well its clearly a water colour unique number is 9664 so the guy said it must have been from a limited edition id love more info on it but its definately watercolour clearly see the colours running !!!!! Regards

 

From the first post in this thread.

Paintings are not "published." This is the printing found on the prints known to have been published in 1899 by Arthur Ackermann. If an item carries a label saying it has been published by a known publisher of prints, then it is a print. Maybe there was an edition of hand-colored versions; maybe someone painted over it trying to enhance the value, or trying to fool others - but it is still a print; and the fact that it varies from known copies of the print does not enhance the value; quite the opposite, in fact.
I once had a correspondent try to convince me that he had a totem-pole that was hand-carved stone; and when I pointed out that it carried the cast-in logo of a manufacturer of cast totems, and thus had to be a cast item, he responded that perhaps the artist had carved that wording on the single unique original model for the castings. I pointed out that it also had a sticker from a Seattle shop known to have sold the castings in question; he responded that perhaps they had also sold the original carving.
I located a past manager of the shop in question, who identified the item as a casting, one of hundreds they had sold in the 1960s, though they had never sold originals by that artist....still not convincing enough.
I realized two things: 1) he would certainly try to sell the item for thousands of dollars as an original; and 2) I was wasting my time trying to convince him of anything.

 

Yes there was a certain amount of WATERCOLOURS that were published by arthur ackermann . If its watercolour it cant be a print

 

How can it be a watercoloured print and i dont think its been tampered with in that way

 

This is a print not an original watercolor. People on here have been dealing with art for a long time and know what they are talking about. Also you keep refusing that this isnt a print when it really is a print and i think you know it is a print. Your just trying to stretch this debate in anyway. I have seen these prints before at shops they are not rare and very common. Value wise 25 to 30.00 dollars. Whoever told you at the antique shop that this was a limited edition watercolor has no clue what they are doing because there is no such thing as a limited edition original watercolor. There is a thing called a limited edition print which you might have but still not that rare they made tons of these. You can believe what you want but in the end it is what it is and its a print not an original. Take this to a gallery and they will say the same thing to you as what we are saying.

 

Whatever it is its definately watercolour and pencil if you had it in front of you same view as the antique shop said i just wanted info for research and value rarity but i personally believe its a watercolour its paint !!

 

I took it to a gallery today he said its definately obviously watercolour il get a second art gallery opinion though why not

 

How can it be paint when underneath the picture it says "published by" that means printing not paint

 

It's a PRINT !!!!

 

Case Closed.

 

Its watercolour 100% goodluck all

 

it doesn't even have the right coloring for a watercolor.....and if there's any bleeding of color....that's likely water damage..!

 

I think the weight of this thread...& the preponderance of evidence has fallen on deaf....

 

Lovely print!