Featured Please help identify this print. TY

I did a reverse image search on Google without any luck. The mat is round so I'm not sure if the print is. I did not want to pull it out of the frame but if all else fails, I might. I faked a square version with photoshop and had no luck with that. I tried using descriptive words to search it without any luck. It looks familiar so I'm hoping somebody here might recognize it. Thank you.

 

This one seems to be the same - but no ID!

https://www.shopgoodwill.com/Item/57730027

 

Thank you! I will have to pull it out of the frame to see if there is printing hidden under that mat.

 

Found this
https://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Sir...MIhJv_pqKm3wIVSlSGCh1J0wSqEAQYBSABEgI1RfD_BwE

 

Thank you!!! That led me to this.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/371644

 

How did you find it?

 

LOL I thought they looked familiar. They've been to antiquers before. If MCT had not already found it, I was going to check whether I was right that they also come up in this thread:

https://www.antiquers.com/threads/numismatic-fraud-mystery.31383/#post-416006

 

Can't speak for anyone else, but I just now did a quick search (at Google images) on : painting of two little girls

A nice copy of yours was in the top 15 results -- no id, but a reverse image search on that one pulled up all the right info.

 

I didn't know about Google search images until recently. Have been trying it out on a few things. This time it resulted in a match. I used the the Goodwill picture posted by SBSVC as it was a full image.

 

I think image search will get increasingly better, the more things it 'sees' & has identified. I haven't tried in a while, but first time I put in a photo of a cameo, just on the off chance, top results were all whip cream topped desserts. Think on a later attempt it fairly correctly classified what I was showing it as sculpture, but of course again didn't return anything at all close.

Obviously this must be harder to do than this computer no-nothing imagines, or they would have been doing it from the outset. I see no evidence that the search uses the search terms you have already entered in conjunction with the picture. When the text box has the word 'cameo' in it. I don't know why it pigs out in the world of desserts.

 

That's odd that I put in the same terms and nothing came up.

Bronwen, one of my reverse image searches identified it as a "carving" but said "no images were found" to show the carving, however, your link above shows several. Maybe Google has moments of CRS like the rest of us.

 

Just checked on my computer (verses my phone) and the initial pic I found shows up in the top 100 or so, not the top 15... but still pretty findable.

I usually don't give up on a search phrase until I've skimmed several hundred pics (assuming the search phrase isn't a complete miss, of course).

 

https://picclick.co.uk/Pair-of-Enrico-BRAGA-Marble-Cherub-Plaques-Gilt-253819127256.html

The more you trawl, the more of these two plaques, always in the same frames, you find, & more often than not, excitedly identified as genuine marble with a genuine coin/medal embedded in the back & the artist's name on the front. They are a combination of real things, real art, real artists' names, real coins/medals, combined in ways that most of the time have nothing to do with one another, executed in a man made material that can be made to look, quite convincingly, like marble, or bronze or silver.

 

Next question is who made this particular print. Best search results for images:

https://www.etsy.com/listing/595805...piarPdg6EDKEKSTlJ5ZmVKQlmBpxx_dgaAnCgEALw_wcB

https://www.ecrater.com/p/23373760/...Q2a0jYyKNxsuQ9Cg_1wp6W3Ukz_-eHLsaAhUBEALw_wcB

I'm liking the second one.

 

In case I wasn't clear, for the initial find, I wasn't talking about a reverse image search.

I'm just talking a standard Google search, but reviewing results from the image tab.

 

Interesting information in that second link on ecrater. My print does not have the background detail. I'm leaving for an appointment so I'm not sure if I'll get to remove it from the frame today. If not, definitely tomorrow. I think it's in the original frame which has square nails. Hopefully, it will have more information on it.

 

The original painting by Sir Thomas Lawrence is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art:
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436850 -- all of these prints and carvings are based on it.

I don't think anybody has posted a link to that in this thread yet. Somehow I hadn't seen the Antiquers thread that Brownwen linked to above... (Numismatic fraud...). Am about to go and read it! I see that in that other thread Bronwen linked to the same page at the Met website as I did in the paragraph above.

 

Here is what the Met's website that I linked above says about the work. It also mentions early engravings of it.

Catalogue Entry
Emily Greenwood Calmady, an amateur artist, brought her two elder daughters to Lawrence’s London studio in July 1823 on the advice of a friend, the engraver Frederick Christian Lewis, in the hope that Lawrence would offer to paint them. Lawrence was captivated by Emily and her younger sister Laura Anne. He asked two hundred guineas for a double portrait, though his regular price was two hundred and fifty guineas, but then reduced the price again to one hundred and fifty pounds. He began with a preliminary study in pencil and colored chalks (location unknown), which he gave to Mrs. Calmady when she admired it.

According to Lawrence, this work was his “best picture of the kind” and “one of the few I should wish hereafter to be known by" (Williams 1831). It was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1824, where it was enthusiastically received: the Times, on May 4, called it one of Lawrence's "happiest works"; the Literary Gazette, on May 8, described "the playful and beautiful sentiment that shines through all"; and the Examiner, on May 10, felt that only Correggio could have surpassed it. The painting was subsequently viewed by King George IV at Windsor, and in 1825 Lawrence took it with him to Paris, where he showed it privately. It was lithographed in color, becoming an extremely popular image in France. A line engraving of 1832 by George T. Doo and a mezzotint of 1835 by Samuel Cousins (The Met, 1978.676) are both titled Nature. There are several copies after the painting (Baetjer 2009, p. 216 n. 7).

The artist was a collector and connoisseur, and possible sources for his double portrait are Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia and Saint John the Baptist, Michelangelo’s Doni Tondo, Carlo Maratta’s paintings, and the Laocoön (of which Lawrence owned and displayed a lifesize cast; Levey 1979 and 2005, Wilson 1991, and Garlick 1993).

[2010; adapted from Baetjer 2009]

 

There's just something about this that looks 1930-ish to me, and what seems to me to be wrinkles suggests a lightweight paper stock. This seems to be from a copy (as opposed to a photo of the original). Copyists always bring something of themselves to their work, and this seems to have a 'Shirley Temple' quality to it.

In my experience, image search is primarily dependent on color, not on shapes. You may have been able to ID this image if you had reduced the picture to black and white because it is out there as an engraving.

The color of this print is enough to fool image search.

 

After removing it from the frame, I can confirm that it is a copy and not an engraving. I do think it's older than the 1930's. The original square nails were still holding the wood backing and the frame also has square nails. There were no signs that it was removed before.