Rare Painting? Should I buy?

I stumbled across this piece today. From my research, I plan on heading back to get it in the morning. A rough measurement would be 16" width and 24" height. I didn't see any signs that would make it an obvious fake. The signature and style looks right for Eduard Veith. There are a couple of things that concern me. My concerns - The backing appears to be cardboard (reframed recently?), I can't make sense of anything wrote on the back (names and addresses?), and the price tag says 1902 painting (although I didn't see 1902 written anywhere). It was hard to get good photos through the front cover. I'm assuming the art is on paper. Asking price is $225. I'm thinking it was unidentified because the owner was probably seaching for an artist named EVEITH, instead of E. Veith. Any thoughts?

Here are some pieces that have sold - http://www.blouinartinfo.com/artist/451500/lots

 

Here are some sold examples of his work - http://www.blouinartinfo.com/artist/451500/lots

 

It depends on your comfort level

I have zero luck with paintings

The main market may be in Europe

 

Only 1 of those results are in the US. Now, it may be that there just aren't many over here, but it certainly is something to consider, as Terry noted above.

 

You say you assume this is done on paper? Paper would more often indicate it's a print, unless it's a watercolor. I cannot tell from your photographs. What painting media do you think it is?

If it's a painting (or pastel or colored pencils), and not a print, that would be a very fair price for this piece, especially if you are buying it to enjoy it for yourself and as an investment that you don't "need" to sell immediately.

I am trusting that this is actually the same artist as what is shown in the link (it looks to be on the surface but fakes abound and even with artists that one would not expect would be 'copied' and 'signed'), if it's the real deal painting - it's a great price!

You should try to see if you can find a photo of his signature online and check how well that matches up. I didn't look at the link for his siggy.

Best of luck with this.

 

you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

No sign of a stretcher. Looks more watercolorish. I think the linked results were all oils.

 

Actually several have been sold in the US. At the bottom right on the link, you have to select see all. I think the painting media is water color on the top half and oil on the bottom half. The more I research, I think this piece will need removed from the frame.

 

Oil on paper is doubtful for the stains that would produce.
It may be some gouache added to the watercolor though.

I was just cautioning you to be certain it is an original and vet the artist's siggy as best as you can.

 

http://artsalesindex.artinfo.com/asi/lots/4458994

Maybe it's all watercolor, I just don't know.

 

The siggy is perfect, I've compared it to several known paintings. The authenticity or not is the main question.

Here is the same image in an etching -
http://www.amazon.com/Engraving-Eduard-Garden-Gazebo-Shepherd/dp/B00B5WT3UA

And a postcard - http://www.pofil.cz/index.php?ak=pro&pro=146617&level=6&lng=cz&master=4043&fil=%&rad=08

I can't find anything about an original.

 

I have a saying "If in doubt - Don't"

Your picture looks like a print to me.
Look at the top of the boy's head and to the right of it - there is a line that appears to be a fold or crease. It shows up in both of your pictures.

 

With you finding the others, this is much more likely a print

 

The coloring on this appears to be faded, compared to other works of his I'm seeing online. And that postcard link also shows much more vivid and different coloring than is showing in this piece. To me, the green coloration in the piece being discussed is very similar to the type of fading I've seen in prints of the early 20th century.

Also, I know you don't know the provenance... but think about questions such as how likely it is that a painting that was known well enough to be produced in prints and postcards would become "lost" and reframed in St. Louis?

So you can probably tell, I'm leaning strongly towards thinking it is a print.

 

I agree with Fig. That odd tinge of green is typical of old prints like this which have been too much in the sun. Also, comparison with the originals you present clearly shows the the difference in definition.

 

Ah -- I see that this was also posted in the Collectibles & Art board on eBay, with the same types of replies:
http://community.ebay.com/t5/Collectibles-Art/Rare-Painting-Should-I-buy/m-p/23342599

 

Just a thought, would the store owner let you put the money down, "Good Faith" money and let you take it to an art gallery that can inspect it for you? I know the chances are slim but it's protecting you and also the store owner for possibly selling a false advertised piece of art. I did that with some Goudey baseball cards and found out they were all fakes. I got my money back and the seller remarked the cards accordingly.

It may seem like a headache but at least you'll get some peace of mind.

 

It looks like a print from here too, albeit a nice one. The signature is probably correct, but it's in the picture rather than on it if you get the distinction. Even watercolors aren't that flattish. If you like the print, like the frame, and want to hang it I'd say go for it. If it's for resale, I've never had any luck with art. Maybe you can do better.

 

It always did look more like a print to me too, hence the reason I questioned if it was actually a painting at all. I still think it is a print, especially after seeing b&w reproductions of it. Now if it really is a hand-pulled stone lithograph print from 1902 and if it is actually the large format size you mentioned above, it could still be worth some money, but I doubt it's worth buying for that price for resale.

 

I'm late in replying, but I would say it looks like some kind of print. It was not unusual to add hand tinting to prints and photos back then. The other word of caution is that pictures and frames can be shifted over time and whatever the frame says is not guaranteed to be original to the picture.