artwork by Peter Arno: No signature is it authentic?

From auction a few hours ago. This water color by Peter Arno does it look authenticate? The American Antique Auctions in Haddonfield nJ listed a whole series of these like 10 or 12 as by Peter Arno. There is no signature or any other indicia. Nor do they show the backs of them. Shouldnt they have said "attributed?"

EDIT: to correct the auction house.

 

Doesn't particularly much like Peter Arno's later work, does it? Would/could you post a link to the auction.

Debora

 

here are a couple listing. Theres a whole slew of them starting with lot 222

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/195322283_peter-arno-original-watercolor-illustration-grrr

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/195322303_peter-arno-original-illustration-furs

 

Reminds me of this

 

Perhaps they had an impeccable provenance.

Debora

 

perhaps but nothing of the sort is mentioned there. is it not customary to say attributed to when lacking a signature?

 

Google search comes up with name Burr Schafer Original Cartoon, New Yorker Magazine but unable to find that particular sketch.

 

Hello ANtiquefab: I'm not sure what to make of the google search. I did same thing for that image I posted at the top of the thread. And indeed Burr came up first along with a number of other works including Arno's. Sometimes it happens when you do an image search that it takes you to a similar work that has an advertisement for that work or artist at the bottom . In other words if I do an image search for that Arno image google might link me to a different image that has an image of Arno's work at the bottom of the same page. Oftentimes that happens when there is an upcoming auction, and I do an image search and I get a totally different image than the one I am searching for but at the bottom of the page will be an ad for that same image with a link to the auction.

I dont think that's what happened there but the image search produces a number of similar risque images including Arnos so I dunno.

In any case I did find a couple of similar works ATTRIBUTED to Arno and unsigned similar to this one. For example:

https://www.invaluable.com/auction-...o-peter-arno-ny-1904-1968-ca-178-c-8dc4b43900

this one sold in 2023 by Kaminski also using "attributed" and also not getting much money.

https://www.invaluable.com/auction-...o-ink-and-watercolor-drawing-329-c-96f49e9ad1

interestingly here's one sold by Kaminski in 2020 also unsigned but they did not say "attributed" they call it original and claim they purchased it from Arno's daughter in the 1970s. In the 2023 sale they claimed no such thing and simply said "from a Palm Beach estate." The 2020 art went for considerably more no doubt because this reputable auction house claimed it as original.

https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/peter-arno-original-watercolor-illustration-1227-c-689459c83d

Its also notable to me that all three of these works have very similar/same presentation: the work appears to be cut out from the original medium and so the edge are irregular. And then attached to some backing member. You'll note that every one of these unsigned Arnos at todays auction has the very same type of presentation.

In my opinion without any signature attached to the work, or any documentation the auction house should have said "Attributed to." as both Kaminski and Bill Hood have done. I thought that was industry standard but now Im not so sure.

I think what really piqued my interest is that of the 24 artworks in today's auction all of them are similarly unsigned, and seem to be cut from the original medium and then pasted onto a dark backing member. It seems like the same color in all of them so I suppose they were all produced in one batch.

Another red flag: If you look closely at lot 233 you can see from the creases that the work is glued to the backing. Who does that? thats not professional

More red flags: the auction house does not even show a photo of the reverse side. who does that? Nor do they present any paperwork from 50 years ago when Arno's daughter apparently sold this horde of originals.

 

I don't know if such a thing exists, but you might search to see if there's a Peter Arno Portfolio out there. Pictures in a uniform format like that could come from such a publication.

 

Hi Sunday Silence.I would assume that if the auction house has listed them as [ by Peter Arno] that they have some proof of authenticity, otherwise they are leaving themselves very open.I have looked at some of Peter Arno work and also the links that you gave re auctions of his work and attributed works,and the only observation I made is that in all his works that I looked at, all the funny quotes at the bottom of his work have either single or double quotation marks at the start and finish of the quote even if as in some there is also exclamation marks,as your initial example has,but yours seems to be missing the quotation marks at the end.Maybe just an oversight, or perhaps there's a plausible explanation for it.I'm sure other forumers may have more insight into this.

 

I think what I first

Hi Antique: they dont have any proof. They claimed the same thing that Kaminski said: that these were purchased from Arno's daughter in the 1970s and have no documentation to support that. no one knows where theyve been sitting for 50 years.

It seems that are a huge pile of these that are floating around and just surfaced in the last few years. Kaminski sold about 18 or 20 of them from what I saw. BIll Hood sold at least one, and Jeffrey Evans sold a number of them too. Here's a more interesting one, some guy on ebay had 55 of these. All in the same art style and the same cutout pasted onto a backing. At least he didnt try to claim they were original:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/fifty-five-55-watercolor-risque-baudy-2015943409

 

Hi Sunday.Perhaps the reason for them to be pasted on to a backing,is that they don't want for the back to be seen,as it might give away there true identity ie that they may be repro copies of original.As has been echoed many times on the forum,sometimes one can learn more about a piece by examining the back of a ( painting ,print, etc ) than one can from the front.And as an old Antique dealer friend of mine who had been dealing and buying at auctions for decades, would regularly remind me BUYER BEWARE !!!!

 

Well maybe but the problem with that theory and one that adds a bit of mystery is that all of them: Jeffrey Evans, Kaminski, Bill Hood and these guys all claim these are water colors. Can they all be mistaken and these are some sort of dot matrix reproductions? Im thinking that would be the most logical reason why so many of these, approx 100, have hit the market recently with some back story about being locked away somewhere for 50 years.

I would have thought these guys would take a loup and check them out. You'd see little bits of pigment in there if they were water colors. So again mystery deepens. Did no one do their homework? Are these really water colors? or made by some computer?

But yeah its a good pt about the backing. CUriously I dont recall any that showed the reverse side of these. Im not that acquainted with Arno's work but many of these that were made for Mens magazines would have extraneous notes and measurements on the margins to indicate to the printer how to print them. None of them a have that.

And none of these mystery watercolors have ever been linked to an actual New YOrker cartoon or a magazine cover another troubling aspect.

 

I'm going to join the skeptics. Peter Arno was born into the American upper class and attended Hotchkiss and Yale. He joined The New Yorker one year after graduation and worked there his entire career (1925-1968.) These are nothing like his work. His humor could be provocative but it was also subtle and sophisticated, not crude and bawdy. Here's a relatively early work from 1933. Note it is signed.

Debora

 

Yeah I should have said at the outset that humor in these latter day works is really crude or non existant. having looked at a lot of these unsigned works of recent vintage I'd say thats another common thread; just low brow.

I wonder if the shading in these latter works is also indicative of computers? If you look at them there seems to be a margin between background colors presumably watercolors, and main outlines in ink or whatever.

 

I'm concerned by the die cut cards. An odd sheet for an artist to be working on.

Debora