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

And here's a worthpoint listing for a similar print by Douglas, with some descriptions indicating some roughness due to the printing...I don't subscribe to worthpoint myself. I note that it mentions this:
"To the bottom left of the print; it reads:
Painted by E.A.S. Douglas
To the centre bottom; it reads:
London Published January 2 nd 1899 by Arthur Ackermann, 191 Regent Street"
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/eas-douglas-genuine-hunting-print-162707158

 

New pic of label

 

Frost and Reed was a framer and dealer in prints and paintings, so that label is not very useful, I'm afraid.

 

Its definately not a print its paint of some sort i have it listed at 2700 but il be getting it valued this week to know for sure but its definately paint ! Any info on frost and reed

 

How about the pencil edges and paint run on the edges does that help i suppose online you just cant tell but it feels and rubs like paint

 

If it is an original watercolour would that be rare as a view halloo

 

Or how many of these were done in watercolour called a view halloo

 

Were prints numbered this says on frost and reed label number 9664 frame date 20/4/49

 

Here's a listing for the set of four, including "A View Halloo," priced at 30 pounds.
https://www.gumtree.com/p/paintings-pictures/four-hunting-prints-by-e.a.s.-douglas/1289078222

 

Do you mean prints ??? Ive seen the prints were talking paINT here

 

And they are 14x19 inch prints mines 8x13" your not very helpful but its defo paint i have

 

Sorry, I've offered my opinion, and you disagree.
No offense given or taken, I hope.

 

Well you send me copy of prints different size to mine and its rough as in paint not print so any info on this as a watercoulour il update info tomorrow when i bring it to valuer you have great info but seem to want this to be a print any info on a view halloo watercolour 8x13"

 

Do prints have colour runoff of all inside the lines i have colour runoff defi paint il let you all know tomorrow

 

He would have done only one.
Then the publisher would have printed it.
You refuse to show a picture of the printed title, which would prove that the entire piece would have been printed.

An artist is not going to print the title on a piece of paper and then paint a water color to fit the title.

You are misrepresenting the item.

You want to believe it is a water color, but it is not. It is a printed picture.
However there is the possibility it is printed and then hand colored.
Hand colored does NOT make it rare or more valuable.

 

This way lies madness. But, before I go, my last word... This 1919 sales catalog for The Anderson Galleries in New York lists an 1899 Ackermann 14 1/2" x 18" 'View Halloo' (lot 70) as a colored print.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...=onepage&q=view halloo e.a.s. douglas&f=false

Debora

 

It's so a print..IMO...and by the smaller size , maybe a later re-print.

 

I have pics of the title up its not on the paint its in the surround the pencil lines and xolour run off are not a print if you look closely at it but seems like rough paint to rub i just dint know yet but i need to fibd out

 

Been to an antique shop its a watercolour from a limited edition number 9664. I knew it wasnt print

 

a limited edition....watercolor......wow....I've never heard of that before !!!!
& edition number 9664......out of what size of edition ??
That's not the way Ltd Ed's are numbered............

It's still a print..........& that antique shop will not see my business !