Featured Genuine 18th Century Battista Piranesi? - Arch of Titus

I should be waiting until I have better pictures here but am hopeful about this one so i'll post it now if anyone is interested and add additional photographs when its arrived.



And one where i've played with contrast to bring out the platemark (attached)

There should be inscriptions and signatures at the bottom of this piece but I suspect I may have slid under the passpartout (it seems clear from the photo that the sheet itself has shifted)

Anyone thoughts from anyone on if this seems genuine? The platemark seems quite clear to me.

 

Based on the limited information you have provided, it is impossible to tell.

Piranesi produced various versions/printings of his Vedute di Roma (Views of Rome), including his View of the Arch of Titus, beginning in the 1740s and continuing until his death in 1778. Additional versions were printed from the original plates in the 19th century, and they remain popular images, copied in a variety of printing processes.

You can find a detailed history of Piranesi's work here -

https://www.georgeglazer.com/wpmain/product/view-italy-rome-piranesi-vedute-roma-title-page-antique-print-early-19th-century/#:~:text=There were several posthumous printings,Paris circa 1835 to 1839.

There are many factors to consider when trying to determine when your particular print was made. A basic step is to compare the dimensions of the image area, the plate size, and the size of the sheet of paper with other documented examples.

https://www.artic.edu/artworks/64621/view-of-the-arch-of-titus-from-vedute-di-roma-views-of-rome

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/363083

You need to examine the type of paper used - when held to the light, do you see "laid lines", or is the paper smooth and uniform, indicating a wove paper.

Is there any publisher's information printed or notated on the sheet?

In other words, it is not an easy or straightforward task to authenticate.

 

Size is a match. And the plate imprint looks identical with genuine and known examples so that is a good sign.

 

If the size did not match, that would be a useful sign that it is not of the period. But it is not difficult to make a reproduction the same size. Other factors also need to be considered.

The original plates continued to be used up into the 19th century, and would probably have been retouched as they showed wear from repeated use. This type of process results in various "states" of the prints, which specialists can sometimes date. But it requires a close examination by someone intimately familiar with Piranesi's work.

 

Thank you!

The piece will arrive in a couple of days so i'll be sure to take a much closer look then. I am hoping to find inscriptions and signatures hidden under the passpartout but it may well be thats a long shot of course. But it does seem to me that the piece is supposed to be much higher in the "window" there which gives me hope.

And this here (after playing with sharpness and contrast) seem to indicate to me that the sheet is of a certain age at least and not super modern.

And the piece was sold for 400 dollars some forty years ago I have had confirmed which may be another slight indication there is SOMETHING here.

 

It doesn't ring any alarm bells to me. The laid lines should look like this when you shine a bright light behind it. Maybe your print has a water mark too.

 

Thank you Ex Libris! So on current evidence you would say its likely genuine?

If it is genuine I got it extremely cheap. 80 dollars I paid for it.