Is anyone familiar with Charles Cobelle - found a watercolor

Or at least it looks to me to be an original watercolor. i took it out of the frame /glass for a few pics. Trying to determine if it looks like an authentic Cobelle, and also that it's definitely an original vs a print(fairly sure that's the case). Including a picture of the back of the paper - looks hand cut.

~

 

He did a lot of scenes of life in Paris, should be able to find a good bit on him on the net.

 

Indeed, I've been reading up on him. From what I can see of examples of his watercolors/gauches online - the one I have seems to be fairly consistent.

See:

http://www.invaluable.com/auction-l...ench-1902-1998-watercolor-an-124-c-27d0a4024b

That one is fairly similar to mine. Again - I'm just someone that has no idea what I'm doing So looking for second or third or fourth opinions

 

Are you able to see any of the edges of the artwork without the matt around it? I understand it's likely sealed around the back, but if there are any gaps to look at the edges of the artwork to see if there are any brush strokes coming out the sides, vs what the edge of a print looks like. That's usually a good way to tell a print vs a painting.

 

It may not be impossible to tell whether it is a reproduction lithographic print (photomechanical type) vs watercolour or whether it is digital repro print vs watercolour..
The huge difficulty is to tell whether it is hand made lithography(so called original lithography) vs watercolour..in this latter case u need extra steps as they are literally identical ..some suggest to scrap a tiny bit at the edge using cotton swabs dipped in water to see if a paint goes off etc..but I am not sure there could be other better methods
TTA

 

It's difficult to tell from photographs since water color is so generally lacking in 3 dimensionality. If the things like white lines were added in gouache, you mmight see some texturing.

I had a couple of Cobelle from the F.A.R. Gallery in New York. They were clearly marked as prints, but it would be an easy thing to trim off those marks, and the pictures didn't show ant tell-tale dot matrix. The sheet size was about 15" by 12", the actual image size was about 10" by 8 1/2", which may have been a telling features on their own.









One of the prints was numbered 7, and the other numbered 8, which suggests they came from a portfolio of at least 8 prints.

 

Thank you for the pics and the information - really appreciate it. I'm not seeing any texture (under 10x mag) really on the white lines on mine - so I don't think they are gauche but, again, I have no real expertise here. The visible part of the image on mine is about 10" x 13". I'll probably have to take this to a shop to have them check it out as I'd probably damage it if I tried to remove it from the mat to look at the edges.

 

If it's professionaly matted then the tape does not go all the way around and lifting a corner should be possible..

 

aaroncab...if you want you can check a book by David Cycleback.He has made the pdf available for free . Check in the following website and go to the link entitled "Antique and art prints" to get the pdf for free. It helped me a lot in the field.Hope it helps.
http://www.cycleback.com/
TTA

 

Thank you so much - starting to read it now