Featured Is this a photo, lithograph, or some other kind of print?

Hello , this is my first post on these forums. I looked very hard and found it almost impossible to fine another forum dedicated to art. I was lucky to find this one. Wonderful.

So today I did what you read about online and I went to the thrift store and bought a old what I thought was a painting. It turned out to be what I believe is a old chromolithographic art print. Could be wrong on that because the paint is very thick , but ill post more on that later. When I took the nails off the back to remove the piece of wood covering the picture, I found another piece of art directly behind it. It had either been covered up or hidden on purpose. This second picture that I will be talking about in this post is some kind of PRINT of a painting done by who I believe is Bartolomé Esteban Murillo. ( So I would like to first identify if what I have is a Photo, a lithograph, or some other kind of copy. The picture that was in front of this one was made in around 1885. I looked far and wide for this artwork and found no record of it anywhere online. The original picture would have been painted around the mid 1600's. Its obvious that it still existed when it was "Copied" or Photographed or some how made available to reprint. Which leads me to a few dead ends. This could be a print of one of those art pieces that was lost, stolen, or burned during WW2. If that is true, This image has probably not been seen in a very long time and may not even be recorded as existing. Or, it be hanging over some OLD WOMANS stove over in Europe and she has no idea what it is, or it could be in a private collection and nobody knows what it is or who painted it. Whatever the case be on the original, I may have the only remaining copy of it available to be viewed today by the general public, because once you've see this picture, you cant unsee it, and you will know it exist. The print or photo has been layed over another piece of paper like the old Albumen silver print. If that's what this is, and it very well may be, then it could have been a photograph of the original painting pictured around 1858. I see Caldesi & Montecchi were taking pictures of rare art at the time and the general frame and size is very close match to what they were doing.

Without Further ado, I herby show, probably for the first time in a very long time, Mary Magdalen, Painted by Murillo. Look hard and you will see the halo over her head. Any information on this piece would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

Looks like Mary Magdalene. Larry, could you go back, edit your post with Other Choices & make all your pix full size, pretty please.

And I see now it is so labeled. He did a number of versions of the Immaculate Conception based on one by Guido Reni that went to Spain. It was not unusual for artists of the period to do the Magdalene in various versions.

 

Here's my only slightly educated guess - it appears to be a photographic reproduction of a painting - the printing process used (to me) looks perhaps to be aquatint or perhaps some type of photogravure. There are other members here who are better at ID'ing print types than me and will be along

 

Can't see your print well enough to make out printing technique. There may have been one or more engravings made of the original painting, or even of a drawing of the painting, that were copied, reworked, eventually becoming yours. Prints are sometimes reversed in orientation from the painting. This might be the original of yours:

 

Good job on the details, but I can't help much. This is a job for the Graphics Atlas. I don't think it's an intaglio process, despite the plate mark. The perforated edge points to a continuous machine process.

 

It wont let me update the photos I took with the phone. It said 1mb max on the picture. I will gladly share the pictures with you. I can take it back out the picture frame tomorrow during the day and take shots at different angles to show how the color or ink reacts to direct sunlight and give better pictures of the paper so we can determine what it is made out of.

 

We usually advise people to send pix from phone in an e-mail to themselves & select medium as the size when sending & then use those.

Yours is not the painting I suggested. The conventions for depicting Mary M. were so standard, it can be hard to distinguish one from another & one artist from another.

 

Doesn't advance the cause, but, scroll down:

https://www.rubylane.com/item/574925-PP-3622/Carved-Wood-Frame-Mary-Magdalene-Vintage

 

Yep, the good ol' penitent magdalen. Reni did a few of these too, I think I might still have an old oil somewhere, popular subject through the ages.

 

Can't tell you how many I've looked at:

https://cameotimes.com/index.php/profiles-1/religious/mary-magdalen

 

You're lucky Bron, all I ever saw were loads of old master copies of varying vintage, all gazing up to you-know-who (out of frame) - at least you get some variety with cameo gazing!

 

I knew I had one somewhere - it was in the cupboard. This one is 17th or 18thc, pretty typical of the genre. You see at least one at the old master sales ..or at least you used to ...

 

That's interesting. They are calling that one a Sepia Print. That print looks smoother than mine. I bought 4 pieces of art in Syracuse Ny and they very well may have all come from the same original owners collection. There was another religious piece of art I got that was a picture celebrating a child's first communion in 1913. all the pieces were over a hundred years old. The Oil pain I got is signed and dated 1893. Payed 29 dollars for all of them. Ill post pictures of them later. I might have to go back and make sure they didn't put some more out for sell really cheap. Now I have to get a frame for the other print that was put in this frame over Mary Magdalene's print. Its a very well done piece too.

 

That painting was squeezed into the frame that coved up the Magdalen image. That's why its bent and you cant read it. It was not original to the frame. I got that out and the writing on it that is bent says

Little Sweethearts
Academy Edition
Family Herald and Weekly Star Montreal Canada.

I think it is one of these prints.
http://www.artoftheprint.com/artistpages/weekly_star_littlequeenie.htm

and that image was made in 1896 and was in front of Magdalen. I think the Magdalen picture got wet, and the owner decided to re use the Frame and squeezed in the Little Sweethearts print and instead of trashing Magdalen, they just left it in the frame to cover and protect the back of the new print. Just a theory.


Ok, so new photos in the direct sunlight with the print out from behind the glass and frame. I did put paper behind the picture to protect it from further rubbing against the wood backing. Its just layed over the top of the print though so its easy to remove by hand. It has extensive water damage on the reverse. The obverse is much better. I included a picture of one of the tears so you can see the contents or texture of how the paper was made. Some parts may be brittle now. Too scared to bend anything. I have to very carefully lift this out, don't want to extend any of the tears on it or break any off it off. I will leave this out of the frame for now so I don't have to constantly take it out and put it back in. If there is any special spot it needs to be photographed, let me know. Its out of the frame right now, maybe for a few days.

 

10 more photos coming. The last one is a good shot of one of the rips or tares. Hopefully these photos are good enough to show the texture of the paper and the ink used to make this piece. Is this better? I don't know what else to do. Im trying to contact a collector now in my area that specializes in photos and art so I can have him look at it and give his opinion so he can see it in hand. He hasn't gotten back to me yet, Thanks for looking.

 

With new image, Google reverse image got a hit.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Art-Nouv...nt-Pensive-Beauty-Gorgeous-Look-/361240373296

 

Looks like it was a famous image back at the turn of the century. I've noticed SO FAR the 2 examples of the print being shown here Do not know or list who the Original artist was, and they also do not have a manufacturer name for the prints. Also, 1 of the examples doesn't even know that its Magdalen. This leads me to believe that the image was probably extremely popular and WELL KNOWN at the time.

SO I would still like to know what kind of print I have. Then we may better be able to determine if the original piece of art is possibly lost to history.