Original painting or print?

“Painting” with pretty heavy damage available local to me. CF Witman is the artist and his works seem to fetch a nice a price. This one is purported to have been in a family members attic for at least 65 years. Based on the poor photographs I have available so far it looks more like a print than an original to my untrained eye. Can anyone give their opinion? It’s available at good price and it would be worth picking up despite the damage if it were an original.

Edit: There seems to be a lot of reproductions of some of his works. This definitely could be a print and I’m leaning towards that harder. The interesting thing is in the many images of his work online this one is no where to be found. I’m holding out a tiny bit of hope but not much.

 

I can't really 'see' what it's supposed to be .. Joy.

 

I'm also in the "print" camp.

 

Yeh photos are poor. Seller is supposed to send more tomorrow. I guess a few people are after him on this one already though.

 

I do not see any paint texture on the surface. The tear in photo 4 looks like it might show a layer of white paper mounted onto the canvas, which would indicate a print. You need to see it in person, not just photographs. And take a magnifier/loop.

 

Agreed on all counts! Unfortunately it’s an hour away and I work a 12hr day today. I have to make a call based on the photos and tell him I definitely want it or to have one of the other people who want it come get it. I assume the others haven’t realized it’s likely a print. He said he would hold it until I see the photos but no longer. I see no texture anywhere and the signature IMO give the best shot of no texture.

 

Btw what’s up with the paper mounted on canvas seemingly? I assume they couldn’t print directly onto canvas then and that’s why they printed on paper. Why mount it on canvas though? Is that so it gives the illusion of being a real painting on canvas when viewed from the rear? Is it just to stabilize the paper? I assume there were other materials that could do that job of stabilizing if needed. What am I missing here?

 

2many's partner here, a cynic: there's nothing people won't do to make something cheap look like something expensive. I've seen half-tone repros printed on cardboard textured to look like brushstrokes, any variety of fake canvas. In this case, that torn bit looks too much like paper to be anything else. It was easy to print on thin paper & mount on canvas - maps were often mounted on linen, for durability - and one supposes it was sold as a 'deluxe' print, "backed with real canvas!" or just an out-and-out attempt at fakery.

In any case, how much would a repaired original be worth, not to mention the cost of competent repair?

2many says, if the seller represents it as a real painting, get a guarantee you can return it, otherwise, run don't walk away.

 

Agreed agreed agreed. The pictures are definitely crap, but picture #4 screams paper on canvas.

 

Seller has no idea what they are talking about and admits as much. They just found it in an attic in a family home and want to get rid of it. Just someone who doesn’t know better calling something a painting, no outright deceit by the seller. It’s 100% paper that’s not debatable. Having not seen this before I was trying to figure out if the intention was to make it look like something other than what it I was or if it was just a common or accepted practice for some other reason I wasn’t think of. Were it an original painting I feel confident I could have made a worthwhile profit just flipping it “as is”. I wouldn’t put the time and money into having it repaired. I did like the image actually but it’s not one I would have been keeping most likely.

Edit: thanks for the feedback btw!

 

For sure, no doubt about that. My only question was why paper