sea landscape, 19th century?

Do you also think that this is the 20th century, not the 19th century?
And in what the condition of a picture is bad?
Hmm.
Well, I guess that's probably the second half of the 19th century))?Or am I mistaken?

 

Black light - another name for UV (ultraviolet) light

 

Well, maybe in the museum and watched, once they were able to remove the paint of a later time.
The paint of later time remained on the wave near the shore.

Well, it's just strange, if the picture of the 20th century, how could have made a layer of "new" paint in such a short time))? Usually this is the case with older pictures)).

And such restorations are early, that is, they still did it when they did not know how to remove varnish well, for example in the 19th century, or in the first third of the 20th century.That is, perhaps at the beginning of the 20th century the picture was already darkened.
And the more so the image was poorly visible before the restoration.


Well I do not know, it's very strange all this)).
Ultraviolet lamp in my house unfortunately no.

 

For example, we have in Russia many ancient icons (16-17 centuries) which have been entirely rewritten in the 19th century. Then people didn't know how to delete dark varnish therefore rewrote the image on visible outlines.

Have already learned to delete varnish and painting well. Therefore sometimes from under painting of the 19th century icons of 15-18 centuries open.

 

Well, I do not know, it's very strange it's all)). So do you think that this is the 20th century?

 

I am speaking here about wood found in the United States, and it may be quite different where this painting was made. I also do not have experience with oil paintings on wood panels, so it is possible that that is different from my experience with wood panels used on furniture. Also, I am NOT saying that I know for certain how old this is. I am only looking for things that I would want to understand before I would be convinced that it is definitely a 19th century or older painting. I do the exact same thing every time I examine a piece of furniture - I come up with a list of questions that need to be answered.

Your painting is 40 cm tall as shown, which is a bit less than 16 inches. In the US, we still had trees that were wider than 16 inches being used in furniture until the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century. So when I look in a drawer bottom, I expect most 19th century pieces to have single board pieces of wood, (though some late 19th century pieces do not).

But I am pretty sure I see three pieces of wood that are glued together to make your 16" wide panel. Attached is your picture where it looks like the panel was joined (joints are shown with green arrows). According to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panel_painting "A carpenter would construct a solid wood piece the size of the panel needed. Usually a radial cut piece was preferred (across rather than along the length of the tree; the opposite of most timber cuts), with the outer sapwood excluded. In Italy it was usually seasoned poplar, willow or linden. It would be planed and sanded and if needed, joined with other pieces to obtain the desired size and shape."

The wood panel you show is unusual in three ways: 1. it is glued together from three pieces of wood rather than a single piece of wood (even though this should not be needed if early enough to have been painted when wide wood was still available); 2. the wood is not a radial cut - you can see in the woodgrain in your picture (I labelled these areas "Not Radial" in the picture); 3. the bevel on the back of your painting are not uniform, but vary in width (especially the right side), and they look lighter in color than the back.

Number 1. and 2. make me think that this may be late 19th century at the oldest.

Number 3. may be the worst. It could indicate that the wood panel was taken from a drawer bottom (though not an extremely old drawer since joined wood), and trimmed on a table saw to make it the right size. If made by hand, the bevels would be uniform and would not vary like that. Trimming of an old piece of wood would account for the variation in width and the lighter color of the beveled wood, where the bevels are about the same color as the scratches.

 

Yes, it looks like the board consists of three parts.

Although we have a lot of wood in Russia, but often icons of this size also consist of several glued boards (usually two or even three boards, this size from a single board I rarely come across). Icons measuring 31 by 27 centimeters usually consist of one board.

This is for example an icon board of the 18th century, perhaps even the 17th century (The size of this icon is 53.5 by 40 centimeters).


The bevel can be a little lighter for several reasons. Or the picture was in the frame, or the bevel could do a little later than writing the picture)).

Well, there can be many different reasons))

In Russia before the 17th century with a radial cut of the boards was not. Saw only a cross-section. Such a cut, even continued to saw and in the 19 century.

Although, I do not know about Europe how they cut boards))? I need to read articles on this topic. Thank you)).


So what do you think about dating the picture?

Although if this is a European picture, will this board look strange?

 

By the way, the lower bevel may seem lighter slightly because of camera flash))

It seems that they are all the same color))

 

Here is an example of a European painting supposedly of the 17th century))

The board here also consists of three parts))?

 

with 72 posts, I thought I'd look in on this thread...because you guys must be talking about some very fabulous painting........
now I'm wondering what all the fuss is about..?

 

Well, I looked for pictures on the boards of late 17, 19 centuries for the sake of interest on the Internet.


Pictures in size up to 30-38 centimeters usually consist of one board. Paintings the size of my picture, 56 by 40 centimeters, for example, or larger, very rarely consist of a single board. Usually 2 or more boards are glued together.

Well, actually the size of the picture is 16 by 22 inches is obtained?
Perhaps a smooth piece of wood for a picture of this size will be already relatively expensive?

Although the older the picture, the more uniform the relatively large boards are (for example, the 16th century, the first half of the 17th century)

Well, maybe I'm wrong, but if you want, I can put the pictures here)).

 

Well, I'm interested to discuss, sometimes you can find new useful information about the dating of pictures)).


And you do not like the picture))? What do you think about it))?

 

As for the sawing boards and the quality of the boards, I read one study recently about the dating of such paintings.

The boards up to the 17th century really do have good quality and correct sawing.

But from the 18th century canvases replaced boards. Since that time, as they say, they have already stopped monitoring the quality of the boards.

For example, they wrote on boards with longitudinal sawing. In the study of the picture, the longitudinal sawing of the board served as an argument in favor of dating the picture in the 18th century for example, and not in the 17th century, as it was not written on such bad boards in the 17th century). Well in that article I read the research.

http://saratov-room.ru/zhivopis-na-doske-gollandskaya-kartina-xvii-veka-kak-obrazets-22877/

 

Well I do not know, maybe I'm wrong, but as I looked for information, for the 15-17th century such a board as my picture would look strange. For the 19th century such a board (at least for paintings from Europe) is a common occurrence. Many paintings had such boards))

 

For example, an exactly dated picture, 1867, the board (canvas on the blackboard), apparently, is glued together in three parts? The size of the picture is even smaller than mine.

 

I would like it if people who posted questions about paintings would tell us what country the painting was found in. I realize paintings migrate around the world, but sometimes it might be helpful to narrow it down.

 

Yes, we must look.