Here’s a link:
I’m kind of worried because I got it for a very good price (VERY good) - I’m quite comfortable with the authenticity of it, but I’m afraid that the seller may back out.
Eek! I’m so excited! I hope I get it. 
I’ve found references to the original edition, I’m no art expert but it looks like his “dark series” style. Might be closer to 1810-1820 than to 1800, being so dark.
Ever had the chance to visit El Prado? If you do, enter through his door, go all the way down on that floor and come back on the upper floor. The contrast and at the same time evident relationship between the first works you’ll see and the last is amazing.
I’m interested in the phrase “restruck from the original plate”, also “late printing” on the label. I assume this means whoever owns the plate can keep on printing them?
It’s not what we would call an “original” Goya. It’s a reprint. Someone had the plate and made a few more. The seller identifies it as being printed in the first half of the 20th century. Goya died in 1830 I think.
“Late printing” in this instance may mean that, out of this second batch that someone made, this one was towards the back end of that print run. Etching collectors place more value on the first few copies, as the grooves in the copper plate get junked up with ink a little as the print run goes on and some detail can be lost.
This particular piece has a visible acid burn that extends below the embossed border of where the plate was struck. This is repairable - for a price. I have to wonder what caused that though; I suspect maybe this piece was sliced out of a book at some point, and that burn mark is from the tissue that you see placed over etchings in some old books.
In any case you can see clearly that the framing materials are not acid free, so the piece definitely needs to be reframed at once. Might as well try and have it conserved at the same time.
Hehe - right. I bought it for $235 - I know it’s not an “original” Goya.
Yes - however, I’m comfortable with the clarity of this particular peice. I do collect art so I’m aware of the major selling features of etchings/prints, etc. It’s good infromation generally though.
Now this I’m wondering about. Are you refering to the tissue that drops below the current matt? The estate print at the bottom? I don’t see the burn - can you tell me what you’re refering to? (So I can get it fixed!) 
Indeed. I always do this first when I get a new peice. Well, assuming I get it. This particular peice appears to be number 129 - I’ve seen higher run numbers (also from the late printing) being advertised for $900 - the seller may back out having thought he would have got a better price.
Ok, I get it now - I had a conversation with the seller that leads me to believe that he’s not super knowledgeable about it.
It is a stain, and I’ve spoken to the local museum and they’ve agreed to have their conservator look at it. Additionally, I’ve spoken to a paper restorer who has indicated that reparing that sort of damage is totally do-able.
Now I’m just trying to get the seller to agree to fedex it to me, rather than US post.
Have I mentioned that I’m really excited? wOOt! I’ve loved Goya ever since I saw The Third of May.
What’s the difference between that one and this one for $900?
I wonder why it’s called “Le Prisoner”? vs. the French or Spanish word for prisoner.
Isn’t that the $64 question.
Perhaps the desperation of the person selling it. Perhaps the $900 doesn’t have the acid stain that needs repairing. Perhaps (probably) the gallery selling it for $900 has a better idea of value than the fella that’s selling it out of his personal collection.
I’m not sure. He’s including all of the original auction information with it (ie - the information he received at the auction when he bought it) - perhaps he just wants to liquidate some assets and doesn’t much care what he gets.
FWIW, I’m buying it because I love Goya - not because I’m hoping it’s an investment or I’m going to make a brazillion dollars or whatever.
That is really freaking cool, Alice. I’m an art fanatic myself, so I feel your joy.
It’s undoubtedly genuine, and I see no reason you shouldn’t get it delivered.
Etchings are freely available and usually high quality. People don’t beat them up like oils. They are seldom unprotected.
The difference between yours and the $900 one is that yours is admitted as a late, posthumous restrike. The gallery will sell for as much as they can-- they elide the fact that theirs is a late strike (if it is, rather than one actually made in 1820) and also note that they describe it as ‘impressionist’ and a ‘portrait’-- whatever they can do to attract someone.
If it was made in 1820, and was not a posthumous restrike, they would charge a lot more than $900 I think. I’m reasonably confident their product is quite comparable to mine.
When I read the thread title, I thought you had mistakenly purchased a single Goya bean on E-bay.
I feel so stupid… /slinks-off.
This is what I always tell my friends when they’re considering buying a piece but they’re not sure about authenticity: do you like the piece enough to pay that price even if it isn’t an antique or a valuable collectible? If you like the item and it’s within your price range, buy it! Maybe you’ll discover later that it’s a real treasure, or maybe not-- anyway, you’ll still have something cool.
It was created for a French customer (la Gazette des Beaux Arts).
Well, I would never suggest buying art as an investment because the market isn’t reliable enough in that way to make it a viable retirement fund sort of strategy.
However, I would also never suggest that someone buy something they weren’t sure about the authenticity of - that’s just foolish. It’s one thing to buy a piece of art without the expectation of it appreciating in value. It’s something else entirely to pay a premium for a piece of art that’s a fake.
I’m confident about the authenticity of this piece - I’m just not totally confident about the condition - it could be improperly mounted, the staining could be worse than it looks in the picture, etc. etc., but I have no doubt that it’s a strike from the original plate.
I’m not talking about high-end pieces which cost thousands of dollars. I’m talking about that painting that you see at an antique store marked for fifty dollars, or an antique-looking toy which would look really neat sitting on your shelf. In both of these cases, if you like the look of the item and you’d pay fifty dollars to have an item like that whether or not it might turn out to be worth more, I say “buy it.”
As a case in point, I recently bought a fake antique mantle clock. I knew it was a fake as soon as I opened the case, but it was pretty neat-looking and I figured it was well worth the forty dollars just because of its appearance.
With all due respect, how can you know for sure without seeing it in person? Wouldn’t you actually have to look at the paper and/or watermarks?
I am not challenging you-- I’m genuinely curious. (I haven’t worked much with the archives at the museum when it comes to authenticating.) I mean, it* looks* an awful lot like the ones we have in our collection, but how can you know without examining it closely?
Uh, I’m not basing my assumption on looking at the paper/watermarks. I basing it on the auction information that the seller is including with the piece.
Further, faking this kind of item would be sort of stupid. For one thing, you’d need to recreate the plate and then run 500 or 1,000 prints off it in order have it suitably worn down. The initial set up would make this kind of unattractive as a way to fake items to make a quick buck. Particularly since the selling price of this sort of item is so low, and because this particular series of Goya’s is less popular than many others.
In any case, I suppose it could arrive and I’ll have the conservator look at it and it will have been made in some dude’s basement and I’ll have egg on my face, but I doubt it.
Sure, I understand that, but I’ve seen instances in which such documentation was faked or done by people who weren’t professionals.
I’m not suggesting that the seller is the one who faked it (if it actually is a fake), but that he could have been duped into buying a fake piece.
Not too long ago, a man brought us a newspaper he wanted to donate. He’d bought it from an antique dealer about ten years ago. It was a very nice piece-- a seemingly authentic newspaper chronicalling an important event during the Revolution (I can’t remember which). It was professionally mounted in a frame and he had papers from the dealer and an appraisal done in the 1970s.
It took me less than 15 minutes of research to discover that it was a fake*. The reproducer had made a mistake on the front page-- a letter out of place or somesuch.
Apparently, hundreds of these things were made (the exact year is unclear) and done very well. It’s unknown if they were orginally sold as reproductions or if they were an attempt at forgery, but a lot of people have bought them thinking that they were getting something really special.
Nah-- no matter what you find out, you’ve got something pretty cool.
*I’ve often wondered why the owner, who was very proud of his aquisition and had a lot of articles about how special this newspaper was (supposedly it was one of only a handful of authentic copies known to exist) but had never noticed a very obvious sign of fakery. I’ve decided he just didn’t want to know.