2008 - Additions and Comment

September - New Exhibition in Germany

2008-08-29T16:33:00.000-07:00

Tansey Collection

One of the greatest private collections of miniature portraits in the world is the Tansey Collection at the Bomann Museum, Schlossplatz 7, D 29221 Celle, Germany.

Several excellent catalogues written by Bernd Pappe and Juliane Schmieglitz-Otten, with photographs by Birgitt Schmedding to support this and previous exhibitions have been published.

The earlier catalogues illustrate many of the miniatures in the Tansey collection and are listed in my Bibliography.

The link to the main Tansey Collection is at www.miniaturen-tansey.de where, at the top right of the Tansey home page, there is an option for an English version.

Now, a new exhibition is opening in September 2008, see Miniaturen des Rokoko

The Exhibtion introduction reads as follows:

"Starting at the Bomann Museum from 7 September, 2008 is an exhibition titled "Rococo Miniatures from the Tansey Collection".

Rococo miniatures are an extremely fascinating art. The exhibition presents European-wide examples from probably the most important private miniature collection and includes 177 works from the Tansey Collection.
The Rococo period was an elegant time in which beauty and delicacy were to the fore. The individual miniatures show representations of beautiful ideals, as well as depicting precious dresses and theatrical scenes. Some portraits contain a hidden message for the viewer.

The sitters in the miniatures, some coquettish and some flirtatious, are revealed with techniques of masks and veils. Ladies reveal themselves in the midst of of material or dreamed of luxury, or else flee to an imaginary world in which they disguise themselves as shepherdesses, musicians, or as goddesses.

Some of the sitters represent members of royal families. Thus is there is a fascinating panorama of people, who were affected in greater or lesser ways by the late 18C history of Europe. In the miniatures, the Rococo period becomes alive. It is on the one hand the world in which the sitters actually lived, on the other hand however - and primarily - an ideal world, which corresponded to their concepts of desire. The period was painted by the artists with a sense for form which is not to be found in later times.

Now visitors are invited to cast their eyes over these delightful masterpieces."

Thus anyone who is interested in miniature portraits and likely to be in Germany after 7 September should try and get to see the exhibition.

August- Fakes, condition issues, and the market place

2008-08-12T16:01:00.000-07:00

Fakes and decorative miniatures
I continue to get emails from visitors asking about decorative miniatures and thought it might be helpful to bring three key links on the subject from this website together for easy reference.

Thus follow these link for more information:-
Copy, Fake, and Decorative Miniatures
April - Fakes and decorative miniatures
July Mailbag - Researching sitters and decorative miniatures

Fakes continue to be offered on eBay and shown here are a pair of miniatures which look to be quite dangerous fakes. See eBay item Antique Art Lemuel Arnold Nellie Custis by P. Hodgkins

In bold type, the seller claims "you are bidding on a pair of lovely vintage watercolors that were painted by Patty Hodgkins (1801-1900)".

But in the "small print" there is the comment "Date of Creation: 1900-1949", which is after the death date of 1900 given for Patty Hogkins, so the seller has protected themself.

However buyers need to be careful as there is quite an old Maine Antique Digest article from 1997 by Rob Hoffman on the Internet, which is still relevant and discusses the origin and history of these "Borghese" fakes, see Borghese Watercolors Not Antique: Maine Antique Digest (Jan '97)

In the article, Rob Hoffman mentions the following characteristics of the fakes:

"Borghese's folk art watercolors are intriguing in their charm and somewhat-credible flavor but are otherwise relatively easy to identify. Based on examination of several specimens, here are the salient features:

1. Borghese watercolors were painted on a thin matte board, smooth on the front and dimpled on the back. This material shouldn't be mistaken for an antique substance but ought to be examined from the back to be positively identified.

2. The appearance of age was faked in some cases by the use of a light amber wash on the background area of the composition. This produced a mottled and cloud-like appearance that is inconsistent with authentic aging.

3. The choice of colors was usually a little bit wacky. For instance, in the pictured example the woman's dress is rendered with a shade of purple that I've never seen on an authentic antique.

4. Borghese's original frames were modern but antiqued gold-leaf over simple gesso wood moldings."

As Rob also comments: "So, our final advice has an old familiar ring. Always insist on getting a written guarantee on all purchases. If you're buying at auction, read the conditions of sale carefully."

Condition problems with miniature portraits
Another recent question was about condition problems with miniatures. I commented on this last year, but as the reference may be hard to find, here is the link
October 2007 - Miniatures, Condition, and Damage

I tend to think miniature portraits are often unfairly penalised for minor condition problems. Furniture items of similar periods usually have many obvious marks of age and handling, called patina, which "Antiques Roadshow" experts, like to see as evidence of the genuine age of the piece.

The Market Place

Due to the summer break, there have been few items of American miniature portrait interest sold at auction in the past month or so.

They included, what I think is an opalotype on glass, probably by John Henry Brown which seemed very cheap at $68.

Brown apparently signed all his miniature portraits on ivory, but rarely signed his opalotypes which were developed on milk glass and then hand colored.

However, Neal's Auctions had several American items with more interesting prices.

Several of the lots they offered at their live auction are shown here.

Perhaps the best buy was a miniature of an old lady in a white bonnet titled, "Portrait of Catherine Worthington Fowler, wife of Reuben Rose Fowler" by the Canadian artist, Lily V Ryan (nee Klein) who was active around 1900, which sold for a hammer price of $275, compared to a $400-$600 estimate.

Then in a single lot were two miniature engravings described as; "Attributed to Charles Balthazar Julien Fevret de Saint-Memin (French), two physionotraces portraits of "John August Chevallie (1765-1878)" and "A Gentleman".

These had a hammer price of $1600 compared to an estimate of $400-$600.

Neals Auctions also sold two pairs of portraits.

The first pair were of named children in inscribed cases, with one portrait by John Ramsier (American, Kentucky, 1861-1936) and one by T.H. Harrison (American, late 19c/early 20C) which hammered at $1650 compared to an estimate of $1000-$1500.

The second pair of two girls also by John Ramsier sold for $700, compared to an estimate of $600-$900.

The other miniature portrait sale of interest, was by Heritage Auctions.

Their hammer price was $11500 for a miniature portrait identified as; "Lieutenant Arthur Sinclair, U. S. Navy, Born Feb. 29th 1777, Died Feb. 29, 1831, as Commodore", and which had a pre sale estimate of $12,000-$15,000.

The description also observed; "It is interesting to note that Sinclair was the great grandfather of the American novelist Upton Sinclair and sired three sons who all served in the United States Navy but resigned their commissions in 1861 to serve in the Confederate States navy".

August - American additions to the collection

2008-08-05T20:17:00.000-07:00

During August several American miniature portraits were acquired for the collection. They include two miniatures by important New York artists of the early 19C, Joseph Wood and Nathaniel Rogers, which join other works by these artists already in the collection. There is also one portrait from around 1820-1825 by an unknown artist.

More research is required on these miniatures and the other items acquired with them, but the (regrettably slow) progress can be seen at Draft - Comstock, Stout, and etc portraits

There is also a miniature by William John Thomson, who is often regarded as American as he was born in Savannah, GA although he worked for most of his life in Britain, see Thomson, William John - portrait of Charlotte Knox Trotter

Additionally, there are two miniatures from the early 20C, one being by Anna Margaretta Archambault (12 Feb 1857-1956) a prominent artist who painted miniatures for many of her 99 year life, but whose works do not often appear on the market. The other 20C miniature is by an unknown artist.

Joseph Wood
After much reflection both this miniature by Joseph Wood (1778-1830) and another one below by Nathaniel Rogers, have both been determined as being portraits of Eleutheros Dana Comstock.

Eleutheros settled in NYC around 1810, which fits with Joseph Wood who established himself as a miniature painter in New York in 1801. Wood was in partnership with John Wesley Jarvis from 1803, when Edward Greene Malbone visited their studio and instructed them both in various aspects of miniature painting. The Malbone influence means that sometimes, Wood's work is mistaken for that of Malbone.

The Wood/Jarvis partnership broke up in 1809 and in 1811, Wood took on Nathaniel Rogers as an apprentice. Wood then left NYC for Philadelphia in 1813.

Given the apparent age of Eleutheros Dana Comstock in the miniature, at around age 20, it would seem that the miniature was a later work by Wood and painted around 1810-1813 before he left NYC.

Johnson comments on Wood's work of this period; "In Wood's mature work the backgrounds, like Malbone's are light and shaded by dark hatches or painted to resemble sky. However, Wood's portraits are more strongly defined than Malbone's, showing stronger contrasts and deeper shadows, with dark outlines around the eyes. Gum arabic is used liberally.... The hair is brilliantly and airily rendered, often in the coup de vent style popular at the time. Heads are usually smaller than Malbone, and the subject is often placed off centre or low on the ivory. Like Malbone's, Wood's subjects are self-assured; their presentations, however, are more varied and offer fuller characterisations."

Another point points to a date of around 1810/1813 for this miniature is the red leather case, which appears to be original, but is really still too large for the miniature and has a fitted brass bezel.

In 1812 the United States declared war on Britain after a period of crippling trade embargoes, and hence it would have been difficult to import oval gold and glass backed cases imported from Britain and which were often used before 1812.

Thus the few artists active at this time, would have had to make up cases of lower standards than would previously have been acceptable to their clients. It was not until after the end of the war, and closer to 1820 that European cases were more readily available.

As mentioned elsewhere, see Case study - The Embargo Act of 1807 and 19C miniature portrait cases it is probable that the difficulty of obtaining European cases between 1808 and 1815, led to the more or less complete divergence of American and British case styles after 1805.

The United States persisting with oval miniatures for a much longer period and developing a distinctly locally made style with carved, foliate borders.

Within this Artists and Ancestors collection, there are three other miniatures which have been tentatively attributed to Joseph Wood, although experts on the subject may disagree with some of them.

The miniature of an unknown lady shown here is in a case of poor quality, which suggests it dates from around 1810-1813. For more details, see Wood, Joseph - portrait of a lady

The miniature of the man in a wig and a blue coat, if there is agreement to an attribution to Wood, would seem to be an earlier work by Wood, as the proportions and tones are more similar to the 1805 miniature of James Stuart, fig 275 in the Manney Collection. See also Wood, Joseph - portrait of a man and Wood, Joseph - portrait of a man

That of the lady in the white dress and the other man, have proportions which are similar to that of the Comstock miniature by Wood and thus seem likely to be miniatures by Wood dating from around 1810. They seem to also fit within Johnson's comments on the mature style of Joseph Wood.

Eleutheros Dana Comstock by Nathaniel Rogers

Attaching to the reverse of this miniature is a note reading; "Stephen Comstock, brother of Julia Comstock Conger".

However, initially at least, there was more confidence about the artist than the sitter, as the name appears to disagree with other records showing the name of Julia's brother.

The sitter is instead believed to be Eleutheros Dana Comstock whose photograph has been repeated here.

Although unsigned, the artist is clearly Nathaniel Rogers (1787-1844) who as mentioned above, was taken on as an apprentice by Joseph Wood in 1811, shortly before Wood left New York for Philadelphia in 1813.

Rogers quickly became prominent in New York and painted many of the well known and fashionable people of his day. His style is quite distinctive, although there were subtle changes in his approach over the years.

Johnson comments; "Unlike Wood, Rogers employed a palette of clear, lively color. His work of around 1815 was already delicate and sophisticated. The subjects of his highly individualised portraits are presented in a direct and appealing manner."

Inclusive of this latest addition, there are now five miniature portraits by Nathaniel Rogers in this collection. The other miniatures are shown here to enable a comparison of his style.

From the clothing, hairstyles, and casework, it ought to be possible to rank them in approximate date order, but that has not been attempted. However, the rectangular portrait will be the most recent.

As all the sitters have white neckwear, it is taken as a sign they are among the earlier works by Rogers. Until about 1825, Rogers favoured an oval shape, but after that he usually painted in a rectangular format.

Unknown
Another Comstock miniature of a young man is well painted in somewhat of a primitive style by an unknown artist.

It dates from around 1820-1825. The casework is a finely crafted example of the very best type of American case which appeared after about 1820.

Sadly, there seems to be no available information about the early 19C case-makers who developed this style, but they were very talented metal workers.

The gold chain looped through the bale would have been worn around the neck and so shows how miniatures such as this were worn.

The wearing of miniatures continued much longer in America, than in Britain, where there was a move to rectangular "cabinet miniatures", to be displayed in, or on, cabinets by around 1820.

Anna Margaretta Archambault and an unknown artist.
The first miniature portrait is in a carved ivory frame, and is of Adaline H Wignall (sometimes Adeline Wignall) (15 Apr 1828-27 May 1873), mother of Charles F Wignall (28 Dec 1856->1910) and the first wife of James Charles Wignall (12 Dec 1829-14 Jun 1900) who she had married in Philadelphia on 13 May 1855.

The miniature is dated 1912 and was painted by Anna Margaretta Archambault (12 Feb 1857-1956), (aka A. Margaretta Archambault) a well known miniature portrait painter in the revival period.

Anna Archambault was the 1908 founder of the Philadelphia School of Miniature Painting and was also secretary of the Pennsylvania Society of Miniature Painters.

Anna Archambault was awarded the Miniature Painters Medal of Honor in 1922 and the Emily Drayton Taylor Gold Medal in 1939. She exhibited for many years at the annual PAFA exhibitions, even as late as 1945.

For more about the miniature, see Archambault, Anna M - portrait of Adaline Hall Wignall

The second 20C miniature also dates to around 1912, but unfortunately neither the artist, nor the sitter are known.

However, it does give a good idea of the fashions of that period and also the very great wealth that was being amassed by some sections of the American population by the end of the 19C.

For more about it see Unknown - portrait of a lady with feathers

Case study - The Embargo Act of 1807 and 19C miniature portrait cases

2008-08-02T16:19:00.000-07:00

A Case Study of a Case Study
Please forgive the pun, but I could not resist it! The 1807 Embargo Act probably sounds an unlikely topic for a study or discussion about miniature portrait cases, but it is hoped the following essay will demonstrate the connection.

Readers might like to imagine themselves as an American importer of miniature portrait cases and other luxuries from Britain, and consider how they might have reacted to the events of 1806-1815.

Early Cases
John Ramage is one early American miniature painter recorded as having imported cases from Britain to house the miniature portraits he painted. An example of a case he imported in the late 18C appears here.

Other miniature painters such as Walter Robertson, entering the United States in the late 18C and first years of the 19C would have brought ivory blanks, paints, glasses, and cases with them. There were also some local case-makers, who had brought their case making skills with them to America, but probably needed some imported components, such as glasses.

Between 1780 and 1805, some cases used in America are so similar to those used in Britain, to indicate there must have been many cases imported from Britain by wholesale art suppliers. However, from around 1806 there is a much greater divergence of case styles between America and Britain and it is interesting to speculate on the reasons for this.

The Trade Wars
It seems the "trade wars" of the early 19C were the prime cause.

The stakes in the trade wars were substantially raised on 21 November 1806 when Napoleon issued the Berlin Decree banning British vessels from "Fortress Europe".

In retaliation for this British ships maintained a blockade of all European ports controlled by the French.

American merchant ships were caught in the middle of this when Britain used the blockade to prevent supplies from reaching Napoleon.

The effect was that American merchants,who as neutrals had for years effectively been assisting Napoleon by carrying out a lucrativecarrying trade between French colonies and France itself, nowfound themselves in a position whereby if they continued totry to do so, then no matter what they did they would be seizedby either the British or the French.

As a result, the French seized around 500 American ships and crews, and the British seized around 1000 American ships and crews.

The Non-Importation Act
However, even seven months before the Berlin Decree, the Non-Importation Act, had been passed by the United States Congress on April 18, 1806.

This act forbade the importation of certain British goods in an attempt to coerce Great Britain to suspend its impressment of American sailors and to safeguard American sovereignty and neutrality on the high seas.

This was the first attempt of President Thomas Jefferson's administration to respond economically, instead of militarily, to the British actions.

The background was that non-importation agreements had been believed to have been beneficial in the struggle of the colonies with England at the time of the Revolution.

It seemed to Jefferson that it was not unreasonable to suppose that a well-sustained refusal to traffic in English goods, would put a stop to the expected damage from a the ruling by British admiralty courts. This ruing threatened to cut off the lucrative American trading involvement in commerce between Europe and the West Indies.

President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison, leaders of the Democratic-Republican party, pushed for the measure despite objections from the Federalist Party.

With the Non-Importation Act as his weapon, the Jefferson was therefore confident that he could force a settlement of all outstanding differences with Britain. The American commissioners sent to Britain were instructed to insist upon three demands in the proposed treaty:
1. Restoration of trade with enemies' colonies.
2. Indemnity for captures made since the Essex decision.
3. Express repudiation of the right of impressment.

In return for these concessions, the commissioners might hold out the possible repeal of the Non-Importation Act! However, only confirmed optimists could believe that the mistress of the seas, flushed with the 1805 victory of Trafalgar, would consent to yield these points for so slight a compensation.

From the British point of View, what was at stake was nothing less than the commercial supremacy of Great Britain. The astounding growth of Napoleon's empire was a standing menace to British trade.

The overthrow of Prussia in the fall of 1806 left Napoleon in control of Central Europe and in a position to invade England. In November 1806, a fortnight after the battle of Jena, Napoleon entered Berlin and there issued the famous decree which was his answer to the British blockade of the French channel ports.

Accordingly, the British Government was prepared to ignore the United States and deal Napoleon blow for blow. An order-in-council of January 7, 1807, asserted the right of retaliation and declared that; "No vessel shall be permitted to trade from one port to another, both which ports shall belong to, or be in possession of France or her allies."

Thus under those circumstances Britain was unwilling to agree to any proposal whereby American ships could continue to assist Napoleon by transporting his supplies.

(The attempts to preserve American neutrality at this time, seem to have interesting parallels with similar attempts in pre-1917 World War I and in pre-1941 World War II. It is therefore interesting to speculate what might have happened to the United States and its place in World History, if Napoleon had not been defeated at Waterloo in 1815.)

The Embargo Act
The Non-Importation Act was then suspended, but quickly replaced when the US Congress passed the Embargo Act of 1807, which imposed more trade restrictions with Britain, as well as with France.

Unlike the previous Non-Importation Act, this new Embargo Act was aimed at American shippers and their vessels. While the intentions of the act may have been noble, in reality, the Embargo Act of 1807 meant to hurt the British and the French ended in failure.

The cartoon shows trade represented as a snake caught between the two laws, saying; "What's the matter tail? - I can't get out".

The new law required, among other things, that:
1. American vessels were prohibited from landing in any foreign port unless specifically authorized by the president himself, who, at the time, was Jefferson.
2. Trading vessels were now required to post a bond of guarantee equal to the value of both the ship and its cargo, in order to insure compliance with the law.

Jefferson's Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin was against the entire notion, foreseeing (correctly, as it turned out) the nightmare of trying to enforce such a policy, not to mention the public's reaction.

The worst feature of the experiment was its ineffectiveness, which was also recognised in Britain.

When the American Pinkney approached Canning with the proposal of a quid pro quo — the United States to rescind the embargo, if England were to revoke her orders-in-council — he was told with biting sarcasm by Canning that;
"If it were possible to make any sacrifice for the repeal of the embargo without appearing to deprecate it as a measure of hostility, he would gladly have facilitated its removal as a measure of inconvenient restriction upon the American people."

For more background, see Grizzard: Construction of UVA: 1996: Jefferson and His Colleagues ...

The Economic Impact
Jefferson's attempt at "peaceful coercion" resulted in economic disaster for American merchants. Northern shipping interests declared the act disastrous, and southern planters suffered substantial losses. Previously, such citizens were valued clients for miniature painters, but do doubt having miniatures painted seemed unimportant in the face of such crippling losses.

As an indication of the impact of the Act, it is estimated in "Dictionary of American History", by By Michael Martin, Leonard Gelber, Leo Lieberman, on page 200, that United States exports fell from $108,000,000 in 1807, to $22,000,000 in 1808, while imports declined from $138,000,000 to $57,000,000 in the same period.

The authors also estimated that during the embargo 55,000 sailors and 100,000 laborers were thown out of work in the United States. Customs revenues fell from $16m to virtually nothing.

Merchants, sea captains, and sailors were also dismayed to find themselves without income and to see their ships rotting at the wharves.

It is hard to read the speech bubbles of this Cruikshank cartoon of 1808, but three speech bubbles appear to read; "My family is starving", "My warehouses are full", and "The goods are spoiling". (Double click on the image to see it better.)

Napoleon is hiding behind the chair and his speech bubble says to Jefferson; "You shall be King hereafter".

Part of Jefferson's bubble comments re the English; "...if we continue the Experiment for fifteen or twenty years, we may begin them to feel the good effects..."

The cartoon is titled; "The Happy Effects of that Grand System of Shutting Ports Against the English!!"

The voting on the Embargo was far from unanimous, and this map shows how the various states voted.

On January 8, 1808, within weeks of the first embargo act being law, a second one was passed. The prohibition was extended to inland waters and land commerce to halt the skyrocketing trade with Canada which had been seen as a way to avoid the embargo.

A loophole had been discovered in the first act, namely that coasting vessels, and fishing and whaling boats had not been required to post bonds guaranteeing that they would not sail for foreign ports.

The new embargo act now required that all U.S. ships post a bond of twice the value of the ship and cargo. Failure to do so would:
1. Lead to the forfeiture of said ship and cargo
2. Result in "permanent and absolute" refusal in permission to use credit in regard to custom duties
3. Render the oath of the ship's owner and/or captain inadmissible before any customs officer.

With their harbors for the most part unusable in the winter anyway, New England and the north ports of the mid-Atlantic states, paid little notice to the earlier embargo acts.

That was to change with the spring, and the passing of yet another embargo act.

While protests up and down the American seaboard sprang to life, merchants and shippers simply ignored the laws. On the Canadian border, especially in the area of upstate New York and Vermont, the embargo laws were openly flouted, but things began to bite in 1808.

With the coming of the spring thaw in 1808, the effects of the previous acts were immediately felt throughout the coastal states; none more so than in New England with economic downturn devolving into a depression, and with spiralling unemployment.

These graphs from "War and welfare: Britain, France, and the United States 1807–14" a paper by Kevin H. O’Rourke, OUP 2007, show that the United States was far more adversely impacted by the trade embargoes, than were Britain or France. Britain was little affected, but even Napoleon found that he lost more than he gained from his Berlin Decree of 1806. (The graphs also show the later even greater adverse impact of "Mr Madison's War" of 1812-1814 on American trade.)

The Continuing Saga
By March 1808, an increasingly frustrated Jefferson was resolved to enforce the embargo to the letter. Thus on March 12, 1808, Congress passed, and Jefferson signed into law, still another embargo act. This one:

1. Prohibited, for the first time, the export of any goods, either by land or by sea.
2. Subjected violators to a fine of $10,000, plus forfeiture of goods, for each offense.
3. Granted the President broad discretionary authority to enforce, deny, or grant exceptions to the embargo.
4. Authorized port authorities to seize cargoes without a warrant, and/or to bring to trial any shipper or merchant who was thought to have merely contemplated violating the embargo.

Still the embargo was ignored, violated, and flouted; still the protests continued and continued to grow; and so it was that the Jefferson administration requested and Congress rendered yet another embargo act. On April 25, 1808, Congress passed a proposal that once the wars of Europe were over and the President declared the country sufficiently safe, he would have the power to revoke the act. On March 1, 1809, Jefferson did just that.

However, that was not the end of the matter. The Embargo Act was repealed three days before Jefferson left office, being replaced by the Non-Intercourse Act on March 1, 1809, which lifted all embargoes except for those on Britain and France.

The Non-Intercourse Act also required the forfeiting of British and French ships; "And if any ship or vessel sailing under the flag of Great Britain or France, ... shall arrive either with or without a cargo, within the limits of the United States or of the territories thereof, such ship or vessel, together with the cargo, if any, which may be found on board, shall be forfeited, and may he seized and condemned in any court of the United States or the territories thereof, having competent jurisdiction.

The move was very unpopular and showing here is a memorial from the citizens of the state of Delaware to the U.S. Congress dated February 2, 1809. It expresses their opposition to the embargo act of 1807 banning trade with Britain and France, and requests that it be repealed.

The Non-Intercourse Act was just as ineffective as the Embargo Act itself and was replaced again the following year with Macon's Bill Number 2, lifting the remaining embargoes.

The Macon Bill stated that if either Britain or France agreed to observe the neutrality of the United States, the US would resume trading with that country and continue the embargo on the other.

The French soon agreed to American demands. However, their agreement was more of desperation, as the French Navy had been crushed by Nelson at the 1805 Battle of Trafalgar and the French were no longer a dominant naval force in the Atlantic.

The entire series of American trade embargo laws was ridiculed in the press as Dambargo, Mob-Rage, Go-bar-'em or O-grab-me (embargo spelled backward).

There was even this cartoon ridiculing the Act as a snapping turtle, dubbed Ograbme, grabbing at American shipping.

In Rhode Island, as an example, the embargo devastated shipping-related industries, wrecked existing markets, and caused an increase in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party.

Smuggling was widely endorsed by the public, which viewed the embargo as a violation of their rights. Public outcry continued, helping the Federalists regain control of the state government in 1808-09.

Impact on Seamen and Others
During all this the British retaliated to the embargo by continuing to seize American ships, to prevent them supplying Napoleon. Between 1803-1812 British captains pressed over 10,000 American citizens to man the now British owned ships.

However, with the benefit of hindsight, it seems probable that many of the American crews so affected were not too concerned about what flag flew at the masthead and readily accepted the change of owner. At least they still had paid work, unlike their 55,000 compatriot American seamen put out of work by Jefferson and the embargo. In fact many crews probably welcomed the prospect of continuing employment under a British flag, rather than returning to an American port and the ship being laid up for lack of cargoes.

Obviously, the erstwhile American ship owners who lobbied the "War Hawks" would have had a different perspective and the owners influence later prevailed with the 1812 declaration of war on Britain.

Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits.

It drove capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British.

Also, iron furnaces sprang up immediately in Western Pennsylvania to supply the needs of the pioneers and cash-in on the high prices one could charge for this metal product.

"Mr Madison's War"
However, the political backlash of the embargoes led to the "War Hawks" being elected to the 1810 Congress.

The "War Hawks", including Henry Clay and John C Calhoun, increased pressure on President Madison.

It was said at his inauguration, James Madison, a small, wizened man, appeared old and worn.

The "War Hawks" pressure on him was to such an extent that on June 1, 1812 Madison asked Congress for a declaration of war.

It was quickly passed despite the Federalist's opposition, and on June 18, 1812 Congress declared "Mr. Madison's War" on Britain.

The outbreak of war brought forth cartoons vilifying the British such as this cartoon titled; "A Scene on the Frontiers as practised by the Humane British and their Worthy Allies".

There were victories for both sides as shown in this cartoon of 1813 titled; "A boxing match, or another bloody nose for John Bull".

There had been an expectation that Britain would quickly capitulate, as it was still at war with Napoleon and it was expected it would not want to fight major wars on two fronts.

However this was not the case and Washington was burned in 1814.

The parties then sought peace, which was agreed at the Treat of Ghent on December 24, 1814. Napoleon was later defeated by the British in June 1815, world peace returned, and from mid 1815 trade could return to normal.

The effect of all this was that, despite much smuggling, trade between the United States on one side of the Atlantic and Britain/France on the other side of the Atlantic had been severely disrupted for the ten years 1806-1815.

Miniature Portrait Cases
No doubt the goods which were successfully smuggled during the ten years between 1806-1815 were items such as liquor and luxuries, but it seems doubtful that components for miniature portrait cases were very high on the list!

Especially when so many shipowners, merchants, and plantation owners, often the customers for miniature painters, were facing severe financial losses from the embargo and the resultant economic depression.

Although it is hard to be positive of the exact year that undated miniatures were painted, in the United States there do seem to be noticeably fewer examples of miniatures painted between 1806 and 1815, no doubt reflecting the prevailing economic conditions.

By around 1815, in Britain the fashion for wearing oval miniature portraits had largely declined and there had been a move to rectangular cabinet miniatures houses in folding red leather cases, with a hinged lid. Thus in Britain there were few oval miniatures after this period and those that were made tended not to have hair-work on the reverse.

In the United States, there was a little more delayed move towards rectangular cabinet miniatures in red leather cases, but still a demand for oval miniatures.

Hence as a result of the trade embargoes, from around 1805 onwards there are indications of a separate American style of case developing, with British oval case types rarely being used in America after that date.

The image here shows the rear of two American miniatures and two British miniatures from around 1805-1810. The British ones are more ornate and have blue Bristol glass inserts, whereas the American ones are simpler with small clear glass inserts on the rear.

Also showing is the front view of the American cases. It is a little hard to see in the images, but both miniatures are held in place by beaded bezels which surround the front glass.

Unlike British miniatures of around 1800, which had a large glass on the rear, the American cases from around 1805 normally have a small rear glass, set into a solid metal background.

They also tend to open from the front, by easing out the bezel, whereas British cases tend to open from the rear, or be held together with tiny pins through the sides.

This is not to say there is a 100% clear division between the two styles, but a general tendency for the styles to part company from around 1805.

Impact on Artists
In an article by Marcia Goldberg, titled "Textured Panels in 19C American Painting" she commented: "At first an engraver and painter of miniatures, John Wesley Jarvis began concentrating on portrait painting around 1804. His response to fluctuations in foreign trade would seem to be more direct than Waldo's, as wood panels are prevalent in his works from 1809 to 1815 but are rare after the war."

Also: "Certainly, artists were affected by the country's financial health. Thomas Sully (1783–1872), commenting on the few entries he had made in his register of paintings (unpublished; in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania) for the year 1807, blamed the embargo for dampening expectations in New York. He returned to Philadelphia and offered to do 30 portraits at reduced prices. William Dunlap (1766–1839) reported in his diary that John Wesley Jarvis was advertising in late 1819 his “lower-priced wares to make an appeal to shrunken pocketbooks” (Dunlap 1965). About the same time, Samuel F. B. Morse (1791–1872) in Charleston, South Carolina, was reducing his fees and his standard of living."

And "Use of wood supports by these artists might be related to the country's economic cycles as well as to fluctuations in foreign trade. There was a depression in 1808–09 while the embargo was in effect. A major economic downturn occurred after the war in 1815–21, overlapping the banking crisis and business failures of 1819–22. Various tariffs of the 1820s may have indirectly affected the importation of canvas. Another major depression covered the years 1837–43." See JAIC 1993, Volume 32, Number 1, Article 4 (pp. 33 to 42)

These artists were all miniature painters and the lack of of ivory for bases and of cases, together with adverse economic conditions, were probably reasons for these artist to move to large portraits (More for your money, Sir!!) rather than persevering with miniature portraits.

Judging by contemporary prices, miniature casework was often as expensive as the miniature itself and hence cased miniatures would have quickly been regarded as a very expensive luxury.

As a result of all these factors, fewer miniatures were painted during the embargo period.

Embargo Casework
Another apparent effect of the embargoes was that case-work for miniatures painted in America between 1805 and 1815 sometimes showed the dearth of the correct materials.

Showing here are two "exploded" cases of around 1810-1815.

One is by Joseph Wood which has been housed in an oval red leather case, of sufficient depth to show it was originally intended to hold a miniature portrait already housed in an oval gold case. The depth has been minimised by parallel wooden struts hidden behind the backing card (backing card not showing) and some cotton padding. As the ivory is too small for this case, a brass bezel has been made to fit.

Such a case would not have had a glass or brass bezel already made to fit and so they must have been specially made to fit this case. Possibly the bezel was made by Joseph Wood himself, as he had trained as a silversmith.

The glass although convex, is very thin and has a very wavy surface, the sign of an inexperienced glass blower. This is then a further suggestion that the case was assembled locally in New York from available parts, rather than being imported as a complete unit.

The second miniature is by Nathaniel Rogers. In this instance the ivory just fits inside the frame, but the ivory has not been trimmed to the area of the painting, as would be the normal practice when housing a miniature in a proper oval gold case. This again implies cases of the correct size were not available. This one being a "make-do"case with a card bezel. The rear of the case is just a piece of cardboard.

While it is tempting to conclude these two miniatures have been rehoused, I doubt that is the case, as they had been owned by the same family for 200 years until recently acquired for this collection.

However, one other much less likely possibility is that the sitters asked for cheaper cases, as they felt they could not afford proper cases, due to their personal financial losses associated with the embargo. I feel this is an unlikely scenario.

Here are front and rear views of another miniature by Joseph Wood dating to around 1810, where the apparently original case gives the appearance of having been made out of scraps. The rear gold rim shows a join at 2 o'clock and the rear has been made from a flat piece of blue glass.

This seems to further support the concept of the embargo causing difficulties in framing miniature portraits.

If these arguments are accepted, they lead to a very relevant question. Should such miniatures:
1. Be retained in their original "make-do" cases?
2. Be rehoused in more usual period cases of similar date?
3. Be housed in new cases of 1810 design?

My personal opinion is firmly in favor of 1. I think the original "make-do" cases are an integral part of the history of the miniature.

The use of whatever scrap materials was available to the case maker is akin to the patina on old furniture, that furniture collectors are so keen to retain and preserve.

Having researched the subject in this way, I now feel I have other examples of American miniature portraits of this date where the casework shows the adverse impact of the Embargo Act.

This example dates from around 1810-1815. The square ivory blank has the corners cut off so that it will fit inside this French ebonised frame. However even then, the glass had to have a black border painted all the way round, to prevent the edge of the ivory showing from the front.

The ivory shape and the painted black border are hence two signs that the artist did not have a suitable frame to match the shape of the ivory. This situation is unlikely to have occurred in France as most French miniatures are on round ivory bases of a standard size. Thus the artist more likely came across a French frame imported into America that had been unused as a round shape was unfashionable in America.

The miniature is inscribed: "William Sayer by Doyle" but to date, that attribution has not been confirmed.

Value of Embargo Act Items
Such "make-do" cases resulting from the Embargo Act, may even increase the market value of the miniatures.

While not exactly comparable, Cowans Auctions in 2005 sold for $24,150: "A miniature copper tea kettle with Embargo Act decoration. Dovetailed construction with a gooseneck spout, a swivel handle, and a brass finial. The entire surface is covered in engraved decoration, including vines and leaves, oak leaves, a dove, a pointing finger, and Masonic symbols. Encircling the lid is Jefferson and the Embargo. On one side is engraved "Mind your business" and on the other is "Prudence is the best Remedy for hard times"."

Several views of the kettle are shown here. It is only 2.75 inches high, so the value was very high for such a small item.

Without the Embargo Act connection this miniature kettle might have sold for only $100.

The Development of American Casework
One unfortunate side effect arising from the early lack of American case making skills, is that the firm fitting of component parts together, especially the rear glass, was not given the attention it needed.

Hence many American miniatures from 1805-1840 are missing the rear glass and its beaded bezel.

Although American and British frame types do seem to diverge after 1805, even after 1815 there are occasional 19C examples of miniature cases in both America or Britain which can be hard to categorise as one country or the other.

This is probably from the influence of case-makers moving between countries, or of clients requesting a case similar to one acquired by a relative in another country.

August - HD Thielcke and WJ Thomson

2008-07-27T16:10:00.000-07:00

I hope some readers may enjoy more of my wanders though history!

This website was started as a means of exhibited the miniatures in the collection. However, as time goes on, the research into the sitters becomes more and more of the focus. I hope that this will not discourage visitors.

There are still some sitters in existing portraits, and artists for that matter, who have not been properly researched. Thus, when prompted by a query from a reader, I try and get my act together on items not previously properly researched.

This month I was kindly corrected over some errors I had on the entry relating to Henry Daniel Thielcke and so I have taken the opportunity to add some research notes to his entry, see Thielcke, Henry Daniel - portrait of an unknown lady

His parents were courtiers to King George III. Thielcke commenced his career by being able to paint people at Court, but for some reason he left London for Scotland, then worked in Canada painting portraits and as a school teacher, before dying in Chicago in 1884. He has a connection to St Petersburg in Russia and his second cousin was a Governor of the Bank of England.

Also, this month a new acquisition by William John Thomson of Charlotte Knox Trotter, has proved another a fascinating wander through history, effectively through "the back of a portrait".

William John Thomson classifies as both an American and British artist, as he was born in Savannah, Georgia, but spent most of his life in Britain.

By a strange quirk, Thielcke and Thomson were both living and competing in Edinburgh, Scotland during the 1820's and most likely met there.

Charlotte Trotter has been revealed through the researching of her portrait, as the daughter of a famous Edinburgh cabinet-maker, William Trotter.

She also has links to the abolition of slavery in Scotland, a 21C Pony Club in Scotland, the execution of a supporter of Bonnie Prince Charlie after the Jacobite revolution in 1745, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, the Indian Mutiny of 1857, and an Indian postage stamp from 1990!!

See Thomson, William John - portrait of Charlotte Knox Trotter 1343

August - Preview - Comstock, Conger, Starr, and Stout families

2008-07-25T01:30:00.000-07:00

Coming in August will be more detail about six 19C miniature portraits and seventeen 19C photographs, all relating to the Comstock, Conger, Starr, and Stout families of New Jersey.

Anyone interested in following my research into the miniatures and photographs, can do so at Draft - Comstock, Stout, and etc portraits

The miniatures and photographs were all acquired for this collection at a live auction in Asheville, NC. They are accompanied by various old hand written notes identifying most of the sitters, and with clues to others.

At the same auction there were several silver items for sale which had also belonged to the Stout family. The silver was bought by other buyers, but photos of the silver items are included below, as they may be of interest to anyone researching the Stout family.

The Stout family members in the portraits are descended from two famous early settlers, Richard Stout (1615-1705) and Penelope van Princis (1622-1712), he being her second husband.

In about 1642 Penelope and her first husband, John Kent, were amongst survivors of a shipwreck off Sandy Nook, 100 miles south of New Amsterdam, their intended destination. The other survivors departed north to seek safety, warning her of hostile Indians, but Penelope remained with her husband who had been badly ill on the voyage and was unable to travel.

Hostile Novesink Indians did indeed soon appear and killed her husband. Penelope was scalped by them, tomahawked, and left for dead. Despite a fractured skull, a hacked shoulder, and a cut across her abdomen exposing her intestines, so that she needed to use her hand to stop them falling out, she crawled to a hollow tree where she ate fungus for several days.

Then two Lenni Lenape Indians found her and took her to their camp, near what is now Middletown, NJ. News of a white woman living with the Indians later reached New Amsterdam and the survivors realising it must be Penelope went and located her.

The image here is of a coin commemorating her rescue. For more of the story, see History of American Women and also a book by Paula E Phillips.

No doubt there will be other interesting stories associated with some of the other family names.

About three-quarters of the sitters are identified, but it will take some time to fit the family members together and see if any unidentified sitters can be named.

More will be written in August, but as a preview, here are the auction descriptions of the items.

Lot 318 - Six miniatures, Conger Stout family:
(1) woman holding child, Rebecca Conger Stout with son Wright, signed "A.M.D. 1865", painted porcelain, 2-1/8 x 1-7/8 in., velvet case with gilt brass bezel,
(2) portrait of Stephen Comstock, watercolor on ivory, 3 x 2-1/2 in, gilt plate frame,
(3) portrait of George Starr, Uncle of Julia Comstock Conger, watercolor on ivory, 2-1/2 x 2 in, gold plate bezel set locket verso with window and hair weaving, gold chain stamped 14K
(4) young gentleman, watercolor on ivory, 3 x 2-3/8 in, painted leather case with gilt brass bezel, (from a note inside, now believed to be Eleutheros Dana Comstock)
(5) double portrait of children, Wright C. Stout and G. Lee Stout, painted porcelain, 2-3/4 x 2-1/8 in
(6) child, Julia C. Stout, painted porcelain, 2-3/4 x 2-1/8 in
All American School, 19C Estates of Ward and Stout Families, Bloomfield, New Jersey
Estimate: $600 - $1,200

Lot 1030 - 17 early photographs, cased images, descendants of Richard Stout (1615-1705) and Penelope Van Princis Stout (1622-1712), Middletown, New Jersey:

Nine daguerreotypes: two one-quarter plate, one of John Wilson Stout, signed on mat "Holmes (Silas A.), 289 Broadway (New York)"; one of boy in uniform, noted as "possibly G. (Gideon) Lee Stout", six one-sixth plate: two of identified gentlemen, each signed "Weston (James P. or Robert), 192 B-Way N.Y."; one of spectacled man, signed "Holmes" (Silas A.); one of lady and two girls, all identified; two of gentlemen, one identified; one-ninth plate of gentleman.

Five ambrotypes: two one-fourth plate, one of spectacled gentleman noted as "G. Lee Stout, or…one of his brothers", tined, signed "C. (Charles) D. (DeForest) Fredericks, 585 Broadway (New York):", metal hinged leather case; one of lady; two one-sixth plate, one of Wright F. Conger, signed "O. (Orrin) C. Benjamin, 274 Broad St. Newark, N.J."; one of lady; one one-ninth plate of gentleman, mother-of-pearl case.

Three ferrotypes, one-sixth plate, lady and two gentlemen, each identified.
All estates of Ward and Stout Families, Bloomfield, New Jersey
Estimate: $600 - $1,200

The silver lots were all purchased by other bidders, but comprised;

Lot 104 - A coin silver oval tureen, urn finial, acanthus handles, stepped pedestal base, gadroon borders, marked "Ball, Black & Co." (New York City, working 1851-1876), inscribed "Rebecca C Stout from her Husband Christmas 1865", opposing side inscribed "Miriam L. Stout from her Grandfather 1920", 61.41 oz, 11-3/4 x 14 x 9 in.

Estates of Ward and Stout Families, Bloomfield, New Jersey
Estimate: $1,500 - $3,000

Lot 429 - A Tiffany sterling mug, round with shaped sides, scroll handle, acanthus and floral decoration, inscribed on base "Rebecca Comstock Stout From Her Grandfather 1888", "7996…5136", date marks for 1869-1891, 7.77 oz.T., 3-3/4 x 4 in.

Estate of the Late Jane W. Conneen, Bloomfield, New Jersey. Estimate: $300 - $600

Lot 445 - A set of Tiffany sterling ice cream forks, Richelieu pattern, 11 pieces, date mark for 1891-1902, inscribed "Stout", 12.08 oz.T., 5-3/4 in.

The Estate of the Late Jane W. Conneen, Bloomfield, New Jersey. Estimate: $200 - $400

July - Mailbag - Researching sitters and decorative miniatures

2008-07-20T16:14:00.000-07:00

I thought it may be helpful to miniature portrait collectors generally if I record my replies to two recent queries I received. The queries were about researching sitters in miniatures, and about decorative miniatures.

Research
The first writer asked me about how to start researching sitters.

Hi Don, Do you have any sites you can recommend to start research of a sitter? The girl I showed you was a named sitter and although she isn't my piece I would love to see if I can find anything to add to her name as to her life. I'm assuming children might be a bit more difficult to research as well--? Thanks so much for writing, Joy

Hi Joy,
As you would guess, successfully researching sitters depends upon how unusual their name is! If common, it is very hard, unless there is a full name and a date. As an example, John Williams is a common name, but via the notes on the reverse of his miniature I tracked him down and have shown quite full details of the way to go about it at;

The Case of the Lord Mayor of Melbourne - View

If you have looked at my recent account of Mary Branford Shubrick (probably much too long for most of my readers!! - but still was an ongoing thrill for me to research), there is a lot of data, which all came via the Internet, and much via Google. But it can be quite time consuming as sometimes there are conflicts of information and many times there are dead ends. Just like any detective story! See

June - The Case of the Military Matriarch - View

One free site that is quite good to start with for pre-1900 sitters is http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp As an example, if you put Shubrick in there you will see some of my source data.

Another free site is www.rootsweb.ancestry.com, but remember here that some people's family trees will have errors, and so you need to satisfy yourself as to the accuracy.

See also its sister site at www.ancestry.com The latter requires a subscription to get full details. The cost is not too bad for USA, but quite expensive for world wide. My subscription to this site has lapsed, but I think I will need to renew it for some Stout family miniatures which are transit. It is an excellent site for USA up to the 1930 census, but for UK the census detail only goes up to 1901. However, even the worldwide cost can be worthwhile if it enhances the value of a miniature.

Just Googling a name can also help a lot. With Shubrick I scanned pages and pages of Google references and found many new clues to follow up. It all helps a great deal if you have done some family history work on your own family. Thus, I would suggest you contact anyone else in your own family who has done any research and or have a go at researching your own family history.
Kind regards
Don

Decorative Miniatures
Many emails I receive ask about decorative miniatures and as my answers are usually quite similar, I have repeated a recent email exchange here for interested collectors. This one is a little different, as an encouragement to collectors, with the writer revealing that bargains can be found at garage sales. The writer only paid $1 each for them!

Dear Don, I recently purchased three miniature portraits at a local garage sale and would like to know if you might be able to tell me anything about them. After reading your article about copies, fakes, and decorative miniatures, I think I may have three decorative miniatures. I have enclosed pictures of them in the Attachments.

All three are in what would appear to be ivory--possibly made from old piano keys, as you said. Two of the portraits are signed "Stieler"--a name you said is commonly found on decorative miniatures. All three have newspaper print in a foreign language on the backs of the frames. One has a woman's name on the back, possibly the name of the sitter. Two have "Property of Col. F.W. Maxwell" stamped in larger, darker ink across the newspaper print. One has a paper label pasted on the newspaper print that says "Elfenbein Miniature, antik Bildnis: Charl.von Hagen." I'm thinking that Charl. von Hagen might be the name of the sitter for that portrait.

The picture of the woman with the beads around her head has a great deal of foxing. It looks like the foxing is on the underside of the glass rather than on the portrait. Her frame is also missing one small piece of ivory. All three frames have a metal piece attached at the top for hanging. If you would be so kind as to tell me anything you might know about these miniatures. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you so much, Diana

Hi Diana, I am glad you found the website helpful, as there is not a lot I can add to what you have already written! Your conclusions are correct and I often think there is scope for someone to form an interesting collection of decorative miniatures like these and research the sitters.

As you say one is Charlotte von Hagen and using Google should tell you more about her. I recognize the other two, but cannot remember their names. "Elfenbein" is German for "elephant bone" and so equals ivory. I think Bildnis means painting.
Kind regards
Don

Dear Don, Thank you for your response. I will check further into Charlotte von Hagen. One of the other miniatures has the name Katherine Bozzaris (I think--if I am reading it correctly). I do get the impression from your website that there is not a lot of value to the decorative miniatures, but would you have any idea what might be the value of mine? Might you also have some idea as to when these were painted? I cannot find any information about a portraitist named Stieler. I am also curious if these are truly watercolors painted on ivory. Would you know? Again, thank you very much, Diana.

Hi Diana,
Google may help with the other sitter's name as well. Yes, they are most likely on ivory and painted around 1900, although some similar items are on ivorine, an imitation ivory made out of cellulose, but the poorest types of decorative miniatures are on celluloid. Values are relative. If you search on Ebay under miniature portraits you will probably find some similar decorative miniatures selling around $100/$150, but with some sellers asking as much as $350/$450, so values can be anywhere in between. Like most things in life "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and so depending upon how much a potential buyer gets attracted to a miniature, the end price will vary! If one is unbiased, the decorative miniatures are often more attractive than the "boring old 19C men" in many miniatures! For Stieler see Biography of STIELER, Karl Joseph in the Web Gallery of Art in the Web Gallery of Art and also search for him via Google images.
Kind regards
Don

Dear Don, I appreciate all of the information you have been able to provide. While I am excited that the miniatures have some monetary value, I will probably hang onto them. I've never sold on e-bay and don't really know much about that. I love anything old, so I am thinking about having these enclosed in a shadowbox-type frame (done professionally) so they can be preserved. However, I do think the one with the foxing and the missing piece of ivory on the frame should be restored. I may have to check into that!

I am only confused about the name Stieler on the two pictures. It looks like it says "M Stieler" or "N Stieler." I did find something about a Joseph Karl Stieler who did the portraits in the Gallery of Beauties (commissioned by Ludwig I) in the early to mid 1800's. He could not be the same Stieler who painted the miniatures if they were done in the early 1900's. So...did another artist just put the name Stieler on the miniatures just because Stieler did the portraits in the gallery?

Both of the miniatures that I have with the name Stieler on them (Charlotte von Hagen and Katherine--or Katherina--Bozzaris) are women whose portraits are in the Gallery of Beauties at the Palace of Nymphenburg in Munich, Germany. That explains why these two women might have been so popular that decorative miniatures were made of them. I do not know the name of the sitter in the other miniature, so I'm not sure I'll ever find out anything about her. I sure am having fun learning about miniature portraits--only wish I had stumbled on the real thing!! Thank you for being so kind to respond to all of my questions. I appreciate it so much. Diana

Dear Diana,
Just re the signature. Yes, you are right. I think I mentioned in the blog somewhere that the copyists often used fake signatures to make the buyer think that it was painted by the real artist, but slightly different. This was so they could not be prosecuted for using a false signature. Thus in your examples the copyist used fake first initials.

If you think for a moment, you have probably learned quite a bit about miniatures already and so will be better prepared for your next garage sale or local auction. Provided you do not spend too much, actually buying, holding, inspecting, and researching is the best way to learn. Even if you do not buy on eBay, just watching items during their auctions, reading the descriptions, and trying to understand the final price, is also a good way to learn more.
Kind regards
Don
P.S. Here are some eBay links to look at:
MINIATURE PORTRAIT PAINTING ON IVORY- J. STIELER 19th c
19TH C. OIL ON IVORY-IVORY FRAME W/ FAUX SHELL TRIM.
Beautiful Portrait Miniture on Ivory by STEILER Germany

Hi Don, Thanks for the e-bay links. I'll be sure to look at them. Yes, there is so much to learn about the miniatures. Finding them at a garage sale was such a quirk really. I actually picked them up, looked at them, and put them down when my husband told me he thought they were sort of ugly. After we got in the car, I asked my husband to run back up to the house and buy the miniatures because I just couldn't get them out of my mind. You won't believe, but they were only $1.00 each!! Why I would put them down is beyond me!!! But I'm awfully glad no one else picked them up before my husband went back. The woman who was selling them told my husband that the miniatures had belonged to her husband's grandmother. My husband, needless to say, is astonished that they have the value they do. I feel very fortunate to have found them. I'll keep you posted if I should ever find a "real" miniature portrait!! Thank you so much, Diana

July - American additions and Mr Darcy

2008-07-02T18:32:00.000-07:00

American additions
Three (or four, depending upon how you view them!) American miniatures have been acquired for the collection this month.

The most important is a miniature of Mrs E M Eastman by John Wood Dodge. It is dated 1836. (The vertical parallel lines on the right are the graining of the ivory showing through.)

In the second quarter of the 19C, John Wood Dodge (1807-1893) was one of the best miniature painters working in New York City. In my mind his work rivals Nathaniel Rogers (1788-1844).

Dodge may well have continued to become the pre-eminent miniature painter in NYC after Roger's death, but it was apparently recommended by his doctor that Dodge move south for the sake of his health.

He settled in Tennessee and continued to paint miniatures there and in various other places for many years.

So far the identity of Mrs E M Morgan is not clear and so any thoughts on her identity would be gratefully received, especially from anyone with access to New York street directories of the 1830's.

A current, and speculative, thought is that she may have been a first wife of Edward Morgan Eastman who did marry at age 31 in 1842, however no earlier marriage record has been found from the 1830's.

More about the miniature can be seen at Dodge, John Wood - portrait of Mrs E M Eastman

The second item is a husband and wife, obverse and reverse, pair in a single oval case by an unknown artist, with the sitters also being unknown.

Although this pair are unknown, the miniature itself is still of interest.

Firstly, it is most probably American, as it has an American shaped hanger and a beaded bezel.

To my mind, this hanger shape is most often met with on American miniatures, rarely on British miniatures, and almost never on European miniatures.

Especially when taken with a beaded bezel, which is unusual on miniature portraits from other than America.

The case seems to be rare in another respect.

No doubt other examples do exist, but this is the first American case that I have come across with a double portrait which has a beaded bezel on both sides.

More about it can be seen at Unknown - portrait of husband and wife

The third item is by an unknown artist, but the sitter is believed to be Isaac A Buckingham who was a lawyer in Decatur, Illinois. The Buckingham family were very early settlers in Ohio and Enoch Buckingham is said to have been the first white child born there.

Enoch was also fortunate not to be killed in 1791, as one of his hunting companions was killed and scalped. Enoch fell down while fleeing and was only able to escape by lying still and playing dead, as his pursuers chased his friends along the track, catching and killing one of them.

Much more about the Buckingham family history, the above incident, and the miniature portrait can be seen at Unknown - portrait of Isaac A Buckingham

The miniature is interesting as it is accompanied by a Memorandum notebook containing a lot of history of the Buckingham family in America.

Additionally, the notebook contains a many notes about witnesses to a shooting in Illinois in the early 20C which involved a Court case titled "People v McCool".

Isaac Buckingham was one of the attorney's involved with the case.

I would be grateful to hear from anyone who knows more about this case.

Other items of interest - Mr Darcy
An interesting portrait miniature pointed out to me as being made available for sale recently, is one of Thomas Langlois Lefroy by George Engleheart one of the most prolific miniature painters in Britain.

There are apparently two versions of the miniature by Engleheart, with one still being owned by the Lefroy family.

The miniature was offered for sale by Judy & Brian Harden and apparently had an asking price of GBP50,000.

Lefroy is thought to be the inspiration for Mr Darcy who features in "Pride and Prejuduce" the famous 19C novel by Jane Austen.

There is more about the miniature and the works of Jane Austen at Addicted to Jane Austen: Lefroy Portrait Goes on Sale and at Becoming Jane fansite