H O M E
 Advanced Search
 Monogram Search
 Browse by Artist
 Browse Signatures
 Art pictures
 Artist signatures
 Art Forum
 Art Links
 Submit your site
 FAQ
 Auction Calendar
 E Store

| More
Findartinfo member login
Email
Password
 
Register Now
Forgot Password
Change Password

Home | Profile | Login | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username: Password:  
Save Password
 All Forums
 FindArtInfo.com
 Art Forum
 Hague School painting question
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

maxfrost
Junior Member

67 Posts

Posted - Jan 15 2018 :  19:42:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have a large painting by Philip Lodewijk Jacob Frederik Sadée (Philip Sadée). Everything looks right to me except the signature. It fluoresces under a black light. Nothing else in the painting does other than 3 dark paint marks to the left of the basket that is turned to its side. The signature looks rigid to me (not free flowing). I was wondering if the painting looked like Philip Sadée's work. To me it does but perhaps the signature was reinforced? Opinions or any information would be appreciated (yes I know what auction it came from). Thank you!

http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/maxfrost1/library/Question

Edited by - maxfrost on Jan 15 2018 20:29:29

kmurban
Senior Member

USA
728 Posts

Posted - Jan 16 2018 :  08:11:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The work looks pretty good. The signature is bad though. At this point I don't see any harm in trying to remove it and see if there is any other signature or remnants of one underneath. I would think if it was just reinforced it would follow the original signature pretty closely with portions that look original and new. Otherwise I would say its in the school of.
Go to Top of Page

maxfrost
Junior Member

67 Posts

Posted - Jan 17 2018 :  11:36:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks, I tend to think that signature was just added on and there isn't an original signature underneath. I guess it's possible but I've looked at it pretty close and I'm thinking there won't be anything under there.

The seller has given me the option to return this painting after they look at it with a black light and see for themselves with me. Is it worth cleaning or should I just return it and be done with it? I thought it looked nice but the fact that there's possibly no original signature on it is worrisome.

Edited by - maxfrost on Jan 17 2018 11:45:07
Go to Top of Page

kmurban
Senior Member

USA
728 Posts

Posted - Jan 17 2018 :  18:03:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I suppose it depends on what you paid for it and what your comfortable with, and if you were planning on reselling it ever. If it were me i would return it in a second. then use your money to buy the real deal or similar, even if you have too spend a bit more. It will be worth it in the long run and you wont have doubt every time you look at it. You already know the signature is bad, Return it...
Go to Top of Page

Job
Junior Member

United Kingdom
123 Posts

Posted - Jan 19 2018 :  20:16:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think that looks like a pretty decent painting too. And I wouldn't write off that it's right for Philip Sadée either, although that signature is clearly horrible.

The painting looks as if it could still do with a bit of a clean, although that could be being emphasised by the photography. Better that than overcleaned, of course, although that secondary figure photo (that's slightly out of focus) looks as if that might be a bit overcleaned so I wouldn't write off inexperienced cleaning having damaged the signature. Darker colours are more fugitive and it's all too easy to not take proper account of that if you don't know what you're doing. Can't see how good the touch ups you mentioned are, though, which could be another indicator of competence. But re the signature, there're clearly some very clumsy brush strokes there which don't look remotely competent. But they don't make too much sense as a completely fake signature, either, even as done by an idiot. It doesn't improbably look like someone trying to make sense of a signature remnant, albeit badly. Does every part of the signature show up dark? What about the end of the fine curl back at the bottom of the "P" and where there might be a trace of the upper curl coming to meet it? Is that specific bit showing up dark as well? I'd be interested to hear.

And as said above, whether you take the painting back is entirely up to you, but one thing I would point out is that any dealer worth their salt should have looked at it under UV. And when it's even also obvious to the naked eye, there's no question that if they didn't know that that's a bodged signature, they absolutely should have. So bear that in mind when looking at it together and you're being expected to "prove" that it's wrong. At the very least, you could make a good case for a refund if you do want to keep it.

You mention you know what auction it came from. And I haven't checked that. Where was it, and what was the painting sold as? Did you check the photo to see if a change to the signature is detectable?
Go to Top of Page

maxfrost
Junior Member

67 Posts

Posted - Jan 20 2018 :  03:24:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Something that was brought to my attention was that there are no cliffs in the Netherlands. Someone described the women in the painting as "Scheveningen fisherwomen on what looks like the Normandy coast" and that they liked it but found it odd. Sadee traveled to other countries but not sure if that makes sense or not.

The painting is dirty throughout but someone started to clean the top left corner and then stopped. I don't detect cleaning otherwise. The photos I posted weren't great so maybe it gave that impression. The painting as I could see with the black light was all original except the poor signature and three paint marks.

Under blacklight, the whole of that signature becomes dark including the fine lines in the P.

It came from an auction in NY where I purchased it. The painting was sold as by Phillip Sadee. It appears exactly the same as it was when it was for sale then.
Go to Top of Page

Job
Junior Member

United Kingdom
123 Posts

Posted - Jan 20 2018 :  19:31:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There seem to have been some cliffs of a sort near Scheveningen, or at least they have appeared in other paintings (albeit more like very big sand dunes). I'm not familiar with them in life, and Holland obviously isn't exactly known for having good natural defences against the sea like yours, but in truth, I wouldn't personally count that as being particularly relevant. Topographical correctness won't have been a first priority and it wouldn't be very unusual to see a made up landscape, to effect. The artist didn't need to have necessarily gone to Normandy either, or wherever, to paint a view that might be supposed to be there instead. It's not that very unusual to see figures like those on French or British pictures.

I've seen the auction sale recorded now, and it was improperly catalogued in my view. That bodged signature should have been picked up and counted as "with signature" not as "signed".

Signatures have never been, and never should be, the be all and end all of what makes a painting a worthwhile painting. But re that signature having been added completely or reworked, I would note that I've now noticed the artist does seem to have habitually underlined with a near horizontal line and there's absolutely no trace of an appropriate underline ever having existed. The painting could still always have been unsigned as one of an intended pair, when both aren't necessarily always signed.

Another thing I would point out is that someone has gone to quite a lot of trouble to hide the back of the frame there. That's not to look neat, that's to hide something, albeit probably just that the frame's been chopped. It doesn't really make sense to hide factors like that, to effect, though, yet apparently to have left the painting uncleaned to make it seem to be in untouched condition which signature and other touches make clear it really isn't. There've been a fair few very deliberate decisions of a deceptive nature in there, so I'd be careful. I think I'd put it back, and look for something that isn't going to be adversely affected by the signature issue going forward. But that's without having had the benefit of seeing how really nice the painting actually is in real life.


Edited by - Job on Jan 20 2018 19:42:16
Go to Top of Page

maxfrost
Junior Member

67 Posts

Posted - Jan 30 2018 :  14:00:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Is it a possibility that this painting is actually by Paul Huguenin? I found some of his paintings to look similar:

http://www.jamesalder.co.uk/paul-huguenin/mussel-gatherers-2/

http://www.jamesalder.co.uk/media/paintings/Paul-Huguenin-painting.jpg

Edited by - maxfrost on Jan 30 2018 14:01:12
Go to Top of Page

arb
Senior Member

Netherlands
803 Posts

Posted - Feb 04 2018 :  10:38:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by maxfrost I was wondering if the painting looked like Philip Sadée's work.



It does not, I'm afraid. The Dutch don't have any natural rocks on their coasts, none whatsoever. And though Sadee did travel a bit ('widely' exagerates Wiki), his focus was on religious painting then. He became a painter of our sandy beaches later and though artistic freedom allows excursions, the better part of Dutch artists were so very aware of their flaw in rendering stony formations, that few adventured from their flat shores. That alone, to me, excludes his authorship of this painting. Huguenin is more likely indeed.

Paint has been wiped off throughout, if at all it was there in the first place. A Sadee would show a lot of detail and various expressions in the faces. I can only hope you did not pay the 2000 it fetched at Clarke's....
Go to Top of Page

maxfrost
Junior Member

67 Posts

Posted - Feb 23 2020 :  08:50:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
as far as painted being wiped off throughout I did not see that. It was just very dirty and partially cleaned on the top right.

Yes it indeed was a fake (a pretty good 19th century painting by a lesser known artist that someone forged the name Sadee on) and after much trouble I got a refund.

Edited by - maxfrost on Feb 23 2020 09:03:51
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Ask About Art © Findartinfo.com Go To Top Of Page
Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05