Posted 13 years ago
chinablue
(42 items)
I just love this painting! It's a shame that the ivory has cracked, but it's still lovely. It's amazing that he was able to get such detail in this. It was done by Alfred Edward Chalon, who was the watercolorist to Queen Victoria and did several paintings of her, I believe. I have searched a lot of his work and hope to one day find out who this is! The painting is 1 3/4 inches by 1 1/4 inches. The case is about 2 1/4 inches by 1 1/2. The glass on over it is quite thick and acts as sort of a magnifying glass. I've had it for about 40 years. I know it could be restored, but I don't know if it would be worth it or not. As small as it is, it isn't nearly as noticeable as it is in the photo. If anyone knows what the R.A.X. stands for, or has any other information, I'd love to know about it! Thanks for looking at my favorite piece of art.
Wow, this is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen here at CW. It's just stunning! I'd love to learn more about it!
My God, this painting is 175 years old...I can't wrap my brain around that. It's a wonderful piece. Let's solve this mystery, people! Thank you so much for showing and telling.
In the Wikipedia listing for Alfred Chalon, it lists him as having attended the Royal Academy (which is the first thing I thought of when I saw the RA on the back). It says he was a RA (Royal Academician) in 1816. Perhaps the X meant he was a former RA? Or maybe it's not an X, or it's an X with something else after it, it doesn't look like a period.
Hi chinablue!
I think that you may know it all already. But I think the X is actually the ampersand "&". It would then read: painted by Alfred Edward Chalon Royal Academy etc. Lindon 1837. Perhaps a little pompous?
He "Entered at the Royal Academy in 1797, he joined the Associated Artists in Water-Colours, a group of aquarellists. In the Academy, he was elected an associat (ARA) in 1812, then academician (RA) in 1816." Wikipedia
Given that today is the current Queen's Jubilee Day this is pertinent!
I think this is a portrait of the young Victoria. In 1837 she was Princess Victoria until June of that year when on June 20 she became monarch and began her path to her diamond jubilee as Queen of England etc., accomplished on 22 June 1897 and beyond.
I'm a republican not a monarchist, by the way.
In Australia this is an issue.
A beautiful miniature. Perhaps it should be properly appraised and restored by a real professional hand.
I hadn't even thought of 'etc.' but that totally makes sense. That would be so amazing if it were indeed a painting of Princess Victoria!
What a good thought about the &/etc! Like stef, it makes sense to me. And the thought that it could be Princess/Queen Victoria... GEEZE! Hadn't even thought of that. I'd love to have someone that really knows about this stuff have a look at it, vetraio.. but where I live, I wouldn't begin to know where to look to have someone knowledgeable of British paintings within a day or two of here. There is someone that is frequently on Antiques Roadshow that is not too far from us. (who I will NOT mention by name here) He had never heard of Chalon. Needless to say that trip was a bust. From good ole' wikipedia I found this:
"Known for his portraits of the good society of London, he was chosen by Queen Victoria to paint a gift to her mother:[1] Victoria in her State robes going to the House of Lords for her first official act, the prorogation of the Parliament, on 17 July 1837. After this task, Chalon was entitled Portrait Painter in Water Colour to Her Majesty and gained some celebrity. His 1837 portrait was engraved by Samuel Cousins and distributed to the public the day of Victoria's coronation, the 28 June 1838.[1][2] Then, starting in 1851, the "Chalon head" appeared on some British colonies postage stamps."
Maybe I just need to start comparing the woman in this painting to any I can find of women that may have patronized him during that time?
I also think it might be Victoria. I googled "Queen Victoria young" and came up with a variety of early paintings and drawings of her, including a self portrait. Looked an awful lot like her!
How did you happen to acquire your treasure?
Well, it's a rather long story with not much to go on. It was in my grandmother's possession when she passed away quite a few years before I was born. It was given to me by my grandfather, her husband. The family story goes that it was left to her by her great aunt that lived in New Orleans at the time and had been born in England around the beginning of the 19th century. Supposedly someone she knew when she lived in England gave it to her as a going away gift when she left England, just after she married. I don't know if it came from someone on her husband's side, or from someone in her own family. Unfortunately, I don't have any names for any of the people involved, other than that of my grandmother which is of no help since she lived and died within 20 miles of where she was born on a farm in Virginia. The family was divided during the Civil war and many names were lost and forgotten, either by accident or by being disowned. So, tracing it through family ties is a dead end. I just know know I'm really glad it found it's way to me. :-)
I didn't post any photos of the back of the frame since there was nothing on it and no indication that there ever had been. But it was moved to this category. I can't imagine it as jewelry, but maybe more people will see it here.
is there a piece on the frame back for making it stand on a table top, or a pinback indicating it was a brooch? curious.
Hunter, I have posted 2 more pictures that I hope will help you determine what form this might have been. The first one is a montage.. #1 is showing the glass front that holds the actual painting. It is about 1/4 inch thick and inserts into the back. #2 shows the case along one side of the painting and how it has a concave shape on the back and #3, the other side. It does look as if there was something there, especially in the #2 of the montage but my ignorance of jewelry keeps me from knowing what it might be. Hopefully, you'll have an idea! The other picture shows the inside of the back in case there is something there that might help. To my knowledge, there are no markings of any kind on the frame and I have never had it tested to find out if it is gold or some other metal. It has never been polished in my lifetime. Hope that gives you and others more to go on! Thanks for all the help and love from everyone.
So, was the little signature card hidden behind the ivory? Did you always know it was there, or was it a recent discovery?
This link shows an example of the type of jewelry I was imagining (though as a pendant), also painted on ivory in a small frame.
http://www.romanovrussia.com/AF1825.html
Yours is clearly of a higher quality, and seems like it might have had another back piece with a pin to use as a brooch. The two pieces inside the back seem like they could have enclosed a kind of small hinge or something, though whether it was for a pin or simply a frame stand we may never know. Here are some brooch backs showing the hinge/pin I found online:
http://www.morninggloryjewelry.com/images/copied/imagesLZ/Victorian/vict29477c.jpg
http://www.morninggloryjewelry.com/images/copied/imagesLZ/Victorian2/vict32449d.jpg
stefdesign, the thin ivory 'wafer' on which the painting was done is actually adhered to the part showing the date/artist info. It was discovered when I first opened the frame. And it was years before I realized that it actually opened! It takes a sharp implement to pull the glass fronted part of the frame free of the case. I found this little blurb and think it could be why the painting is cracked. "Some artists glued the ivory onto the backing support card with a strong glue which has resulted over many years in the ivory becoming 'bowed' and maybe even cracked. This is due to the differing expansion and the contraction rates of two dissimilar materials bonded together. A conservator is able to remove the backing board to release the ivory and allow it to return to it's original flatness." I don't intend to do ANYTHING to it, but it's nice to know that it could perhaps be repaird that simply.
Hunter, thanks for the information and the links! And you're right, we may never know the exact application for which this was designed. Would some type of jewelry have had a concave back like this does? It would allow it rest comfortably on your wrist with some sort of band. I don't know of any jewelry that was worn that way but as I said before jewelry is something of which I am quite ignorant.
Thanks to everyone that is working on this!
huh - that's an interesting thought! I'm not much of an expert, but if this was a piece of mourning jewelry perhaps it was worn on a wrist or armband. Hopefully a victorian jewelry fanatic will see this post and put in their two cents.
Most certainly looks like it was a piece of something to me. The opening in the picture marked "2" is a slot where a clasp of some sort would be inserted is my best guess.
Thanks Carlson. I know next to nothing of Victorian jewelry, so I need all the help I can get!
AR8Jason..Thanks for the link! There is quite a resemblance there, isn't there? The one you linked to seems to me to have a more prominent chin than the one I have, but other than that VERY close.
I vote for Victoria. Here are a few links for her portraits:
http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/images/victoria/young_victoria_2.jpg
http://madameguillotine.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/object-9.jpeg
http://vertigoreadingseries.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/queen-victoria-winterhalter-1843_jpg.jpg
But I'm always hoping for the big payoff! LOL!
LOL! Good one! (I just thought the shape of her face was wrong... very elongated... but who knows?) Definitely not chopped liver. It just seemed kind of romantic somehow, that it might be Victoria.
Hi, all. If it were a contest between the two of them, and one of them was known to have sat for the artist in this time period, I'd hypothesize Queen Victoria.
The National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. maintains a list or database of significant American portraits. It is likely that someone in London does the same thing for British portraits, too. If this were mine and I wanted to find the appropriate appraiser within sane driving distance of Southwestern Virginia, I'd email David Ober of Southeby's (contact info in link below) and ask him how to proceed. He trained in London Sotheby. Christie's might also be able to help you. Regards, miKKo
http://www.sothebys.com/en/specialists/david-ober/bio.html
AR8Jason, the way in which I set up the discursive complex sounds odd, but notice that I didn't use the subjunctive. It was not well written. Sorry.
This portrait was perhaps painted by Chalons; it could also be a copy. This is sometimes a problem with 'signed' works by Sir Joshua Reynolds. No disrespect was intended.
Lady Stanhope is beautiful, but to me, the portrait looks more like Queen Victoria.
A professional appraiser might well be able to verify that the subject is Queen Victoria, and that this miniature corresponds exactly to a known image of her and to the inscription on the back.
I think there was a "look" even in those days. Victoria became the "it girl" of her time. Young ladies would have their portrait done in this idealised form. Portrait painters had a "look" that was not necessarily realistic, but was a saleable commodity to the wealthy few. Beauty was idealised.
Photography would soon wipe all of this out the door and enable everyone to get involved, not just the rich.
Chalon was a "society painter" but his talents went further with Royal patronage and lead on to "official portraits", coins, stamps etc ..... iconic images of Victoria.
I agree that it might not be Victoria; she might be a young woman who had her portrait done in the style of times. Kev is right it is a great piece, take great care of it!
Wow.. reading some of this I think I need my hip boots! Thanks to everyone for your comments, input and love. I have looked at SO much of his work over the years that I feel some of the women in them are old friends. I too have thought that she looks like Victoria in some of them, but not in others. The one thing that is consistent in his portraits of Victoria is the eye color. In my opinion, Lady Stanhope appears to have brown eyes especially after enlarging the likeness. In fact a large percentage of the women in his works have brown or dark eyes. Of the comparisons I've made, I find this to be one of the more likely candidates, thought I wonder if the harpist was perhaps a model, rather than a patron:
http://www.klassiskgitar.net/Chalon,%20Alfred%20Edward%20%281780-1860%29%20-%20Harp%20Player,%20engraving%20by%20H.%20Austen,%20ca%201840,.jpg
Also, I find a similarity with a Henrietta Frances de Grey painting by Richard Austin Artlett, done after an Alfred Edward Chalon stipple engraving:
http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw191434/Henrietta-Frances-Cole-Countess-de-Grey
I'd love to hear if any of you think either of these are candidates.
miKKo, I have written Christie's and Sotheby's both by US mail a several years ago and more recently by email. I didn't send any pictures via the emails because I was concerned they would be deleted immediately due to computer virus concerns. I asked in my correspondence if I might send them in a followup email to include the photos. I never received an acknowledgment from either of them in any form. *shrugs* I suppose they aren't interested in some little old piece of ivory on a farm in Virginia. ;-)
I thought this was interesting: a self portrait by Princess Victoria. Note the curls!
http://www.robswebstek.com/2011/10/princess-victoria-self-protrait.html
Interesting thing about art, how everyone's eye is a little different, isn't it? Of course there is the similarity of dress and hairstyles of any given period and certain physical characteristics that are considered aesthetically pleasing at different times in history. I personally don't see Chalon's ladies as looking that much alike, Jason. But then we all look at them through different eyes. That's what makes art so precious to those of us who enjoy it in all it's forms... and why all the posts here aren't of the same things and in the same categories! I'm sure Lady Stanhope would appreciate you being her champion. :-)
stef, thanks for that link. I had never seen that before. Is it just me or do you think she looks terribly pensive in her self portrait?? I wonder if she had any idea what her life was about to become when it was done...
Good morning, all.
chinablue, I'm surprised that Sotheby's would just ignore you. If you are still interested in a professional appraisal, you might try telephoning the man in the link directly. Another avenue would be to contact someone at the Washington, D.C. National Portrait Gallery and ask for their advice on securing an appropriate appraiser.
I think your miniature is superb.Virginia is full of beautiful treasures and astute connoisseurs, and George Washington was a farmer. I expect to find magnificent things in Virginia! And I have - your miniature and your egg cups would seize the attention of anyone I know. Can't wait to see what you post next. Your knowledge, judgment, and research are impressive. Enjoyed the links. (Hope that doesn't sounds patronizing; apologies if it does.)
stefdesign, loved the link to Victoria's self portrait!
A splendid Tuesday to you all! Regards, miKKo
Amazing post. Just a thought...The British Museum and/or Sotheby's or Christie's auction houses might be contacted by email. The auction houses have portrait painting and miniatures experts. The department to contact at the British Museum is: Prehistory & Europe at email address below: prehistoryandeurope@britishmuseum.org
Sounds like they welcome questions: "Staff are engaged in helping members of the public with enquiries, the identification of objects and scholarly research." I'm sure your piece will intriguing to them as well!
Hi, chinablue! I'm revisiting the scene of the crime now - when my head is clearer. Last week, had cardiac problems. Could hardly move for five days. Yesterday, I took a flat tire to Walmart's for repair. While waiting, I picked up a package of paper towels and other paper goods. I could hardly make it back across the store to the automotive dept. When it came time to leave, Walmart staff retrieved my car and drove it right up to the door and loaded my paper goods inside the car - without being asked, and despite my telling them that I was OK. So, please pardon the goofy postings I sometimes make. CW is my lifeline to feeling better - I rally by looking at beautiful things and ignoring sickness. I apologize for the sloppy posts of yesterday.
About the possibility of this being a copy: it has to be considered. If I had time, I'd post on Show and Tell a damaged miniature I purchased at auction from a London dealer some years ago. Beautiful painting, but like yours it has split. I wasn't shocked that I won a split painting so reasonably. I purchased it because I thought it beautiful, and thought it would complement the decor in the pink and white bedroom. Imagine my shock when I removed the frame and discovered a signature just like that of Sir Joshua Reynolds. I emailed someone local who used to be with Christie's New York. Wonderful man. However, before I heard back from him, I had eliminated the possibility that it was an authentic Reynolds. In my case, ruling out an authentic Reynolds was easy because the medium was ivorine, not real ivory. From my research, among other things, I learned that students would often paint 'reproductions' of Reynolds’ works as a method of instruction. The Christie's appraiser counseled me to chalk it up as a learning experience. Now, I should have preferred not to mention on CW how excited I got over the possibility of owning an authentic Reynolds, but it is useful to reveal this. You will see that I meant to cast no aspersions on the authenticity or quality of your exquisite miniature. I think that your painting could well be authentic and could well be a portrait of a 'significant person'. But I think that it would take an expert in British portraits of this period to properly assess your painting.
The Christie's man I called upon responded to me very quickly. I should think that there are any number of persons who would be most pleased to examine your piece. I recommended the National Portrait Gallery (Washington) for a referral because they are close to you and they are expert. Christie's and Sotheby's will surely have someone who'd be interested. I suggest that if you try the Christie's/Sotheby's route again, you telephone first. People do answer their phones, though not always emails. Emailed photos are an excellent starter and adjunct, but I think that when you come down to the final appraisal, the appraiser should look at the object itself, not just the photos.
I went to college in northern Virginia, and I loved it. I never think of Virginia as 'second string'; rather, Virginia has a cachet of refinement for me....But enough on this matter.
RE your links of the harpist and other portrait: I do see a resemblance, but I cannot confirm a close likeness. That doesn't mean that I think that they are not of the same person, just that I can't tell whether they are or not.
Two other emailable options for advice/referral: The Courtauld Institute (London) and the National Portrait Gallery (London). miKKo
miKKo, I'm terribly sorry to hear about your health problems. I fully understand how the internet, particularly sites such as CW can keep your mind on other things. I too have health issues that keep me home most of the time now. I found your posts neither sloppy nor disparaging in any way.
You make a very good point about this piece needing to be seen in person and examined 'hands on'. The last time I took it to anyone was the dealer/appraiser I mentioned earlier that appears frequently on a televised antique appraisal show. That was several years ago.
I agree that there is no way to know for certain without a someone quite knowledgeable in Chalon's work for it to be considered authentic. Paintings have been copied since painting began! :-)
vintagelove, I appreciate your post and the link! I have written them about this and the John Wilmin Figg egg cups I have posted here too. I'll be sure and let you know if and when I hear anything from them.
Thanks again to everyone for the time and effort I know you've put into helping me with this item. I am most grateful.
I'm with AR8J and Mikko: known portraits were sometimes /often copied by lesser artists but I wonder if if it's likely that an artist like Chalon would have "repeated" his own painting on a smaller scale for a person to wear or give as a gift. As for the sitter, I'd go with AR8J here, too.
vintagelove, thanks again for the links that you posted. I did send information regarding this painting and the sterling egg cups I also had posted. I contacted the british museum and they did reply. They had no further information. They did state that they agreed with the this appeared to be authentic, with the caveat that it was based only on the photos. They also confirmed the information from the hallmarks on the egg cups. I find it interesting that they stated they had no miniatures by Chalon in their collection of his work and no egg cups in sterling. They also stated that other than that, all they could advise would be to contact the Victoria & Albert Museum in the hopes they may possibly have more information. So, at some point I'll probably contact them. If I find out anything more, I'll post it here!
Hi, chinablue! I'm so glad that you received a favorable response. Your gorgeous miniature looked authentic to me, too, but I had to hold out the possibility of its being a copy. I still have to hold out the possibility. I expected and still expect that in the end it will be authenticated. I didn't have the same bright expectation for the identification of the subject of the painting. Did the BM offer an opinion on this matter? Whoever it is, the miniature is an exquisite image.
Victoria & Albert Museum sounds like an excellent idea for both items. For the miniature, I had recommended an inquiry at the Courtauld Institute (London) and the National Portrait Gallery (London). Hopefully, you will find an answer before you have to contact the Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures, or Surveyor of the Queen's Works of Art. (Mild humor.) And hopefully, you will receive a suggestion for an appraiser of the miniature close to home. A long hunt, but gorgeous items full worthy of such a hunt! I'll stay tuned in. Regards, miKKo
Hi, AR8Jason. So glad you're feeling better and back in high mischief form! Did you pinch the painting?
Hahahaha!!!
Hi, AR8Jason. Probably, I should be too smart to ask what a left handed stamp is, but I'm not too smart at all. Not smart at all. What is a left handed stamp?
By the way, your response is brilliant and delightful!!! miKKo
Why am I not surprised that Jason... aka Kevin.. would be the one that would steal my painting. Anyone with an alias should be watched very closely! ;-)
Hi, AR8Jason. Thanks very much for the explanation. So, just one more note to add to the brillance! Bravo. Now, go back through the wireless tonight - you forgot the silver egg cups! Meanwhile, I'll take very good care of the virtual EXQUISITE miniature portrait. Promise.
Hi, chinablue! Seems that none of us can get enough of that miniature. It is magnificent!
Regards to all, miKKo
@chinablue: Any piece that draws this many comments and research from some very great researcher here on this forum. Demands my respect for a quality piece. I don't have anything to add to the conversation, but just wanted to "Speak Up" and say what a wonderful find you have here.
Dang, I'm so sad I missed the image of you in black tights, Kevin! When will you bring back the painting? Or were you framed? Painted into a corner? I hope you canvassed the neighborhood!
She's BAAAAACKKKK! Thanks to miKKo for taking such good care of her after the theft! ;-)
Thank goodness it looked so sad without the picture!....:-)
Hi, all. My pleasure, chinablue. It looks like the egg cups are safe now, too. The sage and witty stefdesign had a good talk with AR8Jason. He now realizes that he had a close 'brush' with peril, and finds the life of crime 'un-palette-able'. Plus, with your new added security system, he realizes that next time it won't be so 'easel-y' purloined. Regards to all! miKKo
You know, I won't even TRY to top that, miKKo! Your prose is so 'artfully' done, I'll just 'chalk' it up to a superior wit.
Hi, stefdesign! Thanks much for the compliment, but I beg to differ. Your AR8Jason riposte was so finely crafted and so spontaeously issued that I knew I was in the presence of a superior punster. My Dad and elder brother were both superior punsters, and I know a great one when I see 'em. Thou art such a one. Bravo! We are counting on you to keep AR8Jason from getting arrested. miKKo
*click clickity click clickety click* This just in...
The V & A replied very quickly. I'm sorry to say they have nothing to add on the painting. However, the egg cups have been passed on to their "Metalwork" department for further research.
Please stay tuned to this channel for any further updates.
Brilliant, yet deadly. Kevin, you are one slick thief!
The V&A don't know Vick!
It's just "BEAUTIFUL",Love Love Love it!!!!!!
Well, miKKo, as the Jester said right before he was hanged by the neck...."No noose is good noose". Also, Thanks, china, for finding the lovely girl and reposting her. "The face that launched a thousand posts." Jimbo
Oh, my. You are all too smart for me. I am hanging out now with a dangerous and witty crew, and I'm bound to get bested. jimborasco, I'm about to retreat to my Doniphan research, which is plenty confusing enough, thank you!, but before I do, I'm foolish enough to ask: Am I the Jester, have I been hanged? I'm not smart enough to tell, though I am smart enough to know that stefdesign and AR8Jason are most superior wits! Whew. miKKo
Hi, AR8Jason. I have no idea what that meant, but I know that you and stefdesign are a wonderful pair of wits, and it's delightful to behold. I will not ask about the sense of the pear being pared! Instead, I think I'll ask for your assistance in filling out a request form for some of Dorsey Doniphan's personal records. The agency holding them asks for proof of death - Doniphan was born in 1897. I think they'll waive that requirement.... Stay out of trouble, you two!
I hereby declare and vouch for the death of Mr. Dorsey Doniphan. For I was at his deathbed, and can declare that he is dead as a doornail.
Since I am rather 'pear shaped', I can declare that we can now pare this pair of pears.
Nonpareils!!!
Thank you both very much for your good cheer and camraderie! Stay out of trouble! miKKo
miKKO...no no...You are certainly NOT the Jester. I was quoting an old pun joke of the Jester who's frequent puns angered the king so that he sentenced the Jester to death by hanging and his last words were, "No noose is good noose".
Thank you, kindly jimborasco! That is good noose. So glad to meet another wit. Here's hoping all three of you can stay out of trouble today! Regards, miKKo
Ok, miKKO.. you have bested the rest so far. The V & A referred me to National Portrait Gallery, London..which I humbly admit you had advised earlier but I did not heed your advise. So.. now we wait. In the mean time, I will keep checking back to see what new jape is taking place here. Now you even have jimbo getting in on the 'pun'! *shaking my head* Between you, Jason, stef and jim this portrait post could become the longest and most cheerful one on here! Thanks to you all. I appreciate your interest and your wit.. and yes, even your nits. Just don't let any get on the painting!
Hi, chinablue! Thanks much for your gracious words. Who knows, the National Gallery might end up referring you to the Royal Academy....I mentioned Courtauld, too, because it is a storied institution, with excellent research facilities. I remember reading an account from the 1980's that indicated that a recent Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures was frequently there. I think that it is haunted by the best of British art scholars. Frankly, chinablue, I am most surprised by how casually some organizations have taken this. I should have thought that the prospect of reviewing what appeared to be a signed 1837 Chalon miniature that might depict Queen Victoria herself would have excited considerably more interest! I'm sure that when you find just the right appraiser, he'll express his appreciation of the miniature admirably. Anyway, thank you very much for your gracious words! Regards, miKKo
Hi, chinablue. Promise this will be my last posting on this thread today unless I'm called upon directly! The current Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures, Desmond Shawe-Taylor, is from Oxford and Courtauld, and he's written two books on portraits: "Genial Company: the theme of genius in eighteenth-century British portraiture" and "The Georgians: eighteenth-century portraiture and society".
Information from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Shawe-Taylor
Regards, miKKo
*clickity click clickity click* This update just in:
I finally heard from the National Portrait Gallery. They were quite cordial and forthcoming with their comments and information about this painting.
They stated in part "Sitters for Chalon's miniatures seem to have lost their identity much more than other his other portraits, perhaps because they are such intimate items that they are less often displayed on walls, with labels identifying them to future generations unfamiliar with the sitter. I have compared your photographs with our files of reproductions of Chalon’s work, as well as with the portraits in our own collection. There is some similarity with the Chalon’s portrait of the Duchess of Cleveland, but this is not close enough to be entirely convincing.
I am afraid that in the absence of some other evidence than the sitter’s appearance, this miniature must remain unidentified, but I will retain the image for our files in the hope that some additional clue may surface in the future."
Sooo.. it seems that this lady will remain a mystery, at least for now. I have not heard more from the V & A as to information on the egg cups. I have wondered if there is perhaps some connection to them since these things were together. Thanks to everyone that has helped in this research and participated in the mock 'theft' of this miniature's photos! Special thanks to miKKo and vintagelove for providing information for and urging me to contact the resources they mentioned. If and when I find out more, I promise I will post it here. But it's really exciting to think that the little lady next to my bed is now part of the National Portrait Gallery! :-)
You can see Catherine Lucy Wilhelmina Powlett (née Stanhope), Duchess of Cleveland here :
http://images.npg.org.uk/800_800/2/8/mw144628.jpg
I find it interesting that they see a similarity between this Stanhope and my painting since so many of you saw one between Lady Adelaide Stanhope and this painting. I haven't checked to see if they were related, but I'm guessing they were!
Hi, chinablue! How wonderful that your miniature was assessed by the National Portrait Gallery! Now that you mention the egg cups, I wondered about a connection, too, but didn't mention it. There are so few members of the Order of the Garter, and the fact that they both came to you together might be suggestive. miKKo
What a wonderful journey for you and! I must say to all of us that have been watching, although not final I'm sure that as you say to have such a most wonderful treasure! well done to you!...:-)
I echo inky's comments from Down Under! Intriguing and provocative object!
Hi, chinablue! I'm hesitant to say anything upon the subject, because I'm in the company of many who are far too clever for me to keep up with, but I see that Lady Adelaide Stanhope is in the Courtauld Institute. I will take AR8Jason's word that Catherine Lucy Wilhelmina Powlett (née Stanhope), Duchess of Cleveland is Lady Adelaide Stanhope. Did anyone inquire what color her eyes are? Just a thought. Happy Fourth of July, everyone! miKKo
miKKo, don't EVER be afraid to speak up! Cleverness and knowledge are quite different things. Personally, I've found many of your comments quite clever, not to mention knowledgeable. :-) No one has made any inquires into or in any other way mentioned the eye color except when I, early on in these comments, mentioned the blue eyes of the woman in the painting I have.
I have yet to find a connection between Lady Adelaide Stanhope and Catherine Lucy Wilhelmina Powlett (née Stanhope), Duchess of Cleveland. Until I do, I will continue to believe them separate indivuals. The only place (other than the Courtauld) that I see anything about Lady Adelaide Stanhope show up is on sites that sell prints of the Chalon painting which the NPG refers to as Catherine Lucy Wilhelmina Powlett (née Stanhope), Duchess of Cleveland. It makes me pause and consider that perhaps someone, somewhere, sometime labeled the painting wrong on one web site, either by mistake or perhaps some business with copyright laws and it blossomed from there. Catherine Lucy Wilhelmina Powlett (née Stanhope) is mentioned frequently as she was close to Queen Victoria, was one of her bridesmaids, and is mentioned in the Queen's journals/diaries as Wilhelmina but NEVER as Adelaide. I think it odd that she would not be referred to as Adelaide if that were truly one of her many names. I also haven't been able to find any reference to "Lady Adelaide Stanhope" with either the V & A or the NPG. As to the Courtauld Institute, I find it interesting that they and the NPG call the sitter by different names. One of these days when I have nothing to do, I may write and see if they have any information to unmuddy the waters. If I find out anything, I'll post it here! Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but it's been a pretty hectic month with my 'logger' being injured. :-)
separate indivuals = separate individuals which = redundancy
I'll be begging your pardon for that. *LOL*
I believe your miniature portrait is of Marie, Princess of Leiningen. She was married to Victoria's nephew, the Prince of Leiningen, and a nearly identical Chalon copy of this portrait was given to Victoria herself by Marie:
http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/microsites/VictorianMiniatures/MicroObject.asp?item=19&themeid=1316&object=420734&row=19&detail=magnify
Adding, at the time of the miniature portrait, Marie would have been around 30 years old. I had a lot of fun trying to solve your mystery. As I understand it, miniature portraits were something like "snapshots" of their time. Often a sitter would have several copies made to share with friends, etc., which would explain why there are two of these!
Ah, batbrat! What grand work!!! Chinablue will be ecstatic. May I ask, where does this portrait reside? Would an inquiry to the Courtauld Institute likely have discovered it? Wonderful!!! : )
May I ask, batbrat, are you an Art Historian? Very fine work!
Mikko, I don't know whether an inquiry to Courtauld has been made. They'd likely have solved this in much shorter order than I was able to.
The portrait in the link above resides in The Royal Collection.
To answer your second question, no, I'm not an art historian. I'm an art collector as well as an artist/illustrator and photo restorer. I fell in love with this miniature and spent wayyy too much time trying to solve the mystery. I followed several promising leads from the comments, but eventually was of the opinion that the "Stanhope" trail wasn't going to pan out (for a few reasons, but mostly just because of facial structure).
A decade or so ago, before search engines like Google were "streamlined", this would have been a much easier mystery to solve. I miss those days.
Correcting an earlier post of mine. According to Wiki, Marie was born in 1817, and would have been 19 years old at the time of the portrait, not 30. What a beauty!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Marie_Amelie_of_Baden
Thank you very much, batbrat, for your generous response! Ah, no an inquiry to Courtauld was not made. That was an option. I remember, at least when Sir Anthony Blunt was the Surveyor of the King's Pictures and Director of the Courtauld, he had an office at the Courtauld. And the Courtauld is superb!...I didn't realize that Google made it harder. A remarkable search by a remarkable researcher! Bravo!!! Hope that you find other mysteries on CW to interest you. Very nice to meet you, and thank you very much for your courtesy! Regards, miKKo
What a great result and congratulations to you bat brat for your work on this one!
Perseverance pays off!
Also posting an image of a digital restoration that I did, how I think your portrait might look after restoration. If you ever have that done, please post pics!
http://www.fly-by-night.net/marieamelie.jpg
Well done batbrat!
Still hoping chinablue sees the recent posts. I'm wondering if she's had the portrait looked at in the past few months, and what (if anything) she's discovered in that time.
Oh, batbrat, please pardon me stepping in for our beautiful chinablue here, but I didn't want you to think that you were being ignored. Chinablue has many responsibilities, and has sometimes been absent for significant periods. When she returns and discovers your findings, her response will be prompt, eager, gracious, and most grateful! She has been searching for an answer for years! Once again, "Bravo!!!" to you. : )
batbrat, I am absolutely stunned! Speechless and so very thankful! I had really given up hope that I would ever know who this young woman might have been. I can't tell you how much I appreciate you taking the time to find out and to post that information. As you can see from all the posts, I have spent YEARS trying to find out something more about this woman and painting than the information that was written on the reverse. I don't know how you managed to figure it out, but I am SO grateful that you did.. AND that you took the time to leave the information for me! And what grand information at that. It's amazing that given the information that you provided (specially the fact that a copy of this painting is that collection) no one I had contacted over the years in any of the British establishments/museums/organizations made the connection. There is nothing more I can do to express my thanks for your help besides saying "Thank You" so that will have to suffice. But I hope that knowing you have solved a mystery of such long standing ( at least 3 generations of my family ) is reward enough. I agree with miKKo.. Bravo. Please, take a bow!!
miKKo, thanks SO much for leaving the post to batbrat. Anyone that can contribute such vital and desperately sought information needed to know it wasn't being ignored.
For everyone else that helped with information as to research and offered your suggestions and opinions, thanks to you all for your dogged persistence. I'm just so happy it payed off! Now, it makes me wonder if there is a connection with this woman and the sterling egg cups..this could open up an entirely new avenue of research options for them. I am SO excited! :-)
Ah, the egg cups!
I wonder about the egg cups too! I found a Leiningen (Baden) royal family crest so very much like the one on your silver cups (same motto on the strap and buckle, ermine trimmed crown) that I believe they almost certainly have to be related:
http://www.almanachdegotha.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Leiningen-arms.jpg
Marie Amelie 'Elisabeth Caroline' was her birth name. The time period is right from the hallmarks. Gives me chills to think the egg cups could have been hers!
This article FYI:
Royal Death: Princess of Leiningen
http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/royal-death-princess-of-leiningen.html
Oh wow, batbrat! Now you've made ME shiver. *L* The circular portion is the insignia/symbol that is used by the order of the garter, as are the words seen on it. When I get my head on straight and back on track with the research of the cups, I'll certainly have to look into that. Life has been.. well 'life' the last few months. We have lost several outbuildings on the farm due to heavy snow and high winds, Jim has had terrible problems with his asthma due to the cold air and I have just let these things go for a while and tried to keep warm! I will have to really go through all the posts on the egg cups and see where I had left off in my inquiries and perhaps being armed with the information about Marie, that trail will lead us to more information about them. I can see where there would be some connection, if for no other reason than they have been kept together all these years. Again, thank you SO very much for your help!
@ vetraio50, when I think of all the people and places I've dealt with on those things, as well as this painting just makes my head spin. Hopefully, information on them may pop up as unexpectedly and thankfully as it did on this painting! :-)
@vetraio50
Hopefully it won't throw more confusion your way regarding this mystery, but there were two Princesses Marie Amelie, both related, both close to Victoria, and both from Leiningen (Baden). The article you posted was the other Marie Amelie, who was Victoria's lifelong BFF and even appeared in the last photograph taken of Victoria.
When I get a chance, I'll prepare a makeshift "tree" to show how they were all related.
Thanks batbrat. You are indeed correct. My apologies for the mistake about the two Marie Amelie's. A family name.
This one, the subject of chinablue's portrait is Marie Amelie of Baden (Marie Amelie Elisabeth Caroline; 11 October 1817 in Karlsruhe – 17 October 1888 in Baden-Baden), was the youngest daughter of Karl, Grand Duke of Baden and Stephanie de Beauharnais, the adopted daughter of Napoleon I of France.
In 1837 her title was Her Grand Ducal Highness Princess Marie of Baden.
Married she was Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon, later the Dowager Duchess of Hamilton, Princess of Baden after the death of her husband in 1863.
Another point, through her daughter, she is the great-great-grandmother of the current reigning prince of Monaco, Albert II.
And to the other but different Marie Amelie there is a portrait of her as well in the Royal Collection "Marie of Baden, Princess of Leiningen (1834-99)".
It is a later portrait by William Watson in 1858. Another beauty!
http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/object.asp?maker=DOUG&object=420736&row=6524
Chinablue, you're most welcome! I rejoice for you!! So very fine to see you and to share batbrat's findings with you. I am very sorry to hear about the heavy snows and cold weather, and of Jimbo's asthma and the damage to the barns. Spring is right around the corner, and soon Jimbo will get some relief. Please give him my regards. As for the barns, ah, I hope that any livestock and horses housed therein were not injured or traumatized! Grand news about the silver egg cups, too!!! Wonderful info from batbrat and vetraio!...Please take care of yourself. Looking forward to the day when you'll have time to play on CW often. : ) miKKo
I have really enjoyed reading the posts relating to Chinablue's fascinating miniature (I found this website when I Googled 'Chalon miniature ivory'). I was particularly interested because I believe I also have a miniature on ivory painted by Alfred Edward Chalon dated 1815. However, I am finding it difficult to decipher the lettering on the back of the painting to clarify which Chalon painted it. Yesterday I even took it to a recording of the BBC TV programme The Antiques Roadshow which was being filmed at a nearby stately home. However, despite queuing for 4 hours to see one of the art experts he was unable to shed further light on it and could only say that it was original but couldn't definitely say that it was by Alfred Chalon. The lettering on the reverse says 'After Sir J Reynolds by ? ? Chalon 1815'. The painting is a beautiful detail of a child's head copied from Sir Joshua Reynolds' famous painting 'Angel's Heads' a child's portrait in different views, 1786-7. I was interested to note miKKo's comment about students often copying Sir Joshua Reynold's work as a method of instruction. I wondering if during the course of any contributor's research they have seen an example of Chalon's signature? Despite visiting the Witt Library (a picture library) within the Courtauld Institute I could not find any similar pieces of work by Alfred Edward Chalon within his files. I will shortly attempt to upload some pictures of the painting. Any advice gratefully received!
Hi, LucydF! Welcome aboard CW! There are five examples of Chalon’s signature on the website in the first link. I didn’t rummage in the second link. Third link provides signature on correspondence. Signatures for paintings are often different than signatures on correspondence – as I’m SURE you already know. : ) Perhaps one of these links might help a bit. Did you ask the Courtauld if they had Chalon’s signature? Please pardon the question. Sometimes I cannot find something in a library and have to ask a Librarian for assistance. Regards, miKKo
http://www.findartinfo.com/search/listprices.asp?keyword=2822
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/artists/chalon_alfred.html
http://historical.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=201237&lotIdNo=11016
Well done milko! Love to see the new Chalon too, LucydF!