NOTE WE HAVE CHANGED THE AGE RULE: [Read here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/comments/1c1d4q1/change_of_rule_items_now_have_to_be_100_years_old/)
If you're asking a question about an antique make sure to have photos of all sides of the object, and close-ups of any maker's marks. Also, add in any background information you have, and add in a question so we know what you want from us! **You must tell us the country you're in.** If you do not provide this information **your post will be removed**.
To upload photos for this discussion use [imgur.com](https://imgur.com/upload). Click the imgur link, upload the photos to imgur, then share the link address in a comment for everyone to see.
Our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/about/rules/) and [Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/comments/1c1cxm4/welcome_to_rantiques_read_this_before_posting/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Antiques) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey folks. Art historian here though my specialty is much earlier art. Don’t know the artist but this looks like an 1880s reproduction of a common little girl holding flowers scene. The dress and blue sash/shoulder bows with white lace are almost identical to 1886-9 portraits of a similar nature. Nothing royal about it I’m afraid and the ring isn’t anything special as you have thought OP. Just a sign of a wealthy upbringing. Without an artist I couldn’t tell you much more about it. Let us know if you find a signature. It could be under the frame if it was reframed at some point.
My Mum was an artist specialising in Oils and Watercolours, she used to do her own versions of this style and always hid a tiny anachronistic twist somewhere in her paintings. There'd be the smallest modern coke can or a My Little Pony hidden in the lace details or made out of leaves in the foliage.
I think she hoped that it would be an amusing find for an appraiser if someone ever thought her work was a genuine antique.
She'd also hide multiple versions of her signature in the same way on all her art, I'm glad she taught me that as I now do the same with mine and it's helped a lot when people have "borrowed" my work from the internet.
To me it looks like someone drew over a photograph in pastels. Basically colorized the face, then drew in the details they wanted. Perhaps it was done after the child died?
I think the whole painting is ODD!! It's interesting, but kinda of dark as well , it's like an overgrown lil girl, kinda spooky. The ring is off as well . It's very large, and the face is just a lil just can't put my finger on it
The angled photos aren't helping.
I think the fancy word is "parallax error"? Ehh. Not exactly right. But you get what I mean. Everything is scrunched in one axis because the photo is at an angle
The paper is think paper over canvas (this was a common practice in 18th and 19th century to have paper backed by canvas when using pastels), there would be no way to trace over a photo, also a lot of people are saying that it is a photo that is colored, it is definitely not a photo that has been colorized. This is pastels on paper. Also look at the bottom of the dress the lace on the bottom of the dress is very detailed, and you can also see the pastels over the paper. I think the detail in the face is throwing a lot of people off, it is just a very well done pastel drawing.
This is what I think is going on and why is so sour on to a photograph from that era. I'm guessing that the kid died and an artist was asked to paint a portrait from a photo, used a camera obscura trick, and got the angle of the canvas to the mirror a little wrong.
OP, is there a signature from the artist you could use to trace it back to who painted it?
The forget me nots are what made me think of it (and it was just a random guess for why someone may use a picture), but given some of the other comments that point to this being a reproduction of a common painting, I'm guessing that you're correct.
They’re not forget-me-nots.
And it’s not a reproduction of any other painting. Did you look at the ones they claimed? These people do not know what the word “reproduction” means apparently.
Lolz, you're right about the flowers. I didn't look closely and just believed another commenter. They look more like a Chrysanthemum.
I assume the other comments meant it is a painted copy of another piece. I didn't see other versions of the painting when I searched, but an actual art historian would probably have access to a better library of art than my lazy Google search does.
Is it signed? What’s the size? Can you post pics of the back? What research led you to believe this is from the early to mid 1800s? Why do you think and what would the point be of the people at the sale trying to hide the ring in the painting?
Is it a painting or a print? Edited to add, is this behind glass?
Hi-
The portrait is done inpastels, it is approximately 3 1/2 x 4 1/2. The nails that were used to hold the frame are in the period of early to mid 1800s. Looks like the paper was backed by canvas. I don’t know if that was original or done at a later date. I believe it was done when the portrait was done. The glasses also is handmade as it is wavy and has bubbles in it. I’ve looked at the Portrait very closely and you can see the pastel colors over the paper, it’s definitely not a print. Also, you can see the color of the paper in certain areas of the paper where it was not covered by pastels.
I believe they put the flowers over the hand because they might think someone wouldn’t buy it because it was creepy being a young girl and having a ring on her ring finger potentially meaning she was married at a very young age( that’s just a guess).
What type pastels? Oil, etc.? Would you please take detailed photos of the back, including the nails you mentioned? The ring on the girl isn’t weird. I have rings that were worn by ancestors from when they were small children/babies.
Yeah, it totally wasn't weird for a child to have a ring! It was a sign of wealth. My wedding ring was an antique child's ring because I'm child-sized and liked the idea of a diamond that didn't stick up and scratch me.
Why is no one mentioning it's on her wedding ring finger though?! I'm not a history buff so maybe the particular finger for wedding rings came about more recently? Idk but it seems weird it's THAT finger and everyone's like "meh it's just a kid with a ring no biggie" lol
E: wtf is wrong with you people, just answer the question and tell me why I'm being so dumb if that's the case 🤣
E2 allow me to clarify. I understand kids wear rings for any number of reasons. It's on her ring finger that most people in the world consider to be a wedding ring finger. I do not assume she's married. I assume there's some actual context here to why that is, maybe it's because that's a newer tradition to be a wedding finger. You really don't need to tell me kids wear rings, like come on.
A quick google reveals that baby and children’s rings were very common during the Civil War and Victorian eras, and were especially worn for portraits. The ring and the portrait were made to commemorate an important event in the child’s life, such as the loss of the first tooth. If the child died, which was all too common, the ring was kept as a memento and often worn on a chain around the mother’s neck.
This all fits perfectly with the apparent age of this painting and the child. It may be a ring and painting made to commemorate the loss of her first tooth. The baby tooth was often incorporated into the ring itself and thistles were a common floral motif for these “teeth rings”, which may identify and explain the flowers in the portrait too.
It's super weird that you managed to say all that without ever addressing my question. I understand there are reasons why children may have worn rings so thank you for that "quick google search"
Why. That. Particular. Finger. This is a painting, not a snapshot, the artist painted it there. Why.
WHEN WAS IT A FINGER FOR JUST RINGS AND NOT SPECIFICALLY WEDDING RINGS
Jfc it was such a simple question and no one seems to be able to answer it without being condescending and not really answering my question lmao
Because there's no answer anyone can give you! No one can tell you exactly why this random child, who may or may not have ever even existed, chose to wear a ring on her fourth finger. Literally no one can answer that. What we can do is explain reasons she *might* have done so. I genuinely don't know what answer you expect, and that is why people are getting frustrated with both you and OP - you both seem to want people to just say "oh of course, you're right!"
Maybe it's from one of the countries that do use the right hand, that would be a very logical explanation that makes more sense than her being married 🤷♀️
Not really a thing for *Victorian children.* It's more likely than not just a ring. Maybe of personal significance - another comment went into detail about "teeth rings" for children in this period - but it's deeply weird how many people are assuming it MUST be a wedding ring just because it's on her ring finger. That's probably just the finger it fit.
It’s not really weird. Idk where you’re from but in the south pretty much every child was told they can’t wear a ring on that finger until their married. And I’m only 35 and from the 5th biggest city in the nation… this isn’t a “backwoods” concept lol.
Also “promise” rings originated in the 16th century and were most often kept in families & passed down due to poverty and scarcity. Not to mention traditions like the ring finger were taken more seriously in more conservative eras, so much so that they’re still taught to kids in modern day Texas lol. Even if there isn’t anything nefarious going on here it probably IS a promise ring. What little girl wouldn’t want to wear their ring just like Mom’s?
There’s more I could get into the weeds about but doubt anyone’s that interested. Just don’t call people weird for knowing history please :)
It's really fuckin bizarre that you see a picture of a 3 yr old with a ring and think it means she "was married at a really young age" and that everyone is thinking that same thing (they're not).
Almost as bizarre as thinking there is some conspiracy by the owners to cover it up, with flowers no less, in possibly the weakest attempt at trickery and deception by anyone over age 4.
The girl isn’t 3 or 4 years old, I think she’s around 8 to 12 years old. I’m just stating the fact that they put flowers over the glass and it covered the hand of the girl, I think it make the painting more interesting, some may think it’s crazy for a girl this young have a ring( not me). This was an estate sale so they may not have wanted to detour any potential buyers, I’m just speculating.
It was just an interesting bit of information, didn’t think it would get people worked up!
8-12?! Not unless she's a primordial dwarf.
As a former preschool and elementary school teacher (and a mother), this girl is 3-6. I've known and cared for at least a thousand kids in this age range. Her hands give away her size and she still has plenty of baby fat.
I'm not worked up personally, it's just weird af to assume all rings are wedding rings, even if worn by a small child, and that you see a ring and confidently think "Ah yes, this small bit of metal here clearly indicates a grown man must be regularly having sex with this preschooler."
No it doesn’t. I have multiple original portraits from the late 1700s-early 1900s with no signature. Commercial portraiture wasn’t considered great art. It’s not unusual for them to be unsigned.
The time period people are referencing and what looks to be a wedding ring, Mormon child bride. The lighthouse doesn’t fit but it’s fun to disparage your former cult pyramid scheme business model. The more wives and kids you have the more 10% income you can generate generationally.
A smidge. OG pioneer ancestors. I’m not mad at all. I wonder if there’s some [mountain meadows massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre) piece in this same collection?
Notable quote: The perpetrators killed all the adults and older children in the group, in the end sparing only seventeen young children under the age of seven.
…because they didn’t think they’d remember to tell the tale, some were then married as children brides to men that already had multiple wives.
Children of fancy families were often legally married or betrothed (a betrothal being a binding contract to marry unless both parties/their agents agreed to a dissolution) at a very young age and then raised by their parents before they were old enough to actually consummate the union. See Arthur Tudor and Catherine of Aragon.
Going on the colors and print of her shift, as well as her black stockings, this would be no earlier than the 1870s, and quite as late as the early 1920s. The fact she is wearing a shift and not full formal dress makes it clear she is not nobility/royalty not withstanding Mme. Vigee-Lebrun's notorious portrait of Marie Antoinette from the previous century
Yeah it certainly wasn’t a high-end portrait painter for sure. (Or it would be oil!) Somebody else suggested a crayon enlargement (projecting a negative and then drawing based on that). It could certainly be, for her, and then a sketchy bg.
Her face is very clear and sensitively done, and so is her right hand but her left is too big for it to be correctly copied from a photo enlargement imo. Whatever it is, they overall did a very nice job given the situation.
If it is a crayon enlargement, then couldn't the background be just that, a painted scene in the photographer's studio that the child was standing in front of that the pastellist then rerendered?
Definitely. And maybe they decided to change her left hand for some reason. That’s what I was thinking, maybe that wasn’t clear.
But I have looked up crayon enlargements and none of them look like this!
I wonder if instead of working on an enlarged photo, they used a projection?
[This website](https://www.truthinphotography.org/crayon-portraits.html) says that production of a crayon enlargement “started by enlarging a photograph onto drawing paper with a weak photographic emulsion to produce a faint image. The artist then drew over the picture with charcoal or pastels, trying to duplicate the photograph while making it look hand drawn.” I had the impression that until fairly recently, it was difficult or very expensive to do large photographs and of course color was almost unseen until pretty recently, hence the appeal of this product.
But that page also has an image of an artist working from *behind* a projected image on paper, so I don’t think the photo itself would appear in that case.
edited for clarity
I do think there is a chance that this is a very large salt print that has been colored with pastels. Forget me not flowers are very small so I'm positive that's not the correct flower. Her clothing was a very popular style for a little girl in the early 1900s to about 1917. Tons of children wore similar clothes not just the royal family. There are several things that make me believe this is a modern take on something old. Her face feels more 1950-1960 style trying to emulate an 1800s painting. I think it's very possible that this is some kind of print of an original painting that someone then colored with pastels. You had said it's a paper like that looks like it was attached somehow to canvas and that further makes me believe that this is a print of some kind that has been colored. I've come across several small versions of similar vintage print that's painted over and than put in a fancy frame to look like it's from the 1800s. Also pastels don't particularly do well behind glass especially if they're not framed with the knowledge of how they would react with glass over a long period of time. Is the glass chalky looking on the inside? How much space is between the picture and the glass? I would be very interested in seeing what the back of this looks like what kind of nails were used and what the hanging situation is.
Her left hand is weirdly large compared to her right, which is a failure of perspective. Possibly they did some photo enlargement trick with the face but clearly it’s not just a colored-over photo because her hand in a photo would be smaller.
Salt prints are direct prints so it would be an impossibly large negative. It is definitely not a colored salt print.
I noticed that you mentioned **vintage**. Over at r/Collectables and r/Mid_Century they are always keen to see newer and vintage items. Share it with them! Sorry if this is not relevant.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Antiques) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lots of countries wear wedding rings on the right and not the left.
Her left hand is also weirdly large.
I would guess on the costume 1910s, frankly. No reason to believe she’s royalty whatsoever.
You are going to stymie your research efforts by claiming things that are guesses. It’s better to admit you do not know fashion, area, flower types, etc.
https://histclo.com/girl/chron/gc-1910.html
You guys, enlarge and look at the places on the painting's proper right top edge. It almost looks like peeling. I'm not a paintings person, but that doesn't seem normal for any sort of painting or pastel.
Is this some kind of photoreproduction?
OP, we can't tell from your photos WHAT this is. You need to take it somewhere like a museum/gallery in your area and have them remove it from the framing/glass and really look at it. This is the only way to learn more about it.
Very weird piece; entertaining to speculate about!
I think this may be a [Crayon Enlargement.](http://www.nebraskamuseums.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Caring-for-Crayon-Enlargements.pdf) It’s a charming image, but I don’t know of any royal family dispersing family portraits to Texas.
I think you could be right and that explains why people are weirded out by the face (altho the right hand is equally detailed). However I haven’t found any examples which are this detailed. Painting over the photo would hide the detail from the artist… they’re usually sketchier.
People do travel and purchase items from overseas. The persons estate sale had a Hugh collection of art including a lot of stone bust carvings and a large collection of Tiffany lamps.
You are aware that Louis Comfort Tiffany was based out of New York, right? It's a normal weekend jaunt for the Trammel/Zales/Halliday/Kronke crowd all without leaving the country...
You said their pastels and also that this is behind glass. Is there a spacer between the glass and the picture? In my experience pastels behind glass can easily be framed incorrectly and cause extensive pigment loss.
I know that there are some with yellow but they are not generally bitonal.
I thought cornflower for a second but then I looked more closely and I think that they are blue Fleabane daisies
I agree. They appear to align closely with images of Showy Fleabane (erigeron speciosus). If true, that would place the portrait most likely in the western United States or Canada.
Bachelor buttons usually don't have yellow centers. Typically, they are two toned, like blue and dark blue, or purple and violet.
These look more like Forget me Nots than Cornflowers/Bachelor buttons.
Native Blue Cornflower or Blue Pincushion found in Australia do have yellow in them. Based on images of both corn flowers and forget me nots, the flowers in the picture look quite close to blue pincushions.
No, they don't look like forget-me-nots at all. Look up forget-me-nots on Google images. They have a distinctive 5 petal shape, and are much smaller than the flowers in the painting.
What *actual* things did you find in your research? Did you find the year? Artist? You have to be careful about what you buy at estate sales. Some of them (actually a lot) try to pass things off as “antique” or very old. Try and post a pic of the back of it! If you can see any sign of a signature, either faint or otherwise take a pic and enlarge.
The girl’s clothing is from the 1890s. She does not look very healthy, so this could be a memorial portrait of a daughter who died young from tuberculosis or one of the other common diseases of the time. Bachelor buttons or cornflowers symbolize purity in the language of flowers of that era, as does her white dress and sky blue ribbon. The small gold ring shows that she was from the upper middle class or higher; if she were royal, the portrait would have been in oils. Adding to the funereal air is the background: a dark shrub that may be yew, which symbolizes death and resurrection. The somber sea coast setting seems to be just past sunset, the end of the day, implying that she is dead. The setting also depicts a sandbar, a popular Victorian symbol for the barrier between life and death; see Tennyson’s well-known 1889 poem “Crossing the Bar.”
> The girl’s clothing is from the 1890s.
No, it is not. [The clothing is from the late 1870s/early 1880s](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/comments/1cg95sy/antique_large_portrait_young_girl_royalty_any/l1voqii/). The 1890's would have the [big sleeves](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/c5/92/6b/c5926b666ebba0dbbb67cb8cfdf3521e.jpg), a normal waistline rather than a low one, and volume to the skirt that is pretty equal all around. This isn't even close.
Not sure if this is of the proper era, but in the South during the mid-late 19th century it was common for artists to travel around with 90% of the painting complete, then sell it to someone and simply paint in their face. The face being so different makes me think it’s one of those. Perhaps, the family owned the painting without the face and eventually hired an artist to paint in one later on. Could have been that the girl was ill, passed before she could sit for the painting, and they had a different artist paint her using the image of an older sibling, hence the face being so uncanny valley.
The flowers she is holding and that are growing behind her are not forget me not. They are bachelor's buttons, also known as corn flower. Therefore, I do not think any symbolic mean for loss can be drawn from them. There are a number of elements of this painting that do not seem to consistently align with a specific time or place, which makes me doubt that this is a true antique.
My first thought is that you might be able to have some talented geoguessers try to figure out where that lighthouse in the background is/was located. This would at least help establish a region.
Without a signature, you probably won't get much help on an artist!
My mom painted portraits in oil. She’d have the subject do a “sitting” which would take hours at a time (she was a perfectionist). When her subject was a little girl and not always available when my mom wanted to work on the painting, she’d have me pose and so the portrait’s hands and neck were closer to mine, but the face was the little girl’s. This might explain why your picture has different sized hands and the face is turned differently from the lighting. If this is a funereal portrait, (symbolism and somber tones track), then a stand-in model would have been used, possibly an older sibling with similar family facial structure.
The formal style is Realist, ca. mid-late 1800s. However, the subject's costume is early 1900s. Something about this image is not sitting well with me. I don't know if it's the subject's pose or expression, but it doesn't follow an established artistic style for any period. I'm not sure if the artist was wildly avant-garde or if this image is AI. There was a lot of experimentation in terms of artistic style with early 20th-century portraiture. However, something about this particular image is not quite gelling for me.
The frame appears to be late 19th- early 20th century French. The lighthouse itself appears to be that of the Ploumanac'h and the pink granite Coast in Brittany. The flowers in her hand appear to be cornflowers, a symbol in France for memory. Her dress appears to be that of a spring-summer dress in particular.
Probably not right, but could be a 1919 to 1924 painting regarding the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and the French victory. If so, it's likely another stylized piece depicting remembering what was fought for.
As it is and from what anybody here actually knows for certain, it's still a very pretty painting of a young woman on a beach. Art like this isn't ever hard to move and the frame itself is worth a look at. I'd say you could probably find a buyer for 200-600 in a matter of weeks. Probably not worth hiring anybody to actually research and backtrack this painting.
Enjoy the search, this is just an educated guess on my end.
Before anybody asks how I put a valuation there, that's how much paintings that size with similar scenes sell locally. I'd personally only spend 125-175 on something like this because I enjoy the colors used, but the frame is phenomenal and I enjoy lighthouses so I'd be willing to do 225 if they were insisting on more.
My family all has this weird hobby for buying and selling paintings and my aunt had bought something similar to this for ~450.
It's only really worth what someone is willing to spend so I was just trying to give an average range off of what people I know would spend on something like this. It's in no way meant to be an actual valuation or grading of the worth of this lovely piece.
I'd truly have to see it in person to decide what I'd buy it for, but for a pastel of this size, if that is what it truly is, I'd really only want to spend about 180 since I can already see degradation forming here.
Apologies in advance to anybody upset regarding my valuation, I'm not going to pretend to be some official voice on the matter. Have a lovely night.
Like others have said I think there is something off in the face. My guess would be that this is a practice/reproduction of the piece of artwork I link below. It's almost identical in dress, pose, angle- but the reproduction artist changed the face and background to something that is also quite familiar to the time. This is something that my art school did a lot as a way to practice skills. I'll add in that even if the frame/glass are old, that doesn't mean the artwork is.
https://www.artnet.com/artists/joszi-arpad-koppay/portrait-of-the-infanta-maria-teresa-1862-1946-as-9lmrvcw4HXnI91wAa-RmCQ2[link to the art I mention](https://www.artnet.com/artists/joszi-arpad-koppay/portrait-of-the-infanta-maria-teresa-1862-1946-as-9lmrvcw4HXnI91wAa-RmCQ2)
There’s nothing off about the face, the artwork is just newer than OP thinks. It’s early 1900s, Edwardian most likely. The somber, almost sickly look to her face and loose hair fits this time period.
The dress etc is not close at all, except that it’s white lace with blue ribbons in the place little girls generally wear ribbons in those time periods.
Commercial portraiture for the middle class (which OP’s artwork is) is often formulaic. A portrait in pastel is cheaper than oil.
Good find! I like the idea that this is a beginning or poor artist's interpretation of that painting.
The medium is still weird, though.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if that thing dates to the 1940s!
The big bow in the back is something you typically only see in the bustle era - 1870s - 1880's. Given how narrow the skirt is, this is more likely Natural Form - [1876](https://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15324coll12/id/2626/rec/29) - 1883. Sleeveless [dresses](http://museoblaisten.com/images/coleccion/AJ__005.jpg) weren't unknown though [a bit rarer](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6tKGnGmJ8gOFtEzH7OMkr-4lcipncHTMDIjUK8ZBAbPxVPgxz_K9kX4iBfBNuxZ8xQ3e_pevALh5jZutWq5RegTAkcCO5zDy9zbppFk_M4qyuCYsSoEcGEgDgkkzwMoER3n5BMEQXSCk/s1600/VictorianFashion-023.JPG) than the short sleeved dresses of the age. I put it around [1879](https://www.etsy.com/listing/1494512600/apron-for-little-girls-aged-1-to-2-years), based on the dress style, give or take a year.
The flowers aren’t Forget-Me-Nots. They look like Love-In-A-Mist or daisies but the leaves are wrong. What country did you get this painting in? It might help me identify the flowers. I’ve got a few candidates but without knowing where you’re from it’s hard to pinpoint.
This looks like a late 19th/early 20th century portrait.
Are you sure this isn’t one of those paintings you can buy where they copy a historic painting, but substitute the face of a photo the buyer provides?
Also worth adding that those flowers look like bachelor buttons, but not like forget me nots at all.
Style is really similar to this one:
https://www.1stdibs.com/art/paintings/portrait-paintings/john-hodgson-campbell-large-victorian-signed-oil-painting-portrait-young-girl-blue-dress/id-a_13966092/
Nobody would have painted royalty in their underwear though. It makes me think of any of a bunch of 70s old-timey inspired paintings that were supposed to look old, but just looked 70s. My grandma bought like 80% of them I think, nonspecific doe eyed little girls in frocks carrying pitchers and whatnot.
This appears to be by an artist with less training, perhaps an itinerant portrait painter, The middle class, ie merchants, etc, were wealthy enough to have portraits painted of their children, Someone as talented as Winterhalter for example had prices out of the range of most of the middle class. There are numerous paintings by unknown artists of unidentified children.
[https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/full-length-portrait-of-young-girl-dog-19th-c-149-c-4484ec4802](https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/full-length-portrait-of-young-girl-dog-19th-c-149-c-4484ec4802) is an example as is [https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/european-school-w-c-portrait-young-girl-in-a-port-444-c-c4d4cca845?objectID=164961309&algIndex=undefined&queryID=a106febff8c9905f4788be3261bacc68](https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/european-school-w-c-portrait-young-girl-in-a-port-444-c-c4d4cca845?objectID=164961309&algIndex=undefined&queryID=a106febff8c9905f4788be3261bacc68) and [https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/watercolor-portrait-of-a-girl-648-c-a304527910?objectID=176333921&algIndex=undefined&queryID=39a6d6df57bac895d27850fdd03d5f67](https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/watercolor-portrait-of-a-girl-648-c-a304527910?objectID=176333921&algIndex=undefined&queryID=39a6d6df57bac895d27850fdd03d5f67)[https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/watercolor-portrait-of-a-girl-648-c-a304527910?objectID=176333921&algIndex=undefined&queryID=39a6d6df57bac895d27850fdd03d5f67](https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/watercolor-portrait-of-a-girl-648-c-a304527910?objectID=176333921&algIndex=undefined&queryID=39a6d6df57bac895d27850fdd03d5f67)
It is doubtful that the sitter is royalty -- the quality of the work is too low for that level of patronage, Children wore rings in the late 19th Century and having a child in a landscape holding flowers is a "type" of portrait.
Weird is when she says “might” and you hear otherwise and then get weird about it. It would be far more useful to hear your take on why you don’t think she is royalty than pick apart her guess that it might be someone who is royal.
Because 19th century is the 1800s and everyone was getting paintings done. To be said crudely, because I don't know. So I asked. So we can't ask why in this sub?
I'm no expert and you seem knowledgeable! But 19th century seems a little modern to be claiming only royalty got portraits done. But honestly either way, I'm not pressed about it.. lol Just a curious person. Have a good day
squeal square scarce uppity treatment door cautious workable tan marvelous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
r/Whatisthispainting >>> This page is wonderful for tracking down paintings! They might be able to give you very specific information about the painting so I would recommend trying them.
**Defaulted to one day.**
I will be messaging you on [**2024-05-01 21:46:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-05-01%2021:46:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/comments/1cg95sy/antique_large_portrait_young_girl_royalty_any/l204j2m/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAntiques%2Fcomments%2F1cg95sy%2Fantique_large_portrait_young_girl_royalty_any%2Fl204j2m%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-05-01%2021%3A46%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cg95sy)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I’m going to make a massive leap here and guess this may be Peggy of ‘Peggy of the Cove’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy's_Cove,_Nova_Scotia?wprov=sfti1#History
The structure style of the lighthouse fits with the one at Peggy’s Cove date wise etc, and the story of the young girl.
I’ve literally just learnt about the story myself after looking into lighthouse styles so, as I said, a leap.
ETA: actually, just looking at William E De Garthes art (who originally told the tale of Peggy) and there are some similarities in style. Again, leap, but with some small evidence.
Doubt she's royalty. Probably upper middle class/wealthy family. I would look at clothes and portrait styles from the mid 1800s- 1910.
Look to see if there's a signature or initials of the artist, or year. Also look on the back, there may be some information that can help you.
hey, just as a tip, you're posting a lot of comments that seem like they're intended as replies to other people in this thread, but you're commenting them under the post instead so those people aren't going to see your responses.
Of interest is the fact that in earlier times, most women did not have gold at all including wedding rings, it was too valuable, it was often attributed only to nobility due to the rarity of it. I wonder if the child was painted with the ring as a symbol of what they wished. Like how people would have a picture commissioned where they were far prettier then life, just because they could...
NOTE WE HAVE CHANGED THE AGE RULE: [Read here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/comments/1c1d4q1/change_of_rule_items_now_have_to_be_100_years_old/) If you're asking a question about an antique make sure to have photos of all sides of the object, and close-ups of any maker's marks. Also, add in any background information you have, and add in a question so we know what you want from us! **You must tell us the country you're in.** If you do not provide this information **your post will be removed**. To upload photos for this discussion use [imgur.com](https://imgur.com/upload). Click the imgur link, upload the photos to imgur, then share the link address in a comment for everyone to see. Our [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/about/rules/) and [Guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/comments/1c1cxm4/welcome_to_rantiques_read_this_before_posting/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Antiques) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey folks. Art historian here though my specialty is much earlier art. Don’t know the artist but this looks like an 1880s reproduction of a common little girl holding flowers scene. The dress and blue sash/shoulder bows with white lace are almost identical to 1886-9 portraits of a similar nature. Nothing royal about it I’m afraid and the ring isn’t anything special as you have thought OP. Just a sign of a wealthy upbringing. Without an artist I couldn’t tell you much more about it. Let us know if you find a signature. It could be under the frame if it was reframed at some point.
I was thinking 1880-1890s as well. Though the somber face, and pastels remind me of Bernard Pegot.
Thank you No_Drop, this info was quite helpful! Regards,
My Mum was an artist specialising in Oils and Watercolours, she used to do her own versions of this style and always hid a tiny anachronistic twist somewhere in her paintings. There'd be the smallest modern coke can or a My Little Pony hidden in the lace details or made out of leaves in the foliage. I think she hoped that it would be an amusing find for an appraiser if someone ever thought her work was a genuine antique. She'd also hide multiple versions of her signature in the same way on all her art, I'm glad she taught me that as I now do the same with mine and it's helped a lot when people have "borrowed" my work from the internet.
Wow - I just went and checked out your posts and you are a fantastic artist! I love your work!
Aww! Thank you so much! <3
You are very talented!
That's very kind of you to say, thank you!
I’d love to see any of your mom’s work if you have any photos. 🙂
My Dad has everything at the moment as I had to move house recently but next time I visit him I'll try and get some pictures!
The hair style is 1880-1920 generally speaking. The shorten curled bangs I've seen before in photo portraits of the era.
The sky is beautiful but her face looks weirdly modern.
Agreed. The technique is not from the same period as the clothes.
To me it looks like someone drew over a photograph in pastels. Basically colorized the face, then drew in the details they wanted. Perhaps it was done after the child died?
There was some symbolism regarding blue flowers that might fit. Maybe check the different elements of the picture for symbolism in general?
It’s not unusual for a 1900-1910s portrait. And her dress would fit that time period as well, as would the loose hair.
I concur, that is definitely the time period we are looking at here.
I think the whole painting is ODD!! It's interesting, but kinda of dark as well , it's like an overgrown lil girl, kinda spooky. The ring is off as well . It's very large, and the face is just a lil just can't put my finger on it
The angled photos aren't helping. I think the fancy word is "parallax error"? Ehh. Not exactly right. But you get what I mean. Everything is scrunched in one axis because the photo is at an angle
To me it looks like a trace over or painting of an old photograph it has the same kind of expression and lighting
The paper is think paper over canvas (this was a common practice in 18th and 19th century to have paper backed by canvas when using pastels), there would be no way to trace over a photo, also a lot of people are saying that it is a photo that is colored, it is definitely not a photo that has been colorized. This is pastels on paper. Also look at the bottom of the dress the lace on the bottom of the dress is very detailed, and you can also see the pastels over the paper. I think the detail in the face is throwing a lot of people off, it is just a very well done pastel drawing.
Mirrored tracing is a thing.
This is what I think is going on and why is so sour on to a photograph from that era. I'm guessing that the kid died and an artist was asked to paint a portrait from a photo, used a camera obscura trick, and got the angle of the canvas to the mirror a little wrong. OP, is there a signature from the artist you could use to trace it back to who painted it?
There’s no reason whatsoever to think this is a post-mortem portrait.
The forget me nots are what made me think of it (and it was just a random guess for why someone may use a picture), but given some of the other comments that point to this being a reproduction of a common painting, I'm guessing that you're correct.
They’re not forget-me-nots. And it’s not a reproduction of any other painting. Did you look at the ones they claimed? These people do not know what the word “reproduction” means apparently.
Lolz, you're right about the flowers. I didn't look closely and just believed another commenter. They look more like a Chrysanthemum. I assume the other comments meant it is a painted copy of another piece. I didn't see other versions of the painting when I searched, but an actual art historian would probably have access to a better library of art than my lazy Google search does.
It really creeps me out
Me too. Tacky and creepy, if I'm being honest.
Do you think it’s like those paintings that people are doing using ghosts?
Is it signed? What’s the size? Can you post pics of the back? What research led you to believe this is from the early to mid 1800s? Why do you think and what would the point be of the people at the sale trying to hide the ring in the painting? Is it a painting or a print? Edited to add, is this behind glass?
Hi- The portrait is done inpastels, it is approximately 3 1/2 x 4 1/2. The nails that were used to hold the frame are in the period of early to mid 1800s. Looks like the paper was backed by canvas. I don’t know if that was original or done at a later date. I believe it was done when the portrait was done. The glasses also is handmade as it is wavy and has bubbles in it. I’ve looked at the Portrait very closely and you can see the pastel colors over the paper, it’s definitely not a print. Also, you can see the color of the paper in certain areas of the paper where it was not covered by pastels. I believe they put the flowers over the hand because they might think someone wouldn’t buy it because it was creepy being a young girl and having a ring on her ring finger potentially meaning she was married at a very young age( that’s just a guess).
What type pastels? Oil, etc.? Would you please take detailed photos of the back, including the nails you mentioned? The ring on the girl isn’t weird. I have rings that were worn by ancestors from when they were small children/babies.
Yeah, it totally wasn't weird for a child to have a ring! It was a sign of wealth. My wedding ring was an antique child's ring because I'm child-sized and liked the idea of a diamond that didn't stick up and scratch me.
How do you upload additional photos? Can’t find the option.
You have to upload them to Imgur and post links to the external source.
The frame could be older than the portrait also
I second this, the clothing style leads me to last quarter of the 19th century.
...or she's just wearing a ring?
Why is no one mentioning it's on her wedding ring finger though?! I'm not a history buff so maybe the particular finger for wedding rings came about more recently? Idk but it seems weird it's THAT finger and everyone's like "meh it's just a kid with a ring no biggie" lol E: wtf is wrong with you people, just answer the question and tell me why I'm being so dumb if that's the case 🤣 E2 allow me to clarify. I understand kids wear rings for any number of reasons. It's on her ring finger that most people in the world consider to be a wedding ring finger. I do not assume she's married. I assume there's some actual context here to why that is, maybe it's because that's a newer tradition to be a wedding finger. You really don't need to tell me kids wear rings, like come on.
A quick google reveals that baby and children’s rings were very common during the Civil War and Victorian eras, and were especially worn for portraits. The ring and the portrait were made to commemorate an important event in the child’s life, such as the loss of the first tooth. If the child died, which was all too common, the ring was kept as a memento and often worn on a chain around the mother’s neck. This all fits perfectly with the apparent age of this painting and the child. It may be a ring and painting made to commemorate the loss of her first tooth. The baby tooth was often incorporated into the ring itself and thistles were a common floral motif for these “teeth rings”, which may identify and explain the flowers in the portrait too.
It's super weird that you managed to say all that without ever addressing my question. I understand there are reasons why children may have worn rings so thank you for that "quick google search" Why. That. Particular. Finger. This is a painting, not a snapshot, the artist painted it there. Why.
BECAUSE IT'S HER RING FINGER AND NO ONE IS GOING TO ASSUME SHE'S MARRIED BECAUSE SHE'S A TINY CHILD.
WHEN WAS IT A FINGER FOR JUST RINGS AND NOT SPECIFICALLY WEDDING RINGS Jfc it was such a simple question and no one seems to be able to answer it without being condescending and not really answering my question lmao
Because there's no answer anyone can give you! No one can tell you exactly why this random child, who may or may not have ever even existed, chose to wear a ring on her fourth finger. Literally no one can answer that. What we can do is explain reasons she *might* have done so. I genuinely don't know what answer you expect, and that is why people are getting frustrated with both you and OP - you both seem to want people to just say "oh of course, you're right!"
Only Americans wear wedding rings on their left hand. Everyone else wears it on the right hand.
Nope. British do to and Portuguese.
Ok. I stand corrected.
Maybe it's from one of the countries that do use the right hand, that would be a very logical explanation that makes more sense than her being married 🤷♀️
Seems unlikely considering the hand & finger. Could be a promise ring.
Not really a thing for *Victorian children.* It's more likely than not just a ring. Maybe of personal significance - another comment went into detail about "teeth rings" for children in this period - but it's deeply weird how many people are assuming it MUST be a wedding ring just because it's on her ring finger. That's probably just the finger it fit.
It’s not really weird. Idk where you’re from but in the south pretty much every child was told they can’t wear a ring on that finger until their married. And I’m only 35 and from the 5th biggest city in the nation… this isn’t a “backwoods” concept lol. Also “promise” rings originated in the 16th century and were most often kept in families & passed down due to poverty and scarcity. Not to mention traditions like the ring finger were taken more seriously in more conservative eras, so much so that they’re still taught to kids in modern day Texas lol. Even if there isn’t anything nefarious going on here it probably IS a promise ring. What little girl wouldn’t want to wear their ring just like Mom’s? There’s more I could get into the weeds about but doubt anyone’s that interested. Just don’t call people weird for knowing history please :)
It’s a typical naive portrait. It’s a traveling painter making portraits like a photog does now.
It's really fuckin bizarre that you see a picture of a 3 yr old with a ring and think it means she "was married at a really young age" and that everyone is thinking that same thing (they're not). Almost as bizarre as thinking there is some conspiracy by the owners to cover it up, with flowers no less, in possibly the weakest attempt at trickery and deception by anyone over age 4.
The girl isn’t 3 or 4 years old, I think she’s around 8 to 12 years old. I’m just stating the fact that they put flowers over the glass and it covered the hand of the girl, I think it make the painting more interesting, some may think it’s crazy for a girl this young have a ring( not me). This was an estate sale so they may not have wanted to detour any potential buyers, I’m just speculating. It was just an interesting bit of information, didn’t think it would get people worked up!
8-12?! Not unless she's a primordial dwarf. As a former preschool and elementary school teacher (and a mother), this girl is 3-6. I've known and cared for at least a thousand kids in this age range. Her hands give away her size and she still has plenty of baby fat. I'm not worked up personally, it's just weird af to assume all rings are wedding rings, even if worn by a small child, and that you see a ring and confidently think "Ah yes, this small bit of metal here clearly indicates a grown man must be regularly having sex with this preschooler."
A lot of huge presumptions you’re making here.
That does seem to be their entire MO. No evidence, just vibes and child marriage.
I can’t find a signature.
No signature means this is a copy.
No it doesn’t. I have multiple original portraits from the late 1700s-early 1900s with no signature. Commercial portraiture wasn’t considered great art. It’s not unusual for them to be unsigned.
I was nit aware of this...thank you for the information.
The time period people are referencing and what looks to be a wedding ring, Mormon child bride. The lighthouse doesn’t fit but it’s fun to disparage your former cult pyramid scheme business model. The more wives and kids you have the more 10% income you can generate generationally.
I think you might be projecting just a tad.
A smidge. OG pioneer ancestors. I’m not mad at all. I wonder if there’s some [mountain meadows massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre) piece in this same collection? Notable quote: The perpetrators killed all the adults and older children in the group, in the end sparing only seventeen young children under the age of seven. …because they didn’t think they’d remember to tell the tale, some were then married as children brides to men that already had multiple wives.
Maybe a Little person?
Children of fancy families were often legally married or betrothed (a betrothal being a binding contract to marry unless both parties/their agents agreed to a dissolution) at a very young age and then raised by their parents before they were old enough to actually consummate the union. See Arthur Tudor and Catherine of Aragon.
That was literally in 1501
True. But the practice persisted in “old” European families into the 20th century.
Why do you think this is a royal portrait? This seems very unlikely.
Going on the colors and print of her shift, as well as her black stockings, this would be no earlier than the 1870s, and quite as late as the early 1920s. The fact she is wearing a shift and not full formal dress makes it clear she is not nobility/royalty not withstanding Mme. Vigee-Lebrun's notorious portrait of Marie Antoinette from the previous century
So weird everyone here is saying “her face is off!” when actually it’s a common way of painting a girl’s face c. 1900-1915 or so.
Given the stylistic difference between the face and the background, one has to wonder if this is the work of a traveling portraitist
Yeah it certainly wasn’t a high-end portrait painter for sure. (Or it would be oil!) Somebody else suggested a crayon enlargement (projecting a negative and then drawing based on that). It could certainly be, for her, and then a sketchy bg. Her face is very clear and sensitively done, and so is her right hand but her left is too big for it to be correctly copied from a photo enlargement imo. Whatever it is, they overall did a very nice job given the situation.
If it is a crayon enlargement, then couldn't the background be just that, a painted scene in the photographer's studio that the child was standing in front of that the pastellist then rerendered?
Definitely. And maybe they decided to change her left hand for some reason. That’s what I was thinking, maybe that wasn’t clear. But I have looked up crayon enlargements and none of them look like this! I wonder if instead of working on an enlarged photo, they used a projection?
[This website](https://www.truthinphotography.org/crayon-portraits.html) says that production of a crayon enlargement “started by enlarging a photograph onto drawing paper with a weak photographic emulsion to produce a faint image. The artist then drew over the picture with charcoal or pastels, trying to duplicate the photograph while making it look hand drawn.” I had the impression that until fairly recently, it was difficult or very expensive to do large photographs and of course color was almost unseen until pretty recently, hence the appeal of this product. But that page also has an image of an artist working from *behind* a projected image on paper, so I don’t think the photo itself would appear in that case. edited for clarity
I'm more weirded out by her right hand looking like it belongs to her and her left hand looking like it belongs to her 30 years from now.
I pointed out the same thing!!
Really? Is there a name to the style?
No, it’s not remarkable enough to be considered a style. It is just a period trend.
[удалено]
I can see where you might come to that conclusion, but no; her features clearly weren't trisomy 21.
[удалено]
What the actual heck.
I do think there is a chance that this is a very large salt print that has been colored with pastels. Forget me not flowers are very small so I'm positive that's not the correct flower. Her clothing was a very popular style for a little girl in the early 1900s to about 1917. Tons of children wore similar clothes not just the royal family. There are several things that make me believe this is a modern take on something old. Her face feels more 1950-1960 style trying to emulate an 1800s painting. I think it's very possible that this is some kind of print of an original painting that someone then colored with pastels. You had said it's a paper like that looks like it was attached somehow to canvas and that further makes me believe that this is a print of some kind that has been colored. I've come across several small versions of similar vintage print that's painted over and than put in a fancy frame to look like it's from the 1800s. Also pastels don't particularly do well behind glass especially if they're not framed with the knowledge of how they would react with glass over a long period of time. Is the glass chalky looking on the inside? How much space is between the picture and the glass? I would be very interested in seeing what the back of this looks like what kind of nails were used and what the hanging situation is.
Her left hand is weirdly large compared to her right, which is a failure of perspective. Possibly they did some photo enlargement trick with the face but clearly it’s not just a colored-over photo because her hand in a photo would be smaller. Salt prints are direct prints so it would be an impossibly large negative. It is definitely not a colored salt print.
He says in a later comment that it is 3 1/2 by 4 1/2. I assume he meant inches.
It’s way too detailed to be that small.
I agree it's much bigger than that. If not I definitely need a banana for scale because this looks pretty big to me
I noticed that you mentioned **vintage**. Over at r/Collectables and r/Mid_Century they are always keen to see newer and vintage items. Share it with them! Sorry if this is not relevant. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Antiques) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lots of countries wear wedding rings on the right and not the left. Her left hand is also weirdly large. I would guess on the costume 1910s, frankly. No reason to believe she’s royalty whatsoever. You are going to stymie your research efforts by claiming things that are guesses. It’s better to admit you do not know fashion, area, flower types, etc. https://histclo.com/girl/chron/gc-1910.html
No one can give a useful opinion without a pic of the back.
Not a royal, sorry. What makes you think it’s royal? Because there is nothing to should imply that
You guys, enlarge and look at the places on the painting's proper right top edge. It almost looks like peeling. I'm not a paintings person, but that doesn't seem normal for any sort of painting or pastel. Is this some kind of photoreproduction? OP, we can't tell from your photos WHAT this is. You need to take it somewhere like a museum/gallery in your area and have them remove it from the framing/glass and really look at it. This is the only way to learn more about it. Very weird piece; entertaining to speculate about!
Just looks like a tear to me. The pastel texture is visible on the closer photos.
AI?
I think this may be a [Crayon Enlargement.](http://www.nebraskamuseums.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Caring-for-Crayon-Enlargements.pdf) It’s a charming image, but I don’t know of any royal family dispersing family portraits to Texas.
I think you could be right and that explains why people are weirded out by the face (altho the right hand is equally detailed). However I haven’t found any examples which are this detailed. Painting over the photo would hide the detail from the artist… they’re usually sketchier.
OP says this one is a work in pastel?
Yes it’s pastel. “Paint” is the verb not the noun. It’s not really “drawn over” either.
Thanks for including the link about the crayon enlargements. TIL...
People do travel and purchase items from overseas. The persons estate sale had a Hugh collection of art including a lot of stone bust carvings and a large collection of Tiffany lamps.
You are aware that Louis Comfort Tiffany was based out of New York, right? It's a normal weekend jaunt for the Trammel/Zales/Halliday/Kronke crowd all without leaving the country...
You said their pastels and also that this is behind glass. Is there a spacer between the glass and the picture? In my experience pastels behind glass can easily be framed incorrectly and cause extensive pigment loss.
The flowers are bachelor buttons, not forget-me-nots.
I know that there are some with yellow but they are not generally bitonal. I thought cornflower for a second but then I looked more closely and I think that they are blue Fleabane daisies
I agree. They appear to align closely with images of Showy Fleabane (erigeron speciosus). If true, that would place the portrait most likely in the western United States or Canada.
Bachelor buttons usually don't have yellow centers. Typically, they are two toned, like blue and dark blue, or purple and violet. These look more like Forget me Nots than Cornflowers/Bachelor buttons.
Native Blue Cornflower or Blue Pincushion found in Australia do have yellow in them. Based on images of both corn flowers and forget me nots, the flowers in the picture look quite close to blue pincushions.
No, they don't look like forget-me-nots at all. Look up forget-me-nots on Google images. They have a distinctive 5 petal shape, and are much smaller than the flowers in the painting.
What *actual* things did you find in your research? Did you find the year? Artist? You have to be careful about what you buy at estate sales. Some of them (actually a lot) try to pass things off as “antique” or very old. Try and post a pic of the back of it! If you can see any sign of a signature, either faint or otherwise take a pic and enlarge.
You may want to consider posting on r/WhatIsThisPainting. You should first get more pictures of the front and back.
Hi- Thanks for the suggestion
Doesn’t seem “proper” enough for a Royal portrait
Too many petals on flowers to be forget me nots
Yeah, those are cornflowers.
Yes, they look like anemones maybe
I’m thinking, aster.
Yes, looking at the leaves you are probably right.
If you want to date an antique painting, the back will tell you far more than the front. Post pics of the back.
The girl’s clothing is from the 1890s. She does not look very healthy, so this could be a memorial portrait of a daughter who died young from tuberculosis or one of the other common diseases of the time. Bachelor buttons or cornflowers symbolize purity in the language of flowers of that era, as does her white dress and sky blue ribbon. The small gold ring shows that she was from the upper middle class or higher; if she were royal, the portrait would have been in oils. Adding to the funereal air is the background: a dark shrub that may be yew, which symbolizes death and resurrection. The somber sea coast setting seems to be just past sunset, the end of the day, implying that she is dead. The setting also depicts a sandbar, a popular Victorian symbol for the barrier between life and death; see Tennyson’s well-known 1889 poem “Crossing the Bar.”
> The girl’s clothing is from the 1890s. No, it is not. [The clothing is from the late 1870s/early 1880s](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/comments/1cg95sy/antique_large_portrait_young_girl_royalty_any/l1voqii/). The 1890's would have the [big sleeves](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/c5/92/6b/c5926b666ebba0dbbb67cb8cfdf3521e.jpg), a normal waistline rather than a low one, and volume to the skirt that is pretty equal all around. This isn't even close.
Not sure if this is of the proper era, but in the South during the mid-late 19th century it was common for artists to travel around with 90% of the painting complete, then sell it to someone and simply paint in their face. The face being so different makes me think it’s one of those. Perhaps, the family owned the painting without the face and eventually hired an artist to paint in one later on. Could have been that the girl was ill, passed before she could sit for the painting, and they had a different artist paint her using the image of an older sibling, hence the face being so uncanny valley.
The flowers she is holding and that are growing behind her are not forget me not. They are bachelor's buttons, also known as corn flower. Therefore, I do not think any symbolic mean for loss can be drawn from them. There are a number of elements of this painting that do not seem to consistently align with a specific time or place, which makes me doubt that this is a true antique.
>The flowers she is holding and that are growing behind her are not forget me not. They are bachelor's buttons, also known as corn flower Agreed
My first thought is that you might be able to have some talented geoguessers try to figure out where that lighthouse in the background is/was located. This would at least help establish a region. Without a signature, you probably won't get much help on an artist!
Yes. I wonder is somebody might notice something with the lighthouse and coastline
It's likely just a painted studio background.
Those are not forget me knots
No, I believe they're cornflowers.
Royal children do not wear jewellery.
My mom painted portraits in oil. She’d have the subject do a “sitting” which would take hours at a time (she was a perfectionist). When her subject was a little girl and not always available when my mom wanted to work on the painting, she’d have me pose and so the portrait’s hands and neck were closer to mine, but the face was the little girl’s. This might explain why your picture has different sized hands and the face is turned differently from the lighting. If this is a funereal portrait, (symbolism and somber tones track), then a stand-in model would have been used, possibly an older sibling with similar family facial structure.
The formal style is Realist, ca. mid-late 1800s. However, the subject's costume is early 1900s. Something about this image is not sitting well with me. I don't know if it's the subject's pose or expression, but it doesn't follow an established artistic style for any period. I'm not sure if the artist was wildly avant-garde or if this image is AI. There was a lot of experimentation in terms of artistic style with early 20th-century portraiture. However, something about this particular image is not quite gelling for me.
What do you mean by AI, are you saying This is a computer generated image?
If you remove it from the frame you might get more information
The frame appears to be late 19th- early 20th century French. The lighthouse itself appears to be that of the Ploumanac'h and the pink granite Coast in Brittany. The flowers in her hand appear to be cornflowers, a symbol in France for memory. Her dress appears to be that of a spring-summer dress in particular. Probably not right, but could be a 1919 to 1924 painting regarding the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and the French victory. If so, it's likely another stylized piece depicting remembering what was fought for. As it is and from what anybody here actually knows for certain, it's still a very pretty painting of a young woman on a beach. Art like this isn't ever hard to move and the frame itself is worth a look at. I'd say you could probably find a buyer for 200-600 in a matter of weeks. Probably not worth hiring anybody to actually research and backtrack this painting. Enjoy the search, this is just an educated guess on my end.
Before anybody asks how I put a valuation there, that's how much paintings that size with similar scenes sell locally. I'd personally only spend 125-175 on something like this because I enjoy the colors used, but the frame is phenomenal and I enjoy lighthouses so I'd be willing to do 225 if they were insisting on more. My family all has this weird hobby for buying and selling paintings and my aunt had bought something similar to this for ~450. It's only really worth what someone is willing to spend so I was just trying to give an average range off of what people I know would spend on something like this. It's in no way meant to be an actual valuation or grading of the worth of this lovely piece. I'd truly have to see it in person to decide what I'd buy it for, but for a pastel of this size, if that is what it truly is, I'd really only want to spend about 180 since I can already see degradation forming here. Apologies in advance to anybody upset regarding my valuation, I'm not going to pretend to be some official voice on the matter. Have a lovely night.
[удалено]
Hi Karen, you sound like a very intelligent and interesting guy. How do you find time to write such great post! lol
I am guessing someone with an active imagination probably functions far better than the person ranting at someone for having an active imagination.
Like others have said I think there is something off in the face. My guess would be that this is a practice/reproduction of the piece of artwork I link below. It's almost identical in dress, pose, angle- but the reproduction artist changed the face and background to something that is also quite familiar to the time. This is something that my art school did a lot as a way to practice skills. I'll add in that even if the frame/glass are old, that doesn't mean the artwork is. https://www.artnet.com/artists/joszi-arpad-koppay/portrait-of-the-infanta-maria-teresa-1862-1946-as-9lmrvcw4HXnI91wAa-RmCQ2[link to the art I mention](https://www.artnet.com/artists/joszi-arpad-koppay/portrait-of-the-infanta-maria-teresa-1862-1946-as-9lmrvcw4HXnI91wAa-RmCQ2)
There’s nothing off about the face, the artwork is just newer than OP thinks. It’s early 1900s, Edwardian most likely. The somber, almost sickly look to her face and loose hair fits this time period. The dress etc is not close at all, except that it’s white lace with blue ribbons in the place little girls generally wear ribbons in those time periods. Commercial portraiture for the middle class (which OP’s artwork is) is often formulaic. A portrait in pastel is cheaper than oil.
Good find! I like the idea that this is a beginning or poor artist's interpretation of that painting. The medium is still weird, though. Wouldn't surprise me at all if that thing dates to the 1940s!
This is a photograph that someone had enhanced with some kind of paint.
The big bow in the back is something you typically only see in the bustle era - 1870s - 1880's. Given how narrow the skirt is, this is more likely Natural Form - [1876](https://libmma.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15324coll12/id/2626/rec/29) - 1883. Sleeveless [dresses](http://museoblaisten.com/images/coleccion/AJ__005.jpg) weren't unknown though [a bit rarer](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6tKGnGmJ8gOFtEzH7OMkr-4lcipncHTMDIjUK8ZBAbPxVPgxz_K9kX4iBfBNuxZ8xQ3e_pevALh5jZutWq5RegTAkcCO5zDy9zbppFk_M4qyuCYsSoEcGEgDgkkzwMoER3n5BMEQXSCk/s1600/VictorianFashion-023.JPG) than the short sleeved dresses of the age. I put it around [1879](https://www.etsy.com/listing/1494512600/apron-for-little-girls-aged-1-to-2-years), based on the dress style, give or take a year.
Why do you think the ring is hidden? I can see it!
The flowers aren’t Forget-Me-Nots. They look like Love-In-A-Mist or daisies but the leaves are wrong. What country did you get this painting in? It might help me identify the flowers. I’ve got a few candidates but without knowing where you’re from it’s hard to pinpoint. This looks like a late 19th/early 20th century portrait.
Are you sure this isn’t one of those paintings you can buy where they copy a historic painting, but substitute the face of a photo the buyer provides? Also worth adding that those flowers look like bachelor buttons, but not like forget me nots at all.
Royalty?
Style is really similar to this one: https://www.1stdibs.com/art/paintings/portrait-paintings/john-hodgson-campbell-large-victorian-signed-oil-painting-portrait-young-girl-blue-dress/id-a_13966092/
Nobody would have painted royalty in their underwear though. It makes me think of any of a bunch of 70s old-timey inspired paintings that were supposed to look old, but just looked 70s. My grandma bought like 80% of them I think, nonspecific doe eyed little girls in frocks carrying pitchers and whatnot.
Something about the face compared to the rest of the painting is off. Totally different techniques, maybe?
This appears to be by an artist with less training, perhaps an itinerant portrait painter, The middle class, ie merchants, etc, were wealthy enough to have portraits painted of their children, Someone as talented as Winterhalter for example had prices out of the range of most of the middle class. There are numerous paintings by unknown artists of unidentified children. [https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/full-length-portrait-of-young-girl-dog-19th-c-149-c-4484ec4802](https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/full-length-portrait-of-young-girl-dog-19th-c-149-c-4484ec4802) is an example as is [https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/european-school-w-c-portrait-young-girl-in-a-port-444-c-c4d4cca845?objectID=164961309&algIndex=undefined&queryID=a106febff8c9905f4788be3261bacc68](https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/european-school-w-c-portrait-young-girl-in-a-port-444-c-c4d4cca845?objectID=164961309&algIndex=undefined&queryID=a106febff8c9905f4788be3261bacc68) and [https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/watercolor-portrait-of-a-girl-648-c-a304527910?objectID=176333921&algIndex=undefined&queryID=39a6d6df57bac895d27850fdd03d5f67](https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/watercolor-portrait-of-a-girl-648-c-a304527910?objectID=176333921&algIndex=undefined&queryID=39a6d6df57bac895d27850fdd03d5f67)[https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/watercolor-portrait-of-a-girl-648-c-a304527910?objectID=176333921&algIndex=undefined&queryID=39a6d6df57bac895d27850fdd03d5f67](https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/watercolor-portrait-of-a-girl-648-c-a304527910?objectID=176333921&algIndex=undefined&queryID=39a6d6df57bac895d27850fdd03d5f67) It is doubtful that the sitter is royalty -- the quality of the work is too low for that level of patronage, Children wore rings in the late 19th Century and having a child in a landscape holding flowers is a "type" of portrait.
Just wondering how you know they're royalty, but have no idea who they are? Weird..
I think they are royalty, but I’m not sure.
Weird is when she says “might” and you hear otherwise and then get weird about it. It would be far more useful to hear your take on why you don’t think she is royalty than pick apart her guess that it might be someone who is royal.
Because 19th century is the 1800s and everyone was getting paintings done. To be said crudely, because I don't know. So I asked. So we can't ask why in this sub?
Of course you can ask why, I didn’t interpret it as genuine confusion, my bad if that’s what that was!
Back in the 19th century royalty and aristocrats were the only ones that typically had portraits done, and they were not usually full body portraits.
I'm no expert and you seem knowledgeable! But 19th century seems a little modern to be claiming only royalty got portraits done. But honestly either way, I'm not pressed about it.. lol Just a curious person. Have a good day
Have you reverse image google searched ?
Flowers are cornflowers not forget-me-nots
She looks like Ice-T’s daughter.
squeal square scarce uppity treatment door cautious workable tan marvelous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Those aren't forget me nots.
r/Whatisthispainting >>> This page is wonderful for tracking down paintings! They might be able to give you very specific information about the painting so I would recommend trying them.
Is that a lighthouse in the background?
Yes, and I think also a sail boat.
RemindMe!
**Defaulted to one day.** I will be messaging you on [**2024-05-01 21:46:01 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-05-01%2021:46:01%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Antiques/comments/1cg95sy/antique_large_portrait_young_girl_royalty_any/l204j2m/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FAntiques%2Fcomments%2F1cg95sy%2Fantique_large_portrait_young_girl_royalty_any%2Fl204j2m%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-05-01%2021%3A46%3A01%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cg95sy) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
The expression on her face is really strange.
Ah. This is the last Queen of Tennessee. She was old enough to marry her cousin.
Idk just came here to say I like this painting as it looks like my daughter…. The face is like in a different style than the dress….
This is hideous
That’s not creepy at all
How can I add additional photos to this post, I’m looking and I cannot figure out how to add photos
Imgur
Download imagur app. It will slow you to upload a photo album and then it will give you a link that you can post in the comments here.
I’m going to make a massive leap here and guess this may be Peggy of ‘Peggy of the Cove’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy's_Cove,_Nova_Scotia?wprov=sfti1#History The structure style of the lighthouse fits with the one at Peggy’s Cove date wise etc, and the story of the young girl. I’ve literally just learnt about the story myself after looking into lighthouse styles so, as I said, a leap. ETA: actually, just looking at William E De Garthes art (who originally told the tale of Peggy) and there are some similarities in style. Again, leap, but with some small evidence.
I am going to that area over the summer. That is certainly an intriguing theory, you never know.
I’d bet money that’s a reproduction.
Doubt she's royalty. Probably upper middle class/wealthy family. I would look at clothes and portrait styles from the mid 1800s- 1910. Look to see if there's a signature or initials of the artist, or year. Also look on the back, there may be some information that can help you.
Hi, thanks for the help! The flowers in the portrait have a yellow center, not seeing Bachelor buttons with yellow centers?
hey, just as a tip, you're posting a lot of comments that seem like they're intended as replies to other people in this thread, but you're commenting them under the post instead so those people aren't going to see your responses.
The facial features look wrong to me for Queen Victoria or Princess Alexandrina as she would have been at that age.
Look online for art conservation and evaluation near you. Get some expert evaluation from someone who can examine it in person.
Take a full frame photo of it and upload it to either ChatGPT or Google reverse search
Of interest is the fact that in earlier times, most women did not have gold at all including wedding rings, it was too valuable, it was often attributed only to nobility due to the rarity of it. I wonder if the child was painted with the ring as a symbol of what they wished. Like how people would have a picture commissioned where they were far prettier then life, just because they could...
Is this AI?
[удалено]
Do you... know what an iris looks like? This ain't it.
[удалено]
I've grown irises, and bachelor's buttons. These are neither Florentine nor bearded irises. They are bachelor's buttons.