✅ SOLVED Another Artist Id Needed. Hardest one yet....

[Indian Steve]

I have this oil on canvas painting that an artist friend said was my best piece but can't make out the artists signature. The geniuses of Tnet figured out the last 2 that i posted. Any help with this one is greatly appreciated!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Back-of-the-boat]

Try and filter the light there is to much glare to see the signature.

 

[Indian Steve]

Try and filter the light there is to much glare to see the signature.

I am technically challenged {dumb as a box of rocks} Any tips on how to cut the glare ? Should i remove the art from the frame? Thanks!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Looks like glare from flash, try natural light.

 

[Indian Steve]

Here are some more attempts to catch this signature.

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

I would try again with natural light it is still hard to read it.

 

[Indian Steve]

Sorry for the delay getting back. Been a bit under the weather. I finally took some pictures under natural light. I'm hoping that it helps. Signature color & painting colors blend to well. Thanks Again!

 

[Red-Coat]

Don't know if this enhancement helps. All I can reliably make out is the 'W' (?) as an initial. Not sure if that's a full stop after it, or if it's 'Wm' with a superscript 'm' (for William). Perhaps the first letter of the surname is a 'G' and it looks like there is an 'f' towards the end, a couple more letters, and then perhaps an 'l' and maybe a 'd'. Possibly the name is something like "W. Gxxxfield" but with too many letters to be "Garfield".

Immediately below the signature, over to the right, I can see what looks like a date as "19??" so it would seem to be a 20th Century work. Too many possibilities for artists in the first part of that century painting water-lilies in vaguely French impressionist style, especially if it's from an amateur... even a talented one.

ed amateur.

 

[Indian Steve]

Don't know if this enhancement helps. All I can reliably make out is the 'W' (?) as an initial. Not sure if that's a full stop after it, or if it's 'Wm' with a superscript 'm' (for William). Perhaps the first letter of the surname is a 'G' and it looks like there is an 'f' towards the end, a couple more letters, and then perhaps an 'l' and maybe a 'd'. Possibly the name is something like "W. Gxxxfield" but with too many letters to be "Garfield".

View attachment 2106874

Immediately below the signature, over to the right, I can see what looks like a date as "19??" so it would seem to be a 20th Century work. Too many possibilities for artists in the first part of that century painting water-lilies in vaguely French impressionist style, especially if it's from an amateur... even a talented one.

ed amateur.

Thanks, It has me beat. I wonder if trying to clean it would help but my luck I would erase the signature.

 

[Back-of-the-boat]

Maybe Wm. Girard and the second part is the name of the painting.

 

[Bramblefind]

I've been contemplating that this is not a signature but is the title of the painting. And it reads something like W ...... pool G.....

Like "Wexford pool Gorey" - that would be in Ireland but I make no claim that this is correct! Just another idea may be to look into place names.

 

[DCMatt]

Maybe Wm. Girard and the second part is the name of the painting.

BotB may be on it. Possibly William Washington Girard. 1873 - 1931. From Tennessee. Known for landscape scenes.

 

[Red-Coat]

I don't think it's a William Girard work. He was William Washington Girard and usually signed as "Washington Girard", or less usually just as "Girard". Some examples:

 

[WoodnHead]

The signature is difficult, but I will point out that I believe this is a print and not an original painting. The giveaway is the fine and regular dot pattern in closeup. The paint 'texture' could be either part of the canvas that the print is made on, or an applied coating on the surface. The other giveaway is that the 'texture' doesn't match the way the paint is applied to the canvas. That would be little harder to tell in a painting such as this which is sort of unstructured and flowy, but the signature is usually added the end, when the artist is finished and you would expect the highlights on the texture to follow the lines of the lettering. It doesn't. It is a random pattern that crosses over and obscures the signature which suggests that the texture is unrelated to the actual image.

 

[Red-Coat]

It appears to be this, and in the same type of frame (said to be an original oil on canvas, but unattributed and undated):

https://www.artpal.com/stevemoney2k?i=103893-30


@Indian Steve: did you buy yours from the ‘artpal’ gallery, or is it another version of the same work? If there are multiples, that would likely confirm the work has been reproduced as a print (which would also usually imply something beyond an amateur artist’s work).

The other possibility when there are multiples and an unattributable signature is that it’s a vintage work of the kind churned out by commercial galleries in the 1950s and 1960s for sale as wall art in shopping centres and department stores. Those can be in oil, or textured/canvas-bonded prints which may be embellished with oil-painted details to give them a bit of realism and often of essentially the same scene generated a number of times. The signatures on those kinds of works are often fictitious names used by one or more commercial artists employed by the studio. More often than not they're from Chicago, or the work of foreign artists (also using 'credible' pseudonyms) commissioned to churn them out.

 

[Indian Steve]

It appears to be this, and in the same type of frame (said to be an original oil on canvas, but unattributed and undated):

View attachment 2107288
https://www.artpal.com/stevemoney2k?i=103893-30


@Indian Steve: did you buy yours from the ‘artpal’ gallery, or is it another version of the same work? If there are multiples, that would likely confirm the work has been reproduced as a print (which would also usually imply something beyond an amateur artist’s work).

The other possibility when there are multiples and an unattributable signature is that it’s a vintage work of the kind churned out by commercial galleries in the 1950s and 1960s for sale as wall art in shopping centres and department stores. Those can be in oil, or textured/canvas-bonded prints which may be embellished with oil-painted details to give them a bit of realism and often of essentially the same scene generated a number of times. The signatures on those kinds of works are often fictitious names used by one or more commercial artists employed by the studio. More often than not they're from Chicago, or the work of foreign artists (also using 'credible' pseudonyms) commissioned to churn them out.

Red C

 

[Indian Steve]

Red Coat, You never cease to amaze me! It does look the same and mine is oil on canvas, I bought mine several years ago at a thrift store. I paid $3 for it. While I was at the store I saw a pickup pull up to the donation door with a whole load of art. The homeowners had died and their out of state children were cleaning out the house and donating everything to Goodwill. I knew the manager and told her if she would price them, I would buy them all. I came away with over 30 pieces for a little over $100.Thank You for solving this problem for me. I know too little about art. I know more now thanks to you!

 

[Bramblefind]

Red Coat -- Terrific job finding that match!

And here's another one on Worthpoint ---

Reproduction Painting with Matte Finish Lily Pads Flowers Water Trees | #2106129114

TITLE: Reproduction Painting with MatteFinish Lily Pads Flowers Water Trees DESCRIPTION: Reproduction PaintingCUSTOM LABEL: HALLWAY

www.worthpoint.com