We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.
I must have read wrong.
Confusion could come because Paul Newman was in both these movies for both Robson and Hitchcock... and the Robson film is often compared to Hitchcock's work and it's cleverness.
I see now that the photo shows the drawing in a mat, so perhaps it is framed.
In do not see any foxing or mat burn so that matches the suggestion that it was framed 10 years ago (hopefully with acid free materials).
Unusual to keep for 50 years before framing.
It's not as unusual as you may think. I'll bet it was in a keepsake or bank box until she retired and had more time and inspiration.
As a general rule, never buy anything framed - unless you like surprises.
The worst thing about doing that is where the seller says - and it is almost exclusively an auctioneer term - "not examined under frame".
WTF!
It's almost like saying, if selling a car, not examined under the hood - lol!
And yet it is very common.
I have discovered many atrocities over the years with such items - prints glued to the (non-archival) backing, holes in the piece concerned, etc etc. Probably the worst, most recently, where the previous owner had mutilated the artist's signature with a pair of scissors - in order to fit a print into a pre-existing frame. Well, it can not get worse than that, I hope. I bought it nonetheless knowing beforehand, and it was a remarkable bargain.
I still do buy framed items, nevertheless. Most times it is worth the slight gamble - I would never rule it out entirely but just be wary.
Congrats! $300 is a steal for that. Glad it has some provenance with it.
Congrats!
Nice piece...congrats!
Posted by CJCollector on November 27, 2024 at 2:23pm 0 Comments 0 Likes
Posted by CJCollector on November 11, 2024 at 6:03pm 0 Comments 1 Like
Posted by CJCollector on November 9, 2024 at 2:32pm 7 Comments 0 Likes
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin. Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service