Art Deco Prints- Like Fox, Parrish, Thompson

[Thrift Shop Romantic]

Hi there, fellow thrifters-
In talking about collections, I was just curious if anyone else in this group collected art deco prints, like the work of Atkinson Fox, Maxfield Parrish or William Thompson (among others). And whether anyone''s had any good luck in finding any at thrift stores. And if so, what their best find was!

Every now and then I''ll stumble upon a vintage print from the 30s of this type, usually of landscapes. I also see a lot of what I''ve dubbed in my travels as the "Deco Jesus" prints-- religious prints from the 20s and 30s with the same nice warm colors you''d find in Fox or Parrish prints, same unique frames. (Sometimes it''s The Last Supper, sometimes just portraits.) I don''t collect that genre myself, but I was interested in knowing if anyone did. Or what types people did collect. Would love to hear about it!

And if anyone wants to see some examples in my own collection, I''d posted some here: http://web.mac.com/thriftshopromantic/iWeb/The_Thrift_Shop_Romantic/Art_Deco_Prints.html

Here''s to hanging around with deco prints,
-Jenn
www.thriftshopromantic.com

[alexandra]

Your collection is gorgeous -- I''ve only managed to come across schlock when it comes to deco style prints or reproductions.  If I came across anything like what you''ve found, I''d buy it!

Thriftily,
Alexandra
www.livingwithoutmoney.blogspot.com

[ChrisMiss]

Those are really wonderful pictures, very colorful.  I''ve seen some pictures at the thrift stores kind of like that but I''m not sure if they are the same type of art.  I''ve seen a picture almost exactly like the one on your webpage of the ship. 

So a few questions will help clear it up.  You mentioned prints, does that mean that it would look like it had been cut out of a magazine framed and hung?  I''m not sure what a print is. 

[Thrift Shop Romantic]

Well, a lot of the art deco items <were> actually calendars that were advertising giveaways from stores during the 30s. Sometimes they even still have the calendar attached, or the name of the company who gave them away. Figure, this was the depression era, so people would frame the images when the calendar was done as inexpensive art work. Other times, department stores sold them, frame and all. Today it''s funny to think of an artist like Maxfield Parrish as, say, a 1930s Thomas Kinkade. But that''s really what it was like. Household art en masse for the common people. Virtually everyone had some of it. On a house tour I was on, I once heard an elderly lady mocking the homeowners Maxfield Parrish, indicating that that stuff was "junk." It all has to do with associations and perspective, I suppose.

Prints in general are a tough thing to define, because there are so many types of reproductions of original art work. These can include lithographs, chromolithographs (lithographs with color imprinted on them), mezzotints (yet another kind of printing process), etc. Some people devote their whole careers to knowing this stuff, so there''s probably someone better on this board to explain it than I.

However, these deco prints are, I believe, color lithographs, where the colors have each been printed separately onto the paper. The prints from this time period have a vibrant, yet soft feel to them. So I''ve seen them on Ebay confused with watercolors/gouache.

Also, the frames from that era have a particular style. They are generally fairly thin compared to frames today, are often heavily ridged (art deco influence) and can come in shapes you just don''t see much today-- like octagons, round-edged rectangles and rounded arches.

Most of my deco prints have come from flea markets and antique malls, but I''ve gotten a few at the thrift store. I understand these types of prints used to be very common in thrift store-- when everyone associated them with common mass produced art and thought they were junk-- but now that Parrish has been rediscovered and prints run in the hundreds, there are a lot fewer opportunities in thrift stores to find them.

It''s a fun collection to have, however. They''re very peaceful and upbeat.

Have a good one,
Jenn
www.thriftshopromantic.com

[alexandra]

Your question about what a print is, is an excellent one... and this is where sometimes uncertainty comes in.  I like to think of these pieces either as prints, reprints, paintings, reproductions -- and the story Mike put up about the Jackson Pollock is a great example.  First off, please pardon me if I get confusing -- I have a long-ago (mostly unused) degree in art history!

A "print" is an original form of art -- what is on the paper, is what was pulled of either a stone (in the case of a lithograph), a metal plate (in an etching) or was taken from an original negative (in the case of a photograph).  There are two methods to establish if a print is "authentic" or not.  The first is the best, the second can be used to "guess" -- but ultimately, the best bet is to know the  medium so that looking at it will give you clues.  I own a few nice original prints -- one way I know they are legit, is that they were comissioned by a  print club I was in.  They came with a certificate of authenticity, and when they were framed, I had the certificate stapled to the back of the piece in an envelope.  The proof is with the picture itself!  Second, a print will be numberd.  Any authentic print will have a "run" -- a total produced number.  The lower you piece is (the earlier it was printed), the more valuable it is. For instance a signed print that also has 10/100 as part of the signature was the tenth print pulled from a set of 100.  A signed print without a number, is probably a reproduction (likely from a photograp), that has little value.  The real value comes from the original pulled of the print medium itself.  My 10/100 print is slightly more valuable than my sister''s 50/100.  If you find a print that is numbered, you can guess that it is probably authentic.  If it is not numbered, it is a little bit better than a copy cut out of a magazine and then framed.

If you spy a painting you like, check out the brush strokes.  The texture on the surface should match the pattern/strokes of the paint.  The Pollock could be identified as an original because the paint is layered on the surface -- it''s not flat with a texture embossed on top of it (like many painting reproductions are).  Many art students copy masterworks -- some do a good job, others, not so good.  When you get something that looks real, maybe it''s time to hope the Antiques Road Show is coming to your town!

If I see something that is signed and numbered, I consider it a "print."  If it is a print that is signed and not numbered, my guess is that it is a reprint (print shops sell a lot of these, and they are often framed very well).  If it is a painting that has readily discernable brush strokes, it''s a painting.  If it is flat, or if it looks like a painting, but has a generic texture over it, I consider it a "reproduction."

What I will pay for a piece depends on whether I think it''s original/authentic, how nicely it is framed, the condition it is in -- and whether or not I absolutely love it or not.  There are those things I buy for the kitsch value too!

I did snap a few shots that I will try to download that show some stuff I have found.  Some of the stuff I get is more "primitive" or "craft" in nature, so that has nothing to do with any classification of authentic or not.  They are just very sweet pieces that are of a decorative nature.  They are also the type of thing that are totally overpriced in retail/vintage stores, but still a treasure to find at a thrift store.  There is, IMO, something special about craft style/primitive pieces -- I do think it''s because the effort and mindset of the pieces, and because they are so accessible.

But... in the end, I think the real issue is whatever floats your boat...

Thriftily,
Alexandra
www.livingwithoutmoney.blogspot.com

[ChrisMiss]

Thank you both for such great answers to my question.  Here''s another question for you.  I know that currently it is common to find numbered prints such as Thomas Kinkade and many pictures that are hanging in offices, etc.  My question is how long ago would this practice been practiced?  In the 20''s and 30''s?  I saw a picture yesterday, it had pencil writing at the bottom of it, it looked to be from that era.  I thought I''d seen one just like it when I was looking up the artist that you had mentioned.  It was larger than what I was looking for to hang up, but now I''m wondering if it was the matting that made it larger.  I could have reframed it probably to make it fit in the space I want it to hang in.  The price tag was a little hefty for a thrift store $15.99.  But if it''s "real" then it would be worth it!

[alexandra]

The practice has been going on for a very long long time -- print making is an old and venerable art form.

If you like the print and it is well-framed, $15.99 isn''''t exhorbinant.  I purchased four reprints for $11.00 each a while back.  They weren''''t even numbered.  They looked like pencil drawings -- detailed enough to be originals.  They were in their original frames, with the paper still intact over the back.  I purchased them not knowing what they were, whether they were originals or not -- because the quality of the framing told me they weren''''t just something someone cut out of a book/folio, etc. (although some folio prints are quite desirable).  Just remember, simply a signature at the bottom doesn''t mean the print is "original."  "Original" is denoted by the numbering system I posted about.  Without it being numbered, the signature on the bottom is not worth much more than an "autograph" on a copy of a poster of any artists work.  In some cases (if the poster artist is very notable), the signature adds value.  In other cases, it does not.

I never spend more than five or six bucks on my little art purchases, but I picked up all four in the series for this set.  I ended up looking them up on the Internet.  It turns out they were a reprint of a set of four pencil sketches made by a notable artist that did a series of notable public structures in Williamsburg, VA.  I snagged the whole set that someone probably either ordered from a catalogue, bought at a museum gift shop, or purchased at a print store.  They are even still being sold new today at various museum shops, etc.

These were not "real" prints.  But, I think I got a good deal -- to purchase these new, I''''d be spending more on the prints and the good framing job.  I very rarely buy something that I have to reframe -- unless it is a regular size.  Here is a hint... "real" prints rarely come in "ready made" frame sizes.  Most of the time, they require custom framing.  There are exceptions -- but many serious print artists don''''t work in regular sizes.

As far as my pencil prints go, they were not valuable "treasures" -- but they were a good buy.   I am glad I got the set, because they look really nice together.  I have then lined up on the wall in a long hallway.

Thriftily,
Alexandra
www.livingwithoutmoney.blogspot.com

[Thrift Shop Romantic]

It really is true, if a vintage print (or, really, ANY print) you like comes in a decent frame as well, that does tend to make it so much more worth your while. Having something properly framed gets really expensive. (And even framing it yourself can be less than economical). I''ve learned a lesson in trying to get unframed deco prints framed. Sure, you can purchase unframed vintage prints a lot cheaper, but finding a period frame for it in the right size is a trick. And trying to have it framed new is a bit rough too, since frame styles and widths are so different now than they were in the 30s.

As with any purchase, unless you''re planning on resale/investment value, I can only advise you to just buy what you like, what you enjoy looking at, and at a price you can afford. You can''t really go wrong that way.

--Jenn
www.thriftshopromantic.com

[Cookie]

Wow, you ladies really know your stuff!  I am so glad to read all this info.  I always wondered what the deal was with the fake brushstrokes over the top of a reproduced print.  We''ve got some of those in our creepy cat gallery.

[enchanted princess corp.]

You might want to bring a magnifying glass with you to to the store.  You should always try to keep one magnifying glass and one tape measure with you.  No matter what your interests are in Thriftland.

I have a Masters Degree in Art history and have been specializing in prints, currently working on a masters in Library and Information Science in Rare Books and Special Collections.  I have been Antiquing since I was 11, and thrifting since I was 15, and I am 31 now.  I have a few tips for collecting prints at thrift stores, since I do quite a good job collecting prints at thrift stores.  I have an original Cezanne lithograph that I paid $20 for.  Believe me, I know what I''m talking about.

The things that you are looking for in an original print are: smooth, uneven graininess.  The old Maxfield Parrish prints that are so lovely and hazy were done in three-color or four-color lithography ...and that is why they are so nice and dreamy. 

When you look at a good quality print, you will not see the little regularly spaced circular dots on it when you look up close.  All commercial prints now use a process that makes it faster and cheaper to print multiple color prints.  They use a variation on the newspaper photo style-printing. These prints have tiny pinpoint dots on them that are spaced in very orderly fashion.  If you see anything that looks like dots or doughnuts oriented on a grid, you have a mass-produced, cheap print. You can sign away at anything like Thomas Kinkade does and it is not anything more than a "limited-edition" authorized poster.  Remember that most Thomas Kinkade''s paintings are the product of a studio painting factory and were never even touched by him.  These will not appreciate in value like you think they will.  They are the art equivalent of a Franklin Mint Collectors Plate.  Which is fine if you collect them.  When you are thrifting and you see something that you like and it has the properties described in this paragraph, pay what you think it is worth based on how much you like it.  It''s resale value will be based on this for the next person as well.  It''s basically Fun Art like McDonald''s is Fun Food.

If you look at it under the magnifying glass and you see horizontal lines, it is a color photocopy or a color ink-jet print.  My mother showed me something that she bought for $5 at an antique market.  It was a color photocopy of a lithograph of a 1910-1930''s "American Indian Maiden" print from a calendar.  In an old frame.  So beware.  Those kinds of people exist in the world.  And their stuff ends up in the thrift store too.  Same as above for value.  It''s personal.

If you look at the print closely and it does not have spaced dots, lines or doughnut circles, you probably have something that is at least a verifiable collectible.

This is the extent of my Reply.  To find out more about identifying of different types of prints, go to MySpace and see my blog: http://blog.myspace.com/enchanted_princess_co.  I''ll field any and all other questions from there.

[Thrift Shop Romantic]

Good point about the Fox and Parrish fakers, which I''d totally neglected to mention-- thanks! There are lots of posters and poster books and new calendars of these things which people do frame. Pretty much I know if I see a common Maxfield Parrish, for instance his Daybreak, which is NOT over $200, I should look at it carefully for the hazy color lithography the Enchanted Princess just described so well. Because very very likely it''s a new reproduction.

(You get less of this with lesser known deco artists'' work-- there''s just not the market there to inspire as much fakery. Some with Atkinson Fox, but not as much.

Great discussion, folks!!
-Jenn
www.thriftshopromantic.com