Howard Fogg Painting-Help

I can't answer your question about getting it appraised, but I can tell you that this picture was used on the 1969 Union Pacific calendar. This was a special edition commemorating UP's hundredth anniversary. Howard Fogg painted all the pictures that appeared in it.

Thank you so much for your reply. Based off of what you know do you think there is a chance that it could be an original or is it more likely that it is a print?

@Megan Melton posted:

Hi everyone,

I've spoken to a few of a you via email as I had posted something in the wrong forum and was directed here instead. Everyone I've spoken with thus far has been extremely helpful. I'm posting in regards to a painting that i've recently acquired. It's a painting by Howard Fogg, titled 'Sunrise on a Domeliner'. I think it could be an original and was inquiring to see if anyone had any recommendations on where to get it authenticated or appraised. I've looked into a few options but came across this website so I thought i'd start here. The painting is absolutely stunning and i'm so enthused to see so much appreciation for his art. Any and all help is greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time. (I wasn't sure what the rules were for posting a picture of it)

Kind regards,

Megan Melton

Since you are describing it as a 'painting' and not a picture of a painting I will assume it is the painting.  He did both paintings and water color.  If it is not under glass and you can see the brush strokes you may have a winner.  If it is under glass, if you look at it closely, you should be able to determine if it is an original or a print.  Anyway best of luck.  An original makes this your lucky day.

There is an artist, and gallery owner, named Gil Bennett, that was not only a friend of Howard's, but has restored many of Howard's paintings.  When Lou Cross wanted to sell his original Fogg painting we went through Gil.  He is truly an expert on the subject.  Please try this link, https://gilbennett.com/

Jay

Hi Megan,

Any decent art gallery should have someone available who can at least tell you if your painting is an original painting or a print or watercolor.

They may not know the value but this way you will know what you have.

It would be something amazing if what you have was the original, given that the original was commissioned by the Union Pacific Railroad along with 9 other Fogg paintings and used to celebrate the 1969 centennial of the transcontinental railroad. The UP has a collection of Fogg paintings; in all likelihood, the original of this painting is in their collection. In any case, if were sold, it would be very, very costly, particularly given its history.

Incidentally, since it's a watercolor, it should be pretty easy to tell if it's an original.

Thank you to everyone who has responded so far. I really appreciate you taking the time to reach out with information. I'm going to start by trying to make contact with a few of the people that have been mentioned. I would love to think that it's an original but at the same time understand how unlikely that may be. I have taken it out of its frame briefly to inspect it closer and while it doesn't seem like a print as there seems to be texture to it, i'm still extremely apprehensive. Although, I think there may be ways to make prints on actual water color paper. (I could be mistaken) If it was a print would there be any kind of markers to indicate that? Does anyone happen to know if the originals had any kind of identifying markers. Would they have titles any where on them, not on the actual painting itself rather below it somewhere?

Thank you all again,

MM

Is it signed (artist name) and where is it signed?

Usually, the original should have the artist signature (sometimes the artist includes a date which is usually right after the artist signature and is brushed in the same as the signature)... and, that's it.

Prints/Copies/Posters etc...

Are there numbers anywhere example: 44/120... this would mean number 44 of 120.   Is there any fine print anywhere with copyright or date?  Look for any of this info on the borders or the back.

There are always exceptions...

Be careful handling it... don't do any damage.   It's probably time to get this to a gallery or email Mr. Bennett and be patient.

Good evening,

It’s signed in the bottom right corner, with his last name only. It’s not numbered and I haven’t been able to find any kind of copyright or date. Thank you for reaching out, hopefully I’ll know more tomorrow.

GOOD LUCK! :-)

You might also goggle the Center for Railroad Photography and Art. They might could help also.

The way you can tell if a document is an original with ink signatures, or a reproductive copy, is to wet your finger and smear a bit of the signature. If it runs a little, it's an original with ink. If it doesn't, it's a copy from a copy machine. I suppose the some thing could be done with a watercolor painting, although I wouldn't necessarily recommend it.

@breezinup posted:

The way you can tell if a document is an original with ink signatures, or a reproductive copy, is to wet your finger and smear a bit of the signature. If it runs a little, it's an original with ink. If it doesn't, it's a copy from a copy machine. I suppose the some thing could be done with a watercolor painting, although I wouldn't necessarily recommend it.

I don't think I'd recommend smearing the signature either unless you want to devalue the work. And paint and permanent ink won't smear anyway. Besides, there is such a thing as a signed print, so an original signature does not necessarily mean an original work.

My advice to any one buying art on the secondary market is that if you can't tell an original from a print, assume it is a print and spend no more than you would for a print unless it has been authenticated by an expert.

You will need an appraiser aware of railroad art.  Many are not.  Go slow, do not test the surface, if it is valuable all you can do is possibly diminish it's value. 

Thank you so much, I would never want to diminish its value. I’ll most definitely go slow,  as in the off chance it is an original it can find a suitable home one day.

These links may help with some estimates from 2018 (auction of Leanin’ Tree museum Fogg collection) and anecdotal evidence from a 2002 Denver art dealer:

https://www.invaluable.com/auc...tana-76-c-883436f8a8

http://cs.trains.com/ctr/f/3/t/21018.aspx

Leanin’ Tree offers many of Fogg’s painting as Christmas cards and calendar images in their annual catalog.  If you have a Fogg original, I would guess value could be anywhere from $5000 to $20,000.

Their latest Fogg calendar has a stunning image of a Fogg rendering of a Chesapeake and Ohio Kanawha locomotive with a Mail train.

https://www.leanintree.com/wall-calendar-29742.html

The below link shows your painting, “Sunrise on a Domeliner”, commissioned by Union Pacific for its 1969 calendar celebrating 100 years of completion of the transcontinental railroad:

http://cprr.org/Museum/Fogg_1969.html

@The Portland Rose Thank you for all that great information. I love seeing the passion everyone on this forum has. You can tell you all have found much joy in this particular interest. It's definitely contagious. Would you happen to know that when these were commissioned if they were titled at the bottom? Or if there is a title at the bottom does that mean it's a print. I tried finding the original Ebay post where the gentlemen posted his Fogg paintings but was unable to do so. Thank you again for taking the time to reach out. I haven't had a chance yet to make any phone calls/emails as I've been busy with work but I'm hoping to tomorrow. Thank you again.

Kind regards,

MM

I have a few thoughts @Megan Melton, and while I'm not an expert, you've mentioned a few things that lead me to believe this is a print. You've mentioned the title being on the work. Usually an artist might write it on the reverse, but I can't recall a time where I've seen it written on the front below the image unless it was a print. That also brings up the size of the margins around the work. Most artist leave a relatively small margin around their image in order to fill the canvas or paper. Older prints on the other hand can only print in a set area and must have a decent size margin to accompany that process. This is the way it was until the last 10-15 years when digital printing really advanced to allow nearly edge to edge printing. Some of the newer canvas giclee prints really take a moment to realize they are a print. The lack of brush strokes and crisp edges are a give away.

I'd say show us a photo of what you have and I think we'll be able to give you some further assistance . 

Warm regards,

Derek

Megan, you have definitely generated some interest - a smartphone pic of the picture would help a lot (does it have a white border; with text ?)

I second the recommendation to contact Gil Bennett. 'Nuff said.

There are paintings and there are watercolors.  A watercolor is not really a painting, it is a watercolor.  She said she took it out of the frame so I am guessing it is not a painting.  A painting would be attached to a wood frame by staples, tacks, etc.  One would not take a painting off the frame.

That leaves us with a watercolor or a print.  Watercolors generally do not have a smooth surface because of the paper.

A close up picture of the artwork showing the lower right corner taken from about six inches away probably would solve the riddle.

@Bill DeBrooke I'll take a close up picture when I get home from work. Yes, not a painting. There is definitely texture to it but would it be possible to make a print on watercolor paper or a more heavy backing. Thank you for your input/reply.

Kind regards,

Megan Melton

@jay jay Thank you for your reply. I think you're right that it's time to try and reach out to Gil Bennett. I think i'm afraid of wasting his time or looking stupid for not being able to tell the difference. I have other paintings that are prints have letters of Authenticity and are numbered as well as signed. This one may just be a really good print/reproduction. With that, I should just try to go on ahead and make the contact.

Thank you again,

Megan Melton

@bob3 It does, would that make it a print? I'll take a picture and post it here when I get home from work. Thank you for your reply.

Kind regards,

MM

@Bill DeBrooke posted:

There are paintings and there are watercolors.  A watercolor is not really a painting, it is a watercolor.  She said she took it out of the frame so I am guessing it is not a painting.  A painting would be attached to a wood frame by staples, tacks, etc.  One would not take a painting off the frame.

That leaves us with a watercolor or a print.  Watercolors generally do not have a smooth surface because of the paper.

A close up picture of the artwork showing the lower right corner taken from about six inches away probably would solve the riddle.

I beg to differ. A watercolor certainly is a painting. Andrew Wyeth, Winslow Homer and Edward Hopper might take exception (among many others). I think you mean it's not an "oil" painting. Oil, acrylic, watercolor, gouache, egg tempera are all painting mediums. A painting is basically anything done with a brush and usually in color. ( Some pen and ink with brush washes are classified as drawings).

@Will posted:

I beg to differ. A watercolor certainly is a painting. Andrew Wyeth, Winslow Homer and Edward Hopper might take exception (among many others). I think you mean it's not an "oil" painting. Oil, acrylic, watercolor, gouache, egg tempera are all painting mediums. A painting is basically anything done with a brush and usually in color. ( Some pen and ink with brush washes are classified as drawings).

We can disagree.  I buy paintings and I buy watercolors.  They are certainly both works of art.  In general a painting (oil or acrylic) commands a higher price than a comparable watercolor by the same artist.  I have a Fogg watercolor.  If it happened to be the same image rendered in oil or acrylic the value would be somewhat higher.    The American College Dictionary: painting, a picture or design executed in paints.

@Bill DeBrooke posted:

We can disagree.  I buy paintings and I buy watercolors.  They are certainly both works of art.  In general a painting (oil or acrylic) commands a higher price than a comparable watercolor by the same artist.  I have a Fogg watercolor.  If it happened to be the same image rendered in oil or acrylic the value would be somewhat higher.    The American College Dictionary: painting, a picture or design executed in paints.

I know what you mean by differentiating between an oil or acrylic painting and a watercolor. I am an artist and also price oils higher than watercolors.  But I have never heard anyone define painting as excluding watercolor. Even the definition you posted just says "a picture executed in paints", and watercolors are certainly paints.

But I think this is largely semantic. You are using "painting" as shorthand for "oil painting". And it's true watercolor is rarely referred to as a "watercolor painting". Actually the artists and gallery people I know generally dispense with the word painting altogether and say: "This is an oil." Or this is an acrylic or this is a watercolor. Or what is the medium? Oil, watercolor, etc? That it is a painting is just understood.

I guess our experience with the terms have been different.

@Megan Melton posted:

... I think i'm afraid of ... looking stupid for not being able...

Thank you again,

Megan Melton

Megan, never fear.  I.M.E., occasionally  looking stupid may be an unwritten prerequisite for posting on forums.  I know I do it frequently.  You are among overlooking friends here.

To quote another forum member; "I'm not an expert, I only play one on the forum".

They make textured canvas photo paper for printers.

https://photo.walgreens.com/st...r?tab=Photo%20Nav%20|%20Canvas+D%C3%A9cor

One way to possibly tell, is when it is out of the frame, is the image perfectly rectangular/square?

I have an original watercolor/gouache painting and while the image that was used commercially is a perfect rectangle, my original spills over into the margins of the paper, with extras that are not shown in the image that was used commercially.

NWL

@Will posted:

I know what you mean by differentiating between an oil or acrylic painting and a watercolor. I am an artist and also price oils higher than watercolors.  But I have never heard anyone define painting as excluding watercolor. Even the definition you posted just says "a picture executed in paints", and watercolors are certainly paints.

But I think this is largely semantic. You are using "painting" as shorthand for "oil painting". And it's true watercolor is rarely referred to as a "watercolor painting". Actually the artists and gallery people I know generally dispense with the word painting altogether and say: "This is an oil." Or this is an acrylic or this is a watercolor. Or what is the medium? Oil, watercolor, etc? That it is a painting is just understood.

I guess our experience with the terms have been different.

I agree.  Generally we call things by the medium.  Be it oil, watercolor litho or whatever.  Maybe it is just shorthand.  I recall the first original piece of art I purchased back in the 70's  Someone asked me what was the medium and I had no idea what she was talking about.  I bought it because I like the picture.

I have an original signed, dated, with location indicated (Toyko, Japan) watercolor by the late noted African American artist and former Howard University Professor, Lois Mailou Jones, which I acquired with provenance from her estate in the 1990's. It was a five-figure investment at the time, but it was from a reputable gallery in Charlotte, NC. A number of her oil paintings were also offered at the same time, and were all much higher five-figure prices, out of our reach, but we are happy with the watercolor of a Tokyo temple.

An oil of the famous Moulin Rouge, which we would have loved to have had, was listed at $50,000, and probably worth the asking price!