Harper's Woodcuts

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>will watson</b><p>can someone give me a crash course on Harper's Woodcuts? from what i can tell, they're pages cut out from Harper's Weekly periodicals? they interest me, mainly because 1. i don't have the kind of funds to purchase a lot of 19th century cards, and 2. they look like they would be cool display pieces.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The woodcuts from Harper's Weekly, Leslie's Illustrated and other tabloid sized magazines are definitely displayable.<br /><br />The aesthetic significance is that, even though being magazine pictures, they are handmade prints. This means that they were printed directly from blocks of wood hand carved or etched by a human being. This is the same hands on way an original Rembrandt or Picasso woodcut in a museum was made.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>If you ever have questions about any prewar issue, the Old Cardboard website is always a good starting point.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.oldcardboard.com/n/harpers/harpers.asp?cardsetID=679" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.oldcardboard.com/n/harpers/harpers.asp?cardsetID=679</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1115676390.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>E-mail me for an EXCELLENT supplier, and reasonable, too!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/BHWEC004.jpg"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/BHWEK001.jpg"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/eHWp.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/Hwcpro.jpg"> <br /> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/Bprov82002.jpg"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/HW.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>and as an added plus, got the story on the image and a nice Peck & Snyder ad too.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Peck and Snyder was a ubiquitous advertiser in the newspapers of the day. I have a bound volume of Chadwick's Base Ball Chronicles from 1867 and P & S had an ad with a nice picture in virtually every issue. They were clearly a big time establishment.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>will watson</b><p>thanks for the info everyone. these seem to be a nice and cheap alternative, especially for display purposes. i will probably pick up a few and display them in vintage looking wooden frames.<br /><br />Julie, i don't know your email address. please shoot me an email at will_r_watson@hotmail.com if you get a chance.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>........

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Despite David's kind words on another thread for tax lawyers, I am somewhat surprised to see that the board has so little adverse reaction to Harper's woodcuts, given the general aversion to cut-outs and trimmings. Despite the aesthetics of their creation, I'm not sure how these differ from other unintended cut-outs. As I understand it, the woodcut process was not a form of limited edition production in which the artist had control not only through the creation of the block but also the printing process, but was a mass printing of a newspaper with the woodblock used as the printing plate. (David: is there more to the printing than this? How was the woodblock incorporated into the text for the printing process?)<br /><br />I know David has earlier commented on the artistic process necessary to produce the block <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1104264101&lp=1105711868" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=153652&messageid=1104264101&lp=1105711868</a> but how is this different from a newspaper cartoon or painting that was originally created for the paper, and that was similarly reproduced in many thousands of copies? Any print artist I know would surely say that such a newspaper printing of the woodcut was not "their" print, if the artist had no involvement in the actual printing process. Am I missing something in the process? Is there anything more to mass printing a woodcut? <br /><br />My question then is how these differ from the cut-out photos of Reach and Spalding guides that are endlessly flogged on ebay. <br /><br />The Harper woodcuts are also a removal from and a destruction of the original document, yet there seems to be no general adverse reaction to this. Is it simply because the cuts eminate from the 19th century, and (for the most part) we don't see the destruction before our very eyes as is the case with the guides? Is it the artistic process that overcomes the vintage collector's anathema towards cut-outs? Is it simply because the woodcuts look more like cards than photographic cut-outs?<br /><br />I don't have any particular aversion to displaying these but I'm just curious as to why the market has seemingly accepted these without reservation.<br /><br />Thanks and wondering what exists inside old Atlantic Monthly's,<br /><br /><br /><br />Max

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Max, there is an inconsistancy here. Though the lower price is partially a reflection that these aren't stand alone posters or suppliments. <br /><br />It is important to note that magazines were not stapled or otherwise bound. If one had a Harper's magazine he'd see its like a daily newspaper not a Time magazine or Reach guide. This means that many woodcuts can be displayed without tearing or cutting anything. <br /><br />If this is an issue that is bothersome, the collector can purchase the whole publications or at least woodcuts where there hasn't been any cutting. The whole publications will be harder to find that the single woodcuts, but can be found.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>In these cases of 'cutout ethics,' one should consider the intent of the publisher. In some cases a publication will say that the pictures are intended to be removed and framed by the reader, or cutout and pasted into a kid's scrapbook. In these cases, cutting out pictures in modern times is not so much of an ethical dilema.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>the full mag I purchased was stapled with one staple on the spine and I did a great deal of thinking as to whether to separate it before the thing arrived. Ironically, the pages had come apart sufficiently over the decades so that I did not have to make that decision.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>Just picked this one up recently:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.slantycouch.com/harpers.gif"><br /><br />It's just the cover but it's in decent shape.<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>This issue is way to complicated. I think we need the Vatican to arbitrate.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/jphotos/BHWEC004.jpg"> --like that. HOWEVER, I think I've heard that nicely hand-tinted ones sometimes are more valued than the plain black and white ones...and whadaya mean "Just a cover"? That "just a cover" is in high demand.<br /><br />Will W: I sent you the right e-mail, but then I copied it wrong. It's the one without the dots...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris</b><p>Thanks Julie. I thought this one was pretty nicely done, and if nothing else will look great framed. Just sent it off this week. I'll post a picture when I get it back.