Konstantin Savitsky Apollonovich "Kryuchnik"
 

Hello dear forum users !
Accidentally got a picture. The previous owners said they drew their grandfather . But I think that they just did not know. Family professorial (medicine), but the older generation is gone, but young people do not need anything . This is the background . The size of the picture 134h99 see an old canvas , see the edge of the picture, dubbed in the old canvas. There are small tears and abrasions of the canvas . In the lower right corner to read the date 1888. On the internet walks image " Kryuchnika " size 60h49 but see a slightly different execution. In the State Tretyakov Gallery is a pencil drawing in 1893 similar to the picture. I want to know your opinion on this work.

serg468, as for me - you have shown a thing - copy.

"Kryuchnik" - a thing at one time a popular, frequently reproduced, replicated:

You can also assume that you have a copy of the author or povtor.Tak as in the picture given year is likely to exist and the artist's signature , otherwise why only god.Esli study copy the famous painting , it has to be signed to a year and do not need ..

Recalls the author's remark, moreover, that the background is different.


In general, it is, in my opinion, no worse than the original.

Hand that's just right is not very well made, did not have the skills, apparently.

Hand?

And in my opinion, the hand as the hand.

I agree with Kirill.

Alternately , carefully written down every part of the picture, but in the end the depth inherent in the original, no . This is perhaps the only drawback . This is a copy and a copy is very good. Nothing more. But at least , but ...

Thanks for the discussion.
I understand a little painting, and I can not argue.
But there are two purely technical issue.
Canvas dubbed, why?
If it is a copy, where the original?

You should see the location of the picture, once You have searched on the internet that " Keychains ": "Duplication of the canvas " - a way of restoration which is used for thinning and with a strong decay of the canvas.

Weak responses.
In the Internet version of the "Keychains" in 1884 from a private collection, and I think the size is too small to Savitsky.
In this version of TG pictures in pencil in 1893 put up for discussion a version in oil in 1888 need more good arguments to keep smiling about the discovery.

Wait for the "strong" .
Or do you expect the address of the " private collection "?

Rejoice in the discovery , and read his thing with the original authorship Konstantin Savitsky Apollonovich (June 6, 1844, Taganrog - February 13, 1905, Penza).
 I do not mind, I only .
I only date that's on your picture I saw , I could not make out the inscription " 1888 ."
___________________________
You write:
Here I am , and expressed his opinion .

The lower-right corner badly defaced.
I did not immediately see the date.
But it is.
And over the date of the letters are still visible, from which you can add the word "Sawicki."
Photography to convey difficult.
If it were not erased, probably did not get.

These squiggles you call the date ?
Look at the picture , KA Savitsky. That's where the date !
It was signed by the artist put their work almost always. Even in the studies.
Even in fragments of the original version of the painting " At War" in 1880 , which Savitsky cut , he left on each and sign and date . Even after writing a picture.
For example on a fragment of $ 23.8 X52 , 4, which is now called "Soldiers of crowding in rail cars ," he set the date "88 g".

Added after 1 minutes
Yeah, Paul M. erased, probably as a "Morning in a Pine Forest."
 
:D>

Added after 5 minutes
So the same:

Do not be sad.
:)>

What I can not believe ...
;)>

Well in the Tretyakov Gallery or Grabar judge. And I do not feel sad (this is for Cyril Syzran ). Life is beautiful in any event. Foaming at the mouth will not prove or disprove , because once again I say that is not special in the painting . Who will be in Nizhni , come to me in an antique shop , a live show (so far not sent for review ). And flourishes too.