The legacy inherited two paintings, please help in determining the value of
 

Good time of day, dear forum !
The legacy of the great-grandmother got two pictures . I ask your help in otpredelenii true authorship and the value of these paintings.

A . Ants Vladimir Leonidovich (1861 - 1940). Oil on board, about the size of 108h68 . Signed in the lower right corner, as I understand it , is dated 1915 ( or 18 ?) Year.

Two . Jean-Jacques Henner (1829-1905). Technique and material can not say the picture is closed glass. Size approximately 44h34 .

Who is on them that can tell ? Thanks in advance .

second picture you will need to be removed from under the glass, as the oil and Henner wrote on paper and on the board, respectively the price a little bit different

freez, and about what range for both cases?

price range for your plan of Henners 2.500 -5.000, its good enough to buy a French auction, a record 18.750 on

Sotheby's in April this year (working 75 x 127 cm) prices in the $.

It is important to who or what exactly is depicted ...
The girl in the interior or on the nature of flowers, of course, will be more expensive, and sometimes an order of magnitude than a portrait of the unknown!

Thanks, I'll keep in mind: <! - ~ 1 ~ -> But the first that can be said?

tulalawyer, A in the first, we can safely say that the copy of Muravyev.

The Count, though not a professional academies did not finish, but drew better than this picture.

On the landscape are funny shadows to the side, completely opposite of where they should go.

That is not the shadow of the trees, and to Derbe, before they are illuminated by the parties.

Kurioz.


A copy does not seem, in my opinion, quite a smear free, unfettered, in general.

uriart, hmmm, a copy of the lifetime?
It is unlikely, great-grandmother just in those years and got this picture ..

Uriarte, I think you're too good think about Muraviev.
He found a fantastic thing for the outrage.
Especially because I find it hard to imagine that someone worthy to copy it.
With all due respect

But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, as this ant may be worth today?

tulalawyer, if we assume that this work is really gr.
B. L.Muraveva and given a year of its creation, size, and the basis (cardboard, which is not typical for him), we can, I think, to proceed from the start of a 20 m long.

Uriart, His Excellency, with the writing, with no better, sir. Onex-with-wrote with another.
In my opinion, the picture presented for discussion, even stylistically can not work is V.L.Muraveva.
It seems to me that the picture - do not just copy from Muravyev, but generally has to "creativity" of the graph is very indirect relevance. That is, subject + time. You're like no, you know: these subjects readily used by other local artists, and the fourth or fifth row, worked in the 1880s - 1910s. So you just remember all the names (ha ha), and reasoning contradiction (I - not about a picture, if Th <! - ~ 1 ~ -> NO Ants, Tikhmenev NOT NOT Khrenov NOT Vysotsky, NOT Spring ...
Why - not ants? And - at all. The composition (too loaded with short-range plans, stems - trimmed and in a form similar to the fence, between them there is no single progala, not a single piece of dalyushki and nebushka), a drawing (all too hard, accurate, correct, Ants, then so could not . Kosor, carelessly, anyhow - might as well here and so prescribe twigs, sticks, Christmas trees, ferns, goutweed - sumleva-ah-ah-ah-yus ...) The coloring, again. Not evoyny flavor. And the methods - not to be seen. Finely.
The second picture. The diagram looks like a photo print photos ... (Although the grain of the canvas and the like can be seen). Maybe because of the fact that under the glass? Somehow, in one word.

Everything just bullshit!

ANTIK, well, bullshit too?
It would not want to believe it.



Looked at other jobs Muravyev, something quite different fulfilled, the color is different.
But suddenly something of an atypical?