Faun, attribution and evaluation
 

Familiar with attribution asked for help and assessment.
The picture was bought in the early '80s in Yerevan's antique shop.
Oil on cardboard. Behind the top of the inscription is read only if you angle turn toward the light. Photographed on several occasions - glare . In the end, scanned , it is better not work.
 In the middle of hard to see a different color ink
initials A n.
caption:
Le cheo. r. Cot. facit in Roma
 1866

I'm sorry, but how can there be attribution?
 
This beauty is beyond attributions.
:shy:>

A copy of the painting Bouguereau (William-Adolphe Bouguereau, 1825 - 1905), "Faun and Bacchante" (1860).

Damn, you had to search device in the computer?
what company?

Well, I can not believe you remember this stupid piece Bouguereau *!


Kaaak?
Kaaak you find it?


_____________

* How is it transcribed in the late 19th century.

Search for uploaded images - http://tineye.com/

The site has a special plug-ins for IE and FF for easier searching

Judging by the keen ear of men and women wreath, is a "Satyr and Nymph."
I have the feeling that the figures painted over the landscape.
 
Maybe - it's a copy from some of the work.

Alas, tineye.com here is absolutely useless, because it analyzes not the images themselves, but only to their "invisible" attributes, which, of course, different from the above zarajara images and those images that are available online.

Everything is much easier. From the very beginning assumed it - or Bouguereau, Cabanel either. (Here are some of their work known to almost everyone: see attachments). Scored in the Google "Bouguereau" - pops up a lot of pictures, got bored looking for a needle in a haystack, especially if you are not sure that it's there. It is necessary to refine the search. Noticed that the male character, despite the pointed ears, normal legs, but not the hoof: therefore, it is not a satyr and the faun. Well, got "Bouguereau Faun" and - voila!

"Mr. Jabez Wilson laughed out loud.
- That's it! - He said. - At first I thought you were God knows what tricky ways guesses, but it turns out, it's that simple.
- I'm starting to think, my dear Watson - Holmes said - that made the mistake of explaining how I came to my conclusions. As you know, "omne ignotum pro magnifico (all for the great unknown is taken (Tacitus))", and my modest fame threatens to collapse, so if I'm honest. "(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

No such device .
Correctly writes Amateur - nasmotrennost and again nasmotrennost .
Something familiar will see in the picture in that direction and go find it. It would wish.
And here is how to check myself , I wonder - right - wrong.

THANK YOU.
:)>

Shl.
I wrote my post before I read yours, something like that happened.

"Just" is for you and all here know it.
:)>