Q & A

T.F. of Calgary, Alberta writes:

I am hoping to find out some information about this painting I purchased several years ago at a local shop. I had no idea who the artist was, but the painting appealed to me, and the price was right, so I took it home. When I got home, I couldn't help but pull off the old cardboard that was covering the back. Much to my surprise, it revealed the original label.
It reads: THE FINE ART GALLERIES
T.EATON CO LIMITED
CANADA
Title of work: " NEAR WILFORD SURREY"
Artist: Ernest Parton
Stock Number: #3139
Price: $ 125.00
The size of the canvas is 24 1/8 by 16 3/8. There is also a small puncture in the trees. It is in the original frame.

This piqued my interest, and I started to do some research. I soon realized that I may have something of value here. I examined the painting closer, and that was when I noticed that it was signed "ERNST", not "ERNEST". I then tried to find any references to his signature, but wasn't too successful. I then took the painting to two auction houses here in Calgary to get their opinion. Both felt that it possibly could be one of his paintings, but they were both uneasy about the signature. They suggested I try to find someone familiar with his work, and perhaps have it authenticated. I called a few more places, but was unable to find anyone who could help me. So, I am hoping you could perhaps help me with this, or provide information on where I could possibly go here in Calgary. Any thoughts or comments you have on this would be appreciated.

We asked Erik Peters to respond:

Your enquiry regarding your painting signed “Ernst Parton” touches on an issue that is almost as old as art itself – the authenticity of a given work of art. As far back as the days of Rome, Greek antiquities were highly sought after by affluent collectors, and certain works whose authenticity was questionable at best - and fraudulent at worst - were sold to them. We now recognize these works as antiquities in their own right, but they also help to illustrate the seeming inevitability of this practice. As appraisers, be it in the discipline of Fine Art, furniture, decorative arts, sports memorabilia – virtually any area of collecting – we must always be aware of the possibility that the object we are appraising may not be what it purports to be.

Judging from the photos with which you supplied us, your painting certainly appears to be in the manner of Parton. He was an American artist (1845-1933) who was largely self-taught, although his older brother Arthur, himself an artist of some repute, proved to be an influence. In his late-twenties Ernest traveled to Britain and Europe, and remained there until the last year of his life. His work strongly reflects the influence of both the French Barbizon school of painters whose work was so much in vogue at the time, and the tonalist treatment of the American Hudson River school (he grew up in Hudson. N.Y.). Quiet pastoral landscapes suffused with a soft, romantic light that suggested a reflective appreciation of nature became his standard, and he was sufficiently consistent in quality and successful in sales that he enjoyed a certain financial security throughout his career, during which time he exhibited regularly at The Royal Academy, The Society of British Artists, Grosvenor Gallery and elsewhere, eventually becoming a member of the Royal Institute of Painters in Oil-Colour.

Again, based upon your photos, your painting has all the characteristics of Parton’s style; a lone figure by a punt on a quiet backwater. The reflections of the summer trees in the water seem as still as the air itself. A gentle serenity and sense of calm permeates the scene. But the signature, as you so correctly note, is a cause of some concern. Why “Ernst”, and not “Ernest”? Surely the man knew how to spell his own name, so the question must be asked – is the signature, in fact, by Parton?

A search through a number of sources has revealed several examples of his signature, but I have been unable to find any example of his having signed a painting as yours is signed. (Interestingly, however, and equally as curious, I did find two examples being offered on the market as being by “Earnest Parton”.) The reticence of the Calgary auctioneers to commit themselves to its authenticity is understandable; while the style is Parton’s, the signature is problematic and, in the art world, it’s often prudently customary to err on the side of caution in such matters. I know of no recognized expert in the work of Parton and, to be honest, I doubt if there is one such individual. It is a possibility that the signature has been added at some later date, perhaps by a collector or dealer who hoped to invest the work with a greater sense of value. An examination of the signature under ultra-violet light might answer this question; if it fluoresces under the U-V light, it most likely was added. The Tate Gallery in London has in its collection his most famous painting, “The Waning of the Year” (1879), and you might wish to forward to them your photos; they may be prepared to offer an opinion. Similarly, you might also contact the Walker Gallery in Liverpool. They have in their collection his painting entitled “Woodland Home”. In Calgary, the most obvious place to which you might refer would be the Glenbow Museum. If they can’t help you, they may be able to suggest someone else in the academic community who could, be it in Canada or elsewhere.

The “Eaton’s Fine Art Galleries” label on the reverse may be a surprise to some but, in fact, back in the ‘30s and ‘40s, Eaton’s was in a partnership of sorts with the respected Cooling Galleries in London, England. In an attempt to broaden their market, Cooling regularly shipped paintings of a highly competent and decorative nature by established artists to Toronto, and Eaton’s gallery was well-regarded as a credible source of European and American works of art. As the Barbizon painters still enjoyed a certain popularity, it’s not unreasonable that the painting has this label on it. It does not, however, guarantee that the painting was, in fact, sold by Eaton’s. The reality that it has been cut (the original label was larger), then taped to the back in the manner it is, does suggest the possibility that it was added from another painting, again, to add a certain cachet to the work. When you combine that with the issue of the signature, you can begin to appreciate the auctioneers’ informed reticence.

In conclusion, then, if your painting were to be offered on the open market today, it would in all likelihood be deemed to be attributed to Parton, meaning it may be by him, but it may not, as well. It’s a trade terminology that distinguishes a work from being definitely by the artist. As such, it might realize $400/600 at auction, in its apparent condition (for it to realize more, the damage would need to be repaired, and it looks like it could benefit from a good professional cleaning). If it can be determined that it is, indeed, authentic, in its current apparent state it might realize $2,000/2,500.

I hope this sheds some light on your painting. Having said all this, I feel compelled to add that, whether it is by Parton or not, you are fortunate to own a very pleasing work that exhibits many of the qualities of two highly regarded and influential schools of painting at the turn of the 20th century. Enjoy!