Condition Summary

Inscriptions & Labels

Verso​

Upper stretcher member

Stenciled in black ink: "22-27"

Incised into the wood: "V [anchor symbol] S"

Lower stretcher member

Incised into the wood: "V [anchor symbol] S"

Lower center of canvas

Stenciled in black ink, upside down: "G R DODGE & CO / [illegilble] / SUPPLY STORE / ALTIMORE"

Frame Verso
Upper member

Printed in black ink on a label: "M. BARRETT & BRO. / CARVERS AND GILDERS, / 82 HOWARD STREE, corner of Saratoga, / [illegible] / MANUFACTURERS OF / Looking Glass, Portrait & Picture Frames. / AND GILT WORK IN ALL ITS VARIETY: / ALSO, / PLAIN 7 FA[illegible] / WOOD FRAMES, / AND IM[illegible] OF FRENCH AND GERMAN / LOOKING GLASS PLATES, / FINE ENGRAVINGS, &C. BOWEN & CO.PRS."

​

Conservation Records

No previous record of conservation exists, but there is evidence of previous treatment.

​

Auxiliary Support

The painting is stretched on an original four-membered wooden stretcher with slot mortise-and-tenon joints, and all eight keys are present.

Overall, the stretcher is stable and in good condition.  There are abrasion marks at the center of each stretcher member, likely from nails and tools used to fit the painting into the frame multiple times.  The lower right two keys are loose while the other six keys are secure.  One of the keys in the upper left corner is much smaller than the rest.  There is a thick layer of dust on the lower member of the stretcher as well as the four lower keys. 

​

Primary Support

The primary support is a plain weave linen (est.).  An average thread count is 13 threads/cm in the horizontal direction (est. warp).  There is a colourmen’s stencil, in black ink, on the lower center half of the canvas.  None of the edges have a selvage.

The lower tacking edge has extra pinholes associated with the priming of the canvas on a temporary strainer.  These holes indicate that the prepared roll canvas was narrow (approximately 27.75 inches) and long. This caused primary cusping.  When the canvas was attached to this strainer with tacks, secondary cusping occurred, which is revealed by the alternating black and white vertical areas in the x-ray radiograph.

The canvas is in fair condition.  It is darkened and brittle due to the natural degradation of the cellulosic fibers.  There are some canvas bulges in the lower left corner and along the lower left edge, seen in the raking light photograph.  These likely result from the detachment of the lower tacking margin from the center seven tacks, which causes it to move freely.  The tacks have corrosion products present resulting in staining of the canvas and fall out loss of canvas around the tack heads.

There are complete losses of the canvas along the fold over edges.  It is possible that nails from the verso of the frame have caused many of these losses.  There is impact damage above the sitter’s left shoulder, a small circular puncture that has been filled in the hair, an L-shaped tear in the outer sleeve of the sitter’s left arm, and a compound tear in the torso, which is are visible in the x-ray radiograph.

​

Preparatory Layers

The canvas was primed with a commercially applied, white, oil-based ground (est.) as indicated by the colourmen stamp on the back of the canvas. Based on the radiodensity of the ground in the x-radiograph and the date of the painting, lead white is the primary inorganic component of the ground.  Both of the vertical tacking margins are primed all the way to the cut edge of the canvas, while no ground is present on the lower tacking margin.  The ground application extends approximately 0.5-1 cm into the upper tacking margin.  Infrared reflectography (IRR) imaging does reveal an infrared-absorbing preparatory drawing material in the eyes, nose, and mouth, in the 900-1700 nm range.  It consists of thin lines, likely applied with a dry medium and a pointed tool, are visible.  The eyelids were originally drawn covering more of the eye but then reworked to be more open.

​The priming layer is well adhered to both the support and paint layers and is in good, stable condition overall. The tears in the primary support described above are associated with some losses in the ground layer.  Tears and losses in the canvas can be clearly seen in the x-radiograph and will appear dark compared to lighter, more radiodense materials such as the lead white ground. 

​

Paint Layer

The oil paint is thin and in many places the weave structure of the support canvas shows through.  There are no visible brushstrokes in the background while there is fine brushwork within the figure.  The white lace detail in the figure’s dress, as well as the details of the applique on the sleeve, has some low impasto.  The background around the top of the figure’s head and right side of her body is slightly lighter suggesting that Bebie may have first painted the background with a lighter color and then darkened it after the figure had been blocked in but did not repaint all the way up to her. 

There are inclusions in the paint, primarily above the figure’s head and on the right side in the background.  The inclusions are round, soft-edged, and granular in shape.  It is not known what these inclusions would be.  A cross-section or a sample for analysis would need to be taken to help identify the inclusions. 

The paint layer is in good condition.  There are stress cracks throughout the entire painting, however, there is no lifting or flaking paint.  These stress cracks likely result from mechanical stress due to fluctuating environmental conditions because where the frame covered the painting, there are less cracks compared to where the rest of the painting has been uncovered.  There is some discolored inpainting and overpaint that corresponds to tears and areas of loss mentioned above 

​

Coatings

The painting is currently coated with at least two coats of varnish.  The top layer of varnish is estimated to be a synthetic varnish that was applied thinly with overlapping horizontal strokes made with a brush.  With ultraviolet (UV) light examination, the surface has a blue-green fluorescence which is characteristic of a synthetic varnish.  Below this is estimated to be a natural resin varnished.  During a previous vanish application, it was decided to varnish around the figure.  This application of varnish was not carefully done because there are areas of overlap on the edge of the figure.

The varnish has discolored.  The corners of the painting that were covered by the frame fluoresce slightly differently than the rest of the painting.  One possibility is that the frame protected the surface from pollutants and light which can cause degradation.  UV light examination also reveals that someone had previously attempted to remove or reduce a previous natural resin varnish layer.