Edgar Degas 1834 1917 Marguerite Degas: An Appraiser’s Guide

Edgar Degas (1834–1917) is a cornerstone name in the Impressionist era—though he preferred to be called a realist—renowned for dancers, racing scenes, nudes, and an experimental approach to drawing, pastel, monotype, and sculpture. “Marguerite Degas” most commonly refers to his sister, Marguerite de Gas (note the family’s older “de Gas” spelling, later standardized as Degas). A handful of early portraits and studies of family members are known, and some are believed to depict Marguerite; her name also surfaces on period inscriptions and later attributions.

For collectors and appraisers, the appearance of a work labeled “Edgar Degas 1834–1917 Marguerite Degas” can mean several things: a portrait of his sister, a work previously in the family or estate, a mislabeled sitter, or a later attribution. This guide focuses on how to approach such material with an appraiser’s eye: understanding how Degas worked, how his authentic pieces look and feel, how family sitters are documented, and where value and risk concentrate.

Who was Marguerite Degas, and why does she appear in attributions?

• Identity and naming: Marguerite de Gas was one of Edgar Degas’s siblings. The family historically used “de Gas,” while the artist signed “Degas.” Inscriptions referencing early family members may mix these spellings.
• As sitter and subject: Degas produced intimate studies and portraits of family members during the late 1850s and 1860s, alongside more formal projects (for example, his studies leading to The Bellelli Family). While not every “Marguerite” inscription refers to his sister, a small subset of drawings and painted studies are thought to depict her.
• Why it matters for appraisal: Portraits of family members are comparatively scarce on the market, often less publicized than the famous dancer or racecourse subjects, and thus require careful literature checks. Correct sitter identification and robust provenance can materially affect value.

Practical takeaway: Treat “Marguerite Degas” as a research hypothesis, not a conclusion. A convincing attribution needs stylistic consistency, materials analysis, and literature/provenance corroboration.

Recognizing authentic Degas: media, techniques, and telltale traits

Degas worked across media with a restless, experimental approach. Understanding his materials helps you separate plausible works from pretenders.

• Drawings (graphite, charcoal, Conté): Expect economy of line with confident corrections, extensive reworking, and stumping/wiping to build form. He often returned to a pose repeatedly, producing series of iterative studies on tracing paper or laid papers.
• Pastel: Degas pushed pastel to painterly extremes—layered, worked, fixed, and reworked. Supports include colored papers (gray, blue, buff) and tracing or oatmeal papers. Surfaces can look crusted or velvety, with fixative-induced darkening in areas. Edge build-up and frottage-like textures appear in mature works.
• Oil paintings: Less common on the open market than pastels and drawings. Look for offbeat compositions (cropped, asymmetrical), unconventional viewpoints, and an emphasis on drawing under structure. Signatures on oils are inconsistent and often absent.
• Prints: Degas produced etchings and, crucially, monotypes—unique prints pulled from painted plates. Monotypes can be inky, atmospheric, and later heightened with pastel. Plate tone, wiping patterns, and paper quality (often laid with chainlines) are essential to examine.
• Sculpture: Degas modeled in wax and clay; no lifetime bronze casts are known. All bronzes—most famously The Little Fourteen-Year-Old Dancer—are posthumous, cast primarily by the A.A. Hébrard foundry beginning in the early 1920s, using the cire perdue method. Foundry marks, model numbering, and patinas require expert scrutiny.

Telltales of authenticity:

• A draftsman’s logic: Degas builds volume with line and tone; even in pastel, the underlying drawing is authoritative.
• Experimental surface: Reworking, pentimenti, and layered fixatives are common.
• Paper and supports: Ingres-type laid papers, tracing papers, and quality 19th-century supports; watermarks can be consistent with period French or Italian stocks.
• Restraint in signatures: Many legitimate Degas works are unsigned; added signatures are a red flag unless historically documented.

Signatures, inscriptions, estate stamps, and foundry marks

Degas’s signing habits complicate appraisal. Focus on what you can authenticate, and be skeptical of later additions.

• Signatures: When present, “Degas” appears in varied scripts; early works may feature “de Gas.” He sometimes signed in pencil or paint, but frequent sales-era or later-added signatures are a risk area. Compare with authenticated exemplars in the catalogue raisonné and museum holdings.
• Sitter inscriptions: “Marguerite,” “Mlle de Gas,” and other familial notes may be in the hand of the artist, a relative, or a later owner. Handwriting analysis and age of inscription matter.
• Estate/atelier stamps: After Degas’s death, works in his studio were stamped and dispersed. Recognized atelier stamps (documented in the Lugt repertory of collector’s marks) appear in red, black, or purple ink on drawings and prints. An atelier stamp supports, but does not alone guarantee, authenticity.
• Labels and sale marks: Works traceable to the 1918–1919 estate dispersals (“Vente Degas” in Paris) carry strong provenance. Period gallery labels and inventory numbers can be decisive when they align with published cataloguing.
• Sculpture foundry marks: Authentic posthumous bronzes typically bear “A.A. Hébrard” and “cire perdue” marks, with model numbering. Patina quality, casting crispness, and tool marks consistent with early 20th-century practice are critical. Beware of casts with incorrect foundry names, modern fonts, or lack of internal provenance.

Provenance pathways and the “Vente Degas”

Degas died in 1917. His studio’s contents were sorted and sold in a series of important estate sales in Paris in 1918–1919. These sales and subsequent early 20th-century gallery placements are a backbone for legitimate provenance.

• Why it matters: Paper trail from the estate sales, early dealers, or family holdings to the present day significantly de-risks an attribution—especially for drawings labeled as family portraits (like possible Marguerite depictions).
• What to look for:
  • Auction catalog citations from the estate sales, with lot numbers.
  • Period gallery stock books or labels referencing Degas.
  • Collection stamps recorded in recognized repertories.
  • Early literature mentions (exhibition checklists, monographs, prewar periodicals).
• Cautions:
  • “Found in Paris” or “from artist’s studio” without corroborating paperwork is not enough.
  • Later dealer inscriptions can be informative but need independent verification.

Value drivers: subject, medium, rarity, and condition

• Subject hierarchy: Ballet dancers and female nudes dominate demand, followed by racecourse scenes, theater/orchestra pits, laundresses, and intimate portraits. Family portraits can be strongly sought when documented and aesthetically compelling.
• Medium hierarchy:
  • Top tier: Mature pastels (especially on dancers and nudes), important oils, monotypes heightened with pastel.
  • Mid tier: Drawings with strong finish or linkage to iconic compositions; monotypes without additional pastel.
  • Specialized: Early student works and academic portraits; they appeal to connoisseurs, less to broad markets.
• Rarity and completeness: Series sheets with multiple studies of the same pose, or works linked to known compositions (with preparatory status), can command premiums.
• Condition:
  • Paper/pastel: Foxing, stains from fixatives, losses to pastel surface, tears, or over-matting reduce value. Sensitive conservation and original mounts can help.
  • Oils: Overcleaning, discolored varnish, broad retouching, or structural issues (relining, traction crackle) affect prices.
  • Prints: Plate wear for etchings; smudging and offsetting on monotypes; late pulls in weak tone command less.
  • Sculpture: Later or unauthorized casts are a major concern. Original Hébrard patinas and early casts are preferred.

Common pitfalls: fakes, misattributions, and “Marguerite” labels

• Added signatures: A persuasive work with a weak, anachronistic signature is a red flag; many authentic Degas works are unsigned.
• Wrong paper/support: Modern wove papers with optical brighteners, or canvases with synthetic grounds, betray later origin.
• Overly tidy surfaces: Degas reworked; perfectly flat, unblemished surfaces may indicate later pastiche.
• Misread sitter notes: “Marguerite” might be a model’s name, a later owner, or another family’s notation entirely. Tie sitter identity to literature, period labels, or proven handwriting.
• Sculpture traps: Bronzes with modern foundry marks, no casting records, or implausible provenance should be set aside for specialist review.

How to research a putative “Marguerite Degas” work

• Catalogue raisonnés: Confirm whether the work, or related versions, appear in standard references for Degas’s paintings, drawings, pastels, prints, and sculptures.
• Museum comparanda: Match hands, materials, and formats to documented examples.
• Technical analysis: Fiber analysis for paper (rag vs modern), infrared for underdrawing, XRF for pigments (e.g., 19th-century pastel recipes), and UV to map retouching.
• Handwriting study: Compare inscriptions (“Marguerite,” “de Gas,” dates) with known artist and family hands.
• Provenance documents: Seek estate sale references, early dealer invoices, shipping labels, and collection stamps.

A concise practical checklist

• Establish the medium and support. Is it consistent with Degas’s practice and period materials?
• Examine the drawing logic. Do line, modeling, and rework show Degas’s practiced hand?
• Scrutinize signatures and inscriptions. Are they period-correct and plausibly in Degas’s or a family/dealer hand?
• Look for estate stamps or labels. Cross-check any atelier stamps and old auction or gallery labels against published sources.
• Verify sitter identification. Do literature, period photos, or related studies support “Marguerite Degas” as the subject?
• Assess condition thoroughly. Note fixative staining, foxing, abrasions (pastel), overcleaning (oil), or weak impressions (prints).
• For bronzes: Confirm Hébrard foundry marks, early casting traits, and a continuous provenance back to the 1920s if possible.
• Commission technical analysis where warranted. Paper/pigment tests and imaging can corroborate period authenticity.
• Seek scholarly opinion. Contact a recognized expert or committee familiar with Degas’s oeuvre and estate documentation.

FAQ

Q: Did Degas actually portray his sister Marguerite? A: He made portraits and studies of family members in the late 1850s and 1860s, and some works are believed to depict his sister Marguerite de Gas. Each claim needs verification through literature, provenance, and stylistic analysis.

Q: How important is a signature on Degas’s drawings and pastels? A: Many authentic Degas works are unsigned. A period signature can help, but added or dubious signatures are common. Prioritize materials, technique, provenance, and literature references over the signature alone.

Q: Are Degas bronzes lifetime casts? A: No lifetime bronzes are known. Posthumous bronzes—most notably those cast by A.A. Hébrard beginning in the early 1920s—are the standard. Authentic early casts with correct marks and provenance are valuable; unauthorized later copies are common.

Q: What does an atelier or estate stamp prove? A: An estate (atelier) stamp is supportive evidence that a work came from Degas’s studio after his death, but it is not a substitute for full authentication. The stamp should match documented types and be consistent with paper and media.

Q: How do monotypes fit into appraisal? A: Degas’s monotypes are unique prints often with rich tone and occasional pastel additions. They can be highly prized when well preserved, with clear plate characteristics and solid provenance. As unique objects, they require case-by-case comparison with recognized examples.

By approaching any “Edgar Degas 1834–1917 Marguerite Degas” work with disciplined, evidence-based scrutiny—privileging materials, technique, and provenance over wishful attributions—you’ll be aligned with best appraisal practice for one of the 19th century’s most exacting and inventive artists.