Print Of Rosa Bonheur Cum Tauro By Edouard Dubufe 18191883

Rosa Bonheur (1822–1899) was the preeminent animal painter of 19th‑century France, and her image—often with her equine or bovine subjects—became a cultural emblem. Edouard Dubufe (1819–1883), a highly regarded society portraitist, is associated with a likeness of Bonheur that circulated in print form. Impressions sometimes carry the Latin-style caption “Rosa Bonheur cum tauro” (with the bull), or a related wording in French. For today’s collectors and appraisers, the challenge is not only to identify the sitter and subject correctly, but also to understand what exactly the print is: a 19th‑century reproductive engraving, a lithograph, or a later photomechanical reproduction after Dubufe’s portrait.

This guide unpacks the attributes, paper and printing clues, condition factors, and market realities that will help you evaluate a “Rosa Bonheur cum tauro” print linked to Edouard Dubufe, dated broadly to the mid-to-late 19th century.

What exactly is “Rosa Bonheur cum tauro” and why attribution matters

• Subject and title: The Latin phrase “cum tauro” simply means “with the bull.” Expect an image of the artist Rosa Bonheur accompanied by a bull or bull’s head, emphasizing her identity as an animal painter. Variants may use French or English captions (“Rosa Bonheur avec un taureau,” “Rosa Bonheur with a bull”) or no caption at all.
• Role of Dubufe: Edouard Dubufe was a painter, not a printmaker. If you have a 19th‑century print, it is most likely a reproductive print after (i.e., based on) a painted portrait by Dubufe. On 19th‑century prints this relationship is usually signaled by the imprint line: “Peint par E. Dubufe” or “Painted by E. Dubufe,” followed by the engraver or lithographer’s credit (“Gravé par …,” “Lith. par …”) and the publisher.
• Technique variants you may encounter:
  • Line engraving or mixed-method engraving (steel or copper plate), with a plate mark and a visible network of burin lines under magnification.
  • Lithograph on wove paper, often with a publisher’s blindstamp; certain houses (e.g., Lemercier) dominated lithographic production in Paris.
  • Photogravure or collotype, more common from the 1880s onward, with a dot- or grain-based tonal pattern rather than hand-incised lines.
• Publisher and distribution: Major Parisian firms such as Goupil & Cie, Lemercier, or Braun & Cie widely disseminated reproductive images in the second half of the 19th century. The exact publisher matters: it can help date the impression and gauge market demand.

Key takeaway for appraisal: Unless the print bears a genuine hand-signature by Dubufe (rare for reproductive prints) or by the reproductive printmaker, it should be cataloged as “after Edouard Dubufe,” with the printer/engraver named if present. Mislabeling it as “by Dubufe” can mislead buyers and inflate expectations.

How to identify printing method, state, and date

The more precisely you describe the print, the stronger your valuation.

• Plate mark and paper structure:
  • Engravings and etchings typically show a recessed plate mark—a rectangular indentation around the image. Run a clean fingertip lightly along the margin to feel it; use raking light to see it.
  • Lithographs lack a plate mark but may show a light impression line or image edge. The surface will be flatter, with grease-based image areas sitting more on the surface.
  • Photogravures have a fine reticulated grain and a subtly debossed image area; under magnification, tonal transitions appear as clusters or stippled grain rather than engraved lines.
• Under magnification:
  • Engraving: crisp, hand-cut lines with burr removed; hatching and cross-hatching render tone.
  • Etching/mixed techniques: more irregular line quality; occasional plate tone or aquatint grain.
  • Lithography: no plate-incised lines; greasy crayon or tusche textures; sometimes light offset.
  • Photomechanical: even, mechanical dots or rosette patterns (collotype/gravure have continuous tone but visible grain).
• Inscriptions and “letters”:
  • “Avant la lettre” proofs (before letters) omit the title and credits; these can be scarce and more desirable.
  • “Avec lettres” impressions include the full caption block with “Painted by… Engraved by… Published by…”
  • Look for “Epreuve d’artiste” (artist’s proof), “Bon à tirer” (printer’s approval), or state notations. These are not universal for 19th‑century reproductive prints but occasionally appear.
• Dating cues:
  • Publisher imprint changes can bracket dates. For instance, Goupil imprint formulas evolved over decades. Similarly, Lemercier’s address styles shifted with time.
  • Paper watermarks: 19th‑century wove papers may carry “J WHATMAN,” “Canson,” “Lalanne,” or mill-specific marks. Shine a light through the sheet to locate watermarks.
  • Blindstamps: circular or oval blindstamps from publishers or print dealers can corroborate period.
  • Typography: serif styles and language conventions in imprint lines offer subtle dating clues.

Document three measurements: image size (to the plate/image edge), plate mark size (if present), and full sheet size, all in millimeters. Consistency across documented examples can confirm edition or printing batch.

Condition factors that materially affect value

Paper-based artworks are vulnerable. A visually impressive impression can lose much of its market value if condition is poor.

• Foxing and staining: Rust-colored specks (foxing), mat burn (brown line from acidic mats), tide lines from moisture, and generalized toning reduce desirability. Light, even age tone is acceptable; heavy discoloration is not.
• Trimming and margins: Many 19th‑century prints were issued with generous margins. If margins are trimmed into or near the plate mark/caption, value typically drops. A print trimmed within the image is significantly devalued.
• Creases, tears, and losses: Folds, handling creases, edge tears, and pinholes (from early mounting) should be noted. A sharp central crease is particularly problematic.
• Surface issues: Abrasion, scuffing, cockling, adhesive residues, and prior cleaning or bleaching (detectable under UV light) can signal invasive conservation.
• Inks and impression quality: A strong, rich impression with good contrast commands more interest. Weak, worn impressions—especially from late restrikes—show shallow lines and dull tone.

Conservation guidance: Leave stain reduction, deacidification, tear mending, and hinge removal to a qualified paper conservator. Improper DIY cleaning can permanently alter the sheet, flatten plate marks, or blur inks.

Market context and valuation approach

Reproductive prints after notable painters sat at the core of the 19th‑century art trade. Today, the market differentiates between rare proof states or early publisher impressions and the more common “with letters” editions.

• Subject appeal: Rosa Bonheur is perennially admired, and the presence of a bull connects directly to her brand. That subject pull supports demand.
• Hierarchy of desirability (generalized):
  1. Early proof states (e.g., avant la lettre), on chine-collé or fine wove, with publisher blindstamp and wide margins.
  2. Standard 19th‑century “with letters” impressions in excellent condition, full margins.
  3. Later 19th‑century photogravures or collotypes with intact margins.
  4. 20th‑century photomechanical reproductions or heavily trimmed/foxed examples.
• Valuation ranges: Most 19th‑century reproductive prints after Dubufe are modestly priced compared with unique paintings or original etchings. Depending on technique, state, publisher, and condition:
  • Common “with letters” impressions in good condition often trade in the low hundreds.
  • Early proofs, exceptional impressions, or examples with notable provenance may reach mid to high hundreds, occasionally higher.
  • Severely trimmed, stained, or later photomechanical replicas tend to land under the low-hundreds threshold. These are directional ranges; specific comps, region, and timing can shift outcomes significantly.
• Finding comparables:
  • Match title wording and publisher imprint as closely as possible.
  • Match technique (engraving vs lithograph vs photogravure) and state (avant/avec lettres).
  • Note sheet size and margins—auction catalogues often state both.
  • Prior sale dates matter: recent results carry more weight in fast-moving markets.

Insurance and replacement: For insurance, a fair market value based on the median of recent, closely matched sales (adjusted for condition and margins) is defensible. For retail replacement value, look at gallery asking prices for equivalent condition and state, typically above auction levels.

Documentation, cataloging, and ethical attributions

Good records travel with the artwork and preserve value.

• Cataloging format: “Rosa Bonheur cum tauro (with a bull), reproductive print after Edouard Dubufe (1819–1883). [Technique], [engraver/lithographer if present], [publisher], [city], [circa date]. Image: H × W mm; Plate: H × W mm (if applicable); Sheet: H × W mm. [Watermark]; [Blindstamp].”
• Provenance notes: Record previous owners, purchase dates, dealers, and auction lot numbers. Keep images of the full sheet, verso details, and framing recto/verso.
• Ethics of attribution: Use “after Edouard Dubufe” unless you have firm evidence of Dubufe’s direct involvement in the printmaking. Credit the reproductive printmaker if named in the imprint line.

Practical checklist for appraisers and collectors

• Confirm subject and attribution:
  • Identify Rosa Bonheur and the bull; photograph the caption and imprint line.
  • Ensure description reads “after Edouard Dubufe” unless otherwise warranted.
• Determine technique:
  • Check for plate mark; inspect line or grain under 10x magnification.
  • Note lithographic textures vs engraved/etched lines vs photogravure grain.
• Record measurements:
  • Image, plate (if any), and full sheet sizes, in millimeters.
• Capture edition/state clues:
  • “Avant/avec lettres,” proof notations, watermarks, blindstamps, publisher imprint.
• Assess condition:
  • Margins (full, trimmed, into image), foxing, stains, tears, creases, mat burn, toning.
• Inspect verso and framing:
  • Look for old hinges, tapes, acidic mats; document anything affecting conservation.
• Date the impression:
  • Cross-check publisher/address styles and paper watermarks for a date range.
• Value with comparables:
  • Gather recent sales of the same title and technique; adjust for condition and margins.
• Plan care:
  • Use archival materials; consult a paper conservator before any cleaning or mounting.

FAQ

Q: Is my print “by Edouard Dubufe” or “after Edouard Dubufe”? A: If your sheet is a reproductive print based on a painting by Dubufe, the correct cataloging is “after Edouard Dubufe,” coupled with the engraver or lithographer’s name if present. Only an original print conceived and executed by Dubufe (rare in this context) would be “by” him.

Q: How can I tell if it’s an engraving or a lithograph? A: Look for a recessed plate mark and incised lines under magnification for an engraving/etching. Lithographs lack a plate mark and show crayon-like tonal textures. Photogravures show a fine, even grain rather than hand-cut lines.

Q: What if the margins are trimmed? A: Trimming to or within the plate mark or caption significantly reduces value. Note the degree of trimming in your cataloging and adjust valuation downward relative to full-margin examples.

Q: Are later photogravures worth collecting? A: Yes, if they’re 19th‑century and in excellent condition with clear publisher attributions. They usually command less than hand-engraved impressions but can still be desirable as historical images.

Q: Can I clean foxing at home? A: No. Foxing and mat burn should be addressed by a qualified paper conservator. DIY methods risk permanent damage and value loss.

By approaching a “Rosa Bonheur cum tauro” print methodically—verifying the imprint line, technique, date range, and condition—you can arrive at a precise, defensible appraisal and a caring stewardship plan that preserves both the image and its history.