Advertisement
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Just for Rydell
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:13 AMIt's got so much more detail than the copy - which will help me when I build that jerkin.
The copy also deletes the big ol' carbuncle on his jaw.
Judging by the outfit, I say it's from the 70s, rather than the early 60s. Opinions on that? -
-
Re: Just for Rydell
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 9:17 AM -
-
Re: Just for Rydell
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 11:33 AMAs I said on FB, save the documentation from Mould as it will disappear when the painting is sold. Also, download and save the picture, as you can zoom into very close detail on a saved version. Mould used to provide this on the website, but now it seems to have only two aspects. Finally, the discusson on FB points to absolutely not later than 1567; most probably 1564-1565 (at the very latest). -
-
Re: Just for Rydell
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 12:25 PMYeah. Surprising. As mentioned elsewhere, I'll have to revisit my ideas about timelines and silhouettes.
Why would he have allowed that lump to remain? Euch! -
-
Re: Just for Rydell
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 2:06 PMYou would know this: Is the mole/wart mentioned in the physical descriptions of his nibs? I love the way it appears and then disappears in all of the copies. I'm sure it was there his entire life, but perhaps after the initial depiction, he didn't like it and had it "removed" from all subsequent images. Seems airbrushing has a loooong history! -
-
Re: Just for Rydell
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 2:13 PMUnless you were Cromwell, who wanted "warts & all"
What a nobbly face he had! -
-
Re: Just for Rydell
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 2:40 PMNever heard any references to it before.
Maybe he wasn't paying the artist as much as he wanted.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Just for Rydell
Thu, October 22, 2009 - 6:39 PMPardon me as I swoon...
Just sayin'.
:D
