|
|
Post by Horridus on Oct 30, 2009 0:41:28 GMT
Who's the other one? Everybody has a bunch of trexes, but not to that extent...  Well, quite. I think we have a number of T. rex fans, but he's the biggest. |
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Nov 14, 2009 9:12:20 GMT
Hi,
What's the publication date on the illustration that comes from the Penny Magazine?
I'm a big collector of bound volumes of Victorian periodicals and have a few years worth of this paper as it's a historically important publication (first effort to make printed information available widely at a reasonable price). I'd like to see if it's in one my volumes.
It may interest you to know how these illustrations were created as most assume that they are ink drawings printed via etched steel plates. This image will date from between 1830 - 1840 which will make it a woodcut engraving. So, the original artist created the image (usually a pencil or pen and ink drawing) which was then passed to a wood engraver to copy onto a wood printing block. The image you see was actually hand engraved onto a wooden block (in negative!) and, at the correct dimensions (there was no way to mechanically resize images back then!). When you consider how much effort and skill went into creating one image, let alone enough for one volume the mind boggles ;D
I seriously doubt that the skills are around today to reproduce this technique so finely ................... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ichthy0saur on Nov 15, 2009 2:17:09 GMT
The date is Oct. 26, 1833. An interesting thing about this publication is that No. 9 on the illustration is Megalosaurus (just above the ichthyosaur), perhaps the first popular illustration of a dinosaur.  |
|
|
|
Post by blackdanter on Nov 15, 2009 9:14:14 GMT
The date is Oct. 26, 1833. An interesting thing about this publication is that No. 9 on the illustration is Megalosaurus (just above the ichthyosaur), perhaps the first popular illustration of a dinosaur. Sods Law .................. It's the only year I don't have  1832 was the first year of publication for this magazine so it's as rare as hens teeth! You may well be right with dino illustrations .................. I have plenty of earlier references to fossil bones 'believed to be from an enormous reptile or whale' in various earlier periodicals back to the 1700's but where illustrations are included, they're of the fossil themselves and not a possible reconstruction of the animal. That's a really nice woodcut illustration, there would have been quite a long article with it as it's the title illustation. It's a bit worrying in some ways that these things are being removed wholesale from the original volumes by various dealers (Ebay is the worst offender) as you lose the historical context once it is separated from the source material (there's also the matter of these things being properly classed as heritage items which should carry export restrictions). It's quite likely that some of these bound issues are one of maybe a handful in existence (legal deposit with the British Library of every new publication didn't become law until the 1970's) as even the institutions do not have a complete record of these periodicals. Look after it, you may have to wait some considerable time to find another one of these ...................... if you ever do!  This one has definately been removed from a bound volume which is shown by the straight edge cuts. The original magazine was issued with uncut edges (normal at that time) as the paper is hand formed from cloth not wood fibre (the page edges would have looked ragged). I would very strongly advise that you reframe this behind UV resistant glass as, because the page is now out of the dark (it has sat bound in a book for 150 + years), it will suffer very quickly from light exposure if unprotected. It will also need acid free mounting. It will turn brown and the ink will start to crystalise and lift within a quite short space of time if not carefully protected. Be wary of touching the page with your fingers as the oil on your skin will promote browning and discolouring as well. John |
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Nov 15, 2009 10:25:55 GMT
Wow, the plesiosaur looks fairly right!
The guy will be reconstructed in many different ways, after that... Curiously enough, this is one of the earliest images of him and is closer to the modern than many subsequent!
|
|
|
|
Post by ichthy0saur on Nov 15, 2009 14:18:09 GMT
blackdanter -
Thanks for the comments and advice. I agree with how things are being torn apart for Ebay - from which the illustration came. The straight lines are due to cropping. I have just just the illustration and the illustration with the full article. It was part of a long multipart series of stories on the Mineral Kingdom. Would like to read all of it, but have not come across the entire volume (II - I think).
I used to supervise some collection managers so I have been placing items in acid-free materials. I have Home's original 1814 publication and his publication of illustrating Proteosaurus - which I carefully have stored. There are a number of documents out there that are not stored that way and its good to get the word out. I have a pair of white gloves above my computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 15, 2009 15:29:54 GMT
Is that the Megalosaurus down on all fours?
|
|
|
|
Post by ichthy0saur on Nov 15, 2009 23:46:00 GMT
Yea - typical pose in the early years. Shows how much more info was known about the marine reptiles rather than the dinosaurs at the time. The term dinosaur would not be coined for almost ten years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Nov 21, 2009 16:05:50 GMT
Here is a small ichthyosaur I recently acquired that seems to be absent from your collection:   This was given to me as a gift by a Portuguese friend of mine - I think is was part of a series of clollectibel figures released with breakfast cereal or chips or something, in Portugal. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Nov 21, 2009 16:40:03 GMT
;D Bizarre!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Nov 21, 2009 17:36:16 GMT
Yeah - its tail fluke is horizontal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Nov 21, 2009 19:26:54 GMT
Reminds me of a monsters in my pocket, especially with that number stamped on its side. Neat little guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 28, 2011 15:55:36 GMT
Instead of creating a new ichthyosaur thread I thought I'd post this here. Not a patch on the original poster's collection  |
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jan 28, 2011 16:12:37 GMT
Still a fair number of figures though, given how hard they can be to find (v dinosaur figures). Any particular favourites?
|
|
|
|
Post by lio99 on Jan 28, 2011 23:04:57 GMT
Wow, really nice collection that looks like all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Jan 29, 2011 1:45:30 GMT
Hey that Chap Mei Ichthyo looks familiar! I'm glad I picked that one up for you, haven't seen it in a looong time.
|
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Jan 29, 2011 2:23:12 GMT
Hey that Chap Mei Ichthyo looks familiar! I'm glad I picked that one up for you, haven't seen it in a looong time. Nice to see old friend, eh? I know, I see some from Seattle ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jan 29, 2011 12:57:59 GMT
Every figure has a happy home in my collection An ichthyosaur toy is for life, not just for Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by bokisaurus on Jan 29, 2011 22:02:26 GMT
Here is a small ichthyosaur I recently acquired that seems to be absent from your collection: This was given to me as a gift by a Portuguese friend of mine - I think is was part of a series of clollectibel figures released with breakfast cereal or chips or something, in Portugal. ;D Looks like its growing some feet! LOL! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by paleofreak on Jan 29, 2011 23:24:03 GMT
This was given to me as a gift by a Portuguese friend of mine - I think is was part of a series of clollectibel figures released with breakfast cereal or chips or something, in Portugal. It's made by Panosh, or a knock-off. |
|
![[][][]cordylus[][][] Avatar](http://files.sharenator.com/Troll_Face_U_MAD_RE_wrestling_1-s407x405-126802.jpg)
1832 was the first year of publication for this magazine so it's as rare as hens teeth!
This one has definately been removed from a bound volume which is shown by the straight edge cuts. The original magazine was issued with uncut edges (normal at that time) as the paper is hand formed from cloth not wood fibre (the page edges would have looked ragged). I would very strongly advise that you reframe this behind UV resistant glass as, because the page is now out of the dark (it has sat bound in a book for 150 + years), it will suffer very quickly from light exposure if unprotected. It will also need acid free mounting. It will turn brown and the ink will start to crystalise and lift within a quite short space of time if not carefully protected. Be wary of touching the page with your fingers as the oil on your skin will promote browning and discolouring as well.
