Picasso Lithograph
Greetings, my name is John Moreland and I want to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read my message. I appreciate any professional expertise you can share regarding the authenticity of this artwork. I understand a fee for your services may apply if you decide to proceed. Please advise. I want to preface my discussion by stating, I am not an expert, just an amature collector. It is my understanding the piece came from an estate years ago. It was professionally framed by Delphine Gallery, Santa Barbara CA. That gallery has since closed. The attached images (see link above) show what I believe to be an original Pablo Picasso lithograph, pencil signed and numbered (9/30), printed on brown rag paper (circa 1949). The print measures 11 1/4"x 15". I believe this lithograph to be a separate, distinct single print, from a limited run, derived from the original illustrations of Picasso's collaborative book Corps perdu and not just a page removed from the book (see chapter title, page 49, Corps perdu, circa 1949-50, MoMA website).1 Full disclosure, I used the internet to research the print, which can be helpful, but misleading at times. That said, several internet sources do state Picasso did indeed create small series of original litographs, separate and apart from the engravings, aquatints, drypoint, and etching contained his collaborative book Corps perdu. As was stated, the litographs provided the original graphic work for the book and were then made to illustrate book's poems. I believe this to be an older section of Arches brown rag paper. As I have learned, Picasso did use an Arches brown rag paper for some of his lithographs during 1940's and 1950's. The print has two deckled edges without a watermark that can be seen. As I understand, the lack of a watermark is somewhat common for Arches papers which were a times sold in pads, blocks or were cut from a larger roll. Unfortunately a tactile examination of the paper and the ink is unavailable given it is framed and I am not prepared, at this time, to remove it. Examination and photographic techniques I used were naked eye visual inspection, loupe and microscope magnification, raking light, sunlight, ultraviolet light and near infrared light. I have access to a radiograph if needed. To the naked eye, the paper looks somewhat wrinkled but does not have an abraded or scuffed appearance. There are no rips, tears or repairs visible, with the exception of a small nick near the lower right hand corner. (see photos). There are no plate markings and it does not look like the paper was totally adhered to the backing when it was framed, only the four corners. Under magnification, the paper has a balanced smooth texture, the fibers have a consistent color throughout and do not appear dry or brittle. The ink has a slightly raised appearance and not flat. The ink has a random dot pattern with a grainy texture and varied linework. There is no indication of a uniform, offset dot pattern (see photos). Viewing the signature and print under magnification, pencil pressure and graphite can clearly be seen laid down . There is no visual sign of an erasure or retouching. The signature looks consistent with Picasso's documented 1949-50 signature regarding fluidity, slant, letter spacing and underlining (see Picasso Raisonne and School of Picasso website). I examined the print using a 50 watt, 365nm UV light light source, with a UV 365nm pass filter(see photos). There are no bright white or yellowish-white foxing halos, no orange mildew fluorescence and no water damage discoloration. There is no yellow or purple fluorescing due to past fungi or bacteria damage nor was there any fluorescing due to added optical brighteners. There are no dark spots and paper holds a consistent color throughout. There is no evidence of any paper repairs. Additionally I examined the paper under near Infrared light using a 720 nm, near IR pass through camera filter, with the ISO set at 100 and slow shutter speed (see photos). The graphite in the signature and edition number were really greatly enhanced. There is no overwriting or other non-intersecting writing media seen other than the ink. There is no evidence of a watermark or any paper repairs. There are no dark spots with the paper holding a consistent color throughout. The wrinkling becomes more visible under IR examination. To date, I have been unable to obtain access any Picasso online catalogue raisonnes to find a comparison piece. The only similar images I could find were pages taken from the Corps perdu which did not contain any lithographs but only engravings, aquatints, a drypoint and an etching. Thank you for your help with this inquiry. I look forward to hearing from you. Best Regards, John Moreland [email protected] (765) 349-2041
11 1/4"x 15"
Other
Yes
Hello, this item is a modern print in the manner of Pablo Picasso, signed in pencil and numbered 9/30, measuring approximately 11.25 x 15 inches. It depicts a minimalistic standing figure rendered in thick, dry black lines suggestive of Picasso’s postwar graphic period. While the visual style aligns loosely with Picasso’s lithographic vocabulary from the late 1940s, the edition number, lack of watermark, and absence of a matching catalogue entry strongly indicate that this work is not an authenticated Mourlot Studio impression but a later reproduction.
Historically, Picasso’s authentic lithographs from the late 1940s and early 1950s, particularly those printed by Fernand Mourlot in Paris, experienced sharp market growth over the decades. During the 1960s–1970s, signed Mourlot lithographs could be acquired for under 1,000 USD. By the early 2000s, the same works often commanded 8,000–20,000 USD at auction, depending on subject and rarity. The 2010s saw further increases, especially for pieces with documented provenance and catalogue raisonné entries, with some exceeding 30,000 USD. However, the market simultaneously became saturated with unauthorized reproductions and later restrikes. These prints, though visually similar, lack the authentication trail that collectors require for serious acquisition. As a result, such works entered the category of “after Picasso” prints, their prices remaining modest despite aesthetic similarity.
Currently, unsigned or uncertified prints attributed to Picasso without verifiable provenance or documentation trade between 300 and 600 USD in the general market.
FYI, after a short time online ...
"Pablo Picasso created illustrations for the book Corps perdu by Aimé Césaire, and a limited number of the individual prints were issued as signed and numbered lithographs (and etchings/engravings).
Individual prints from the book were also later made available as signed and numbered limited editions separate from the book itself. These individual prints, which are etchings and engravings (not solely lithographs), have been seen with numbering such as "9/30," indicating a very small, separate limited run." Thank you
Here is some additional information you might have found if you had done you due diligence and actually research.
"No, not all of Picasso's lithographs created in collaboration with Fernand Mourlot on Arches rag paper necessarily have a watermark. The presence of a watermark often depends on how the original large sheet of paper was cut down to produce individual prints.
Here's why:
A single large sheet of Arches paper (or any other watermarked paper) typically has one or a few watermarks impressed in specific locations.
When that sheet is cut into smaller pieces for individual prints (especially for limited editions or smaller works), some resulting prints may contain the full watermark, a partial watermark, or no watermark at all.
The use of a watermark does serve to authenticate and date the paper, but its absence on a particular print does not automatically mean the print is not genuine, provided other factors (such as documentation, condition, and inclusion in the catalogue raisonné) align.
Therefore, while many authentic Picasso lithographs printed by Mourlot on Arches paper do have a visible watermark, it is not a universal characteristic for every single impression."
Start doing real appraisals!
Hello John,
The appraisal addressed the central point, which is authenticity. A print attributed to Picasso must correspond with documented Mourlot entries, catalogue raisonné listings, verified signatures, and established provenance. The work you submitted does not align with any authenticated edition. For that reason, it was placed in the category of later reproductions. This assessment stands.
Regarding the arguments you raised:
• Paper type, UV reaction, or the presence or absence of a watermark cannot authenticate a Picasso print without catalogue confirmation. These elements are secondary and do not override the lack of documentation.
• Picasso did produce small editions, but none match the image, numbering, or signature style of the piece you provided.
• The Corps perdu illustration exists, however there is no record of it being released as a signed and numbered lithograph in the configuration you presented.
• A full search was carried out. There is no corresponding entry in Mourlot or the catalogue raisonné.
You mentioned that the appraisal looked “AI generated.” I want to be clear. The evaluation was based on expertise, standard methodology, and market data. Disagreement with the conclusion does not alter the facts about the work or its market position.
If you have verifiable documentation such as a COA, a dealer invoice, or a catalogue reference, you can upload it and I will gladly reassess. Without that material, the current appraisal remains accurate and complete.
Thank you
I appreciate the information. While helpful, the appraiser didn't address many of the points I made in my description. Specifically the type of paper, age and why there legitimately would not be a watermark. There was nothing mentioned about the age of the paper being correct under UV nor any discussion thereof. There was no mention about that the accuracy of the signature. Additionally, don't understand the comment about why the 9/30 edition number has to do with anything? It wasn't explained. It is a fact Picasso did indeed create small, limited edition lithographs. Regarding a catelog entry, the appraiser didn't say if there was a search done on their end, perhaps there is? We know the same image was included in Corps perdu as chapter cover page, but not as a lithograph. What kind of research did you do? Perhaps my description could be re-read and my points be addressed ? I'm sad to say the results you sent appeared cut and pasted from an AI source with an added endnote. For the price it was about what I expected. Thanks your time.