Видео

From the wig and dress, my guess is it's a late 17th century portrait. This might narrow down who the artist might be, too. Indeed, this sitter seems almost certain to be either George Sr, who died in 1690, or one of his sons, George Jr, who died before 1692/6 or his brother, Thomas Croxton, who died in 1692/6, more likely 1692. Does the sitter look 65ish? If not, I'm thinking George, the son, who was probably in his late 40s or early 50s and who probably died before 1692 or Thomas, who was probably of about the same age as George Jr, who died in 1692. The Croxton/Ravenscroft family was a very old and prominent one. Also, surely someone knows what the sash represents. If either George Sr./Jr. or Thomas held some office, that might narrow down which was the sitter. Aren't there county or town governmental records/histories? Ditto if an MP? George Sr. seems to have been a member of Gray's Inn. Did they have sashes? Regardless, it's a nice portrait which has been restored well. Here is a reference found which includes a history of the family and a pedigree, However, while the sources reference the same people generally, they sometimes differ on the precise relationships/date: According to various sources to include "The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester," volume 3 (1882), pp. 205 - 208. by George Ormerod et al. and Thomas Helsby, editor: Thomas Croxton, b. 1603, d. 1663?, of Civil War fame was married to Elizabeth nee Holland, b. 1602? Thomas was also one of the commissioners on the trial of the Earl of Derby in 1651. He seems to have been a fairly prominent Parliamentarian who was also indicted later for his role. He continued irreconcilable to royalism after the Restoration, and in 1663 was arrested and, ironically, secured in Chester Castle on a charge of "plotting a general rebellion." It does not appear when he was released, or whether he was ever brought to trial. He probably died about this date. He could not be the person in the portrait, he would have been wearing typical Puritan type garb. Thomas and Elizabeth had seven? children: 1. George, b. 1625? + Anne nee Hyde. George, d. 1690, was eldest and heir to Ravenscroft Hall. On Feb 10, 1640/1, he was admitted to Gray's Inn. 2. William 3. Martha + Ralph Walley 4. Frances + Thomas Poole 5. Elizabeth, b. 1637? 6. Anne, b. 1626? 7. Mary, b. 1623? d. before 1667? + Leftwich Oldfield, b. 1619 and d.1669 George, b. 1625 d. 1690, was married to Anne nee Hyde, and he was heir to Ravenscroft. They had four? children: 1. George, b. after 1645? d. before 1692/6, heir to George Sr? who died in 1690. It's possible George Jr. also died in 1690. 2. Thomas, b. after 1645? possibly of London, Esq., d. 1692/6, heir to George Jr? his older brother? This branch of the Croxton family ends with his death. He married Mary nee Scholefield in 1656? Alternately, some records say George Jr. married Mary Scolefield. 3. Mary, b. after 1645? d. 1702, heir to Thomas, marriage licence in 1667? with Peter Yates, but possibly never married??? 4. Cicely, b, after 1645? d. after 1704, heir to Mary, spinster. Cicely, spinster? conveys Ravenscroft Hall to Peter Yates of all people in 1704 (Some sources say Mary and Cicely were Thomas' daughters and not George and Thomas' sisters) Ravenscroft Hall was described as a respectable, ancient mansion of James the 1st time, finished with gables; the rooms and entrance of which are, or rather were, enriched with the usual curious and highly decorated plaster ceilings of the period. A portion of it was pulled down and rebuilt in 1838; and the rest was rebuilt in 1877 .... [I]t is situated on the right bank of the Dane, near the line of the King-street, at a distance of about a mile from Middlewich. Some miscellaneous references: The manor of Ravenscroft, a small township about one mile from Middlewich, passed by the marriage of Margery Ravenscroft with Roger Croxton to the Croxtons, and after five generations was vested with other lands in William Croxton, who died June 21st 1579. His son and heir, "John Croxton, of Ravenscroft, gent., who died April 24th1599, leaving a son George, fourteen years of age.," .... John Croxton's grandson Thomas was colonel Croxton, "a distinguished political and military character in Cheshire during the civil disturbances of the seventeenth century. He had for a time the office of governor of Chester castle on the part of the parliament; and in 1650 when four regiments were raised in the county, he had the colonelcy of one of the regiments, composed of the men of Northwich hundred, and part of Nantwich. The castle of Chester was also under his care at the time of sir George Booth's attempt in 1659, and was summoned by sir George Booth and sir Thomas Middleton; to which the governor replied, 'That as perfidiousness in him was destestable, so the castle which he kept for the parliament of England was disputable; and if they would have it, they must fight for it; for the best blood that ran in his veins, in defence thereof, should be as a sluice to fill up the castle trenches.'" The consequence of Croston's steadiness was the division of the forces of the insurgent royalists, which led to the defeat of Middleton as Prees heath, and of Booth at Winnington. / Colonel Croxton's wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Holland of Denton, Lancashire. Whitney's Choice of Emblemes, A Facsimile Reprint, London 1866, pp. 367-8. - Croxton (Croxton, co. Chester, temp. Henry III.; the elder branch became extinct in the fifteenth century, when the heiress m. Mainwaring, an illegitimate descendant of Mainwaring of Peover; a younger branch of the Croxtons, which represented the elder line of the Ravenscroft family, was of Ravenscroft, and became extinct by the death of Thomas Croxton, in 1696). Encyclopædia of Heraldry Or General Armory of England, Scotland, and Ireland, Comprising a Registry of All Armorial Bearings from the Earliest to the Present Time, Including the Late Grants by the College of Arms By John Burke, Bernard Burke · 1844 - R.R.R. writes: "I am collecting materials for a history of the Cheshire family of Croxton (of Croston, Ravenscroft, Norley, etc.), and should be glad of any pedigrees, or references to works containing accounts or pedigrees of that family. The name has sometimes been written Croxon, and is, I believe, at present so spelt by a Shropshire branch of the family. Notes and Queries, A Medium of Intercommunication for Literary Men, General Readers, etc. Fourth Series - Volume Twelfth. July - December 1873, page 159, Aug 23, 1873. Maybe the pedigree the restorer saw contains all this information, but, for the record, I thought I'd publish this.

it was so cool to see the underpainting show up

I just can't believe all of the overpaint on this! It's criminal!

You talked through a HUGE chunk of the video. Waking me up in a couple of instances!! 🤬

Yikes. !!! IS THAT A PICASO ???

Who in their right mind would put something like that on a painting? And such a nice painting, too! It's a good thing the surface could withstand the peeling! I also wonder if the painter might be a relative of mine since I have ancestors of that surname (Ziemann/Seeman) who come from that general area of (then) Germany/Prussia.

This is an interesting series to go back to, you can really see the evolution of the production of these videos as it goes along. I think dropping the stock music was a good call!

this was so satisfying. please do more vids like this!

How do you know when you’ve removed enough of that dirty old glue from a section? I imagine it could keep coming up almost indefinitely, do you just have to make a judgment call on when it’s clean enough?

Those blue lines are on a lot of old thin flannel blankets. I remember they were in hospitals.

Thankyou for your history lessons. They are very interesting. I despise boxing; it makes me cringe and I can’t imagine why anyone would want to put their bodies through so much trauma. However, I also recognise that a lot of people have benefited from the sport and also the participants must be so disciplined and fit so I take my hat off to them. Great video thanks.

Amazing!!!

Lovely

Breathtaking.

How do you gauge if you’ve removed enough dirt from the back of the canvas to start gluing material to it?

This series was so inspiring!!! Thank you for this unique restore and the history behind it! Also loved the sign lettering!!! You are so incredibly talented!

The red velvet looks rich and soft - very luxurious. I wish I could paint like that! Can't wait to see the whole painting completely restored!

Beautiful job, lovely portrait very personal

Removing the awful strokes on his cheeks throws your attention immediately to his eyes - what a difference Now it’s his left ear that looks ‘wrong’

The instant reveal if the 2 buttercup flowers gives hope for the rest of the painting

The family must have been disappointed with the previous restoration

Could possibly have been Nottingham lace ?

Im going to say 84 tck!

I can appreciate a good rabbit hole. Your RUclips channel is that for me. Thank you for sharing.

I receive pleasure and great relaxation watching art restoration. Your voice and your explanation of the process is very pleasing. I also watch Julian Baumgartner. You are both are a pleasure to watch. Thank you

This is a bittersweet restoration. Poor little guy got scrubbed down hard. Your amazing work aside, i quite enjoy the weather reports.

England and the continent have some dissimilarities. The wearing of girl's clothing by very young boys is on the continent described as a very ancient custom. It was thought that the devil was interested in taking baby boys to the grave and had no interest in girls. Hence people disguised their little boys in girl's clothing until he was more or less physically strong enough to withstand the devil, i.e. diseases that could cost a young child his life.

I think it's a moth, possibly a Six-spot burnet moth?

What if you rolled some that you took off into a ball and used that to get a peel started? I think that might appeal to you. lol

I thoroughly enjoyed this episode! What amazing history. Heartwarming - from Canada 🍁

The child was a red head and so had very fair skin. A later artist thought he looked pallid.

Different restoration materials and techniques here, any Baumgartner's watching?

Sharing your sadness at the vandalism of this portrait (and the regency gent). Such a shame the family fell victim to an arrogant, self aggrandising person. I hope this beautiful boy will be every bit as successful as your last restoration.

Oof your audio in the left channel... that was disorienting lol but as for the painting... how stupid and careless can one be to destroy such artworks?!

Thanks for the long video, I like the restoration process, however listening to the commentary is the best part, the voice is terrific.

Yay new video, can’t wait to see how this painting turns out. 🤗

Can't wait for the next episode! Very fascinating restoration. Thank you.

I do believe it's a moth/butterfly but it could be a crocheted hankie, sometimes they made a loop to go over the finger so you didn't drop it. I would suspect that more if it were a girl and if bugs weren't already present. I do believe that brown blob is in the head area, just behind it. This one was a butcher job. Too many decisions on how to proceed

Thanks!

That varnish look not verry strong to mee!!! Paintings has a soul I think!!!

Sound off in a few places

All I want is to fix those awkward, out of scale legs emerging from some grotesque, imaginary pelvis. Trouble is, the root cause is compositional. Restoration won't address it.

I think there's a strong chance that the moth is a garden tiger moth. They are more brown than the red in the painting, but it's extremely similar. A google image search initially showed a lot of images with its wings spread, revealing the inner wings. I did find a few good images with its wings closed and I think it's a pretty good match.

James, do you have any images of your copies on line for viewing? I would enjoy seeing some of them.

Much better! Thanks again for a great video!

I vote for a moth! I love moths...so glad to see that is what it is.

Oh, oh! It's a moth!! I am so relieved; I thought he might have an injury or congenital malformation. 😅

It's still so much nicer to see what is left of the original artist than the sadder "refresh" work!

This is absolutely amazing! He didn't even look like a little boy to me until you started cleaning off the yellowed varnish and terrible overpainting. His hands look like hands now, and I couldn't even see the beautiful foliage before. My mouth literally fell open when you uncovered parts of what the original artist intended. To me, the painting turned from a caricature into a portrait of a sweet little boy. When you first began to describe this painting, I simply couldn't see what you saw, but I do now!

So beautiful❤