Print collector's quarterly (6.1916)

which I have just alluded, it is quite probable that the
majority of his figures will face toward the left of the
beholder. The engraver, in working from such models,
will naturally engrave them in the same direction as he
sees them before him; that is decidedly the easiest way.
Hence a series of engravings, the majority of which will
face in the inverse direction, namely to the right — owing
to the inevitable reversal in the press. An examination
of the main figures in the two series, with this point in
mind, shows: —

Profile to left

Facing % to right Profile to right

% to left
9
24

S: 2
E: 7

5 24 9
9 5 4

Granted that these figures are not in any way con-
clusive, they are- not irrelevant in a question hinging
upon internal evidence.
In the same connection a question presents itself,
concerning our two series: Why was the S series twice
re-worked? Probably because demand for the prints
was still sufficient, at the time, to make a rejuvenation
profitable; one might perhaps add that the clumsy
work of the re-worker may have impeded their further
sale. This might- be one reason for their rarity, exceed-
ing that of the E series.
Why was the E set of plates not retouched exten-
sively, renewing shadows and modelling anew the
rounding forms, when these grew faint? Possibly be-
cause demand for these prints had slackened and made
such re-work seem unprofitable to the owner of the
copper plates.
These hints may commend themselves to some of my
readers; they are mere hints, not assertions which need
demand more thorough substantiation.

84