Wheeler, Thomas (SCC Newsletter June 1994)

I have been concerned for sometime that perhaps some of the silhouettes illustrated in Mrs. Mc.Kechnie's Book under the entry on Mr. Wheeler, are not in fact by him. The silhouettes in question are illustrated on pages 509-510 nos. 956, 966, 967 & 969. This article is my attempt to 'justify' this view and ask for your comments.

I recently purchased two silhouettes (photographed at the top of this page), which in my view were clearly by Mr. Wheeler - although they were unlabelled and could not be attributed to him except on stylistic grounds. I noted that both were very carefully and neatly painted - in an almost 'obsessional' way - with no 'flourishes' or 'loose ends' so to speak. To illustrate what I mean I have photographed over the page some detail of both silhouettes. In particular I have tried to show Wheeler's 'treatment' of hair, frills, buttons, the lady's buffon etc.

I would now refer you to Mrs. McKechnie page 644 - the main entry on Mr. Wheeler in the plaster section of the Book. Then to her further entry on page 450 in the card and paper section - together with the illustrations on pages 509 & 510 (which I have photostated below at a reduced size) In the latter entry Mrs. McKechnie has attributed these four silhouettes to Mr. Wheeler, which she acknowledges to be in a different style - with which I would agree. She attributes the silhouettes to him on the basis that behind the one of Lt. Dugdale

Wheeler cont.

There is a part label - that has some of the same wording that is recorded on Wheeler’s label no. 2 page 645). I have gone into some detail in regard to this fragmentary Label (see "The label evidence" at the end of this article.) I am grateful to a member of the Club and the owner of Lt. Dugdale, for taking the trouble to Photograph the label and allowing me to article.

As stated Mrs. McKechnie acknowledged that there were differences in style the execution of the four silhouettes in question, but she did not consider that these differences were significant enough to come to the conclusion that the silhouettes were by another artist. At one time nos. 965, 966 & 967 were attributed to Mr. Wellings - nos. 966 & 967 were illustrated in "British Silhouettes" by J. Woodiwiss as being the work of Mr. Wellings.

This does not mean that I do not think the silhouette of Lt. Dugdale and his three "companions" are not of high quality - this is far from the case. I think these silhouettes have great style and panache, but I query whether these are by Mr. Wheeler. In my view Lt. Dugdale et al are painted in a much 'freer' style. The bust-line is more slopping. Gum arabic is used much more sparingly. The gum arabic on my two recent purchases is quite liberal and very skillfully used. The frill formation is not the same. The distinctive 'separate' buffon shown at the back of the women is not shown on the freer style. The 'scale'of the silhouettes is different in relation to the frames. The freer style sit in their frames with less space around them - whereas the stiffer Wheeler silhouettes have almost too much space around them. I think it is almost certain that the silhouette of Mrs. Delany has been reframed (this is no. 968 on page 510.) I think the material of frames is also important. The 'authenticated' Wheelers are generally in pressed brass frames. For what it is worth Lt. Dugdale is in a pearwood frame and nos. 966 & 967 were in giltwood frames according to Mr. Woodiwiss.

I had an opportunity a few months ago to visit Bill & Sylvia Fox-Smith in Plymouth - they are longstanding members of the Club. Bill is an ex. Sec of the Club and has a wonderful collection. I particularily looked at his silhouettes by Mr. Wheeler - these are photographed on the next page - where I will talk about them in the context of what I regard as Mr. Wheeler's style.

Wheeler cont.

These silhouettes are of George III and an unknown lady - these were purchased at the same time. The King has a Wheeler label on the back -? label No. 3 as it is not recorded by Mrs. McKechnie. It will be noted that the style of both is very similar to my two examples - although the photographs are on a much smaller scale. They have the same 'precision' of style with a quaintness, which I find most attractive. They are housed in pressed brass frames with plenty of space around the actual silhouettes. I have also photographed two further charming examples from the Fox-Smith Collection of children. These have no labels or identification but in the view of myself & Bill Fox-Smith clearly by Mr. Wheeler. They are housed in most attractive rectangular pressed brass frames and have the same 'neatness' of style I have mentioned in connection with the previous works I consider to be by Mr. Wheeler. These children have almost straight bust-line terminations and have plenty of space within their frames.

I suppose it can be argued that Mr. Wheeler changed his style - but which came first as both styles seem to be of the same period. Another explanation is that Mr. Wheeler had a son or an assistant, who used a similar label. I think both 'suggestions' would be difficult to sustain. Unfortunately Mrs. McKechnie could discover little about Mr. Wheeler's life and background.I am not happy to rely so heavily on the label behind Lt. Dugdale (see "The label evidence" on the next page.)

Do look at all the other illustrations of Mr. Wheeler's work in Mrs. McKechnie's Book:-

nos 968 & 970 on page 510.

nos. 971 & 972 on page 511.

no. 110 on page 77.

no. 177 on page 130.

These all appear to have the Wheeler 'hallmarks" in my view. All are housed in pressed brass frames except Mrs. Delany, which I have referred to earlier in this article. Now for the label and what this reveals!

The LABEL EVIDENCE.

The relevent part of the label behind Lieut. is photographed on the right. As you see it is difficult to see the letters "HEELER" at the right near the edge of the frame. I can see "H E" and what looks like the remains of a "T" before these two letters. Also, I think these letters are in a 'strange' position on the label - in that there would not appear to be sufficient space for a further "ELER" ! I have noticed on Wheeler's label no. 2 an Bill Fox-Smith's label that Wheeler prints his name in a central position and below "payment required. This is clearly not so in the case of the Dugdale label.

Then there is "their own houses" written at the bottom of the label - upon which Mrs. McKechnie put considerable stress for the purposes of attribution. It is true that these words are written at the bottom of label no. 2 and on Bill's label (? no. 3) - but on these latter labels there is further wording, which continues for two further lines. There would appear to be no further words on the Dugdale label - or a half a line at the most.

It should be noted that there were quite a number of artists who visited clients in their houses and advertised the fact on their labels - such as J. Newton, Rosenberg, Jefferson, Hallam, J. S. Mitchell etc. So these words are not significant in themselves.

The words "...ment required" may be of more significance on the Dugdale label. The words correspond to the following words on labels 2 & 3 - i.e. "If not approved likeness - no payment required." I have to say that I have not come across more than a few recorded labels that refer to not paying if not a satisfied customer! John Smith for example wrote "if not to satisfaction, will return money." I have not so far found another who wrote "no payment required" - but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one exists! Inspite of this fact I still take the view that label on Lieut. Dugdale cannot be attributed to Mr. Wheeler with any certainity.

I will now look at the Fox-Smith label in some detail - so that it can be compared with the Dugdale fragment. I had hoped to be able to photograph this label, but it was not to be. Bill made two efforts to photograph it, but was not satisfied with the results. He then decided to send the label to me in the post - unfortunately it has not arrived to date. It is hoped that it will turn up eventually - otherwise a bit of "silhouette history" will have been lost- as a Wheeler label in it's entirety is a rare object indeed.

Fortunately I had seen the label on my visit and did record it's wording - although I did not note the type of letter-set for each part. I did notice that it was entirely printed except for the Windsor address and the date of the silhouette. I have recorded this label on the next page - together with the first unsatisfactory photograph of it-perhaps some of you with strong magnifying glasses will be able to see it in detail! As you will see it is a 'neat' label - oblong in shape. It is what one would expect from an orderly person - perhaps rather set in his ways! I regard Mr. Wheeler, as I have indicated as an orderly and rather 'routinist' type of painter. As I think it is unlikely that he changed his style of painting - I think it is also unlikely that he made much in the way of change in the lay-out of his labels.

The Label Evidence cont.

The Fox-Smith label at the back of George III:-

PROFILES

ON GLASS

which will not wash off

OR ON PAPER

THAT MAY BE SENT IN A LETTER

ANY DISTANCE WITHOUT INJURY.

PRICE 5s. FRAMES 2s.

If not approved likeness - no payment required

by T. WHEELER

At Pound (?) St. Windsor.

Dec. 1794.

Ladies & Gentlemen waited on at their own houses at any hour & it would prevent loss of time if the head dress was adjusted previous to his attending.

[A STRIKING LIKENESS OF THE KING FOR SALE]

NB. This label is the same as the one recorded by Mrs. McKechnie on page 645-except that it is set out differently and it is entirely printed.

I will now have to leave it to you to decide what view you take! I would be glad to have your comments. I hope perhaps to have a follow-up of this article in a later Newsletter. I would especially like to hear from anyone who has a label mentioning "no payment required"!