# Talk:The Stone Breakers

There should be an explanation for where the illustration on this page came from.  115.64.142.162 (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat coyly, the article mentions there are two versions, but fails to mention that the second version (right) is in the Reinhart Collection at "Am Römerholz" in Winterthur.  Somewhat less finished, and reversed, it may be later in date - most sources say "c.1849" - see for example [1] - but I suppose it could be an earlier oil sketch.    
There is also an oil sketch of the main figure (right) which I understand there is in a private collection.  And a pencil sketch of the other figure, in the Ashmolean. See [2] Theramin (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Theramin: Thank you so much for the research. I could not find information about it. Can you add to the article? Bruxton (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
You are welcome.  The sources I've located so far are not great, but this seems definitive: [3]  And there is some discussion in our articles in other languages.  Perhaps you can work that in somehow? Theramin (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Well done.  By the way, the NGA image is a "Gillotype" print after Courbet, which is why it has a big signature (left) "G. Courbet" and if you look carefully a tiny signature (lower right) "GILLOT SC".  That is, Firmin Gillot sculpsit, i.e. made the printing plate, which appears to be based very closely on Courbet's original pencil drawing in the Ashmolean.  I think the "Gillotype" is some sort of zincography (there were many technical developments in printmaking and reproduction of images in the 19th century, some advanced by the Gillot family). Theramin (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Just so my comments at the end of the GA review don't get lost now the transcluded review has disappeared from this page, I've copied them here (below).  It would be nice to get some of the detail from the source mentioned below into the article, if only so we can put a name to Monsieur Gagey. Theramin (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If we are in the mood to add more sources - neither of the above two mention the Winterthur version, by the way - I'd suggest Claudette Mainzer's 1982 PhD thesis from Ohio State University (here) which includes a lot of additional detail and connection to the two other Franche-Comté works exhibited at the 1850 Salon, his Burial at Ornans and Peasants of Flagey (right), including the name of the older stonebreaker (Claude-François Gagey : his wife Mme Gagey is in the crowd in the Burial), the reason why he was mending the road (labour in lieu of paying taxes - derived from the old corvée royale, mandatory annual labour to maintain the roads), quotes from relevant letters, early exhibition of the completed works in Ornans, Besançon, and Dijon before the Salon, the reason for the reversal of the composition from the preparatory study now in Winterthur, and a lot more.  The result would be a much stronger article, arguably better than "good".  Theramin (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the size comparison or letter as described in the article in the book cited as reference for this fact (Jessica Gunderson, Realism, 2008). Burial at Ornans is very much larger than the Stone Breakers--Burial at Ornans is 3.5m x 6.6m (source: wiki page on Burial at Ornans) whereas the Stone Breakers was 1.5 x 2.6 meters. I'm not sure where the reference to the letter is actually from, or why it would state that the two were similar in size. Lapidary6 (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

According to an 1988 book published by Richard Raskin and published by Aarush university (ISBN 87-7288-170-4), the painting was in fact not actually destroyed in the bombing and instead was lost a year before. Livindeadman (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)