Info Originally nominated together with its companion engraving, but we don't have a way to handle a set, so I'm re-nominating them as separate images. Both were a gift acquired through Abebooks.com, so I don't know everything about the source. The information that came with them (on a label attached to their pouch says c. 1880; this is believable, as the method of printing is typical of that used for high-quality engravings of that time, complete with tissue-paper coverings for each plate, which also shows they've clearly been cut out of a book - hopefully well before the bookstore owner got them, because that would be desecration and I would be very upset at someone who did that. The fonts used on the supplementary material - the labels in red on the tissue paper, and the black and red ink used on the description page (not scanned) are also typical of the period. However, a lot of collections of Hogarth's works were printed in the 19th century, so it's difficult to say which one it was taken from.
Support This is a very high quality reproduction of near technical perfection. It has value, so what more is there to say? -- Ram-Man21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been reading Peter Ackroyd's London: The Biography, which mentions this work by Hogarth (and, indeed, Hogarth himself) many times over. Out of curiosity I searched for it on Commons and was pleased to see that it was here, and nominated to FP to boot. Excellent quality and historically important. Arria Belli | parlami15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This isn't one of Hogarth's originals, but a copy by Samuel Davenport. It is interesting in its own right, but I'm a bit worried that it will be passed off as Hogarth's own work. This plate in particular is difficult to tell apart from Hogarth's - the heaviness of the printing is the only thing that marks it out. Yomangani23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was almost surely pantographed, though. Saying that it's not a purely mechanical copy when it came from a date when mechanical copying was impossible doesn't seem a particularly useful distinction. Adam Cuerden03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that unlikely as the Beer Street plate combines elements from different states as well as omitting and altering others. Regardless, impressions from Hogarth's original plates do exist, so acknowledging this as a later copy avoids the need to replace it when decent versions of the originals are supplied. Yomangani10:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, perhaps, though I'll admit to being a little uncertain about such things, as getting a Hogarth original to a scanner is not something that can be all that easily done without very large budgets.
It's been pointed out that the (1809) reengraving of Beer Street that's the other half of this set has minor changes that were probably not approved by Hogarth. This one has no obvious differences that we could find. Adam Cuerden05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]