Thomas Stirling Lee and the Lost Interiors of 15 Stratton Street
Research & Publications · PANOPTIKUM Journal
1. Abstract
Three oak reliefs carved on both sides, together with numerous associated figural, floral and architectural fragments, form the subject of this study. The group, made in Britain around 1900, comprises a large relief depicting children dancing around a tree (83 × 134 × 7 cm) and two smaller floral reliefs (approximately 83 × 66 × 6.5 cm each). According to information supplied by PANOPTIKUM, Martin P. Levy FSA of H. Blairman & Sons personally examined the entire group, including all associated fragments, and attributed it to Thomas Stirling Lee (1857–1916). The fragments' membership of the group is established.
The present investigation originated in the rediscovery of these works through PANOPTIKUM’s activities. PANOPTIKUM’s independent research and initiative in approaching Martin P. Levy brought a previously insufficiently documented group of carvings to the attention of a specialist. This publication in PANOPTIKUM Journal brings that rediscovery into dialogue with contemporary printed sources and documented comparative objects.
The attribution must be distinguished from the question of the original architectural setting. A possible origin in 15 Stratton Street, London, is a reasoned but unproven research hypothesis. Particularly relevant are an oak gallery balustrade published in 1904 and credited to Lee as sculptor, and oak panels published in 1901 whose captions name both Lee and W. S. Frith. These sources establish historical artistic and architectural contexts; they do not, by themselves, identify the PANOPTIKUM carvings as the objects illustrated or establish their ownership history.
2. Introduction: The Group and Its Rediscovery
Three reliefs and an associated group of fragments
Carvings detached from a historic interior need to be considered both as surviving works of sculpture and as possible remnants of an architectural ensemble. Displayed individually, their plastic qualities remain apparent, while their former relationships to other elements, sightlines and the movement through a room may have been lost. Investigation must therefore begin with the surviving objects without presupposing their original arrangement.
The PANOPTIKUM group consists of one large figural panel and two smaller floral panels, all carved on both sides. Numerous separate figural, floral and architectural fragments also survive, including leaves, branches and sections of framing. These are treated as components of the same group, rather than as merely conjectural associations. Studying them together is essential if the surviving material is not to be reduced to the three larger panels alone.
Carving on both sides raises the possibility that the reliefs were originally visible from more than one viewpoint. Their incorporation into a balustrade or another spatially articulated interior feature is therefore worth investigating. Double-sided carving alone, however, proves neither a particular function nor an association with a particular building.
Rediscovery and research by PANOPTIKUM
The renewed art-historical investigation of the group began with its rediscovery by Michael Barth, owner of PANOPTIKUM.store. PANOPTIKUM’s subsequent independent research focused on the possible relationship between the objects and their art-historical significance. An assessment of the reliefs’ and fragments’ research potential initiated a closer inquiry into their authorship and historical setting.
PANOPTIKUM’s initiative in contacting Martin P. Levy of H. Blairman & Sons was a decisive step. It connected PANOPTIKUM’s own research with the opportunity for a specialist’s personal examination of the entire surviving group. Discovery, historical research and the involvement of specialist expertise thus form related stages in the research process.
This contribution must be distinguished from a completed provenance investigation. Rediscovery establishes the group's modern research history but does not automatically fill gaps in its earlier history. No precise discovery location or date, or earlier sequence of ownership, is supplied here without documentation. PANOPTIKUM’s research contribution, as reported in its editorially supplied information, comprises the investigation of the rediscovered group, its art-historical assessment, independent research and the initiative in obtaining a specialist opinion. The resulting study is published in PANOPTIKUM Journal.
3. Thomas Stirling Lee and British Architectural Sculpture around 1900
In the documentation consulted from H. Blairman & Sons, Thomas Stirling Lee is described as a sculptor born in London in 1857 who died in 1916. The firm's biographical account mentions his training at the Royal Academy Schools, further study in Paris and Rome, and work for Westminster Cathedral and St George's Hall, Liverpool. These details are drawn from that secondary source; the underlying educational and commission records have not been independently examined for this manuscript.[3]
Of particular relevance is the relationship between sculpture and architecture. A carved panel can be more than an ornamented surface. In a gallery or stairway it may mediate between structural enclosure and imagery, and between the delimitation of space and sculptural movement. Its effect depends not only on its subject but also on scale, installation height, light and the movements of the viewer.
Plate G9, published in 1904, provides a specific historical point of comparison. It depicts a carved oak gallery balustrade and identifies T. Stirling Lee as sculptor. It therefore documents a type of work in which sculpture and architectural function are directly combined. Whether the PANOPTIKUM reliefs originally served the same purpose remains a separate question.[2]
Blairman's interpretation of the child figures on its documented pair of panels refers to the Florentine choir galleries of Luca della Robbia and Donatello. This offers a possible art-historical comparison for communal movement and rhythmically linked figures. It remains the comparative source's interpretation, not a demonstrated relationship of models or sources for the PANOPTIKUM group. Nor can a fixed symbolic meaning for the tree or a definitive reading of the botanical imagery be inferred from the present evidence.[3]
4. The Historic Interiors of 15 Stratton Street
H. Blairman & Sons associates its comparative pair with H. A. Johnstone, 15 Stratton Street, London. According to the firm's description, those panels formed part of the now-destroyed double-height inner hall of a house designed by C. J. Harold Cooper, built between 1895 and 1900. These details establish, in the first instance, the historical context of the objects documented by Blairman.[3]
The contemporary publications provide additional context, although their location references require careful distinction. Captions examined in the 1901 volume refer to a house near Piccadilly. OCR passages in the 1904 publication refer to Stratton Street, London, in connection with a hall and a billiard room. In the material examined here, the specific house number 15 and the association with Johnstone derive from Blairman's documentation; an independent primary-source confirmation remains to be added.[1–3]
This architectural context is relevant because a gallery balustrade could help explain why carved panels were worked on both sides. That possibility is a research proposition, not a reconstruction. Neither the placement of the three reliefs, their sequence nor their integration into a complete balustrade has yet been demonstrated.
The phrase “lost interiors” in the title thus identifies the historical setting under investigation. It must not be read as a proven provenance for the rediscovered PANOPTIKUM group.
5. Contemporary Publications of 1901 and 1904
Modern British Domestic Architecture and Decoration, 1901
The volume associated with Charles Holme includes illustrations of a house near Piccadilly designed by C. J. Harold Cooper. Particularly relevant are the oak panels on printed pages 74 and 75. According to the visual examination reported by PANOPTIKUM, their original captions name T. Stirling Lee and W. S. Frith together. This reading accords with the previously examined OCR passages.[1, 6]
The joint credit must be preserved as a historical statement in its own right. It should neither be suppressed in favour of a simplified attribution to Lee alone nor used to reattribute the surviving PANOPTIKUM group automatically. The captions concern the panels reproduced in that publication. Without further evidence they do not establish how design and execution were divided between the two named artists.
Other captions identified through the page-level OCR are also relevant. On page 68 the oak carving of the hall is credited jointly to Lee and Frith, as are the thistle balusters on page 69. On page 71 the joint credit specifically concerns a modelled plaster ceiling and must not be transferred to the oak panelling mentioned elsewhere on that page. On page 67 the rainwater heads in beaten lead are credited to Lee alone. For these additional passages, the evidence cited here is OCR; no unreported visual verification is implied.[1]
The British Home of To-day, 1904
The volume edited by Walter Shaw Sparrow reproduces a carved oak gallery balustrade as plate G9. According to PANOPTIKUM's reported visual examination, the original caption names C. J. Harold Cooper as architect and T. Stirling Lee as sculptor. Lee's identification as sculptor is thus documented for that particular illustration.[2, 6]
This credit complements, but does not supersede, the joint credit to Lee and Frith in 1901. Different captions may concern different objects or levels of artistic responsibility. They do not, in themselves, allow a complete division of labour within the historic interior scheme to be reconstructed. In particular, there is no basis for assigning all floral carving to Frith and all figural carving to Lee.
Blairman refers to plates E8 and G9 in connection with its comparative pair. The 1904 index associates both references with Cooper and additionally lists G9 under Lee. The hall illustration identified as E8 is associated with Stratton Street in the OCR examined so far; its precise identification and relationship to individual relief fields still require verification against the printed plate. Visual confirmation of G9 must not be extended to E8 without examination.[2, 3]
Plate identifiers should be distinguished from the volume's Roman-numbered textual pages. G9 identifies an illustration, not a text page labelled Gix. This distinction is important for verifiable references.
Evidential value and limits of the historical images
G9 documents a historical type of architectural carving and a sculptor's name. Pages 74 and 75 of the 1901 publication document oak panels with a joint artistic credit. Demonstrating that any surviving PANOPTIKUM object is identical with a particular historic image would require a detailed comparison of contours, motifs, framing and distinctive features. Similarity of material or general iconography is insufficient.
6. Comparison with the Panels Documented by H. Blairman & Sons
The online object entry consulted from H. Blairman & Sons is entitled “Pair of carved panels”. It names Thomas Stirling Lee as sculptor, specifies oak, places the work in England or London around 1900 and gives dimensions of 83 × 134 × 7 cm. The description concerns panels carved on both sides with interlinked child figures.[3]
The correspondence between those published measurements and the dimensions reported for the large PANOPTIKUM relief is a specific point of comparison. Together with material, approximate date and double-sided carving, it warrants closer study, but it does not establish identity. Measurement conventions, possible inclusion of framing, construction and the exact distribution of motifs require examination.
Blairman cites its 2019 catalogue, no. 13. The online entry also refers to four smaller panels from Stratton Street in its 1997 catalogue, no. 20. These references were verified on the online object page, but the original catalogue entries have not been independently consulted for this manuscript. The smaller PANOPTIKUM panels are therefore not identified with the four panels mentioned in the 1997 reference.[3–5]
The provenance given as H. A. Johnstone, 15 Stratton Street, and the reference to the Peter Marino Art Foundation concern Blairman's documented comparative pair. They do not form part of an established ownership history for the PANOPTIKUM group. The comparison is art-historical, not a transfer of another object's provenance.
7. The Three Double-Sided Carved Reliefs
Relief A: Children Dancing around a Tree
Oak; Britain, c. 1900; attributed to Thomas Stirling Lee; 83 × 134 × 7 cm.
This horizontally oriented, openwork relief depicts a group of children around a substantial tree trunk, with sculptural treatment on both sides. The composition is not carved against a continuous background: openings appear between bodies, trunk and foliage. A rectangular perimeter frame gives architectural definition to the animated scene. The central trunk divides the field, while the children's gestures and steps connect its two halves.
Four child figures can be discerned on one photographed side. At the left, a child raises an arm towards the head; beside it, another figure moves towards the centre. To the right of the trunk, a further figure strides with legs widely separated, while the figure at the outer right continues the dance. The bodies are modelled in substantial relief, with hair, facial features, arms, legs and loosely arranged drapery worked to varying depths. Above the figures, branches and leaves extend along the upper frame.
Relief A, detail of a child figure. Head in profile, hair, shoulder and drapery at the edge of the openwork figural composition. The photograph is not assigned to an established front or reverse side. Photograph: Michael Barth / PANOPTIKUM.store.
Relief A, detail with two child figures. The photograph shows heads and upper bodies, the connection between the arms and foliage beneath the upper frame. Photograph: Michael Barth / PANOPTIKUM.store.
Relief A, detail of the lower figural composition. Legs, drapery and the base of the tree are visible together with the lower and side frame. Photograph: Michael Barth / PANOPTIKUM.store.
The opposite side reveals the same openwork structure from the reverse viewpoint, but it is not simply an unfinished back. Children's bodies, hair, drapery, bark and vegetation are again modelled in relief. The changing overlaps between limbs and trunk alter the legibility of the figures. The independent sculptural treatment of both sides is significant when considering whether the relief was originally intended to be seen from two directions.
The photographs show joints between sections of wood, cracks and areas of lighter exposed timber. Losses or interruptions are visible along some contours and transitions. The photographs alone do not establish whether particular joints represent original construction, later repairs or other interventions; no conservation diagnosis is implied.
An openwork panel carved with figures on both sides is compatible with use in a balustrade or another interior element visible from both directions. It proves neither that function nor an origin at 15 Stratton Street. Any identification with a historical illustration would require detailed comparison of the distinctive poses, tree outlines and framing.
Relief B: Floral Panel Documented from Both Sides
Oak; Britain, c. 1900; attributed to Thomas Stirling Lee; approximately 83 × 66 × 6.5 cm.
This upright rectangular relief comprises a dense openwork network of strong branches, leaves and rounded fruit-like forms. A rectangular frame encloses the composition; the branches extend in several directions, creating openings of varying sizes. The leaves are generally broad and pointed, some with prominently carved central veins. The rounded forms may descriptively be called fruit, but no secure botanical identification is proposed.
Both photographed sides are carved. On one, the leaves and fruit appear more densely grouped and surface-oriented; on the other, the paths of the branches, undercutting and different depths of carving are especially apparent. The photographs therefore document two sculpturally worked surfaces of a single openwork structure, not a finished front and an untreated back.
Joints and fine cracks are visible in the frame and among the vegetal elements. These are observations of photographed surfaces only. No exact count of the original timber components or account of later restoration can be derived from them.
Botanical ornament, an open background and double-sided carving connect Relief B formally with the large figural panel. Whether they once stood directly beside one another is unknown. Nor should the fruit be equated with any plant named in a historical caption without detailed supporting evidence.
Relief C: Second Floral Panel, Currently Photographed from One Side
Oak; Britain, c. 1900; attributed to Thomas Stirling Lee; approximately 83 × 66 × 6.5 cm.
The available photograph likewise shows an upright, openwork floral relief. Strong, repeatedly branching stems extend across the field, interspersed with leaves and rounded fruit-like forms. The vegetal elements are modelled at different depths, creating open spaces between them. The ornamental vocabulary is related to that of Relief B, but this similarity does not establish that the two compositions were designed as mirror images.
The documented side clearly shows the modelling of leaves, individual forks in the branches and the surrounding frame. Joints, cracks and local irregularities in the timber are also visible. Their precise origins and conservation significance would require direct examination of the object.
According to the object information supplied, Relief C is also carved on both sides. No photograph of its second side is available for this study, and its appearance is therefore not described. This gap in photographic documentation does not imply that the object's reverse was left uncarved.
Formal Relationships and Limits of Condition Assessment
All three reliefs combine architectural framing with openwork oak carving. The large horizontal panel centres on human movement around a tree; the smaller vertical panels develop vegetal motifs of branches, leaves and fruit. The openings within the carving are significant throughout: light and sightlines could pass through the fields. This makes a former installation visible from more than one side a reasonable subject for investigation.
The photographs reveal joints, cracks, losses and locally lighter areas of timber. They do not replace a systematic condition survey capable of distinguishing original working marks, age-related changes and later interventions. No undocumented repairs, surface treatments or joining methods are asserted here.
8. Associated Figural, Floral and Architectural Fragments
According to PANOPTIKUM, the separate pieces belong to the same group as the three larger reliefs. Martin P. Levy's personal examination and attribution encompassed all the fragments.[6] Their association with the group is not presented here as an unresolved supposition. What remains uncertain is the original position of individual pieces within the historic arrangement.
Figural fragments
The original photographs document several separate figural carvings. Particularly notable are substantial upright or partially framed sections in which children appear in association with branches and foliage. One fragment shows a child in side view, raising both arms towards a branch overhead. The modelled hair, profile and bodily pose can be discerned, although part of the carved field is missing along one side. Another fragment preserves part of a child's body amid leaves and fruit.
A narrow upright section bears a standing, draped figure in profile. Its proportions and surviving lateral border distinguish it from the wider figural sections. Without established physical joins, it cannot be said either to have adjoined the large relief directly or to have belonged to any particular historic balustrade field.
Group view of three figural fragments. Two wider sections with child figures and vegetal forms are placed beside a narrow framed fragment with a draped figure in profile. Their arrangement in the photograph does not reconstruct the historic installation. Photograph: Michael Barth / PANOPTIKUM.store.
These pieces are particularly important because they extend the surviving figural repertoire beyond the three major panels. They offer evidence for the scale of the figures, the carving of hair and drapery, bodily modelling and the integration of human and botanical motifs. Such observations can inform future comparisons, but they do not amount to a reconstruction.
Floral and framed fragments
Several photographs document larger sections with dense foliage and fruit. These include angled frame sections and elongated sections of vegetal carving bounded by a border. In some pieces, the right-angled course of a frame can still be discerned; in others, branches and groups of leaves terminate at fracture or separation surfaces. The similarity of their vegetal forms to those of the two smaller reliefs provides a reasonable basis for formal comparison.
Floral corner and frame fragment, individual view. Branching stems, leaves and rounded forms are combined with surviving frame sections meeting at a right angle. No original position within the interior is inferred. Photograph: Michael Barth / PANOPTIKUM.store.
The photographs also show smaller loose carved pieces, including a sculpturally modelled, incompletely preserved figural element and a short section of framing or ornament. Visible areas of lighter timber at individual separation surfaces reveal interruptions in the darker surface. The colour difference alone establishes neither when the separation occurred nor any specific restoration history.
Significance for reconstruction
The fragments are not incidental accessories but a substantial part of the rediscovered ensemble. They invite questions about further figures, ornamental sequences and architectural borders beyond the more complete surviving fields. At the same time, the many interruptions in their forms require restraint in any visual or architectural reconstruction.
A future scholarly inventory should assign sequential working numbers, record dimensions and photograph both accessible sides of each piece. Proposed joins should only be treated as secure after direct examination of fracture edges, timber grain and construction. The photographs do not establish where the fragments were originally installed.
The established association of all fragments with the group, and their examination by Martin P. Levy, must be distinguished from these unresolved questions. Neither a complete fragment count, a historic sequence nor a reconstruction of the original installation is invented here.
9. Personal Examination and Attribution by Martin P. Levy
According to PANOPTIKUM, Martin P. Levy FSA of H. Blairman & Sons personally examined the entire group and attributed it to Thomas Stirling Lee. His examination included not only the large figural panel but all three reliefs and every associated fragment.[6]
His willingness to examine this previously insufficiently documented material in its entirety deserves particular acknowledgement. For a group whose earlier history has not yet been fully traced, direct engagement with the surviving objects is especially valuable. Levy's specialist knowledge and attribution provide an important foundation for the present investigation.
This acknowledgement does not imply the existence of a certificate or formal written report: no such document forms part of the sources used for this study. Nor is a quotation or precise date of examination supplied without supporting documentation. The attribution is recorded as communicated by PANOPTIKUM.
The historical joint credit to Lee and Frith on pages 74 and 75 of the 1901 publication remains relevant alongside Levy's assessment. It concerns the panels published at that time, rather than necessarily the surviving PANOPTIKUM group. The two statements must be understood in relation to their respective objects and evidential status. Further evidence would be needed to clarify the historical collaboration.
10. Provenance, Historical Context and Open Questions
The hypothesis of an origin at 15 Stratton Street rests on the convergence of several indications: the specialist attribution to Lee; the comparative pair documented by Blairman; the striking correspondence between the dimensions of the large relief and those published for the comparative panels; and the historical evidence for an oak gallery balustrade associated with Cooper. These indications justify investigation but do not amount to proof of provenance.
The next stage requires a detailed comparison between historical illustrations and the surviving objects, considering not only broad motifs but distinctive contours, proportions, frames and potentially individual irregularities. Plate G9 and the oak panels on printed pages 74 and 75 of the 1901 publication are the principal visual sources. The missing photograph of one side of Relief C places a specific limit on the current comparison.
Any visual identification would then need to be connected to the objects' ownership history. Earlier photographs, sale records, correspondence or other dated documents might help trace these particular carvings. No continuous provenance is currently presented. The date of removal from a historic building, any subsequent transfer and former storage locations remain unknown.
The historical collaboration between Lee and Frith also warrants further research. The surviving credits do not permit a schematic division by material, motif or type of figure. Such an allocation would introduce a claim unsupported by the sources considered here.
The significance of the rediscovered group does not depend on prematurely settling its provenance. The associated objects, personal specialist examination and contemporary comparative sources already provide a substantial basis for research. A source-critical account best conveys their importance by distinguishing the documented evidence from the questions that remain open.
11. Sources and Bibliography
[1] Charles Holme, ed., Modern British Domestic Architecture and Decoration (1901). Digitised edition: Internet Archive, identifier modernbritishdom00holmuoft. Bibliographical metadata and page-level OCR consulted on 18 October 2026. PANOPTIKUM additionally reports visual verification of the joint credit to Lee and Frith on printed pp. 74–75. Other captions discussed above are identified as OCR findings.
Digital edition: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft
P. 67: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft/page/n95/mode/1up
P. 68: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft/page/n96/mode/1up
P. 69: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft/page/n97/mode/1up
P. 71: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft/page/n99/mode/1up
P. 74: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft/page/n102/mode/1up
P. 75: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft/page/n103/mode/1up
[2] Walter Shaw Sparrow, ed., The British Home of To-day: A Book of Modern Domestic Architecture & the Applied Arts (1904). Digitised edition: Internet Archive, identifier britishhomeoftod00spar. Metadata, index and page-level OCR consulted on 18 October 2026. PANOPTIKUM additionally reports visual verification of plate G9, its subject and its credits to Cooper and Lee. Identification of the E8 reference still requires checking against the original scan.
Digital edition: https://archive.org/details/britishhomeoftod00spar
Index, Cooper: https://archive.org/details/britishhomeoftod00spar/page/n15/mode/1up
Index, Lee: https://archive.org/details/britishhomeoftod00spar/page/n16/mode/1up
G9, gallery balustrade: https://archive.org/details/britishhomeoftod00spar/page/n215/mode/1up
Possible E8 hall illustration: https://archive.org/details/britishhomeoftod00spar/page/n156/mode/1up
Direct links identify locations within the digitised scan. Scan references such as n215 are not printed page or plate numbers.
[3] H. Blairman & Sons, “Pair of carved panels”, online object entry, https://blairman.co.uk/stock/pair-of-carved-panels/ (accessed 18 October 2026). Secondary source for the comparative pair, dimensions, provenance, historic interior, biographical information and references to plates E8 and G9 and the catalogues of 2019 and 1997. Its provenance is not transferred to the PANOPTIKUM group.
[4] H. Blairman & Sons, Furniture and Works of Art (2019), no. 13. Bibliographical reference verified on the online object entry; the original catalogue entry was not independently consulted.
[5] H. Blairman & Sons, Furniture and Works of Art (1997), no. 20. Cited by the online entry as a comparison involving four smaller panels from Stratton Street. Original entry not examined; no identity with the PANOPTIKUM panels is claimed.
[6] PANOPTIKUM, editorially supplied object and research information, 18 October 2026. This includes material, dimensions and dating; the established association of the fragments; rediscovery and research by Michael Barth; his approach to Martin P. Levy FSA; Levy's personal examination and attribution of the complete group; reported visual checks of G9 and pp. 74–75 of the 1901 volume; and the scope of the available original photographs. A separately dated record of the photographic review and specialist examination may be added in future; none is invented here.
12. List of Illustrations, Captions and Documentation Limits
The following captions accompany the original photographs in their owner-confirmed order. Illustration numbers are editorial references, not historic inventory numbers. Different photographs of the same fragment must not be counted as separate objects.
Original photographs of the PANOPTIKUM group
Historical comparative illustrations
Fig. 11 — Historic oak panel, 1901. An Oak Panel in a House near Piccadilly, in Charles Holme, ed., Modern British Domestic Architecture and Decoration (1901), printed p. 74. The original caption jointly names T. Stirling Lee and W. S. Frith as carvers; architect: C. J. Harold Cooper. Digitised source: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft/page/n102/mode/1up. Historical comparison, not evidence of identity with a PANOPTIKUM panel.
Fig. 12 — Another historic oak panel, 1901. Another Oak Panel, Carved by T. Stirling Lee and W. S. Frith, ibid., printed p. 75; C. J. Harold Cooper is named as architect in the publication context. Digitised source: https://archive.org/details/modernbritishdom00holmuoft/page/n103/mode/1up. Historical comparison, not evidence of identity.
Fig. 13 — Oak gallery balustrade, 1904. Gallery Balustrade in Oak for a House Built by C. J. Harold Cooper, Architect; T. Stirling Lee, Sculptor, plate G9, in Walter Shaw Sparrow, ed., The British Home of To-day (1904). Digitised source: https://archive.org/details/britishhomeoftod00spar/page/n215/mode/1up. A documented historic architectural type and artist credit, not proof that the PANOPTIKUM group is identical.
Documentation notes
The descriptions in sections 7 and 8 are based on the original photographs reviewed in the research conversation and on object information supplied by PANOPTIKUM. They do not replace direct examination of the objects. In particular, measurements of the fragments and the missing photographic reverse view of Relief C remain to be clarified. PANOPTIKUM holds the rights to the original photographs reproduced in this article. Historic illustrations are linked to their sources and are not reproduced in this manuscript.
The attribution to Thomas Stirling Lee is distinct from the still-unproven hypothesis of provenance from 15 Stratton Street. The complete inventory of fragments, a detailed comparison with historic photographs and a documented provenance remain subjects for further research.
Interested in these works?
For questions about the reliefs and fragments, their availability or a possible acquisition, we welcome your personal enquiry.