In 1925 Bristol Museum & Art Gallery purchased 'Hotwell House' a watercolour-drawing by JMW Turner. It was a familiar scene; Since 1897 Bristol Fine Art Academy had owned a similar but smaller scene called 'The Old Hotwell House in 1791', a watercolour known to have been painted by Turner whilst staying with the Narraways in 1791 and remaining with the family.

The 1925 purchase was from Rev. J. Patton; whether it was at auction, through a dealer or direct is unknown.

Later the provenance was recorded as shown in the following e-mail and, later still, references to the watercolour as 'The Rising Squall...' were withdrawn.:

Since it was purchased as 'Hotwells House' it is possible that neither its original title or its 1864 sale title was known at the time of purchase.It follows that the provenance supplied at the time of purchase may have been only: "Hull, Mrs H S Fussey; purchased per Rev. J. Patton (as Hotwells House) by Bristol Museum & Art Gallery ,1925"

In any case the first part of the provenance: "Rev. J Nixon; London, Christie's, sale of Dr. Nixon, 9 July 1864; purchased by Reynolds" and consequently the first entry in its exhibition history are misplaced by a researcher after 1925 who for the purpose of this exercise we call the 'curator'

The curator's research contains 3 points of information

1) In the original posession of the Rev. J. Nixon
John Colley Nixon was Rev. Robert Nixon's brother

2) Sold by Dr Nixon 9th July 1864
Absolutely no doubt that this is Rev Dr. Francis Russell Nixon, Bishop of Tasmania

3) Purchased by Reynolds.

The Art Journal and Redford show The Rising Squall is an Oil - mistaken J comes from Art Journal if it is a mistake!

The Christies Catalogue may not differentiate oils and maybe misprints J instead of R

At that time knowledge about the painting was limited to the title by which it was sold and Turner's signature on the lower right hand side of the painting. Patton would almost certainly know the identity of the previous owner, Mrs H. S. Fussey and the owner before, a (Mr.?) 'Hull'. He did not have anything before that because if he had he would have sold the painting with a different and more explicit (and more valuable) title.

He might have known that it was an exhibited watercolour