How about a good close picture of the signature? And perhaps the chop mark on the side?
And look at it with a magnifying glass to see if it's an original litho or a photographic repro.
It's very nice!

Thanks, I will go back up into the attic tomorrow and bring it back down. I will post a better pic of the signature.

After getting the correct name of the artist, I've been able to do a little research. I must have been blind yesterday. On the back of the piece:

View of the chop:

Signature:

Honestly, I can't tell if it's a litho or not. It doesn't appear to be old, he was painting at least through the late 80's. The back of the frame:

Value wise, I've seen some of his stuff going anywhere from $40 to $200. There was one piece that was going for $700, but it was larger, an original, and I'm not sure that price was reached.

Here is another of his Peacock and Peahen, but the there are differences between the two, and this one went for $200.

I know a lot more than I knew yesterday!

Many moons ago I was a serious garage saler and sometimes I just stashed bags of stuff in the attic without really studying them too much. I used to have an eye for things. Believe me, the really good stuff is not up there anymore, though. As far as finding a nice spot for it, I will, but I am the greatest procrastinator in the world.

If you look through a loupe you can see if it's the print has lots of dots which would mean it's a giclee print. If it's a giclee it's not worth much.

469/1000 indicates it is the 469th print out of 1000 prints. My guess, based on that and what appears to be an individual signature and edition number, is it is an original lithograph or seriagraph produced under specific direction of the artist. If that is so, it is more valuable than a mass produced copy of the work.

I tried to take it out of the frame yesterday to get a better look, but the glass started breaking, so I put it back together.

It's signed on the mat, not the print itself....indicating to me that it is an ink jet printed piece.

Linda, that looks to be signed on the print.

Prints are not usually signed directly on the body of the print but on the paper below the image. Wonder if mounted on gold paper as part of image. On monitor looks as if image is on separate piece but also not uncommon for "border" to be printed directly on image paper. Stamped message on back assigning all reproduction rights to artist also makes me think this print was made at specific direction of artist.

Stamped message on back assigning all reproduction rights to artist also makes me think this print was made at specific direction of artist.

Probably has his/her approval to make the copies but doesn't mean it's not still a giclee.

Giclees have all the dots, right? I don't see that on this print. Also, many of his prints are out there, and most are described as lithographs, which I'm guessing this is.