+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Really? Not Another One! (/thread-94.html)
Pages: 1 2
Really? Not Another One! - BettyO - 07-19-2012 04:09 PM
OK - here's another one..... purported photo of Booth - a guy with a moustache so it MUST be JWB!
![[Image: fauxjwb.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/fauxjwb.jpg/)
Here's the complete "Story" -
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AUTHENTIC-JOHN-WILKES-BOOTH-CDV-PHOTO-C-1856-ABRAHAM-LINCOLNS-ASSASSIN-CIVIL-WAR-/261068790972
RE: Really? Not Another One! - Craig Hipkins - 07-19-2012 04:38 PM
Wow, This one might actually fool someone. Something about the chin and lips though gives it away.
Craig
RE: Really? Not Another One! - BettyO - 07-19-2012 04:43 PM
(07-19-2012 04:38 PM)Craig Hipkins Wrote: Wow, This one might actually fool someone. Something about the chin and lips though gives it away.
Craig
AND the back mark....definitely circa 1870's, I'm almost certain....
RE: Really? Not Another One! - LincolnMan - 07-19-2012 05:48 PM
Are you serious? Then again, have you ever seen some photos purported to be Lincoln? LOL
RE: Really? Not Another One! - L Verge - 07-19-2012 06:35 PM
This guy could give JWB a run for his money as far as good looks are concerned, but there is only a mild resemblance. I agree with Betty about the 1870s look, especially the neckline of the shirt.
RE: Really? Not Another One! - Gene C - 07-19-2012 07:02 PM
That's a pretty good mustache for an 18 year old (Age per the owner of the photogragh. What a shame he's lost his
paper work verifying authenticity)
RE: Really? Not Another One! - BettyO - 07-20-2012 07:24 AM
(07-19-2012 07:02 PM)Gene C Wrote: That's a pretty good mustache for an 18 year old (Age per the owner of the photogragh. What a shame he's lost his
paper work verifying authenticity)
There is something very much in resemblance regarding the eyes and nose....but JWB had somewhat curly hair. This guy's hair is more or less pretty straight and combed back. Again, if this guy is 18 years old, that mustache is pretty heavy, plus this is a CDV image. Unless it would be a COPY of an ambrotype (principally the main type of photograph in the antebellum era) - that fact alone will spell it as not being Booth. CDV's were not popular until about 1862. If JWB was 18 in this photo, then the original would have to have been an ambrotype - NOT a CDV. The photo of 15 year old Lew Powell, which belongs to the Powell family, is a CDV copied from an original ambrotype. Plus, the back mark of this purported CDV definitely looks 1870ish to me as does the clothing in this photo.
RE: Really? Not Another One! - Lindsey - 07-20-2012 04:30 PM
That one actually isn't too bad! The best though, and I wish I could have seen them, was when a gentleman called from England that he had just bought two photographs-- one of Lincoln w/ his arm around Maru Surratt and another of Joshua Speed in drag!
RE: Really? Not Another One! - BettyO - 07-20-2012 04:43 PM
(07-20-2012 04:30 PM)Lindsey Wrote: That one actually isn't too bad! The best though, and I wish I could have seen them, was when a gentleman called from England that he had just bought two photographs-- one of Lincoln w/ his arm around Maru Surratt and another of Joshua Speed in drag!
What?!? Lincoln with his arm around Mary SURRATT?!? Not Mary Lincoln....and Joshua Speed in drag?! Not Jeff Davis in Petticoats?!? What in the world was this English gentleman thinking? Sounds like a Monty Python skit to me! HA!
RE: Really? Not Another One! - Craig Hipkins - 07-20-2012 06:02 PM
Since the topic of clothing has come up in this post I was wondering if anyone can help me identify the era of a photograph. I believe that the fellow was an ancestor of mine, but not sure who he is...he does have a moustache...and no he is not John Wilkes Booth
When did they wear wide collars like this? Betty, Laurie, Lindsey?...Anyone?
1910 maybe? I am clueless when it comes to fashions of yesteryear.
Craig
RE: Really? Not Another One! - L Verge - 07-20-2012 06:26 PM
My guess would be between 1895 and 1920?? That collar was one that was separate from the shirt, I believe. You used to see a lot of office workers with those. You actually took the collar off and put it in a collar box at night. They were very prevalent.
I have never read anything about these other than it was easier to wash the collar (usually the first thing to get dirty) than it was the whole shirt. They also had detachable cuffs. Even women who entered the workforce had detachable cuffs or would take cotton stockings that had been darned too many times and cut them to slip over the hand and protect the arms of their bodices while working. This was especially helpful in the days when ink did not dry immediately.
If you look at ladies' photos from 1850-1870, you will also see bodices with pagoda (wide sleeves) that stopped at mid-forearm. Underneath these sleeves were dainty, white undersleeves that came to the wrist and were usually adorned with lace and/or ribbons. Again, it was easier to wash those undersleeves (that forearm gets dirty faster) than to wash the whole dress.
We won't even discuss ironing the dresses, shirts, collars, trousers, vests, etc. of our ancestors in the days before electric irons. Frankly, I don't iron much anymore either - I term myself wash and wear.
RE: Really? Not Another One! - BettyO - 07-20-2012 07:00 PM
You are correct, Laurie. The wider collars were usually late Victorian to early 20th Century - 1920's.....
The detectable collars were worn in the 1840s, 50s, and 60s as well. Lew Powell wore one as well - and the portrait of Powell in the prisoner's dock, drawn from life by General Lew Wallace illustrates young Powell wearing a detachable collar complete with collar button. He did not wear that blue flannel Navy jumper all the time apparently.
![[Image: wallacesketchoflewpowel.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/84/wallacesketchoflewpowel.jpg/)
RE: Really? Not Another One! - Craig Hipkins - 07-20-2012 07:26 PM
Laurie, Betty
Thanks for the response. Let me ask one more question. How old would you say that this fellow is?
Craig
RE: Really? Not Another One! - BettyO - 07-20-2012 07:47 PM
(07-20-2012 07:26 PM)Craig Hipkins Wrote: Laurie, Betty
Thanks for the response. Let me ask one more question. How old would you say that this fellow is?
Craig
I would have to say at least 24-25 years old....certainly not 18!
RE: Really? Not Another One! - KLarson - 07-20-2012 10:14 PM
Ok, honestly guys, this doesn't even remotely resemble Booth. This guy looks like a deer in headlights. Booth would have never posed like that. I see no resemblance other than he's white, thin, and sports a mustache. And his clothing is certainly post 1865, and probably a couple decades later.
I hope the buyer gets a guarantee of some sort so they can get their money back!