Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Angela · 02-09-2015, 09:25 AM

What also does not work for me is the distance between where the jawbone ends and the ear.
While the top of the ear in the Kaplan pic is partially covered, the lower part isn't and am I am wondering if this could be a matter of perspective?

Houmes · 02-09-2015, 10:42 AM

(02-07-2015 04:08 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote: I'm sure most everyone on this forum has seen the daguerreotype that is purported by Albert Kaplan to be an 1841 image of Abraham Lincoln. I have never given it much thought in the past because, to my eye, there isn't anything more than a very slight resemblance to Lincoln. Today I came across Mr. Kaplan's website that claims the photo has been definitely authenticated as Lincoln. Dave Taylor and I have discussed photo identification in general before and he and I agree...research is one thing but when studying photographs the image has to look like the person it is supposed to be.

What do you think?

For a fascinating analysis of this image, get a copy of Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs by Joelle Steele. She got tired of using face recognition software (only compares a limited number of facial features) and about 25 years ago developed a system comparing 100 different facial features. She has an entire chapter on the Kaplan image.

STS Lincolnite · 02-09-2015, 03:53 PM

(02-09-2015 10:42 AM)Houmes Wrote:
(02-07-2015 04:08 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote: I'm sure most everyone on this forum has seen the daguerreotype that is purported by Albert Kaplan to be an 1841 image of Abraham Lincoln. I have never given it much thought in the past because, to my eye, there isn't anything more than a very slight resemblance to Lincoln. Today I came across Mr. Kaplan's website that claims the photo has been definitely authenticated as Lincoln. Dave Taylor and I have discussed photo identification in general before and he and I agree...research is one thing but when studying photographs the image has to look like the person it is supposed to be.

What do you think?

For a fascinating analysis of this image, get a copy of Face to Face: Analysis and Comparison of Facial Features to Authenticate Identities of People in Photographs by Joelle Steele. She got tired of using face recognition software (only compares a limited number of facial features) and about 25 years ago developed a system comparing 100 different facial features. She has an entire chapter on the Kaplan image.

Blaine, thanks for the reference to the book by Joelle Steele. Ms. Steele is the person whose website I referenced in post #3 of this thread. I did see that she had written a book. With your recommendation I will definitely give it a read!

Eva Elisabeth · 02-09-2015, 05:22 PM

Here's another interesting investigation and discussion of the image:
https://books.google.de/books?id=KQs75yh...=html_text
(I linked to the results, but you may also have a look at the previous pages.)

RJNorton · 02-10-2015, 05:16 AM

Thank you for posting this link, Eva. I had the privilege of having a phone conversation with Grant Romer in the late 1990's. We discussed the Kaplan daguerreotype. Mr. Romer is an incredibly knowledgeable expert on the topic of early photography, and I believe he specializes in daguerreotypy.

Eva Elisabeth · 02-10-2015, 08:29 AM

Whatever matching anatomical measures Mr. Kaplan found, to me this gentlman doesn't resemble Abraham Lincoln. Also the gentleman looks neat as a pin - like someone to whom appealing appearance is an important matter.
If this was the first image of A. L., why didn't it survive in the Lincolns' family album? I doubt daguerreotypist took it to keep it himself. And if A. L. had invested in the luxury of having a daguerreotype taken while being quite poor and still paying his "national debt" he would sure have stored and preserved it properly, wouldn't he?

Donna McCreary · 02-10-2015, 11:37 AM

My opinion is that it resembles neither Lincoln nor Joshua Speed. Since it was suppose to have been taken at the Ormsby House, I can not help but wonder if it is a member of the Ormsby family. The point is not to confuse history, or to make false statments, but to just wonder who the gentleman was and his true connection (if any) to the photographer who stayed at the Ormsby home.

STS Lincolnite · (This post was last modified: 02-10-2015 12:19 PM by STS Lincolnite.)

(02-10-2015 05:16 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Thank you for posting this link, Eva. I had the privilege of having a phone conversation with Grant Romer in the late 1990's. We discussed the Kaplan daguerreotype. Mr. Romer is an incredibly knowledgeable expert on the topic of early photography, and I believe he specializes in daguerreotypy.

Mr. Romer was the man I mentioned in a previous post (though I did not name him). He was the one that performed a chemical analysis on the daguerreotype and determined that it was produced in 1844 or later - which would seem to scientifically dispel the theory of it being produced in 1841. Mr. Kaplan has Mr. Romer's dissenting opinion up on his webpage.

(02-10-2015 08:29 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: Whatever matching anatomical measures Mr. Kaplan found, to me this gentlman doesn't resemble Abraham Lincoln. Also the gentleman looks neat as a pin - like someone to whom appealing appearance is an important matter.
If this was the first image of A. L., why didn't it survive in the Lincolns' family album? I doubt daguerreotypist took it to keep it himself. And if A. L. had invested in the luxury of having a daguerreotype taken while being quite poor and still paying his "national debt" he would sure have stored and preserved it properly, wouldn't he?

Eva, I had the same thought about why AL would not have had a copy. In Mr. Kaplan's theory, he gave it to Joshua Speed's mother as a gift.

(02-10-2015 11:37 AM)Donna McCreary Wrote: My opinion is that it resembles neither Lincoln nor Joshua Speed. Since it was suppose to have been taken at the Ormsby House, I can not help but wonder if it is a member of the Ormsby family. The point is not to confuse history, or to make false statments, but to just wonder who the gentleman was and his true connection (if any) to the photographer who stayed at the Ormsby home.

Donna, I am in agreement with you. To my eye it looks like neither. Just to be clear, Mr. Kaplan on his website does not offer any evidence that the daguerreotype was actually made in Louisville. Louisville is only a theory he sets forth per his website. He found a place where Lincoln was at a time when and where he believed a daguerreotype image of Lincoln could have been produced. He tried to make a connection at other geographical locations (Galena, IL for example) but found evidence to disprove those possibilities. Also, he bought the daguerreotype in New York...so there is no direct connection between Louisville and the place he bought it. This from Mr. Kaplan's website:
"In 1977 Albert Kaplan purchased the daguerreotype receipted as "Portrait of a Young Man" from an art gallery in New York."

There was no information about who the man was or even where the image was produced. For me, if it was purchased in New York and with no definitive evidence to the contrary, the most likely place the image would have been produced was in New York. If following the principles of Occam's razor (which I know is certainly not infallible), I find it highly unlikely that this image is one of Lincoln. Far too many assumptions have to be accepted as truth in order to draw the conclusion that this is Lincoln (not to mention that the result of Mr. Romer's scientific chemical analysis certainly makes the idea of an 1841 image unlikely - in Louisville or anywhere else). And then there is the most fundamental test, to my eye (and as others have felt), it just doesn't look like him - when an image from this angle and of this quality should if it was in fact Lincoln. I would need a whole lot more solid, corroborated, primary evidence for me to be convinced this is Lincoln (even then I would still have to overcome what my eyes tell me).

Donna McCreary · 02-10-2015, 01:08 PM

(02-10-2015 11:45 AM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:
(02-10-2015 05:16 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Thank you for posting this link, Eva. I had the privilege of having a phone conversation with Grant Romer in the late 1990's. We discussed the Kaplan daguerreotype. Mr. Romer is an incredibly knowledgeable expert on the topic of early photography, and I believe he specializes in daguerreotypy.

Mr. Romer was the man I mentioned in a previous post (though I did not name him). He was the one that performed a chemical analysis on the daguerreotype and determined that it was produced in 1844 or later - which would seem to scientifically dispel the theory of it being produced in 1841. Mr. Kaplan has Mr. Romer's dissenting opinion up on his webpage.

(02-10-2015 08:29 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: Whatever matching anatomical measures Mr. Kaplan found, to me this gentlman doesn't resemble Abraham Lincoln. Also the gentleman looks neat as a pin - like someone to whom appealing appearance is an important matter.
If this was the first image of A. L., why didn't it survive in the Lincolns' family album? I doubt daguerreotypist took it to keep it himself. And if A. L. had invested in the luxury of having a daguerreotype taken while being quite poor and still paying his "national debt" he would sure have stored and preserved it properly, wouldn't he?

Eva, I had the same thought about why AL would not have had a copy. In Mr. Kaplan's theory, he gave it to Joshua Speed's mother as a gift.

(02-10-2015 11:37 AM)Donna McCreary Wrote: My opinion is that it resembles neither Lincoln nor Joshua Speed. Since it was suppose to have been taken at the Ormsby House, I can not help but wonder if it is a member of the Ormsby family. The point is not to confuse history, or to make false statments, but to just wonder who the gentleman was and his true connection (if any) to the photographer who stayed at the Ormsby home.

Donna, I am in agreement with you. To my eye it looks like neither. Just to be clear, Mr. Kaplan on his website does not offer any evidence that the daguerreotype was actually made in Louisville. Louisville is only a theory he sets forth per his website. He found a place where Lincoln was at a time when and where he believed a daguerreotype image of Lincoln could have been produced. He tried to make a connection at other geographical locations (Galena, IL for example) but found evidence to disprove those possibilities. Also, he bought the daguerreotype in New York...so there is no direct connection between Louisville and the place he bought it. This from Mr. Kaplan's website:
"In 1977 Albert Kaplan purchased the daguerreotype receipted as "Portrait of a Young Man" from an art gallery in New York."

There was no information about who the man was or even where the image was produced. For me, if it was purchased in New York and with no definitive evidence to the contrary, the most likely place the image would have been produced was in New York. If following the principles of Occam's razor (which I know is certainly not infallible), I find it highly unlikely that this image is one of Lincoln. Far too many assumptions have to be accepted as truth in order to draw the conclusion that this is Lincoln (not to mention that the result of Mr. Romer's scientific chemical analysis certainly makes the idea of an 1841 image unlikely - in Louisville or anywhere else). And then there is the most fundamental test, to my eye (and as others have felt), it just doesn't look like him - when an image from this angle and of this quality should if it was in fact Lincoln. I would need a whole lot more solid, corroborated, primary evidence for me to be convinced this is Lincoln (even then I would still have to overcome what my eyes tell me).

Thanks for all of the clairfications. So, this explains why the Ormsby family had a photographer in the home but no known photos of any family members exist. I agree -- this subject of this photo may always remain "unknown."

Houmes · 02-10-2015, 01:35 PM

(02-10-2015 11:37 AM)Donna McCreary Wrote: My opinion is that it resembles neither Lincoln nor Joshua Speed. Since it was suppose to have been taken at the Ormsby House, I can not help but wonder if it is a member of the Ormsby family. The point is not to confuse history, or to make false statments, but to just wonder who the gentleman was and his true connection (if any) to the photographer who stayed at the Ormsby home.

Google Stephen Benson Ormsby (1789-1844) under "findagrave.com." He was the judge allegedly visited by Lincoln and Speed, although I found no reference to Judge Ormsby in Lincoln Day by Day. Compare the face of Ormsby with the Kaplan image. The Ormsby image is an artist's drawing, but the eyebrows and the nose are the same.

Donna McCreary · 02-10-2015, 02:24 PM

(02-10-2015 01:35 PM)Houmes Wrote:
(02-10-2015 11:37 AM)Donna McCreary Wrote: My opinion is that it resembles neither Lincoln nor Joshua Speed. Since it was suppose to have been taken at the Ormsby House, I can not help but wonder if it is a member of the Ormsby family. The point is not to confuse history, or to make false statments, but to just wonder who the gentleman was and his true connection (if any) to the photographer who stayed at the Ormsby home.

Google Stephen Benson Ormsby (1789-1844) under "findagrave.com." He was the judge allegedly visited by Lincoln and Speed, although I found no reference to Judge Ormsby in Lincoln Day by Day. Compare the face of Ormsby with the Kaplan image. The Ormsby image is an artist's drawing, but the eyebrows and the nose are the same.

Interesting -- however, there is one major flaw in this listing. Judge Ormsby was not a Colonel. His son was a colonel during the Mexican War. And his son was also named Stephen Ormsby. But yes -- I do see the similarity. However, as someone else commented, there is still no proof that the photograph has anything to do with Louisville.

stuarts1031 · 12-10-2020, 02:52 PM

(02-07-2015 04:08 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote: I'm sure most everyone on this forum has seen the daguerreotype that is purported by Albert Kaplan to be an 1841 image of Abraham Lincoln. I have never given it much thought in the past because, to my eye, there isn't anything more than a very slight resemblance to Lincoln. Today I came across Mr. Kaplan's website that claims the photo has been definitely authenticated as Lincoln. Dave Taylor and I have discussed photo identification in general before and he and I agree...research is one thing but when studying photographs the image has to look like the person it is supposed to be. Below is a link to Mr. Kaplan's website.

http://www.lincolnportrait.com/index.html

The closer I look at this photo, the less and less I think it is Lincoln and my likelihood percentage was low to start with. But I am certainly no expert, and in the interest of discussion and critical appraisal, I would like to hear what other people think. To help with your study, in addition to giving you the weblink above, I am attaching a facial crop of the 1848 Lincoln photo (on the left) that was given to the LOC by Robert Lincoln and of which provenance is beyond reproach. It is generally considered by historians to be the earliest extant photo of Lincoln. I have placed it side by side with the Kaplan photo (supposedly 1841 Lincoln) which is on the right.

What do you think?

Kaplan has been showing that Daguerreotype everywhere for, I think at least 20+ years. Grant Romer, Historian of the George Eastman House in Rochester presented a program on the photo about 20 years ago. He said that he would let everyone draw their own opinion. My opinion, after listening to his remarks and seeing his slides, is that this is not Lincoln. Kaplan has found some "experts" who say that his photo is of Lincoln. There are more experts who do not agree. I am the author of the book "Collecting Lincoln" and have collected Lincoln photos for 44 years. In every "certifiable" Lincoln photo, one look says Lincoln. Lincoln always looks like Lincoln.

AussieMick · 12-16-2020, 09:59 PM

Seems strange that the Kaplan website has an 1862 photo alongside his approx 1841 disputed one. There is a link to an 1848 photo, which is generally accepted as genuine.
Why not have that 1848 one on his website instead of the 20 year older one ?

RJNorton · 12-17-2020, 04:58 AM

(12-16-2020 09:59 PM)AussieMick Wrote: Why not have that 1848 one on his website instead of the 20 year older one ?

Michael, Albert Kaplan joined this forum in 2012 but has not posted. You could try asking him through the forum (email or PM).

LincolnMan · 12-17-2020, 07:04 AM

My inexpert opinion is that it is not Lincoln. But I do enjoy the discussions that the item have garnered. Thats why this forum exists. That you for posting.