There is the method of Professor Harry Jerrod, that some of you might be familiar with.
Here is a short clip from the documentary made in 1953. You can get an idea of the process.
In the full documentary, which is over an hour long, John Wilkes Booth is briefly mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01Tb-vFAxU

Unfortunately the process/formula was lost in a tragic fire.

"it was henry p. Cattell dr. brown's brother's stepsonwhom dr brown trained"

Marsha, I'm a little unclear. In the above, from your last postings, are you referring to Cattell having made a written report? If so, have you seen it?

The reason I ask is that I have seen the description of how the embalming was done quite a few times, and they all (even what Kees quoted several years ago) seem more like a general description of how embalming was performed in those days. Even the description of trimming the beard, slight smile, etc. is just something that someone observing Lincoln's body would make note of. And, I have to agree with the others that the white hair and beard in this photo is very suspicious -- and, of course, I really don't think that a marble bust of Lincoln with painted hair and beard was ever inserted into the one known photo of the deceased President.

I would like to know if there really was an official written report prepared by Brown and Cattell for any official government records; and, if so, does it still exist and have you seen it. Is the description that we are reading here something written by either of the gentlemen (or an observer) and later published in a journal or magazine or memoir? A good historian goes for primary source materials first in order to support/deny claims.
Other than visual surmising and suggested possibilities, do you have any documentation? Is there a photographer's mark on the reverse of the photo? If so, we can trace it for location of that business in 1865.

Since I am joining the ranks of your "bullies" in disagreeing with you, I would like an official report to be made available - if it ever existed - just to prove whether or not the embalmers could have possibly been so bold (and so daring) as to attempt to take a standing post mortem photo of Mr. Lincoln. Since Edwin Stanton wanted no photos taken of the dead Lincoln, they would have been facing a terrible backlash. I don't think even the bravest photographer of the day would have attempted to enter the White House with equipment to take that picture.

Alas, the story that the Victorians routinely posed the dead standing up with the help of stands is well entrenched on the Internet, thanks to various clickbait articles. The story seems to have originated with crooked photo dealers trying to sell otherwise boring or technically flawed family photographs by claiming that someone in the photograph is dead. The story soon found appeal among those who hold the notion that the Victorians were prudish ghouls, and an Internet legend was born.

The majority of genuine Victorian postmortem photos show people in their coffins, although babies and very young children are occasionally shown in their parent's arms or occasionally propped up in a chair.

The posing stands you see in so many Victorian photographs (including some of the Lincoln boys) were used to help people strike a graceful pose and to stay still. People who own antique ones can tell you that they are simply not sturdy enough to support the weight of a dead person.

Why would any one want to or try to take a picture of a standing post mortem Lincoln?
Surely if this happened or was attempted there would be some record (newspaper, diary, White House leak)

Before Rietveld found the photo of Lincoln in his coffin, was there any record or mention that photo even existed?

(06-23-2017 09:19 AM)L Verge Wrote:  "it was henry p. Cattell dr. brown's brother's stepsonwhom dr brown trained"

Marsha, I'm a little unclear. In the above, from your last postings, are you referring to Cattell having made a written report? If so, have you seen it?

The reason I ask is that I have seen the description of how the embalming was done quite a few times, and they all (even what Kees quoted several years ago) seem more like a general description of how embalming was performed in those days. Even the description of trimming the beard, slight smile, etc. is just something that someone observing Lincoln's body would make note of. And, I have to agree with the others that the white hair and beard in this photo is very suspicious -- and, of course, I really don't think that a marble bust of Lincoln with painted hair and beard was ever inserted into the one known photo of the deceased President.

I would like to know if there really was an official written report prepared by Brown and Cattell for any official government records; and, if so, does it still exist and have you seen it. Is the description that we are reading here something written by either of the gentlemen (or an observer) and later published in a journal or magazine or memoir? A good historian goes for primary source materials first in order to support/deny claims.
Other than visual surmising and suggested possibilities, do you have any documentation? Is there a photographer's mark on the reverse of the photo? If so, we can trace it for location of that business in 1865.

Since I am joining the ranks of your "bullies" in disagreeing with you, I would like an official report to be made available - if it ever existed - just to prove whether or not the embalmers could have possibly been so bold (and so daring) as to attempt to take a standing post mortem photo of Mr. Lincoln. Since Edwin Stanton wanted no photos taken of the dead Lincoln, they would have been facing a terrible backlash. I don't think even the bravest photographer of the day would have attempted to enter the White House with equipment to take that picture.

THE DESCRIPTION OF HENRY P CATTELLS EMBALMING PROCEDURE CONCERNING ABE LINCOLN IS NOT A GENERAL ONE BUT , THE EXACT ONE DONE ON ABE LINCOLN , CLOSING THE CRANIAM, THEY DURING AUTOPHSY SLICED HIS SCALP FROM THE NAPE TO THE CROWN TO EXPOSE THE SKULL THEN CUT OFF THE TOP OF THE SkULL TO EXPOSE THE BRAIN THAT WAS REMOVED WASHED AND WEIGHED , SO HENRY CLOSED THE SCALP, LINCOLN , PSITIONED THE BODY , LINCOLN, SET A SLIGHT SMILE LINCOLN , SHAVED HIM BUT FOR A TUFT ON HIS CHIN , LINCOLN
.NO ONE SAID WHO TOOK THE PHOTO OR WHEN . MY POINT IS THAT THE ALLEGED DEATH PHOTO IS SUSPECT FOR SEVERAL REASONS . 1. NO APPARENT DAMAGE TO ABES HEAD , 2. NO SLIGHT SMILE ,3. MORE BEARD THAN JUST A TUFT ON HIS CHIN,5. HE LOOKS TO0 YOUNG .6. BY THE TIME HE ARRIVED IN NYC THE UNDERTAKERS HAD CHALKED HIS FEATURES AS THEY HAD TURNED BLACK.7. ITS A BUST OF THE 1861 LIFE MASK .8. HIS EYE BROWS WERE GONE IN 1901 .
FUTHERMORE I CAN BE QUITE THE BULLY MYSELF SO WATCH YOUR TONE . RON RIVEHALD WAS INVITED TO VISIT DR PRATT AND Marion his second wife. dr pratt lead ron to the file containing the photo in the building he worked , let ronny find the photo gave ronny credit for the find and after the des moines newpaper ran the story life mag. ran a story by that time marion who had just edited a Lincoln book, had given the platinum print pratt had made of said photo to photo jopurnalist stefan lorant to use in his book Lincoln's life in photos 1952. nice. the photo had been hidden 87 years so the chain of custody was broken , the prominence is questionable as pratt didn't catalogue or inventory receiving it from hays daughter sloppy work right and in 1952 who would leave a 14 year old with un inventoried posibally valuable important rare American historical documents . no one !. the envelope was marked x-14, dah. I have the only death photo of abe Lincoln my brilliant find.
I am weary of historians that are also authors and or collectors.$$$$
I merely wanted to share my Lincoln photo with this group but I already knew ron r. was a member who brings attention to this sight ie relevancy so you talk down to me and shame my photo .
you would think this tired Lincoln discussion would welcome any new Lincoln material to discuss , old dogs need a new trick . bla bla bla
I had this cdv for 10 years never once tried to sell it never will .but I'm going to share it with the world and you wll be credited with not recoginizing . experts get over yourselves.photos are self proving.

One of the first steps in trying to learn about a photograph who's history is undocumented, is to try and date it. Here are some links that may be helpful.

(Note they do come from a commercial website, I'm just posting them for their information on dating photographs and not as an endorsement or recommendation of the company's services.)

Dating CDVs:
http://www.phototree.com/id_cdv.htm

Gallery of dated CDVs:
http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat...e%20Visite

(06-23-2017 01:30 PM)wcvet6 Wrote:  I am weary of historians that are also authors and or collectors.$$$$
I merely wanted to share my Lincoln photo with this group but I already knew ron r. was a member who brings attention to this sight ie relevancy so you talk down to me and shame my photo .
you would think this tired Lincoln discussion would welcome any new Lincoln material to discuss , old dogs need a new trick . bla bla bla
I had this cdv for 10 years never once tried to sell it never will .but I'm going to share it with the world and you wll be credited with not recoginizing . experts get over yourselves.photos are self proving.

Ron Reitveld may be a member of this site, but he has not logged on since Oct 2012, and he has only made one post. bla, bl, bla.

I would be interested in how you found your photograph. I appreciate your sharing it with us.
Naturally we are skeptical. We challenge just about anything people have introduced that is a new find or theory. You are not the first.
Some graciously accept the comments. Some get angry. Some realize their find or theory just doesn't stand up to a close enquiry (pun intended)

Since none of the "old dogs" on this forum have stepped forward to agree with you that it is indeed a photo of Lincoln, have you asked any other "old dogs" in the Lincoln community what their opinion was regarding your photo and what was their response? As someone who's avatar is an old dog, I would enjoy a few new tricks. Just because we don't believe it is Lincoln, doesn't mean we don't think it is an interesting find. We have lots of folks here who like to collect old photographs, cdv's, old newspapers, old books, etc.
There is a lot to learn.

Trust me, I am watching my tone and would suggest that you might want to temper your own. That said, please cite me the exact source for Dr. Brown's or Cattell's written description of the embalming procedure. What has been posted above describes more the autopsy in general terms, but does not provide an exact source for the embalming procedure performed on Mr. Lincoln.

I also asked if there was a photographer's mark on the reverse of your CDV. Would you be so kind as to inform me if there is such a stamp or not, and if so, what it says? That would be another way of determining who and (more importantly) in what city the photo was taken.

While I do question your method of historical investigation, it is my job as a museum professional to ask for any primary source materials or good documentation to back up anyone's theories. I am not singling you out specifically. If I had been in this profession in 1952 (I was nine at the time), I would have asked Dr. Rietveld for the same information.

(06-23-2017 03:49 PM)Steve Wrote:  One of the first steps in trying to learn about a photograph who's history is undocumented, is to try and date it. Here are some links that may be helpful.

Cool site Steve! Thanks for posting.
What a great collection of old pictures.

I think I saw at least three undiscovered John Wiles Booth, a Mary Surratt, Lafayette Baker without his beard, Booth's mistress, the elusive Sarah Slater, and a baby picture of Laurie.

(06-23-2017 04:04 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 03:49 PM)Steve Wrote:  One of the first steps in trying to learn about a photograph who's history is undocumented, is to try and date it. Here are some links that may be helpful.

Cool site Steve! Thanks for posting.
What a great collection of old pictures.

I think I saw at least three undiscovered John Wiles Booth, a Mary Surratt, Lafayette Baker without his beard, Booth's mistress, the elusive Sarah Slater, and a baby picture of Laurie.

Sorry, Gene, but photography had not been invented when I was a child...

(06-23-2017 04:04 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 03:49 PM)Steve Wrote:  One of the first steps in trying to learn about a photograph who's history is undocumented, is to try and date it. Here are some links that may be helpful.

Cool site Steve! Thanks for posting.
What a great collection of old pictures.

I think I saw at least three undiscovered John Wiles Booth, a Mary Surratt, Lafayette Baker without his beard, Booth's mistress, the elusive Sarah Slater, and a baby picture of Laurie.

How could you have missed the picture of my 8 month ultrasound where doctors discovered I had a headset and was calling racing action from Laurel Park? That's one of the most popular photos on the site. And who is John Wiles Booth?

(06-23-2017 03:49 PM)Steve Wrote:  One of the first steps in trying to learn about a photograph who's history is undocumented, is to try and date it. Here are some links that may be helpful.

(Note they do come from a commercial website, I'm just posting them for their information on dating photographs and not as an endorsement or recommendation of the company's services.)

Dating CDVs:
http://www.phototree.com/id_cdv.htm

Gallery of dated CDVs:
http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat...e%20Visite

thank you for yor advise i'll check it out.

Steve, Thanks for the site link! I bookmarked it because it will help me put a date on quite a few old photos I have!

THIS PLACE IS GREAT! Good discourse, great links, & respectful people for the most part. I'm happy to be a part of this.

Gene, have to thank you for the archive site link. I've been going nuts there!

My wife has threatened to shut off my coffee if I don't cut back on all the time I've been spending here reading...OOPS!

(06-23-2017 04:04 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Trust me, I am watching my tone and would suggest that you might want to temper your own. That said, please cite me the exact source for Dr. Brown's or Cattell's written description of the embalming procedure. What has been posted above describes more the autopsy in general terms, but does not provide an exact source for the embalming procedure performed on Mr. Lincoln.

I also asked if there was a photographer's mark on the reverse of your CDV. Would you be so kind as to inform me if there is such a stamp or not, and if so, what it says? That would be another way of determining who and (more importantly) in what city the photo was taken.

While I do question your method of historical investigation, it is my job as a museum professional to ask for any primary source materials or good documentation to back up anyone's theories. I am not singling you out specifically. If I had been in this profession in 1952 (I was nine at the time), I would have asked Dr. Rietveld for the same information.

the cdv was pasted on an antique photo album page with other cdv 's on said page I dare not remove it.

(06-23-2017 05:43 PM)wcvet6 Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 04:04 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Trust me, I am watching my tone and would suggest that you might want to temper your own. That said, please cite me the exact source for Dr. Brown's or Cattell's written description of the embalming procedure. What has been posted above describes more the autopsy in general terms, but does not provide an exact source for the embalming procedure performed on Mr. Lincoln.

I also asked if there was a photographer's mark on the reverse of your CDV. Would you be so kind as to inform me if there is such a stamp or not, and if so, what it says? That would be another way of determining who and (more importantly) in what city the photo was taken.

While I do question your method of historical investigation, it is my job as a museum professional to ask for any primary source materials or good documentation to back up anyone's theories. I am not singling you out specifically. If I had been in this profession in 1952 (I was nine at the time), I would have asked Dr. Rietveld for the same information.

the cdv was pasted on an antique photo album page with other cdv 's on said page I dare not remove it.

I know that the Victorians were very fond of pasting everything they could get their hands on into albums and scrapbooks. I inherited quite a few from my ancestors. Are there other photos of famous (or dead) people on the same page that might offer a clue?

Most period photo albums have only one photo to a page, and it is inserted behind a frame of sorts. The pages are generally quite thick. I inherited lots of those also and have also flipped through many such albums at shows, museum archives, etc. Does this album match that description, or is it a scrapbook page with brittle paper and multiple photos on one page (that's what I'm judging from your description)?

If it's a scrapbook page, it's a shame because viewing any marks on the back of that photo is important to determining the date, location, and circumstances of said photo.

In the case of men's clothing being an identifying factor, that can be tricky because gentlemen's fashions did not change significantly for years.

I am assuming, since you have not posted a response to my question about the existence of official records from Dr. Brown's files of April 1865, that you have not been able to locate them either?

As an aside, I have to say that, when you first posted the CDV, my first instinct was to suggest that it might be a "living" photo of Jefferson Davis in his later years. We know that he had white hair and some features similar to his rival.

I enlarged the image until the pixels went crazy and still guessed it might be Davis, not Lincoln. I was basing my guess strictly on facial features; the gawky full figure with a slight paunch didn't seem to match either man to me.

Best wishes for a successful search for provenance to prove your suspicions about this photo.

---

http://www.phototree.com/id_cdv.htm Forum members: If you have not already visited this site that Steve posted, please do so. It really is a handy guide for beginners to use in learning how to identify 19th-century photographs.

I went back and re-read the description of dating the borders of CDVs after perusing the photo in debate here. According to that website, this particular photo would date to 1861-1862. It is the photo pasted on its matting with no borders. After that, borders were added with specific borders being particular to certain time periods.

Based on that one, professional description, our anonymous subject in this particular photo would have been posing at least three years before Mr. Lincoln was assassinated.

I also remembered after reading that information that the government taxed photos from 1864 on in order to help pay the war debt. A tax stamp should be on the back of said photo (as well as the photographer's mark) if it was taken in 1865. Too bad that the photo is glued down and the reverse side hidden.