Thanks! I found another in the New York World of March 5, 1861: "Mrs. Lincoln was superbly dressed in a blue silk, trimmed with point d' Alencon lace, and wore a blue ostrich feather in her hair, which was exceedingly becoming."

On a side note, Surratt House sponsored quite a few Lincoln in D.C. tours over the years that included a stop at the Library of Congress to see samples of their collection of Lincoln memorabilia. The seed pearl suite was a big hit, of course, but while the women were oohing and aahing over the set, I was trying to figure out a way to steal Mr. Lincoln's inkwell. Go here - https://www.loc.gov/collections/alfred-w...n-inkwell/

The answer is emphatically yes, Roger. Thank you sincerely for posting, by the way. The lady pictured does NOT have Mary’s inaugural ball gown.
I am a long time admirer of Abraham Lincoln and have read numerous biographies and perused hundreds of websites that attempt to illuminate the complex nature of the man and his deeds. A wealth of information that up until a couple of decades ago was confined to archives and private collections with limited public access, is now widely available to the general public as a result of the internet.
What troubles me is that these easily obtained truths appear to be lacking in those who should, by virtue of their profession, be eminently more knowledgeable on the subject than the public at large.
I’m not here to criticize or chastise Roger Norton or Donna McCreary, but there is seemingly ‘something wrong with this picture’ given their credentials. Roger, you said you have “zero expertise on the subject at hand”, and in another post dealing with a photo of Abe’s stepmother.....Sarah Bush Johnston....you volunteer that you are “not a photograph expert by any means”. Yet in a thread that I started titled....Lincoln and his cane....you dismiss the photograph out of hand with no explanation. I have seen that daguerreian image (along with the Hoffman, Kaplan, and a multitude of other daguerreotypes) over the years and I must say that the argument against its authenticity is lacking at best, especially in light of this recent conversation.
The lady resembles Mary Todd Lincoln.....is wearing a blue, watered-silk gown trimmed with white point d’ Alençon Lace.....and is seated next to a gentleman resembling Abraham Lincoln who is holding a gold-headed cane and wearing white kid gloves. It was purported to be an inaugural day photograph.
My question to other forum members is this:....can anyone provide a concise, factual, delineated argument that the couple are not the Lincolns? I have never seen an opposing point of view yet that could hold water, and the white inaugural gown with the seed pearl suite theory just went flying out the window. Thank you.

---

(03-06-2018 05:21 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Please excuse me for entering a conversation in which I have zero expertise. But am I correct in saying the lady pictured here does NOT have Mary's 1861 inaugural ball dress?

http://railsplitter.com/where-is-mary-to...all-dress/

The answer is emphatically yes, Roger. Thank you sincerely for posting, by the way. The lady pictured does NOT have Mary’s inaugural ball gown.
I am a long time admirer of Abraham Lincoln and have read numerous biographies and perused hundreds of websites that attempt to illuminate the complex nature of the man and his deeds. A wealth of information that up until a couple of decades ago was confined to archives and private collections with limited public access, is now widely available to the general public as a result of the internet.
What troubles me is that these easily obtained truths appear to be lacking in those who should, by virtue of their profession, be eminently more knowledgeable on the subject than the public at large.
I’m not here to criticize or chastise Roger Norton or Donna McCreary, but there is seemingly ‘something wrong with this picture’ given their credentials. Roger, you said you have “zero expertise on the subject at hand”, and in another post dealing with a photo of Abe’s stepmother.....Sarah Bush Johnston....you volunteer that you are “not a photograph expert by any means”. Yet in a thread that I started titled....Lincoln and his cane....you dismiss the photograph out of hand with no explanation. I have seen that daguerreian image (along with the Hoffman, Kaplan, and a multitude of other daguerreotypes) over the years and I must say that the argument against its authenticity is lacking at best, especially in light of this recent conversation.
The lady resembles Mary Todd Lincoln.....is wearing a blue, watered-silk gown trimmed with white point d’ Alençon Lace.....and is seated next to a gentleman resembling Abraham Lincoln who is holding a gold-headed cane and wearing white kid gloves. It was purported to be an inaugural day photograph.
My question to other forum members is this:....can anyone provide a concise, factual, delineated argument that the couple are not the Lincolns? I have never seen an opposing point of view yet that could hold water, and the white inaugural gown with the seed pearl suite theory just went flying out the window. Thank you.

Aside from the fact that the man in the cane picture looks nothing like Lincoln and the lady bears only a slight resemblance to Mary, the woman's large collar is one that was fashionable in the 1850s. Mary, fresh from a New York shopping trip, wouldn't be wearing that in 1861.

I don't see any evidence that the lady is wearing a blue dress. Could be gray or some other color.

Also, if this conspiracy-minded site is correct in identifying the image as a daguerreotype (and I can't say I trust the site), daguerreotypes had fallen out of fashion in favor of ambrotypes and CDVs by 1861. Daguerreotypes were still around, but a photographer taking a picture of the First Couple would be more likely to use what was current.

http://abeandmarydag.com/

(03-14-2018 10:12 AM)Donna Wrote:  Lincoln and his cane....you dismiss the photograph out of hand with no explanation.

I am sorry, Donna, that I didn't give an explanation. In all honesty, I didn't do so because I didn't think the image is close enough (IMO) to be seriously considered.

I second everything Susan said above; she explained it better than I ever could.

And, in addition to what Susan said, Abraham was about 14 inches taller than Mary, and the couple pictured are considerably closer in height than 14 inches difference. Also, there is no mole (also called a wart in some sources) on the man's right cheek where there should be if he were Abraham Lincoln.

I was curious so I checked with a Facebook group to which I belong, some of the members of which are experts in 19th century fashion. All agreed that the woman's dress was from the 1850's, possibly even the late 1840's (which would make sense if this is indeed a daguerreotype). Anyone who's read Mary's letters to her milliners knows that she wouldn't have been caught dead in such an old-fashioned dress in 1861.

http://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussio...p?aid=2618

Thanks for posting the abeandmarydag site Susan in your post #34.

Interesting to read why the defender of the photograph believes the "experts" are wrong, and that it is a photo of Abraham and Mary together.

If I were to defend the photo, I might argue that the height difference between Abraham and Mary was offset by the photographer by having Mary sit on a stool or seat that minimized that difference. The lack of a mole or wart on Lincoln's face is because Mary, in an act of vanity and because it was a histoirc inauguration photo, had it covered up by makeup or air brushed out of the original print.

In defense of Mary and her dress, she looks older than she is at the time the photo was taken due to stress. She probably didn't sleep much the night before, excited about her life long dream coming true, and at the same time worried about the safety of her husband. Something obviously must have happened to her original dress, someone may have spilled something on it, it got ruined when she slipped in the muddy streets, we will probably never know. She unhappily has to wear an unsuitable substitute for this picture,
Mary is so unhappy with her appearance in the photo that to avoid one of her famous temper tantrums, Lincoln has all negatives and prints destroyed, and this historic picture never reaches public circulation. This one is tucked away and never sees the light of day, forgotten to history, until it was recently discovered.


But, the owners of the picture have overlooked the possibility that this photo is more valuable than a picture of the Lincoln's on Inauguration Day. It is not a picture of Abraham and Mary at all, it is a picture of their substitutes. Worried about potential assassination plots, like the one in Baltimore, Pinkerton, Lamon and General Willard Scott (or is Winfield?) have a decoy Abraham and Mary appear in key places around Washington to draw attention away from the real Abraham and Mary. . Concerned about assassination attempts to keep Lincoln from being inaugurated and throwing the government into turmoil, this photo is not Abraham and Mary, but of their unknown, up until now, substitutes. In the excitement and confusion of the day, it is the decoy couple that mistakenly gets taken to be photographed for this historic event. Evidently Pinkerton's secret plan worked so well it has taken over 150 years for this deception to become revealed.

Then again, I could be wrong about this.

Gene, your theory makes perfect sense to me!

I'm curious, Donna, are you the owner of the dag? Your remarks on this site have the same general tone and talking points as those on the dag's website, although I can see where you might be reluctant here to associate yourself with the website, given this diatribe there: "Since you Lincoln worshippers don't seem overly concerned with historical accuracy . . . "

(03-15-2018 10:35 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Thanks for posting the abeandmarydag site Susan in your post #34.

Interesting to read why the defender of the photograph believes the "experts" are wrong, and that it is a photo of Abraham and Mary together.

If I were to defend the photo, I might argue that the height difference between Abraham and Mary was offset by the photographer by having Mary sit on a stool or seat that minimized that difference. The lack of a mole or wart on Lincoln's face is because Mary, in an act of vanity and because it was a histoirc inauguration photo, had it covered up by makeup or air brushed out of the original print.

In defense of Mary and her dress, she looks older than she is at the time the photo was taken due to stress. She probably didn't sleep much the night before, excited about her life long dream coming true, and at the same time worried about the safety of her husband. Something obviously must have happened to her original dress, someone may have spilled something on it, it got ruined when she slipped in the muddy streets, we will probably never know. She unhappily has to wear an unsuitable substitute for this picture,
Mary is so unhappy with her appearance in the photo that to avoid one of her famous temper tantrums, Lincoln has all negatives and prints destroyed, and this historic picture never reaches public circulation. This one is tucked away and never sees the light of day, forgotten to history, until it was recently discovered.


But, the owners of the picture have overlooked the possibility that this photo is more valuable than a picture of the Lincoln's on Inauguration Day. It is not a picture of Abraham and Mary at all, it is a picture of their substitutes. Worried about potential assassination plots, like the one in Baltimore, Pinkerton, Lamon and General Willard Scott (or is Winfield?) have a decoy Abraham and Mary appear in key places around Washington to draw attention away from the real Abraham and Mary. . Concerned about assassination attempts to keep Lincoln from being inaugurated and throwing the government into turmoil, this photo is not Abraham and Mary, but of their unknown, up until now, substitutes. In the excitement and confusion of the day, it is the decoy couple that mistakenly gets taken to be photographed for this historic event. Evidently Pinkerton's secret plan worked so well it has taken over 150 years for this deception to become revealed.

Then again, I could be wrong about this.

Wasn't there a modern movie several decades ago based on that same Presidential decoy theory?

---

I had skimmed some of this thread before, but had not really perused the dag. As fate would have it, I spent a good portion of my day at work today trying to convince a gentleman from California via email that he does not have "definite" photos of Mary Surratt, John Surratt, Jr., or Isaac Surratt. I spend a lot of time looking at supposed photos like this (I can't count how many are so-called newly discovered ones of JWB). Several years ago, I was actually sued for stating that a death photo was not of AL.

That said, I clicked on Susan's link to the daguerreotype and read all the parts of the argument. Of course, right away, I was ready to announce that the couple had very little resemblance to the Presidential pair. I also noticed the similarity in height before reading the other letters. I also did not think that Mary's rather plain dress (what I would consider an afternoon dress or church-going dress) came anywhere close to being a ball gown of the 1861 era.

I did note that the person justifying the claim that it is the Lincolns even threw in the catch-words of "Mariah Vance" in order to attempt provenance. And finally, I wondered what Lincoln Day by Day says about Lincoln's activities between his swearing in and his attending the ball. For some reason, I thought the President went immediately back to the White House and began shaking hands in a rather informal reception??? Even if not, was there time to go to a photographer for a formal sitting - even if the photographer was able to set up his numerous pieces of equipment at the White House?

I heard Lloyd Ostendorf speak once (did not meet him), but I am friends with Dan Weinberg, and had Kim Bauer speak a few years ago at a Surratt Conference and found him very nice and very knowledgeable. If those three gents said that this photo was very likely not of the Lincolns, I would certainly back off.

---

From historynewsnetwork.org: In his inaugural address Lincoln claimed, "No government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." The New York Times wrote that "from the fiery trial the loose federation emerged as a compact nation, which makes this the most significant inauguration after that of Washington." President Lincoln then proceeded to the White House where he received the Diplomatic Corps and well wishers. The inaugural events concluded when Lincoln and the rest of the presidential party made their appearance at the inaugural ball that was held the same evening.

(03-15-2018 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Wasn't there a modern movie several decades ago based on that same Presidential decoy theory?

See, it's not as far fetched as it at first seems

A modern movie several decades ago?
I guess time is relative.

Could you be referring to 'Dave'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTTe-rxTyh0

(03-15-2018 08:09 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Wasn't there a modern movie several decades ago based on that same Presidential decoy theory?

See, it's not as far fetched as it at first seems

A modern movie several decades ago?
I guess time is relative.

Could you be referring to 'Dave'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTTe-rxTyh0

I remember watching 'Dave' on TV when I was a kid!

(03-16-2018 02:32 AM)Steve Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 08:09 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 06:24 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Wasn't there a modern movie several decades ago based on that same Presidential decoy theory?

See, it's not as far fetched as it at first seems

A modern movie several decades ago?
I guess time is relative.

Could you be referring to 'Dave'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTTe-rxTyh0

I remember watching 'Dave' on TV when I was a kid!

"Dave" is exactly the one I was thinking of. And children, at my age "modern" means anything after 1960!

Gene, your post reminds me of this:
http://www.thecomicstrips.com/store/add.php?iid=32736

Thanks to Susan for posting the daguerreotype link. Following Laurie's lead I checked it out. Like Roger and Laurie I saw no resemblance to the Lincolns but wanting to learn I read both sides of the argument. As Laurie mentioned three Lincoln experts gave opinions and all three concluded the couple in the daguerreotype is not the Lincolns. These experts are Kim Bauer, Illinois State Historical Library, Daniel Weinberg and Tim Bakken of the Abraham Lincoln Book Shop and Lloyd Ostendorf, author of five Lincoln books. Ostendorf also owned one of the largest private collections of Lincoln photographs. He published "Lincoln in Photographs," which at the time contained every known picture of Lincoln.

So I'll stick with the experts. Thanks to http://abeandmarydag.com/ for posting their letters.

(03-15-2018 11:13 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Gene, your theory makes perfect sense to me!

I'm curious, Donna, are you the owner of the dag? Your remarks on this site have the same general tone and talking points as those on the dag's website, although I can see where you might be reluctant here to associate yourself with the website, given this diatribe there: "Since you Lincoln worshippers don't seem overly concerned with historical accuracy . . . "

I’m curious, Susan, are you owner of this site? Your remarks on this site have the same general tone and talking points as those on other Lincoln sites, although I can see where you might be reluctant here to associate yourself with those websites, given this diatribe there: “Abbott & Costello...1937...who’s on..........”
I suppose conspiracy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.