(03-17-2018 01:25 PM)Donna Wrote:  

(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.

I'm sorry, but that seems to me to be a rather inane comment that does nothing to address the original purpose of your post, which I thought was to seek opinions from others well-versed in the field as to the authenticity of said daguerreotype. Do honest and well-thought-out opinions (based on years of research in the field) stand for nothing?

How many doubts does it take from well-trained folks before one concedes that the photo may not be of the Lincolns? On the other hand, can you post positive identifications and reasons that you have received from other well-qualified people?

(03-17-2018 01:25 PM)Donna Wrote:  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.

It's interesting to see how someone responds to a request for an opinion or information, when the answer they receive is not what they wanted to hear.

I see here a search for affirmation instead of a sincere request for an honest answer.

(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.

Gene, I'm no expert in Pinkerton decoy theory but your idea could explain discrepancies between the reports of what Mary was wearing at the 1861 inaugural ball. i.e color of the dress and jewelry. Pinkerton may have planted more than one decoy couple at the event and that image is yet to be discovered.

(03-17-2018 01:34 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 01:25 PM)Donna Wrote:  

(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.

I'm sorry, but that seems to me to be a rather inane comment that does nothing to address the original purpose of your post, which I thought was to seek opinions from others well-versed in the field as to the authenticity of said daguerreotype. Do honest and well-thought-out opinions (based on years of research in the field) stand for nothing?

How many doubts does it take from well-trained folks before one concedes that the photo may not be of the Lincolns? On the other hand, can you post positive identifications and reasons that you have received from other well-qualified people?

So Laurie, are we now ready to dispense with the vitriol, sarcasm, condescension, (I’m guilty as well) and as noted in earlier posts, the guessing, theories, and opinions that only serve to muddy the waters? Not to belabor the point, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that ‘well trained folks’ and ‘others well-versed in the field (based on years of research in the field)’ yielded no positive contribution to an easily obtained truth until faced with incontrovertible evidence that could no longer be explained away with said opinions and theories. As I stated earlier, I’m interested in concise, factual, delineated arguments. No, I don’t own the dag. I know the guy that does. He attempted to register on this forum years ago to debate this issue but was denied membership. And no, he’s not going to “back off”. Won’t happen. It is incumbent upon the Lincoln community, if in fact their collective goal is to rid the internet of yet another in a long line of what they deem questionable photographs of Lincoln that they take issue with, to present a factual argument based on visual evidence present in the dag image that will put to rest once and for all any notion that the couple are Abraham and Mary Lincoln. A reasonable debate can’t take place if one side refuses to engage. There is a reason that the dag in question has never been legitimately challenged, and is not now being legitimately challenged on a forum maintained by and perused by highly intelligent men and woman fully capable of articulating such an argument if one were to exist. The reason is, as unpopular as it might be here, is that the argument for the daguerreotype being an authentic image of Abe and Mary is quite simply overwhelming and unassailable. If it were truly a mid-nineteenth century dag of an unknown couple who vaguely resembled the Lincolns, visual evidence would be, again, overwhelming and indisputable. End of story. Case closed. A nice vintage Victorian dag of no real historical or monetary value. But there is no such evidence. In fact, there is not a single scar or identifying characteristic present that one could point to as being foreign to either Abe OR Mary. This nonsense about comparative height is just that...nonsense. Abe’s height was disproportionately in his legs. He was no taller than an average man when seated. This not an opinion or theory. It has been described and documented by his contemporaries. Factor in the neck and waistlines - and the obvious fact that Mary is clearly seated higher than Abe - and this contentious narrative vanishes. As would many others if I had the motivation to pursue them on this forum. Which I don’t. It would most likely be an exercise in futility. I say it’s them. You say it’s not. Yes it is. No it’s not. Back and forth we go. You say something laced with sarcasm...I respond in kind. Or vice-versa. You think you’re right. I KNOW I’m right. To what end? Besides, Roger Norton is flat-out, hands-down the NICEST human being on the planet! Really. He founded this forum and deserves a more cerebral discussion than what we’ve delivered here. Sorry things kind of went down hill, Roger. This will be my last post here. Unless someone says something smart. Then all bets are off! My objective in starting this thread was to put to rest once and for all this mistaken notion about the blue gown and seed pearl jewelry being worn to the 1861 inaugural ball by Mary. Not because I care one whit about Victorian fashion, but because the blue gown Mary is wearing in the dag is just one more piece of the puzzle. So Thank You ladies, for posting the additional articles describing the gown, though it was like pulling teeth to get the ball rolling. By the way, those of you who really are interested in Victorian fashion should Google point d’ Alencon lace. It’s not your typical run-of-the-mill frumpy housewife clothing accessory. It has a fascinating history and was basically worn by royalty or the upper-upper crust, and young women had to apprentice for 7 to 10 YEARS before they could work in the factory that produced it. Wow! I wasn’t aware of that prior to Susan’s post. I would thank her, but her ESP appears to be finely tuned.

In what I hope is my final posting on this matter, I have to say that I believe you have gotten honest and well-researched answers from quite a variety of folks on this forum as well as in the professional Lincoln field over at least 25 years. Obviously, you have not gotten the answer you are wishing for or you would not be continuing this discussion and refusing to hear our views. You also would not be labeling so much good information as sarcasm...

With such a track record, it is my opinion that you will not get the positive answer that you are hoping for -- but I wish you luck and encourage you to keep searching. And, thank you for complimenting Roger on the wonderful forum that he maintains. On that subject, I think we can all agree.

P.S. If we have gotten you intrigued in Victorian fashion and needlework, Surratt House Museum offers several classes in the field as of last year. I actually own a few pieces of point d'Alencon lace that belonged to my great-grandmother during the mid-1800s. They are truly lovely. This style of lace (French, of course) has been called the "Queen of Lace." Sorry, gents, for side-tracking with a little feminine fashion history, but men of the early centuries (1600s, etc.) would have worn such lace at their cuffs and necks also.

Since some would consider me an expert on 19th century fashion, and definitely the clothing of Mary Lincoln, I have some comments about the daguerreotype previously mentioned. I did go to the website and read the commentary about the image.

This image was not created in 1861.
Since photography was new and expensive, most people wore their newest and best fashion when sitting for a photograph. Let's assume the couple in the photo did the same.
Someone previously mentioned that the dress in the photo appears to have been from the 1850's or as early as the 1840's. Based on years of research, my vote is for the 1840's - or at least the dress is from the 1840's. Day dresses (and this is a day dress not a ball gown) are unique because of the bodice style. They have tighter sleeves and the trim detail is placed from the elbow to the wrist. Bodices have a narrow shoulder line than previous fashions. Bodices often have flat folds in the front, and the waist line is lower and pointed. These details are all visible in the image. The women wears an 1840's lace collar (not a cape) that is wider than those of the 1860's. Her hairstyle is that of the 1840's with the hair closer to the head on the top and adorned with spaniel curls.

By now, most historians realize that Mary wore a blue, watered silk, ball gown with a bertha of d'Alencon lace, a head dress containing a blue ostrich feather, and the seed-pearl parure that had been recently purchased at Tiffany & Co.

Yes, there are older books which mistakenly name one of the white ball gowns as the inaugural gown. I believe this is because in his book, Lloyd Ostendorf speculated one of these gowns was worn at the inaugural ball. He made a mistake. It happens. Lloyd was not knowledgeable about women's fashions, nor did he research Mary's attire.

Concerning the purchase date of the Tiffany seed-pearl parure . . . According to John Loring's book, TIFFANY'S 150 YEARS, the set was purchased during the New York stop of the inaugural trip to Washington on February 20, 1861.

Laurie, I so wish I lived closer to you! I would love to attend some of the classes you mentioned and would enjoy seeing your d'Alencon lace. And yes, I too must say "sorry gents" for including so much women's fashion information . . . but admit it . . . you found it interesting too . . . now didn't you?

(03-27-2018 01:07 PM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  Since some would consider me an expert on 19th century fashion, and definitely the clothing of Mary Lincoln, I have some comments about the daguerreotype previously mentioned. I did go to the website and read the commentary about the image.

This image was not created in 1861.
Since photography was new and expensive, most people wore their newest and best fashion when sitting for a photograph. Let's assume the couple in the photo did the same.
Someone previously mentioned that the dress in the photo appears to have been from the 1850's or as early as the 1840's. Based on years of research, my vote is for the 1840's - or at least the dress is from the 1840's. Day dresses (and this is a day dress not a ball gown) are unique because of the bodice style. They have tighter sleeves and the trim detail is placed from the elbow to the wrist. Bodices have a narrow shoulder line than previous fashions. Bodices often have flat folds in the front, and the waist line is lower and pointed. These details are all visible in the image. The women wears an 1840's lace collar (not a cape) that is wider than those of the 1860's. Her hairstyle is that of the 1840's with the hair closer to the head on the top and adorned with spaniel curls.

By now, most historians realize that Mary wore a blue, watered silk, ball gown with a bertha of d'Alencon lace, a head dress containing a blue ostrich feather, and the seed-pearl parure that had been recently purchased at Tiffany & Co.

Yes, there are older books which mistakenly name one of the white ball gowns as the inaugural gown. I believe this is because in his book, Lloyd Ostendorf speculated one of these gowns was worn at the inaugural ball. He made a mistake. It happens. Lloyd was not knowledgeable about women's fashions, nor did he research Mary's attire.

Concerning the purchase date of the Tiffany seed-pearl parure . . . According to John Loring's book, TIFFANY'S 150 YEARS, the set was purchased during the New York stop of the inaugural trip to Washington on February 20, 1861.

Laurie, I so wish I lived closer to you! I would love to attend some of the classes you mentioned and would enjoy seeing your d'Alencon lace. And yes, I too must say "sorry gents" for including so much women's fashion information . . . but admit it . . . you found it interesting too . . . now didn't you?

Donna - We would love to have you nearby in order to teach some classes and present some of our programs. Maybe even entice you to be a costumed volunteer guide!

Your type of research in the Lincoln field is what appeals especially to the newcomers who don't want a doctoral dissertation. Susan H. on this forum is just that kind of historian also, and she drives about two hours to volunteer at Surratt House. Your travel time would be a tad longer, however...

(03-27-2018 01:07 PM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  And yes, I too must say "sorry gents" for including so much women's fashion information . . . but admit it . . . you found it interesting too . . . now didn't you?

Yes, I did.
Which reminds me of a song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cr_apcZkpY

Somehow, "She Wore Blue Watered Silk" doesn't have the same ring to it

I know I said that last post was my last post, but I miss you all. Plus I’m bored.
Donna McCreary.....you wrote.....”Since some would consider me an expert on 19th century fashion, and definitely the clothing of Mary Lincoln, I have some comments about the daguerreotype previously mentioned”.
Yes. Some would, as I’ve discerned from prior posts. I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it, since I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about 19th century fashion. And I got no plans to study up on it anytime soon. You could tell me she’s dressed like a pilgrim fresh off the Mayflower and I couldn’t argue with you. More importantly to me is the identity of the lady underneath all that very descriptive material, and I KNOW exactly who that is, as do a few others from your neck of the woods.
But I truly, sincerely.....implore you to tap the brakes on the seed pearl parure ‘theory’. Otherwise you’re going to end up with as much egg on your face as Donald Ackerman, who is still waiting for the white inaugural gown to surface so he can purchase it. My only observation about the white point d’Alencon lace collar and the seed pearl necklace is that they wouldn’t go together from a fashion point of view. I may very well be dead wrong on this particular point but I look at that lace collar and I just can’t picture a seed pearl necklace on top of it. That’s just my two cents. Fortunately I don’t need to argue that point because it never happened. There is no contemporaneous witness account backing up your claim, or that of John Loring. You may very well be correct in reference to a book he wrote, but this is simply more misinformation being put out for public consumption until eventually it becomes ‘fact’. Mr. Loring has authored over 20 books on Tiffany & Co. and the book you referred to was published in 1987. He first started working at Tiffany’s in 1979 and is still employed there today. He should know better. Their own records indicate April 28th, 1862 as the date of purchase. Had he simply walked down the hall from his office and taken the first left to the records department, 3rd gun-metal grey filing cabinet on the right, second drawer down (again - I’m like totally guessing here), some of this confusion could have been avoided. To be fair to Mr. Loring though, there is the 18,000 plus Lincoln biographies out there, many of which echo the same thing, so let’s not judge John too harshly. It’s not like he started the whole thing. (Hmmm.....I wonder what the odds are they find some brand new ‘long-lost’ records up there at Tiffany’s in the next few day or weeks that just coincidentally confirm February 20th, 1861 as the date of purchase?)
The following is an entry in the Lincoln Log, a website that attempts to chronicle the whereabouts and activities of every day of Abraham Lincoln’s life. Literally! No joke. It really is a valuable resource for the public. This particular entry describes the activities of Lincoln on February 20th, 1861. It is simply illogical to assume that a man as recognizable as Abraham Lincoln, while the center of attention in the middle of New York City and in high demand on his way to Washington to be inaugurated as our nation’s 16th President, could somehow sneak away with Mary to go shopping for seed pearls at Tiffany’s in Manhattan and NO ONE NOTICED! He was a great man. He did great things. He wasn’t invisible.
One more thing. There was an article in Forbes in 2015 that goes as follows.....”In 1862, in commemoration of his election the previous year, American President Abraham Lincoln commissioned Tiffany & Co. to create a seed pearl parure for his wife, Mary Lincoln”. The operative words of course being the date, commissioned, and create. IF, and that may very well be a big IF, but IF the author knows what she is talking about, then that puts her and John at loggerheads. I’m betting on the girl.


New York, NY.

Accompanied by Thurlow Weed, N. B. Judd, James W. Webb, editor, "Morning Courier and New York Enquirer," and Gov. William Sprague (R.I.), Lincoln leaves Astor House at 8:30 A.M. to breakfast with selected group of merchants at home of former Cong. Moses H. Grinnell (N.Y.), New York merchant. N.Y. World, 21 February 1861; N.Y. Times, 21 February 1861; N.Y. Herald, 21 February 1861.

Returns to hotel at 10:30 A.M. and meets Joshua Dewey, aged 94, who has voted at every presidential election since George Washington's. N.Y. Times, 21 February 1861.

Committee from common council headed by Alderman Cornell escorts Lincoln to City Hall at 11 A.M. to meet Mayor Fernando Wood and council. Replying to Wood's speech, Lincoln says: "There is nothing that can ever bring me willingly to consent to the destruction of this Union, under which . . . the whole country has acquired its greatness, unless it were to be that thing for which the Union itself was made." N.Y. Times, 21 February 1861; Reply to Mayor Fernando Wood at New York City, 20 February 1861, CW, 4:232-33.

Remains for public reception; "motley crowd poured in"; shakes hands with 30 veterans of War of 1812; makes brief remarks from balcony of City Hall; and returns to hotel shortly after 1 P.M. N.Y. Times, 21 February 1861; Cleveland Plain Dealer, 20 February 1861; N.Y. Herald, 21 February 1861.

In afternoon receives number of friends privately. N.Y. Times, 21 February 1861.

Showman P. T. Barnum invites him to museum, but he does not go; Mrs. Lincoln and children accept. Meets former Gov. Hamilton Fish (N.Y.). Receives hats from both Knox and Leary, New York hatters; when asked their relative value, comments, "They mutually surpassed each other." N.Y. World, 21 February 1861.

Vice President-elect Hamlin arrives in New York and dines with Lincoln family in its hotel rooms. Baltimore Sun, 22 February 1861.

Lincoln, Judge Davis, and Alderman Cornell arrive late at Academy of Music for performance of Verdi's new opera "Un Ballo in Maschera." N.Y. World, 21 February 1861; N.Y. Times, 21 February 1861.

Lincoln wears black gloves and shocks city's é lite. Monaghan, Diplomat, 31.

After first act takes two bows in response to applause. Audience and cast sing "The Star Spangled Banner." Lincoln returns to hotel after second act. N.Y. World, 21 February 1861.

Hamlin speaks from window of ladies' parlor. Presidential party serenaded by German quartette from Hoboken and by National Guard band. N.Y. Times, 21 February 1861.

[Irwin withdraws $7 from Springfield Marine Bank. Pratt, Personal Finances, 176.]

Mrs. Lincoln holds reception at Astor House 8:30 to 10 P.M. N.Y. Times, 21 February 1861.

-

Am I dreaming, or wasn't this exact same thing posted several days ago?

(03-31-2018 11:03 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Am I dreaming, or wasn't this exact same thing posted several days ago?

Yes, it was deleted by Donna (not Donna McCreary) and now re-posted in another thread. Because the deleted post began a new thread, all subsequent posts were also deleted when Donna (not Donna McCreary) deleted her post. I remember Susan and others replied, but those posts were thus deleted. I am hoping Donna (not Donna McCreary) will explain why she did this. I believe the writers of the software felt that if the original post in a thread were gone, then the follow-ups might make no sense because of the missing initial post. So I am guessing that's why they wrote it into the code for the forum.

Donna (not Donna McCreary), please send me an email explaining why you did this. Thanks.

(03-31-2018 12:41 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 11:03 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Am I dreaming, or wasn't this exact same thing posted several days ago?

Yes, it was deleted by Donna (not Donna McCreary) and now re-posted in another thread. Because the deleted post began a new thread, all subsequent posts were also deleted when Donna (not Donna McCreary) deleted her post. I remember Susan and others replied, but those posts were thus deleted. I am hoping Donna (not Donna McCreary) will explain why she did this. I believe the writers of the software felt that if the original post in a thread were gone, then the follow-ups might make no sense because of the missing initial post. So I am guessing that's why they wrote it into the code for the forum.


Donna (not Donna McCreary), please send me an email explaining why you did this. Thanks.

I certainly understand why the creators of the software would also delete subsequent posts - sometimes they would not make sense without knowing what the original entry said. I can also see, however, that it makes for a convenient way to wipe out posts that the originator does not care for... Interesting ploy.

I have retrieved many of the posts that were deleted. The thread that was deleted was entitled 19th Century Fashion.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Susan responded to Donna's initial post in the thread as follows:

The problem in not knowing anything about 19th-century fashion is that at least a working knowledge of fashion is crucial in dating 19th-century photographs, which more often than not aren't accompanied by identifying information. So it's not particularly wise to boast about your lack of knowledge in this respect, at least if you're trying to prove that a photograph was taken on a particular date.

Since you claim that the photograph is of the Lincolns, what evidence do you have to that effect? Have you or your friend had it appraised by a dealer in photographs, who could look at the format, the matte, and the case as clues to dating it? Have you compared it to known photographs of the Lincolns from 1861? Have you or your friend taken it to an auction house or to an institution like the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield for authentication? Don't you think that these institutions would be delighted to know of such a find? I've encountered several people who have the strange notion that the Lincoln community is determined to suppress newly discovered photographs of Lincoln, when the real problem is that the photographs just aren't of Lincoln.

As for the issue of the seed pearls, which really has nothing to do with the photograph, Mary was in New York twice in early 1861 before the inauguration, once by herself and once with Lincoln. It's quite possible that on either occasion she might have stopped by Tiffany's and ordered something for herself as a gift from Lincoln; alternatively, she might have ordered them sometime after the inauguration. Neither she nor Lincoln were in New York on April 28, 1862, however, but given Mary's habit of buying on credit, it's quite possible that the set was ordered prior to April 28 and paid for on that date.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I then posted:

The LOC page makes no sense to me. It says:

"Notes - The jewelry came to the Library in 1937 as part of the gift from Lincoln's granddaughter, Mary Lincoln Isham - Tiffany records indicate that President Abraham Lincoln purchased the items on April 28, 1862 in Manhattan. "The pearl necklace sold for $180 and the two bracelets for $350., and that on January 24, 1863, we sold two bracelets to order for $350. - Mary Todd Lincoln wore the jewelry to the first Lincoln inaugural ball."

Both dates given are well after the first inaugural ball, so what jewelry are they talking about? This makes no sense to me...

https://www.loc.gov/item/scsm001298/

Donna, you might be interested in Donna McCreary's book here:

https://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-First...a+McCreary

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Laurie posted:


Whoever wrote the provenance on the jewelry (whether a family member or a curator) for the LOC must have been a bit disoriented that day. One comment: Willie Lincoln died on February 20, 1862. I doubt seriously that either the President or Mrs. Lincoln was doing any buying of jewelry in NYC just two months later -- no matter how hard they were trying to escape depression.

Mrs. Lincoln visited NYC in December of 1860. I'm betting that she purchased the jewelry on credit at that time. Merchants were very happy, throughout the Lincoln years in the White House, to shower the First Lady with items on credit. That's what led to all the problems financially.

"Since you claim that the photograph is of the Lincolns, what evidence do you have to that effect? Have you or your friend had it appraised by a dealer in photographs, who could look at the format, the matte, and the case as clues to dating it? Have you compared it to known photographs of the Lincolns from 1861? Have you or your friend taken it to an auction house or to an institution like the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield for authentication? Don't you think that these institutions would be delighted to know of such a find? I've encountered several people who have the strange notion that the Lincoln community is determined to suppress newly discovered photographs of Lincoln, when the real problem is that the photographs just aren't of Lincoln."

Thank you, Susan, for succinctly listing the things that need to be done/proved in order to reach a solid conclusion as to the authenticity of this particular photo. Most of us have tried to impress this upon the owner/defender in previous posts, but you have stated the general rules of gaining acceptance of one's theories or research. It appears to me that knowledgeable people have been approached and have given logical answers as to why they do not consider it to be a Lincoln photograph. Those who possess the item just don't want to accept the fact that it is very likely not what they want it to be.

As for period dress being questioned: I spent 25 years living in my great-grandparents' house that still had vintage clothing hanging in closets and stored in wardrobes and chests (dating to the 1860s and up). I have also worked at Surratt House for 43 years with authentically reproduced garments worn every day by our tour guides. We also have a research center onsite with several shelves devoted to 19th-century clothing styles and culture in general.

As a result of this, I have become even more familiar with the styles of Mary Lincoln's time. I can only say that I agree with the assessments of the garb, hairstyle, etc. made here by recognized experts in the field and agree that it works against the theory that the photo shows Mary Lincoln.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Laurie then posted:

Go here https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2016/12/rare-i...treasures/ then scroll down to the 4th reader's comment in which the post seems to indicate that Lincoln bought the jewelry for Mary's birthday on December 13, 1860, assuring that she would be adorned in finery for the inaugural ball -- or Mary gave herself a birthday gift when visiting NYC in December 1860...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Eva posted:

Didn't we try to figure the Tiffany records issue (and that A. Lincoln evidently was in DC on that day) on another thread and conclude it might have been the date the bill was finally paid (belated)?

Since Gene just provided another example - obviously all 19th century photos depicting persons with the similar hairdo/beard as Mrs. /Mr. Lincoln even if little or zero other resemblance than that can per se be declared to depict the Lincolns and are in dubio pro reo to be acknowledged as such without any evidence to support the claim unless evidence has been provided that they are not. Weird.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Susan posted:

To say the least.

I emailed Tiffany's press office to see if the staff there could provide any other information as to the date the set was purchased. Not being a member of the press, I don't know if I'll hear back, but I figured it was worth a try.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   

This photo of Mary was taken sometime in 1861 prior to the month of September. We know this because Elizabeth Todd Grimsley (Mary's first cousin) came to Washington DC with Mary and stayed for a six month visit. When Elizabeth left to return to Springfield, IL, Mary gave her this dress. Currently, the dress is in the First Ladies' Collection at the Smithsonian. It was given to them by the family, so the documentation on the dress is considered solid. It has been altered, but it is the same dress. Look carefully at Mary's jewelry. She is wearing the Tiffany Seed-pearl Parure consisting of a necklace, brooch, pair of earrings, and a pair of bracelets. The necklace and bracelets from this set are at the LOC. No one knows what became of the brooch and earrings.

   

This photo of Mary was also taken in early 1861. Some existing CDV's of this image are dated 1861. Others are dated 1862, but it was a common practice for a photographer to reprint photographs. Many believe this gown was Mary's alternative inaugural ball gown for 1861. (Obviously she chose to wear the blue silk instead of this one.) Note the jewelry. She wears the Tiffany earrings, bracelets, and brooch. Look closely at the necklace. It is similar, but different. The medallions are more circular than the ones found on the other pieces. It is impossible to know why this different necklace was worn. Did she purchase this one and then exchange it at a later date? Did this one come from a different store? Was this one loaned to her and then she ordered a different necklace? Any of these reasons may explain why the "paid" date is different from the "purchase" date. Exactly why the difference, we just do not know.

No matter the reason for the different necklaces, both are lovely and prove than Mary had exquisite taste in jewelry.

For more information, see FASHIONABLE FIRST LADY, pages 30-31; 38-39; and pages 44-49.

(03-31-2018 12:41 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(03-31-2018 11:03 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Am I dreaming, or wasn't this exact same thing posted several days ago?

Yes, it was deleted and now re-posted in another thread. Because the deleted post began a new thread, all subsequent posts were also deleted when Donna deleted her post. I remember Susan and others replied, but those posts were thus deleted. I am hoping Donna will explain why she did this. I believe the writers of the software felt that if the original post in a thread were gone, then the follow-ups might make no sense because of the missing initial post. So I am guessing that's why they wrote it into the code for the forum.

Donna, please send me an email explaining why you did this. Thanks.

To be clear, I am not the Donna who deleted a post about 19th century fashion. It was someone else with the same first name. I think too highly of Roger and everyone on this forum to cause such a stir and then delete the evidence.