Laurie - I'm not an author or scholar or writer. I really don't do citations. Just recounting facts and information that I've encountered over the years that I had assumed Lincoln enthusiasts would know like the back of their hand.

Eva - I don't know why I even bother, but here goes; if you were to post the same profile shots of all of the roughly 130 images of Abraham Lincoln that show his right ear, your theory would crumble like a once popular Patsy Cline song (Gene can help you decipher this).

Susan - yes I can give many examples, but using your own words - and I quote, ("I'll let you look for it").

Dave - just my personal opinion, but anyone who conflates geocentric THEORIES and dwarf planets that no one can see ... with an unassailable truth shall hereby forfeit all rights and privileges for membership in the Common Sense Community.
Not to worry though, this in no way impacts the eligibility requirements for admittance into an antithetical entity known as the Lincoln Community.

(06-03-2019 01:10 AM)James Wrote:  Eva - I don't know why I even bother, but here goes; if you were to post the same profile shots of all of the roughly 130 images of Abraham Lincoln that show his right ear, your theory would crumble like a once popular Patsy Cline song (Gene can help you decipher this).

No, James, even then proportions wouldn't change to the extent to match the fake.
BTW, I think there's no "Lincoln community" that is bound to an opinion or agenda, at least on this forum everyone is an individual with independent opinions and different background. (Seems a neurosis of people who can't convince by evidence to feel a "conspiracy".) I simply see zero similarly, hence I don't believe your claims without evidence. So, please provide evidence if you seek to convince.

(06-03-2019 01:10 AM)James Wrote:  Eva - I don't know why I even bother, but here goes; if you were to post the same profile shots of all of the roughly 130 images of Abraham Lincoln that show his right ear, your theory would crumble like a once popular Patsy Cline song (Gene can help you decipher this).

James - Are you referring to "I Fall To Pieces" by Patsy Cline?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9loTXznGJy4

Unfortunately, after reading all your post on this I believe this one by Patsy Cline is more appropriate for you - "So Wrong"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kYbNfnTLc

(06-03-2019 01:10 AM)James Wrote:  Dave - just my personal opinion, but anyone who conflates geocentric THEORIES and dwarf planets that no one can see ... with an unassailable truth shall hereby forfeit all rights and privileges for membership in the Common Sense Community.
Not to worry though, this in no way impacts the eligibility requirements for admittance into an antithetical entity known as the Lincoln Community.

James and Donna (and I'm beginning to think it might be only Donna)-- Bona fide Lincoln relics are in a special niche in history. A true Lincoln relic, once discovered, must be authenticated by an authority, or the owner must be able to establish a chain of ownership from the Lincolns to the present. If you can't cite the photograph's provenance (maybe you have, and I missed it), then you must rely on authority. Have you consulted Daniel Weinberg, at the Abraham Lincoln Book Shop? I've heard him speak--he's objective. How about Harold Holzer, who has made studies of Lincoln's image? Both of these people would tell you what they sincerely believe to be the truth. And if they agreed with you, their opinions would truly matter. Suppose they didn't agree with you--then what? If you have no clear provenance, then the only course left to you is public opinion. Write a book, and hope it is read.

I have been again to abeandmarydag.com and re-read the photograph's history--history and provenance aren't the same thing. Where is the dag's connection to Lincoln?

About the "Unassailable Truth"--If truth were unassailable, then none of us would have to think. The maddening fact is that the future often enough reveals that an idea once derided, is in fact so. Maybe you will just have to wait for the rest of us to see the truth.

When I responded to Donna some time ago, I mentioned that one main effect of sarcasm, which you employ in a way similar to Donna, is to undermine the user's credibility. You do your cause no favors. I understand that you are frustrated, and your long recent post does indicate that you are sincere. But I think that you are also wrong.

(06-03-2019 01:00 AM)Steve Wrote:  Here's a comparison of the woman with Mary (although Mary's dag on the right dates from a decade earlier based on the other woman's clothing). Just study the couple's faces and compare them to the known images. Where's the resemblance at all to either of the Lincolns?

And, referring to your claim that Mary Lincoln had a noticeable scar on her forehead, I contacted one of the best known authors in the field who specializes in the history of Mrs. Lincoln. Here is the reply: "The daguerreotype is so obviously not Abraham and Mary Lincoln I don't even know what to say... In reading (literally) everything ever written by and about Mary Lincoln... , I can tell you I have never heard mention of a scar on her forehead. If there was a scar, I agree with you that one or more reporters would have written about it, some DC socialite who hated Mary would have written it in a later memoir, and Mary herself definitely would have complained about it in her own letters."

I don't even see a scar on the purported Mary's forehead. What I do notice is that she is wearing multiple, rather heavy rings. The actual Mary, by contrast, seems to have kept her rings to a minimum.

(06-03-2019 08:32 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:00 AM)Steve Wrote:  Here's a comparison of the woman with Mary (although Mary's dag on the right dates from a decade earlier based on the other woman's clothing). Just study the couple's faces and compare them to the known images. Where's the resemblance at all to either of the Lincolns?

And, referring to your claim that Mary Lincoln had a noticeable scar on her forehead, I contacted one of the best known authors in the field who specializes in the history of Mrs. Lincoln. Here is the reply: "The daguerreotype is so obviously not Abraham and Mary Lincoln I don't even know what to say... In reading (literally) everything ever written by and about Mary Lincoln... , I can tell you I have never heard mention of a scar on her forehead. If there was a scar, I agree with you that one or more reporters would have written about it, some DC socialite who hated Mary would have written it in a later memoir, and Mary herself definitely would have complained about it in her own letters."

And, adding to the comments regarding the watch chain, an eminent authority on the Lincolns, just sent this to me, "Besides, Lincoln didn’t own a watch chain like that until he got one from the great northwestern sanitary fair women in ... late 63 or early 64." (James - Please note that this is a good example of a documented citation.)

And this from an expert in the field of photographic history: "So wrong on every level. ... It would be amusing to see how they arrived at the date. Neither look anything like Abe or Mary. Just another of the countless spurious images of 'Lincoln.'"

There can be no doubt that the purported dag of the Lincolns is really not them.

(06-02-2019 04:24 PM)James Wrote:  There are several colorful descriptions describing Abe's right side, a couple of which are highlighted in the Kunhardt's book I mentioned. Something to the effect that he teetered to one side like a sailor trying to find his sea legs. There are more descriptions that I've run across over the years that I can't recall at the moment but they are well documented, and coupled with the photographic record, leave little doubt about his right side being "compromised" for lack of a better term.

James - this morning I went through my copy of Dr. John Sotos' The Physical Lincoln. As far as I know, this is the most complete study of the physical Abraham Lincoln that has ever been published. I cannot find anything in the book where Dr. Sotos finds that Lincoln's right shoulder, arm, and hand were "compromised." I am 100% confident that if what you say were true Dr. Sotos would have spent time discussing it in his study.

I find this particularly interesting because Dr. Sotos believes Lincoln suffered from a rare genetic cancer syndrome called MEN2B (multiple endocrine neoplasia, type 2B). So he is especially looking for any weaknesses, irregularities, oddities, etc. in Lincoln's physique. Yet there is no mention of this right side weakness you indicate you have read about.

You say that you have run across "more descriptions" over the years - please do your best to post these "well documented" descriptions. I will look forward to reading your citations.

On the alleged picture of Abraham and Mary, I have never seen a photo of Mary looking so thin, especially her photo's during the White House years and later.

Her arms, hands and fingers, face (jaw line) in other pictures, even as a widow, never showed her as gaunt as the daguerreotype that is alleged to be Mary and Abraham.

I'm going to post an interesting video from the George Eastman Museum in "Other" - Daguerreotype" .

(06-03-2019 08:32 AM)L Verge Wrote:  [quote='Steve' pid='77155' dateline='1559541608']

And, referring to your claim that Mary Lincoln had a noticeable scar on her forehead, I contacted one of the best known authors in the field who specializes in the history of Mrs. Lincoln. Here is the reply: "The daguerreotype is so obviously not Abraham and Mary Lincoln I don't even know what to say... In reading (literally) everything ever written by and about Mary Lincoln... , I can tell you I have never heard mention of a scar on her forehead. If there was a scar, I agree with you that one or more reporters would have written about it, some DC socialite who hated Mary would have written it in a later memoir, and Mary herself definitely would have complained about it in her own letters."

Laurie - on page 287 of the Kunhardt's book ... Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography ... is a photograph of Mary that was cropped and enlarged. It clearly shows the large scar on her forehead above her right eye.

Just curious, based on appearances alone how old, or what age-range would you place the couple in the photograph?

Also basing on mostly the women's clothing and hairstyle, I would tentatively guess the daguerreotype was taken in the early-to-mid 1850s. I'm not an expert though, so if there are any experts out there, or if anybody knows any experts - I would love to hear their thoughts on the age of the photograph based on the subjects' styles.

(06-03-2019 09:50 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 04:24 PM)James Wrote:  There are several colorful descriptions describing Abe's right side, a couple of which are highlighted in the Kunhardt's book I mentioned. Something to the effect that he teetered to one side like a sailor trying to find his sea legs. There are more descriptions that I've run across over the years that I can't recall at the moment but they are well documented, and coupled with the photographic record, leave little doubt about his right side being "compromised" for lack of a better term.

James - this morning I went through my copy of Dr. John Sotos' The Physical Lincoln. As far as I know, this is the most complete study of the physical Abraham Lincoln that has ever been published. I cannot find anything in the book where Dr. Sotos finds that Lincoln's right shoulder, arm, and hand were "compromised." I am 100% confident that if what you say were true Dr. Sotos would have spent time discussing it in his study.

I find this particularly interesting because Dr. Sotos believes Lincoln suffered from a rare genetic cancer syndrome called MEN2B (multiple endocrine neoplasia, type 2B). So he is especially looking for any weaknesses, irregularities, oddities, etc. in Lincoln's physique. Yet there is no mention of this right side weakness you indicate you have read about.

You say that you have run across "more descriptions" over the years - please do your best to post these "well documented" descriptions. I will look forward to reading your citations.

Roger - Is Dr. Sotos still alive? I have no knowledge of him or his work but I'm curious if he studied the entire photographic record of Abraham Lincoln in conjunction with the written materials he must have poured over to complete his analysis. I would be interested to hear any reasonable explanation for the rolled up papers and piece of whittled broomstick Abe is clutching in photos and plaster castings of his hands.
Since Dr. Sotos obviously was unable to actually examine Abraham Lincoln, he's reliant on hearsay (contemporary sources) to reach his conclusions. Lincoln was a beloved figure, and it's not unreasonable to assume that certain information was withheld in an effort to cast him in a reverential light. Franklin Delano Roosevelt comes to mind. How many American citizens were even aware that he was, for all practical purposes, bound to a wheelchair as the result of polio?
On the subject of the watch chain you mentioned earlier, there is a photo on page 270 of the Kunhardt's book ... Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography ... that show a watch chain. Not sure if it's the same one as depicted in the dag image, but it shows a similar effect as the one in question. Parts of the chain appear wider than other sections due to angles and lighting and possible distortion. The image on 270 is not a daguerreotype and less likely to be affected by distortion, and yet still shows some of the same effects as the other one.

---

(06-03-2019 08:31 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:10 AM)James Wrote:  Dave - just my personal opinion, but anyone who conflates geocentric THEORIES and dwarf planets that no one can see ... with an unassailable truth shall hereby forfeit all rights and privileges for membership in the Common Sense Community.
Not to worry though, this in no way impacts the eligibility requirements for admittance into an antithetical entity known as the Lincoln Community.

James and Donna (and I'm beginning to think it might be only Donna)-- Bona fide Lincoln relics are in a special niche in history. A true Lincoln relic, once discovered, must be authenticated by an authority, or the owner must be able to establish a chain of ownership from the Lincolns to the present. If you can't cite the photograph's provenance (maybe you have, and I missed it), then you must rely on authority. Have you consulted Daniel Weinberg, at the Abraham Lincoln Book Shop? I've heard him speak--he's objective. How about Harold Holzer, who has made studies of Lincoln's image? Both of these people would tell you what they sincerely believe to be the truth. And if they agreed with you, their opinions would truly matter. Suppose they didn't agree with you--then what? If you have no clear provenance, then the only course left to you is public opinion. Write a book, and hope it is read.

I have been again to abeandmarydag.com and re-read the photograph's history--history and provenance aren't the same thing. Where is the dag's connection to Lincoln?

About the "Unassailable Truth"--If truth were unassailable, then none of us would have to think. The maddening fact is that the future often enough reveals that an idea once derided, is in fact so. Maybe you will just have to wait for the rest of us to see the truth.

When I responded to Donna some time ago, I mentioned that one main effect of sarcasm, which you employ in a way similar to Donna, is to undermine the user's credibility. You do your cause no favors. I understand that you are frustrated, and your long recent post does indicate that you are sincere. But I think that you are also wrong.

Dave - Mr. Weinberg was contacted right after the discovery of the daguerreotype. He (and Timothy Bakken) stated the couple were of equal height, that the gentleman was too neatly and nattily dressed to be Abraham Lincoln, even to the point of holding a "hanky" in his left hand. Objectivity is only one part of the equation. Rudimentary powers of observation and reasoning also have to be applied in authenticating a photograph.
Obviously, you're right about the sarcasm, but let's be honest; it cuts both ways. It's a contentious debate. Both sides are convinced they're right. That's why I'm attempting to allow the visual evidence to do the speaking. But at some point, people have to come to their senses. You folks are throwing everything in your arsenal at what you are convinced is a phony pane of glass. You're convinced that the next rock, the next bottle, the brick ...is going to break it. It's BULLETPROOF! You can't break it. It's the real deal. You're just going to have to deal with reality at some point. And that's not sarcasm, that's just the honest-to-god's truth.

The image of Abraham Lincoln's face in the daguerreotype offered to us in this thread is not at all similar to any of the frontal images of the sixteenth president offered in the book, entitled LINCOLN, LIFE-SIZE by Philip B. Kunhardt III, Peter W. Kunhardt and Peter W. Kunhardt, Jr., published by Alfred A. Knopf in 2009 which contains most all the known photos of Lincoln taken during his life-time.

I have to admit that the lady's nose has a similarity to Mary's. But then that would apply to a few hundred thousand other noses.
The man does have a beard that is rather like Lincoln's.
A slight problem with the heights though? Obviously they are sitting, but I doubt that there is 15 cm ( 6 inches) ... as opposed to 36 cm (14 inches) Lincoln and Mary's .... difference between them.

---

I know I cannot compete with Gene, but how about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRjQDrDnY8