This picture is just strange, almost like the heads were photo shopped onto different bodies, or two different people's picture combined into one picture.
In the middle, what are they leaning their arms on?
Her left sleeve looks like the material changes between her elbow and shoulder. The entire left sleeve just looks - strange....
Whats that at the end of her left sleeve, almost looks like a wrist brace or a wide watch band.
Some one, at some time added the gold color to his cane head, watch chain and her jewelry.

Other than that, it's a nice picture of some couple.

I decided to work on the image itself since James in post #143 stated "Every single identifying mark, scar and characteristic that is known to be unique to either Abe or Mary is present in the dag image. There is none, not a single solitary scar, mark or characteristic foreign to either Abe or Mary that is present in the dag image." Go to #143 to read his complete post.

I decided to focus on Lincoln's left hand in the dag and compared it to Lincoln's left hand in the photograph here http://www.physical-lincoln.com/exposure/A64b4 Click on the top image B4246. Then hit control + about four times. Then enlarge the dag and compare the back of the left hand in the dag image to the one in the Lincoln photograph.

You can clearly see the vein (and even tendon) patterns are clearly different from James's dag Lincoln.

(06-14-2019 11:02 AM)Gene C Wrote:  This picture is just strange, almost like the heads were photo shopped onto different bodies, or two different people's picture combined into one picture.
In the middle, what are they leaning their arms on?
Her left sleeve looks like the material changes between her elbow and shoulder. The entire left sleeve just looks - strange....
Whats that at the end of her left sleeve, almost looks like a wrist brace or a wide watch band.
Some one, at some time added the gold color to his cane head, watch chain and her jewelry.

Other than that, it's a nice picture of some couple.

I agree, Gene. Over the past few weeks, I have pondered over every one of those details. There is some damage to the photo, I'm sure, but there are just things that don't add up. I also learned in my contacting other experts that this dag is not the only one from this source that has been passed around in such a manner.

I think that some of the issues people are noticing have to do with the process of scanning the dag (like the left sleeve issues).

I think the "brace" the woman is wearing is simply a wristlet, which were a popular accessory, usually worn in pairs.

Gold tints on daguerreotypes and ambrotypes are not at all unusual.

I have no issues whatsoever with the authenticity of the photo, just with its identification.

(06-14-2019 04:32 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I think that some of the issues people are noticing have to do with the process of scanning the dag (like the left sleeve issues).

I think the "brace" the woman is wearing is simply a wristlet, which were a popular accessory, usually worn in pairs.

Gold tints on daguerreotypes and ambrotypes are not at all unusual.

I have no issues whatsoever with the authenticity of the photo, just with its identification.

I looked at those wrist adornments also, and I agree with you. Besides the fact that it is not of Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln, I also think that it dates about five years before 1861. And, I still want to know what that adornment is at the lady's waist.

(06-14-2019 01:50 AM)Steve Wrote:  

I may have identified the couple in the photograph after researching the family histories of Ruth (Montgomery) Day, and her husband. Ruth's 1976 estate sale is where the daguerreotype supposedly comes from. Based on the clothing and hairstyles in the photo, I would date it to c.1857. My visual estimate would put the couple around their forties. I know that's a little younger than some of your estimates for the couple's ages. There's only one couple that matched this age guess and photo production estimate from Ruth and her husbands lineages:

Jehiel Halsey Montgomery born 15 Oct. 1815 in New York State, died 26 Jan. 1892 in Decorah, Iowa and his wife Emily Biggs born c.1818 also in New York and died 13 Jan. 1906 in Decorah. They are Ruth's paternal grandparents. Based on the c.1857 age estimate, he would be around 42 and she around 39. The couple was living in Aurora, Illinois in the 1850's and if it is indeed this couple the daguerreotype was probably made there too.

Despite being a little younger than some of you suspected, this is the only couple age wise who seems to fit with the age estimate of when the photograph was made. The second closest couple was the paternal grandfather of Ruth's husband - who would've been about 63 - and his wife who would've been about 51 in 1857. I just think 63 is too old for the man in the photo.

I haven't found any photographs of either Jehiel or Emily online, so I can't confirm this. And I guess there's always the possibility that Ruth just bought the daguerreotype somewhere because she liked the photo and it just got mixed in with her family history items.

Steve, have you found ant photos online of Ruth (Montgomery) Day?

(06-14-2019 07:29 PM)Anita Wrote:  Steve, have you found ant photos online of Ruth (Montgomery) Day?

I didn't see any photos of her, although I wasn't particularly thoroughly looking into her life but her ancestors. She and her husband moved from Iowa to New Orleans. I did find several mentions of her in the social sections of New Orleans newspapers, so there might be photos of Ruth in local New Orleans publications. I did find photographs of Ruth's parents, though:

http://iagenweb.org/winneshiek/Bios/WB19...age035.htm

(06-14-2019 10:12 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 07:29 PM)Anita Wrote:  Steve, have you found ant photos online of Ruth (Montgomery) Day?

I didn't see any photos of her, although I wasn't particularly thoroughly looking into her life but her ancestors. She and her husband moved from Iowa to New Orleans. I did find several mentions of her in the social sections of New Orleans newspapers, so there might be photos of Ruth in local New Orleans publications. I did find photographs of Ruth's parents, though:

http://iagenweb.org/winneshiek/Bios/WB19...age035.htm

Steve had shown me this article earlier, and the mother certainly has some of the facial structure of the dag lady - especially the high cheekbones.

(06-15-2019 10:35 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 10:12 PM)Steve Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 07:29 PM)Anita Wrote:  Steve, have you found ant photos online of Ruth (Montgomery) Day?

I didn't see any photos of her, although I wasn't particularly thoroughly looking into her life but her ancestors. She and her husband moved from Iowa to New Orleans. I did find several mentions of her in the social sections of New Orleans newspapers, so there might be photos of Ruth in local New Orleans publications. I did find photographs of Ruth's parents, though:

http://iagenweb.org/winneshiek/Bios/WB19...age035.htm

Steve had shown me this article earlier, and the mother certainly has some of the facial structure of the dag lady - especially the high cheekbones.

Laurie. I also see a resemblance in the facial structure.

Steve. You're on to something.

The similarity between Sarah (Ruth's mother) and the woman in the daguerrotype, initially led me to suspect they might be Sarah's parents too. But Sarah's father died in 1853, prior to when the photo was taken based on their clothing and hairstyles. Also Sarah's parents would both only be in their early to mid 30's then. As far as I can tell there's no evidence Sarah's mother, Ruth, remarried. I was able to find a passport application for Ruth (the grandmother) from the 1890's which lists her eye color as gray, which could match the woman in the daguerrotype (ie not brown).

I'm guessing it's probably the similar hairstyles of Sarah and the woman playing tricks on our minds, seeing familial resemblances. If my theory is correct, Sarah's husband, Michael Henry Montgomery, the man who's photo is also on the webpage, is the son of the couple in the daguerrotype.

(06-14-2019 01:28 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I also learned in my contacting other experts that this dag is not the only one from this source that has been passed around in such a manner.

Laurie - since you previously chastised me for my lack of "citations", I would ask you to "cite" the experts (should they actually exist) or any other information they provided as to the comment above. If they did in fact say that, they're lying through their teeth.

James, are you omniscient? How do YOU know it isn't? (Are you the source...? Even then you couldn't be sure with anything that has ever gone online, no?)

(07-09-2019 01:10 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  James, are you omniscient? How do YOU know it isn't? (Are you the source...? Even then you couldn't be sure with anything that has ever gone online, no?)

Eva, I no speaka your language. And enough with the big words. I was talking to Laurie, by the way.

James, I'm not quite clear on some things. What is your connection in the alleged daguerreotype of Abraham and Mary?

Which prominent Washington photographer do you believe took the picture?

Is it just a coincidence that you joined this conversation as Donna quit making comments?

Thank You

(07-09-2019 01:45 PM)Gene C Wrote:  James, I'm not quite clear on some things. What is your connection in the alleged daguerreotype of Abraham and Mary?

Which prominent Washington photographer do you believe took the picture?

Is it just a coincidence that you joined this conversation as Donna quit making comments?

Thank You

Gene, I'm simply advocating on behalf of what should have been recognized as a national treasure years ago.
Donna didn't "quit making comments", just to be clear. She was banned from posting on this site because of complaints from forum members. My connection to the owner of the daguerreotype is not important to the conversation. The focus should be on the message - not the messenger.
I have no idea who the photographer was. The visual and circumstantial clues and evidence contained in the image point to March 4th as the date of the sitting. These include the clothing, accessories, and Lincoln's beard length and style, with this being the only presidential era photo of him revealing the cleft in his chin. The photographic record of his time as President rule out any future date.