(07-09-2019 02:09 PM)James Wrote:  I have no idea who the photographer was.

Just curious, James. If a photographer took a picture of the Lincolns on Inauguration Day, why would he stay quiet about it?

(Your reply to Eva was inappropriate. Kindly be polite to all forum members. Please do not respond/argue with what I just said - just do as I ask.)

(07-09-2019 02:33 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 02:09 PM)James Wrote:  I have no idea who the photographer was.

Just curious, James. If a photographer took a picture of the Lincolns on Inauguration Day, why would he stay quiet about it?

Also, why did he not make copies for sale to the public?
That was one big way a photographer made money.
This would have been the only photograph of Abraham and Mary together.
The visual and circumstantial clues and evidence contained in the image point to this not being Abraham and Mary Lincoln

Roger and Gene, since your questions/comments are similar, I'll respond to both of you in this reply.
You both seem convinced that only one of the top daguerreotypists in Washington, D.C. (Brady or Gardner) would have taken the photograph. I would disagree with that assessment in lieu of more evidence. It may well have been a lesser known photographer that either Abe or Mary was familiar with and who had privileged access to the couple. One thing that everyone familiar with Mary's personality should be able to agree on is that she would have wanted her place in history cemented as soon as possible by sitting for a formal photograph with her husband, who had just been inaugurated as President of the U.S. It is well documented that she made statements as a teenager to friends that she would someday marry a man who would become president.
Why would the photographer "remain quiet" about such a photograph? Why do you assume that a photograph of the first couple would have been an earth-shattering event at the time? Lincoln was photographed often. Mary less so. I doubt that the photograph would have been held in such high esteem then as it would be today. What about all those photographs of Lincoln that would have been lost to history in the following decades, including those that were found on a warehouse floor in New Jersey by Frederick Hill Meserve? Were those images revered and talked about and commercialized? No. They were forgotten and tossed aside and would have remained so and possibly lost forever if not for Meserve and others like him that saw a need to track down and preserve them four to five DECADES AFTER THE FACT.
A daguerreotype was a one-of-a-kind image. There was no negative. It belonged to the sitter or sitters. It was not the property of the photographer. He had no way to commercialize the image without the consent of the sitters, and even then, how would he do that without being able to produce copies?
Knowing Mary, do you think she would have been pleased with her likeness in the image? Do you think it's reasonable to assume that she was determined to actually prevent it from being published if that was the case? Looking at the image, which of the sitters would have been the driving force behind the formal sitting? I would say Mary. I can't picture Abe actually combing his hair and clutching a cane and wearing the white kid gloves without being guided and prodded by Mary to do so.
And once again Gene, you have an opinion as to the identity, or lack thereof, of the sitters in the image. I prefer to rely on the visual evidence that states unequivocally that it is humanly impossible for the couple to be anyone other than Abraham and Mary Lincoln. We just have to agree to disagree.

(07-09-2019 11:50 AM)James Wrote:  

(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.

I responded to your query earlier today, but somehow it has disappeared (or I forgot to hit Post). At any rate, I will certainly not reveal the people who responded to my question(s) to them - for logical reasons, which you must certainly recognize.

However, suffice to say, there are quite a few of us on this forum who have a number of excellent contacts in the Lincoln field. I use those contacts from time to time, and this was one of those times. In each case, I learned that this was not the only spurious photo from a certain source/owner. BTW: Those who responded to me do not participate on this forum, but they were aware of the dag.

I ended my first post today with "no further comment," and will do so now. We have belabored this whole issue ad nauseum; I don't believe you have a majority opinion in your favor; those who wish to correspond with you further may seek out a way to do so.

I will agree with you James that we will just have to agree to disagree.
Your answers just don't seem reasonable to me.

Laurie, that's fine. I'll respect your wishes. But to be clear, anyone who states that there are any additional instances of a "spurious" photo being bandied about by the owner of the Abe and Mary dag are either sadly mistaken or flat out lying. That allegation is spurious. Thank you again for your comments and insight.

Gene, I think part of the problem is that a lot of folks are looking at what transpired in the middle of the nineteenth century through a twenty-first century lens. It's a completely different ballgame now. Lincoln photographs had little or no interest or value at that time. We know there are roughly 130 images of Lincoln known to exist. It's impossible to know the number that have fallen through the cracks and actually been lost forever. Of the known images, there are still ongoing debates as to the exact time and place of the sitting for specific photos.
There are depictions of several dignitaries and socialites in March 23rd edition of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper following the inaugural ceremonies, but not one of Mary Lincoln, the new First Lady. There may well be a woodcut image of Mary in her inaugural attire in a contemporaneous newspaper, but I'm not aware of any (I've never seen one - but I don't have access to those newspapers). One would think that the first image presented to the public after the inaugural events would be of one or both of the Lincolns. Yet you folks appear to believe that a daguerreotypist would have taken the photograph, handed it to Abe, or most likely Mary, and then headed straight to the newspapers to announce this activity. I just don't see the logic in that. Anyway, thanks for the back and forth.

James, we folks just don't see any of the "visual evidence" you see, respectively our visual evidence clearly states none of this couple is Abraham or Mary Lincoln. And any of your arguments remains (to me unreasonable) speculation.

The style of daguerreotype (ie mat, preserver, etc) along with the clothing styles of the couple in the image date the photograph to 1856-58.

Photographers were still making daguerreotypes in 1861, but the introduction of the carte de visite in 1859 and tintype in 1856 spelled the end of the format by 1864. So the very fact that the image is a daguerreotype would seem to weigh against it being taken in Washington DC in 1861, at one of the centers of culture in the entire country two years after prints were first introduced. And that a photographer would take a daguerreotype of the newly elected President and his wife during his inaugural ceremonies instead of showing off their talents with the newest and best methods.

It seems to me the only reason you want to date the photograph to the inauguration, despite all the visual evidence to the contrary dating it some years earlier, is that Lincoln didn't have a beard before then and thus to claim the couple is Lincoln and Mary you'd have to date it to the inauguration at the earliest to avoid the problem of the obsolescence of daguerreotype. Even though the man in the photograph looks nothing like Abraham Lincoln in the clear and crisp image.

I thought I would quickly summarize (especially for forum members who do not have a clear understanding of what is being debated or have not given opinions). We are discussing whether the two folks on the right (below) are actually the Lincolns. The photo of Abraham was taken about a week before his first inauguration. I have seen several possible dates for Mary's photo, but all are within a year of the first inauguration. The claim of James is that the photos on the right are indeed the Lincolns and taken on March 4, 1861. Folks interested in more information about James' opinion please go to
http://abeandmarydag.com/

James, I can't recall ... have you told us whether anybody (apart from yourself) thinks that your images bear a strong resemblance to Abraham and Mary Lincoln?

(07-10-2019 01:10 AM)Steve Wrote:  The style of daguerreotype (ie mat, preserver, etc) along with the clothing styles of the couple in the image date the photograph to 1856-58.

Photographers were still making daguerreotypes in 1861, but the introduction of the carte de visite in 1859 and tintype in 1856 spelled the end of the format by 1864. So the very fact that the image is a daguerreotype would seem to weigh against it being taken in Washington DC in 1861, at one of the centers of culture in the entire country two years after prints were first introduced. And that a photographer would take a daguerreotype of the newly elected President and his wife during his inaugural ceremonies instead of showing off their talents with the newest and best methods.

It seems to me the only reason you want to date the photograph to the inauguration, despite all the visual evidence to the contrary dating it some years earlier, is that Lincoln didn't have a beard before then and thus to claim the couple is Lincoln and Mary you'd have to date it to the inauguration at the earliest to avoid the problem of the obsolescence of daguerreotype. Even though the man in the photograph looks nothing like Abraham Lincoln in the clear and crisp image.

Thanks, Steve, for acknowledging that there were in fact daguerreotypes still being made in 1861. Obviously they were in the process of being phased out by that time in favor of cheaper and more efficient methods of photography by that date, but there were still plenty of practicing daguerreotypists who were reluctant to abandon the art of daguerreotypy due to their familiarity with the process.
Roger noted in his most recent post that he had "seen several possible dates for Mary's photo" relating specifically to a photo that some sources say was taken in 1861 while others ascribe a date for the sitting as early 1862.
There are allegations that Matthew Brady used photographic card stock that was printed in 1861 for photographs that were actually taken in 1862, which may well be a contributing factor in the controversy over the sitting dates of certain Lincoln photographs. Why? Convenience. The material was on hand and would either be used or tossed in the trash. Paper photo card stock was abundant and cheap compared to the materials necessary to produce a daguerreotype, i.e; pre-silvered copper plate, brass matt, retainer, glass cover, gutta-percha case, etc. The manufacturers of these items were few and far between in 1861 due to the rapid decline in demand for the more expensive and dated daguerreotype. Yet there were many photographers (John Craig - Daguerreian Registry) who, having crossed over into ambrotypes and carte-de-visites, were still proficient at making daguerreotypes and would have had the materials on hand necessary to produce them. For individuals knowledgeable on the subject, the fact that the brass matt and retainer on a daguerreotype produced in early 1861 resembled those manufactured in 1858 or 1859 would not have been at all unusual.
If a photographer were inclined to "show off his talents", as you suggest, I doubt that it would involve a grainy image on a piece of paper (carte-de-visite), and I also doubt that Abraham or Mary Lincoln would have been duly impressed with a now prolific process available to the masses. No,... Mary Lincoln (who obviously arranged the sitting) would have been much more impressed by a unique, one-of-a-kind image, as she was with the 1846-'48 companion daguerreotypes of her and Abe now housed in the Library of Congress that she so treasured. I also have grave doubts that ANY period photographer would have been calling the shots as to the time and location of the sitting and the photographic method used where Mary Todd Lincoln was involved. SHE would have given the marching orders.
The clothing you mention is a non-issue. Lincoln's suit is identical to those worn throughout his presidency, regardless of what some self-proclaimed expert has to say. Likewise with Mary's gown. That's not a "day dress". You know how I feel about "experts". One who cedes their powers of observation and ability to think to others will ultimately forfeit their very humanity.
I'M... not dating the photograph to the inauguration, the visual and circumstantial evidence dates the photograph to the inauguration, and obviously the length and style of the beard plays a role. The fact that the Lincoln community cannot see the forest because of all the trees obstructing their view is apparent to objective viewers and readers of this thread. I have no expectations that this will ever be overcome with reason or logic.
By the way, Steve, you stated earlier that you were confident that the couple were Jehiel Halsey and his wife (can't recall her name offhand). Would you please post their photos on here if and when you track them down? Thank you.

(07-10-2019 06:38 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  James, I can't recall ... have you told us whether anybody (apart from yourself) thinks that your images bear a strong resemblance to Abraham and Mary Lincoln?

Yes, Michael, there is at least one more person (in addition to James and Donna) who believes it's the Lincolns. I forbid him to join the forum because he publicly referred to the folks on this forum as morons in 2014. You can see his comments on Bill Nash's (Lincolnman's) former website here.

Thanks, Roger. And have we addressed the fact that every image and statue that Ive seen of Lincoln has a "mole" or skin protuberance on the right side of his face ... but it is missing in the one James has produced?

If James or anyone else can explain the missing "mole" , I personally will consider the fact that the watch chain is hanging from the 'wrong' button-hole as a one-off exception. (I believe that all other images of Lincoln with a watch chain has the chain in the top button hole ).

(I'm still waiting for an explanation how Mary was able to emaciate that much in the blink of an eye. Getting back to round in the blink of an eye is certainly easy...)

So ... Mary looking emaciated, Lincoln's missing mole, and the watch chain.

(I'm not holding my breath waiting for a relevant response from James/Donna)