(07-11-2019 04:47 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(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.

Good evening Roger. Can I ask you a serious question and receive a serious response? In fact, this is the most serious question or comment that I've posted on this forum since I signed up.
WHY .... did you post the link above to Bill Nash's former website? What if anything positive or educational would you expect to be gained by doing so? I've scratched my head since you did so trying to understand what your motivation was and I can't come up with anything other than pure vindictiveness. You've said in the past that this site is perused on a constant basis by children of all ages, from middle school to college, for purposes of educating them on the life and career of Abraham Lincoln. As a retired professor, do you really believe that the type of remarks and rhetoric used by the owner has any redeemable qualities whatsoever that would be beneficial to ANYONE, let alone young impressionable children?
Life is a continuous learning experience and I truly am interested in learning why a gentleman like you would do that. I can state pretty much unequivocally that your posting of the comments have zero impact on the individual you referenced, so what is your desired outcome?
Please give me a serious answer. I'm genuinely curious. I was taught and have always believed that people such as you who have achieved a certain station in life would have been somewhat above the fray and incapable of that.
Thank you in advance for your reply.


To follow up on your and Gene's and Steve's questions and comments about why a photograph of Abraham and Mary Lincoln wouldn't have been front page news nationwide, I mentioned viewing events that transpired in the middle of the nineteenth century through a twenty-first century lens. It's about perspective. On March 4th 1861, the guy who had just been inaugurated was, for the most part and with the exception of some of his closest friends and associates, Abraham Lincoln in name only. The civil war had yet to begin, the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a pipe dream to all but a few ardent abolishionists, he had yet to be assassinated and martyred, Mount Rushmore and the Lincoln Memorial weren't even on the drawing board, the five dollar bill and penny likewise,.... etc.
Abraham Lincoln, to most people, was nothing more than a curiosity to most of the people in the population centers in the eastern half of the country. Indeed, a country bumpkin from the backwoods of Illinois. Photographs of Lincoln that were taken upon his arrival in Washington in February had already made their way into newspapers. A photograph of Abraham and Mary Lincoln was not a big deal. It was a private sitting arranged by Mary upon realization of a lifelong dream that resulted in a personal keepsake or memento to commemorate the event. It would have been solely at the discretion of the Lincolns as to the amount of publicity they wished to have brought to bear, and neither of their personalities lent itself to sharing a private moment with the public at large. And not to belabor the point, but there was no negative associated with daguerreotypes, ambrotypes, or tintypes. Had any photographer directed the sitting, it would almost certainly have involved the newer carte-de-visite, which was produced by a negative and could have been financially advantageous to the photographer, who would have owned the negative and all the rights of commerce associated with it.
As pointed out earlier, the 1846-'48 daguerreotype of Lincoln in the Library of Congress shocked the public when they first learned of it in the December 1895 issue of McClure's Magazine. How did that photograph manage to remain hidden all that time?
In the Kunhardt's book, they point out that SEVEN ORIGINAL GLASS PLATE NEGATIVES of Abraham Lincoln were found among the thousands of other plates that lay strewn across a warehouse floor in Hoboken, New Jersey in 1902. The Lincoln collecting craze that we know today simply didn't exist prior to Frederick Hill Meserve.

---

(07-13-2019 08:33 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  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)

Please, PLEASE take a deep breath and hold it, Mick. I promise I'll get back to you.

Thanks, James (and apologies for being cynical)

Thanks James, that is a reasonable reply.
Doesn't change my mind, but a reasonable reply.

I do differ with you on your comments about Roger.
I have been on this forum from the beginning and Roger has gone the extra mile with some people. He has drawn the line when someone is insulting, name calling, and in general just a total jerk toward people who obviously have a deep knowledge of Lincoln, the assassination and the time he lived. Being a forum moderator is tough. There are a lot of things we never see. I think he does a good job, much better than I could.

(07-13-2019 10:00 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Thanks James, that is a reasonable reply.
Doesn't change my mind, but a reasonable reply.

I do differ with you on your comments about Roger.
I have been on this forum from the beginning and Roger has gone the extra mile with some people. He has drawn the line when someone is insulting, name calling, and in general just a total jerk toward people who obviously have a deep knowledge of Lincoln, the assassination and the time he lived. Being a forum moderator is tough. There are a lot of things we never see. I think he does a good job, much better than I could.

Gene, I agree with everything you said concerning Roger. That's why I can't understand why he would post a link to comments that have no place on a forum that he is associated with, and indeed founded. Had there been a "modify" button on that particular site as there is on this site, those comments would have disappeared the following day. That would have been an appropriate use of an edit button. But the dye was cast with no way to repair the damage. Bill Nash was clearly owed an apology for posting that trash on a respectable website. Unfortunately, it's all water under the bridge now.

---

(07-13-2019 09:37 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Thanks, James (and apologies for being cynical)

Mick, you do understand that I was being sarcastic? I don't like taking a step backward, but in this instance, I have to apologize. In lieu of everything that's transpired in the last few posts, I'm going to make a concerted effort to elevate my commentary to a more respectable level.
There are certain things that can be seen under magnification of the actual daguerreotype that simply can't be reproduced in an online image without powerful magnification targeting a small section. Mary's wedding band is one example. This was accomplished using a 30 power jeweler's loop. When I get the opportunity, I'll see if some more detail can't be produced using the same method concerning the mole.

James, the answer is simple. Michael asked a question, I answered it, and I then put in the link to explain why the person who posted on Bill Nash's site was not allowed on this site.

I do think you owe Roger an apology, and I also think that you need to reevaluate your history as to how interesting anything to do with Abraham Lincoln was to the American public as well as allies in Europe in 1860 as his election brought the reality of civil war to thousands of folks, especially east of the Mississippi.

And, Osborn Oldroyd would be very upset to read that the Lincoln collecting craze did not begin until Frederick Hill Meserve came along...

BTW: Did you or Donna once post on other forums using the pseudonym of "Joseph Mason?" To date, your three names are the only ones that I have seen supporting your claims about the daguerreotype.

(07-14-2019 11:54 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I do think you owe Roger an apology, and I also think that you need to reevaluate your history as to how interesting anything to do with Abraham Lincoln was to the American public as well as allies in Europe in 1860 as his election brought the reality of civil war to thousands of folks, especially east of the Mississippi.

And, Osborn Oldroyd would be very upset to read that the Lincoln collecting craze did not begin until Frederick Hill Meserve came along...

BTW: Did you or Donna once post on other forums using the pseudonym of "Joseph Mason?" To date, your three names are the only ones that I have seen supporting your claims about the daguerreotype.

Laurie, you are most certainly entitled to your thoughts and opinions. I don't feel an apology is warranted in this particular instance, and there will be none forthcoming.

Unless or until someone decides to rewrite history, Frederick Hill Meserve is to the Lincoln photographic record as Henry Ford was to the automotive industry ....i.e., the top rung on the ladder.

Would you be kind enough to list the "other forums" you mentioned? The answer is no, by the way.

Many thanks to Steve for this post. Steve writes, "I have a photograph to post to the forum to use as a comparison to James' supposed photo of Mary and Lincoln, specifically to compare the hair and clothes of the woman in the photo. This photograph was taken in 1856 of 23 year-old Harriet Eliza Dart. On the back of the case is a handwritten note that reads:

"A birthday present for my dear Albert--Taken at Chicago, May 14th, 1856--Presented Aug 23rd. 1856--Buffalo"

The Albert mentioned is the man she married, Albert Plumb."

Very interesting Steve. My attention was drawn (fashion wise) to the lace color, the sleeves, and the decorative cord or chain at the waist
I hope our ladies with a knowledge of the fashions of this era will share their comments

I like the photographers creative use of the mirror, capturing the young lady in a reflective mood.

Great photo, and the young lady is much better "put together" than the pseudo Mrs. Lincoln. To my eye, Miss Dart is attired in a very nice afternoon dress (and yes, there is a difference between a day dress and an afternoon dress -- and, of course, an off-the-shoulder ball gown). It appears that this photo pre-dates 1860 because the skirts probably are held out with multiple petticoats instead of the hoops that came into vogue later. The same can be said of the skirts of the older woman.

The biggest difference to me is how poorly the matron's dress is made compared with that of Miss Dart. The detailed trim and the sleeves alone make the young lady's attire classy. Wish I could say the same for the elder woman's outfit (collar is the exception). Miss Dart's bodice also appears to be a basque jacket, which I think came into vogue in the 1850s.

I wish the knowledgeable Donna would chime in here about the ornamental "device" at both women's waists. I don't remember seeing or reading about such an item, so I can only guess that it is either a watch chain or a chatelaine.

Donna cannot post, Laurie, but if she reads this she can send her comments to James for posting.

(07-15-2019 08:59 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Donna cannot post, Laurie, but if she reads this she can send her comments to James for posting.

Donna McCreary??

My bad - yes, it would be wonderful if Donna M. would add her expertise!

I'm beginning to think that waist ornamentation was an early version of watch chain and chatelaine -- called equipage during the 1840s and 50s.

I posted the image of Miss Dart because I thought this photograph had one of the best matches to the woman clothes-wise and hair-wise; along with it having a definite date of 1856. I did use other photographs to date the daguerreotype's image, this one had the most elements in common along with an inscription with the date.

If the physical elements of the daguerreotype (ie mat, preserver, etc) tend to date it prior to 1859 and the clothing of the couple and the hair style of the lady are of mid-to-late 1850's style, why date it to 1861?