Legit?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-49798821

I have some serious doubts. There is no provenance aside from the inscription which could easily have been faked (IMO). It would only take a bit of research to find the name of William Kent and attribute these glasses to him. Yet nowhere in Kent's statement or testimony does he mention anything about these glasses. Kent also lived his life in D.C. dying there in 1917, which makes it harder to explain how the opera glasses got to England.

My main question is if the auction house made an effort to see if these opera glasses fit in Mary Lincoln's opera glass case in the Ford's Theatre collection?

Though, to be honest, I don't know the provenance of that artifact off the top of my head either.

I'm surprised Ed was so emphatic in his opinion it was genuine. There's not enough provenance to make me a believer.

"Mr Wright said there were 'at least two other pairs' of opera glasses supposedly used by Mrs Lincoln on that night."

How many pairs of opera glasses would a person typically take with her to the theater? I can see taking two pairs, perhaps if one had better focus than the other or Mary wanted to ensure that Miss Harris was provided for, but three gets rather unwieldy.

I agree with you Susan

I am curious why anyone would even need opera glasses from where the presidential party was sitting. (?)

To be fashionable?

Those old opera glasses (I have one) are pretty heavy. I wouldn't like to carry more than one, despite you need a handbag of appropriate size for two. Roger - for watching a ballet I would definitely would want to make use of them to see the technique of the feet precisely. Same goes for piano or other concerts, see the technique of playing the instruments. Opera anyway. But theater - I've never carried my glasses along. What.for?

Given that the Lincolns were seated in the box right above the stage-I don’t think the glasses were even needed. That being said-Mary probably brought them anyway. I doubt that this item is actually legit however.

I would be very leery about the provenance on this and wonder what specifically makes Ed so sure the glasses are genuine. What's the conversion rate to determine how much they realized at auction -- 9000 lb. symbol?

I'm not questioning that Mary might have carried the glasses, or been given them by a White House servant who just thought she might need them. However, multiple pairs left in the presidential box would be questionable, unless Clara Harris carried a pair or even the gents.

(09-28-2019 10:57 AM)L Verge Wrote:  What's the conversion rate to determine how much they realized at auction -- 9000 lb. symbol?

Google indicates $11,061.26.

(09-28-2019 12:17 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:57 AM)L Verge Wrote:  What's the conversion rate to determine how much they realized at auction -- 9000 lb. symbol?

Google indicates $11,061.26.

Gulp!

These opera glasses made a recent appearance on Pawn Stars: https://youtu.be/E6UGAeWlz70

The seller wanted $100,000 for them, quite the mark up from the $11,000 they sold for in 2019.

I'm still not convinced.

I have my doubts that these were Mary's opera glasses.

It is possible that Mary would have had two pair of opera glasses with her to enjoy an evening of theatre. Can't you just see Mary panning the audience and examining the dresses of her contemporaries?

(09-27-2019 06:19 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Legit?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-49798821

Hi there. After a lot of detective work I believe these opera glasses are the real deal. Main factors include:
1. Correct period of manufacture.
2. The ink engraving is correct period and has not been messed with.
3. There are splits in the ivory that are very old so it would have to have been faked right after the assassination.
4. the dimensions are perfect to fit the case that was also found in the box.
5. Ford's theater museum won't allow a "cinderella moment" of putting these opera glasses in that case for historical preservations reasons.
6. Two experts have examined these and feel they are correct and genuine.
7. they turned up in the UK in the estate of a 100 year old man whose family emigrated from the US in the late 19th century.

Welcome to the forum, Doug!

As far as I am concerned one key piece of evidence is missing which would help make me a believer. Here is the testimony of William Kent during the conspiracy trial: (Pitman version)

William T. Kent.

For the Prosecution. — May 16.

About three minutes after the President was shot, I went into his box; there were
two other persons there and a surgeon, who asked me for a knife to cut open the President's clothes. On leaving the theater I missed my night-key, and thinking I had dropped it in pulling out my knife, I hurried back, and on searching round the floor of the box, I knocked my foot against a pistol, which I picked up, and, holding it up, I cried out, " I have found the pistol." I gave it up to Mr. Gobright, the agent of the Associated Press. The next morning I went round to the police station and identified it there.

(A Derringer pistol, about six inches in length, was handed to the witness.]

This is the pistol I picked up in the President's box on the night of the 14th of April.
[The pistol was offered in evidence.]

So Kent mentions finding a pistol on the floor, but there is no mention of opera glasses. The article I originally cited credits Kent with finding the opera glasses.

Is there another statement by Kent in which he mentions finding the opera glasses? If, there is, Doug, could you kindly post it?

Thank you, Doug, for any possible input regarding my question.