(06-07-2019 12:41 AM)James Wrote:  DAVE - By the way, Dave, just to be clear, I was referring to the various explanations offered up over the years by historians, photographers, etc. when I used the term "weak and contrived" in response to your post above, not to your specific comments. I should have pluralized the word "explanation" to avoid confusion.
The photo I alluded to earlier on page 24 (Kunhardt's - Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography) is a perfectly benign image until someone felt a need to explain why Abe's right hand is lying clenched in his lap, thereby bringing attention to the very thing they were attempting to conceal. You said you don't see any "infirmity" in that hand. Bingo. Just from a logical point of view, if it ain't broke, why is everyone trying to fix it with dubious explanations?
If this were an isolated incident, it wouldn't be worthy of discussion. But there are numerous examples and explanations that leads one (me) to believe that SOMETHING was amiss. Could have been severe arthritis, who knows. We'll never know with certainty now, but the photographic record cannot be ignored.
The Metropolitan Museum's version of why the piece of whittled broomstick was being held differs from that of Leonard Volk.
On the link above that Laurie posted, Volk is quoted as saying, upon arriving at the Lincoln home in 1860; ... "then those two great hands took both of mine with a grasp never to be forgotten". A few days later, Abe's hand "was swollen from shaking hands the evening before", according to Volk. This simply defies belief.
Also, I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation for the unnatural poses on pages 110 and 216. The manner in which Abe is clutching the cane, in conjunction with the numerous other instances mentioned, leads me to believe that Lincoln had a physical ailment that affected his right shoulder, arm and hand.

---

(06-06-2019 12:04 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I do have to agree that the man is probably wearing one glove and holding the other--a common pose in photos of the time. I have also seen tinted dags, some of them quite beautifully done (in fact, I own a couple of tinted ones). Here, from a reputable seller, is a nice example:

https://www.mikemedhurst.com/Image_pages/13359GoingToMarket.html

BFF's???

(06-07-2019 12:41 AM)James Wrote:  The photo I alluded to earlier on page 24 (Kunhardt's - Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography) is a perfectly benign image until someone felt a need to explain why Abe's right hand is lying clenched in his lap, thereby bringing attention to the very thing they were attempting to conceal. You said you don't see any "infirmity" in that hand. Bingo. Just from a logical point of view, if it ain't broke, why is everyone trying to fix it with dubious explanations?
If this were an isolated incident, it wouldn't be worthy of discussion. But there are numerous examples and explanations that leads one (me) to believe that SOMETHING was amiss. Could have been severe arthritis, who knows. We'll never know with certainty now, but the photographic record cannot be ignored.

(06-07-2019 03:27 AM)Steve Wrote:  James is there any indication who made the daguerreotype? Specifically, is there a mark or name of the photographer in any of the casing of the photograph? Or was there any document from the estate of the lady who owned the photograph when she passed in 1976 which specifically mentions the name or suggests who the photographer was?

(06-07-2019 09:21 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(06-07-2019 12:41 AM)James Wrote:  The photo I alluded to earlier on page 24 (Kunhardt's - Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography) is a perfectly benign image until someone felt a need to explain why Abe's right hand is lying clenched in his lap, thereby bringing attention to the very thing they were attempting to conceal. You said you don't see any "infirmity" in that hand. Bingo. Just from a logical point of view, if it ain't broke, why is everyone trying to fix it with dubious explanations?
If this were an isolated incident, it wouldn't be worthy of discussion. But there are numerous examples and explanations that leads one (me) to believe that SOMETHING was amiss. Could have been severe arthritis, who knows. We'll never know with certainty now, but the photographic record cannot be ignored.

This thread has taken on the traits of a recent one dealing with John Wilkes Booth. James, you are beyond belief. The reason I saw no infirmity in Lincoln's hand is that there is none. But you said there was. And everyone is not trying to fix anything with "dubious explanations." There is no smoke, anywhere! For the last time (for me, at least): you need outside, reputable confirmation that the photograph is what you say. You have no provenance, so you need some objective person or company who is willing to stake his or her reputation on agreeing with you. Do what Susan says--take the photograph to a good auction house.

Two other things, both relatively minor: If you can present evidence beyond your personal opinion, that the dag is what you say, I'll reconsider. And something that has annoyed me for some time about all of this: Lincoln allowed only a relative few people to call him "Abe"--his stepmother and some people from his early life. However, when Lincoln reached the status of that person in your photograph, he wanted to be called "Lincoln." You might offer Lincoln the respect of calling him what he preferred.

(06-07-2019 02:18 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Question for anyone - Who were the prominent photographers at the time of Lincoln's inauguration in Washington DC?
Would it be safe to believe that only an experienced and prominent photographer would be given the responsibility of taking such a historic photograph?
Would the prominent photographer in question still be using the daguerreotype process by 1861? Other photographs of the inauguration and of Lincoln from 1861 do not seem to be daguerreotypes -

(06-07-2019 04:14 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Gene, as far as Abraham Lincoln goes, the most frequent Washington photographers were Alexander Gardner, Mathew Brady, and Anthony Berger. Of these, Gardner took the most photos by far (36 according to Lloyd Ostendorf).

(06-07-2019 08:30 PM)James Wrote:  Thank you, Roger, for the explanation! No worries. It's just that the information that was left out made it appear that I was in complete agreement with you as far as the importance of provenance as it relates to photographs. I AM in complete agreement with you on the other items you laid out (historical artifacts, art, etc.) but not with a photograph. I just feel that the sole criteria for authentication should be the visual evidence available. Only if one were to factor in the monetary value of a particular photograph would provenance then become relevant. Just my thoughts on it. I don't expect anyone else on here to agree with me. Thanks again.

Laurie ... the owner of the dag was the first to recognize the image as that of Abraham and Mary Lincoln.

(06-07-2019 07:51 PM)Anita Wrote:  

(06-07-2019 02:18 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Question for anyone - Who were the prominent photographers at the time of Lincoln's inauguration in Washington DC?
Would it be safe to believe that only an experienced and prominent photographer would be given the responsibility of taking such a historic photograph?
Would the prominent photographer in question still be using the daguerreotype process by 1861? Other photographs of the inauguration and of Lincoln from 1861 do not seem to be daguerreotypes -

"By the late 1850s, most American artists had switched from the daguerreotype process to large glass-plate negatives and albumen silver prints that combined the exquisite clarity of the daguerreotype and the endless reproducibility of paper-print photography. The glass plates were also extremely light sensitive, making exposure times dramatically shorter." http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/adag/hd_adag.htm

Both the Matthew Brady Lincoln Cooper Union Portrait Feb. 27,1860 and the Alexander Gardner portrait of Lincoln taken on Feb. 24, 1861 at Brady's Washington studio used the glass plate negative and print technology.

James, in post 143 you said "It's the only known photograph of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln posed together, an original quarter plate daguerreotype taken the evening of March 4th, 1861. Period!" When there is major disagreement by viewers of your dag that it isn't Mary and Abraham Lincoln that's portrayed, it is your responsibility to produce additional documentation to support your claim. The image itself is not enough. Remember this is the President of the United States and the First Lady on inauguration day! If a portrait was made that day it would be by the top photographer in Washington and documented. The latest technology would be used. The print technology allowed copies to be made. That's why a number of forum members have asked about the photographer.

The activities/events of a President and First Lady on inauguration day is witnessed by many and well documented. Where in this account of that evening did they sit for your dag portrait? Who drove them to the studio? What studio?

"After the ceremonies, the Lincolns entered the White House wanting to rest and dress before the inaugural ball, a gala occasion for that dismal day. But there was the immediate Blue Room reception. And when about seventeen sat down to eat their first meal in the White House, Lincoln interrupted dinner and spoke to about one thousand delegates from New York. [11] Miss Lane made the gracious gesture of planning an "elegant dinner" for the Lincolns, their visiting relatives, and friends. The presidential party sat down to Miss Lane's wonderful meal and gratefully devoured both food and wine. No menu exists. After dinner, they scattered to their rooms and prepared for the inaugural ball. The presidential party finally arrived at the inaugural ball at 11 P.M. Stephen A. Douglas, Mrs. Lincoln's old beau, danced the quadrille with the new First Lady, a term first used with Mary Lincoln. The president left for the White House at 1 A.M., though Mrs. Lincoln remained at the ball. "
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0020.204/--lincoln-white-house-community

James, when people have questions about authenticity of an object it is the responsibility of the person or institution making the claim to answer those questions. Why is there not one single witness to this photography session or at the least knew of it?