Seed Pearl Necklace and Bracelets

[Donna]

First....Thank You, Gene!
Second.....to your OTHER point, Eva. There is, to my knowledge, but 2 other photographs of Mary (I know - I know - “that’s not her!”) that predate this one (Abe & Mary). The daguerreotype from 1846-‘48, and the photo of Mary with sons Willie and Tad taken in late 1860. Have you seen the photo of Mary and the boys? I suppose that’s rhetorical in nature. I’m sure you have. Look at Mary. Look at the two small children beside her. Then tell me with with a straight face that she’s this huuuge woman that the historical record (written primarily be men with an axe to grind toward Mary) would lead us to believe. Because that’s the only photographic evidence you have for comparison sake. ONE. It’s number two in chronological order for her photos but the earlier dag is out of play for obvious reasons. I believe the word ‘tiny’ is used frequently as an adjective when describing Mary. The Kunhardts, who inherited the Frederick Meserve collection of Lincoln related photos and material, used that word in their book....Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography.....to describe Mary. I would think they know just a tad more than the average bear about Abe and Mary Lincoln, though they could use a little fetchin up themselves about a couple of key points, primarily the duck thing. You know. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, starred in movies as a duck(s)...(Donald & Daisy), but the Lincoln community still thinks it’s a porcupine. Maybe you don’t.
In fact, I believe ‘tiny’ has been used on this very forum in another thread that you participated in to, once again, describe Mary. I can’t recall offhand what category it was under and I’m too lazy to look for it, but it’s here somewhere. Unless of course somebody has deleted it in an effort to make that particular post disappear. I hope Roger is on top of things! So please enlighten me as to why you feel Mary had a rapid weight loss - or gain - in the months in question. Which of the Mary Lincoln photograph experts are you relying on for a pictorial timeline? Meserve? Ostendorf? Keya Morgan?(eye roll). Other? It’s a guessing game. Nothing even close to a consensus among them. Whatever fits their agenda for that particular day. Subject to change overnight. The only constant being that all of the others come later. Much later than March 4th, 1861. A significant portion of the answer lies in the difference visually between a daguerreian image and a paper image, but I simply don’t have the ability to articulate that difference in a meaningful way. Which is why you and others still have that shadowy grey area to cling to.

[RJNorton]

(04-24-2018 06:09 PM)Donna Wrote:  In fact, I believe ‘tiny’ has been used on this very forum in another thread that you participated in to, once again, describe Mary. I can’t recall offhand what category it was under and I’m too lazy to look for it, but it’s here somewhere. Unless of course somebody has deleted it in an effort to make that particular post disappear. I hope Roger is on top of things!

Yes, Toia (LincolnToddFan) described Mary as being tiny on this web page.

I am no expert on Mary's anatomy, but I definitely have seen Mary described as "plump" more often than "tiny."

On this page it says, "Media accounts described the new First Lady as plump and plain and she took such reports as an insult, not just to her but to her husband."

https://www.civilwarwomenblog.com/mary-todd-lincoln/

That is the kind of description that I personally have seen most often....much more so than "tiny."

[Donna]

Being facetious, Roger. It wasn’t a call to arms. I speak tongue-in-cheek myself on occasion.
To your point though, Reva. Yes of course Mary was plump. She was described throughout her life as plump. From the earliest contemporaneous physical accounts of her as a teenager until the day she died. It is without a doubt the most frequently used adjective to describe her. She was plump in her earliest known dag image dating from circa 1846. She was plump in late 1860 when posing with Willie & Tad. She was plump on March 4th 1861 when posing with Abe prior to the inaugural ball. And she was plump in the series of photographs taken later on during Lincoln’s presidency, though she did appear to pack on a few pounds in the last couple of years of his tenure.
So are ‘tiny’ and ‘plump’ mutually exclusive? If you choose one term, do you automatically discard the other? Are the individuals, who have examined some of Mary’s dresses and expressed amazement at how ‘tiny’ she was, simply wrong in their own judgement? A judgement based on a thorough examination of a physical, tangible item of clothing, as opposed to a visual examination of a form of representational reality based on a process rife with inherent distortion? (Again, Daguerreotype versus paper images).
There was no drastic or dramatic weight loss or gain from late 1860 to late 1862. ‘Tiny’ or ‘plump’. You can pick your own adjective. But whichever you choose applies equally to her photos from the period in question. The visual evidence simply doesn’t support any comments to the contrary. As is the case with the ‘comparative height’ remarks. Or the “day dress”. Just some plump little hillbilly with skeleton hands sittin for a formal daguerreian photograph adorned with gold and diamonds and a nice chatelaine and Point d’ Alencon lace collar......with a 20 year old five-and-dime, hand-me-down “day dress” she dug out of the back of the closet.
Do you people really believe what you say???

[Gene C]

Plump or thin, it wasn't just her personality that made her a Belle of Springfield when she first came to town.

From Roger Norton's Mary Lincoln page (that Roger is one sharp guy and has a pretty good web site)
"5. As an adult Mary was about 5-2 and had a somewhat full, rounded body. When she was younger, she weighed about 130, but no official weight is recorded when she was First Lady. She had gained weight by that time. She had a broad forehead, straight nose, short upper lip, fair complexion, and brown hair. Her skin was light. Her posture was good." http://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln96.html

While I don't care for the hair style, you can draw your own conclusions from this Mathew Brady image of 1861. (click on the images to enlarge them)
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-...d535780361

https://www.flickr.com/photos/vladddutch...140985135/

Earliest known photo of Mary - ?
https://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2016/07/...stored.png

[Eva Elisabeth]

"Do you people really believe what you say???"

Do you?

All vivid visions for the striking odds mentioned could likewise serve to declare my grandma's likeness as depicting Mary Lincoln.

The elderly couple you find to resemble the Lincolns does not resemble the Lincolns to my eyes. Just the way it is.

[RJNorton]

Donna, have you ever sent a copy of the the image to Dr. James Cornelius for analysis? Dr. Cornelius is the curator for the Lincoln Collection at the Abraham Lincoln Public Library and Museum. Over the years he has helped me a lot with photo identification. Possibly you could contact him, and then post his opinion on this forum. Just an idea. I, for one, would be very interested in his opinion.

[Donna]

(04-27-2018 04:02 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  Donna, have you ever sent a copy of the the image to Dr. James Cornelius for analysis? Dr. Cornelius is the curator for the Lincoln Collection at the Abraham Lincoln Public Library and Museum. Over the years he has helped me a lot with photo identification. Possibly you could contact him, and then post his opinion on this forum. Just an idea. I, for one, would be very interested in his opinion.

Thank you, Roger, for the suggestion!
In all seriousness, without so much as a hint of sarcasm or facetiousness, please allow me to echo Gene’s comments regarding you, and your website. I’ve been on your other website countless times and it is indeed quite informative pursuant to both Abe and Mary Lincoln, and a valuable resource for those wishing to gain knowledge of either of them. I’ve also emailed you multiple times over the years for the purpose of research and received quick, courteous replies each and every time. Thank you sincerely!
As to the suggestion itself, I’d like to respond with a few points, with absolutely no malice or sarcasm intended.
The quarter-plate daguerreotype of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln has been available for public scrutiny in some form or fashion for over twenty years now. It is currently on display at... abeandmarydag.com ...as noted on this thread previously on a couple of occasions. There is nothing I can send Dr. Cornelius to examine that he can’t see (it’s highly unlikely he hasn’t already) on the website (short of arranging a viewing of the actual daguerreotype). There are images of the dag in the original brass mat prior to having been opened for cleaning and scanning, and images of the dag after having been ‘flipped’ during the scanning process to show the Lincolns as they actually appeared. So if you truly have a genuine interest in his opinion, I would humbly suggest that you streamline the process by going directly to the source via email or phone since you are already on familiar terms with Dr. Cornelius, and ask him to view the site and respond to you directly. But as I’ve stated several times on this thread, I have zero interest in his, or anybody else’s OPINION. I’m interested in concise, factual, delineated commentary relative to the dag in question that lends itself to debate. I can’t debate opinion, though I can have some fun with it. As evidenced by many of the posts on this thread, indisputable facts in conjunction with logic and common sense simply can’t penetrate opinion if one’s opinion is devoid of accompanying underlying ‘facts’ that can be neutralized with unassailable evidence through debate. My observations about the identity of the couple pictured in the dag image are not shaped by my ‘opinion’, but rather by visual evidentiary facts that are simply incontrovertible. A lot of these in the form of unique identifying characteristics are laid out like a road map on the website for any objective individual willing to look at them. The Lincoln community has shown no inclination or willingness to offer anything BUT opinion, or silence. I respectfully asked you specifically, Roger, to explain your dismissive comment about the Abe & Mary dag with something factual in nature and you refused to engage. If you truly believe the dag is not even worthy of consideration, why the suggestion to contact Dr. Cornelius? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but there can never be a debate about the merits of the authenticity, or lack thereof, of the dag without a willingness to present your argument against it.
One more point, Roger, as to why I won’t be pursuing your suggestion. You are undoubtedly aware of the description of insanity widely attributed to Albert Einstein,.....one who does the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. I ain’t crazy. After twenty plus years, I don’t forsee anything even remotely resembling a concise, factual, delineated argument springing forth from Dr. James Cornelius, or anyone else in the Lincoln community for that matter, in opposition to, or most definitely in support of, the authenticity of the Abe & Mary dag. There is no opposing argument that can withstand scrutiny. And we all know that a supporting argument will never be forthcoming from this crowd. One need look no further than this thread to understand that. An objective entity unencumbered........

[Gene C]

(04-30-2018 07:45 AM)Donna Wrote:  After twenty plus years, I don’t forsee anything even remotely resembling a concise, factual, delineated argument springing forth from Dr. James Cornelius, or anyone else in the Lincoln community for that matter, in opposition to, or most definitely in support of, the authenticity of the Abe & Mary dag. There is no opposing argument that can withstand scrutiny. And we all know that a supporting argument will never be forthcoming from this crowd. One need look no further than this thread to understand that. An objective entity unencumbered........

I am going to try (my computer skills are a bit weak in this area) to make an enlarged copy of the Lincoln and Mary dag. to take with me on our Springfield Tour. Perhaps another participant can make a better copy than I can, or maybe Donna can email me a larger copy. We will then show it to the objective and unencumbered experts at the Cozy Dog Drive In as to their concise, factual, expert opinion regarding the identity of the couple pictured. That should settle the matter. Stay tuned for further developments.

[Donna]

Sounds like a weiner, Gene. While you’re at it, if you have an extra day or two to burn, how about I send you about 10,000 reams of scientific research materials spanning a couple thousand years to take to Oral Roberts University or Bob Jones University to convince the non-believers that the planet earth is unquestionably BILLIONS of years old. Since they are all reasonably intelligent, thoughtful human beings, it should be a relatively simple endeavor to convince them of the incontrovertible truth. No?
Belief versus science. The Lincoln community versus the Abe & Mary dag.

[Gene C]

Interesting question Donna.
Nice attempt to divert the issue.

If the Lincoln community does not believe the dag is Abraham and Mary Lincoln, who are the noted historians (or scientific researchers) that do, and what are their credentials?
I must have overlooked that on the abeandmarydag web site.
Have they written any letters on impressive stationary that verify the image as Abraham and Mary?
I must have overlooked that on the web site.


(By the way, I'm still waiting for my Timex to evolve into a Rolex.
Considering it's size and complexity compared to planet earth, I figure it should be ready by next week)

[Donna]

[quote='Gene C' pid='71017' dateline='1525225208']


If the Lincoln community does not believe the dag is Abraham and Mary Lincoln, who are the noted historians (or scientific researchers) that do, and what are their credentials?

The unassailable truth needs no advocate!
That’s evident in the reluctance by the Lincoln community to even ATTEMPT to present an opposing argument.
You say “that Roger is one sharp guy”. You better believe he is. I couldn’t agree more. Not to bang on Roger, but he’s sharp enough to leave it to Dr. James Cornelius to attempt to fortify his belief that the couple aren’t, in his words, “close enough to be considered”. (post #35)
He’s also sharp enough to witness first hand how an acknowledged expert’s (Donna McCreary) opinion and theory stack up against the unvarnished truth underpinned with fact-based evidence.
“Nice attempt to divert the issue” you say. The only attempt at diversion taking place is the transparent effort to muddy the waters and shift the focus from the message, i.e...the only known photograph of Abraham & Mary Todd Lincoln posed together,.....to the messenger.
It seems like they all took their ball and went home, Gene, leaving you out here on an island to fight their battle for them. The problem is, you’re fighting fire with gasoline.

[Gene C]

Well Donna, that is an interesting answer.
Since your reply doesn't seem to advance the discussion, I don't see anything of substance to respond to.

[davg2000]

Donna,

Your remark about the truth got me to thinking, so I thought I'd put in my two cents. The "truth" is assailable all the time because it periodically invites reaffirmation and/or challenge. It may be found not to be the truth. There are countless examples of this process. An obvious one is the geocentric theory, absolutely accepted, but occasionally questioned, up to the time of Galileo, who was branded a heretic for proving it wrong. To name another one, Pluto was a planet, right up there with Earth when I was a kid. No one could see Pluto, but we knew it was a planet. But since 1992, it has been downgraded to a "dwarf planet." Ouch, if you're Pluto.

So what? If your dag is in fact the only known photograph of Abraham and Mary Lincoln, then it will have to stand or fail on its own. If it is so, then it will have to stand questioning. That's just the way this works. You may proclaim loudly that the dag is genuine, but without qualified support, your view will not rise above opinion. I don't think that the photograph is of the Lincolns, but someone more knowledgeable than I might. The "Lincoln community," which you do not respect, is full of informed, careful, responsible, credentialed people whose opinions do count. I think everyone on this board would welcome such a find if it were so.

But the almost constant sarcasm in your posts has one main effect--it undermines your credibility, makes it more difficult to believe you. Perhaps your sarcasm indicates frustration, but that has nothing to do with the issue of the dag's genuineness.

My advice to you is to let time work. Anything that stands the test of time is likely to be so. So, wait for others to support your stance. Or not.

BTW, nice poem back there. Did you write it?

[L Verge]

(05-03-2018 09:07 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  Donna,

Your remark about the truth got me to thinking, so I thought I'd put in my two cents. The "truth" is assailable all the time because it periodically invites reaffirmation and/or challenge. It may be found not to be the truth. There are countless examples of this process. An obvious one is the geocentric theory, absolutely accepted, but occasionally questioned, up to the time of Galileo, who was branded a heretic for proving it wrong. To name another one, Pluto was a planet, right up there with Earth when I was a kid. No one could see Pluto, but we knew it was a planet. But since 1992, it has been downgraded to a "dwarf planet." Ouch, if you're Pluto.

So what? If your dag is in fact the only known photograph of Abraham and Mary Lincoln, then it will have to stand or fail on its own. If it is so, then it will have to stand questioning. That's just the way this works. You may proclaim loudly that the dag is genuine, but without qualified support, your view will not rise above opinion. I don't think that the photograph is of the Lincolns, but someone more knowledgeable than I might. The "Lincoln community," which you do not respect, is full of informed, careful, responsible, credentialed people whose opinions do count. I think everyone on this board would welcome such a find if it were so.

But the almost constant sarcasm in your posts has one main effect--it undermines your credibility, makes it more difficult to believe you. Perhaps your sarcasm indicates frustration, but that has nothing to do with the issue of the dag's genuineness.

My advice to you is to let time work. Anything that stands the test of time is likely to be so. So, wait for others to support your stance. Or not.

BTW, nice poem back there. Did you write it?

Great comment, Dave! I could not believe that I spent three weeks in the hospital and returned to see that the rankling about the dag was still going on.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Well said, davg2000.