Seed Pearl Necklace and Bracelets

[RJNorton]

(06-01-2019 12:29 AM)James Wrote:  When the dag was on eBay years ago as a means of drawing attention to it, ALL members were blocked from bidding on it. Eventually, as you are probably aware, some members of the Lincoln community used their influence to have it banned from eBay.

I know nothing about eBay's rules; how did members of the Lincoln community manage to do this?

(06-01-2019 03:50 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  James, it's your job to prove to the world your claims about the pic are EVIDENTLY RIGHT (to prove the Emperor's New Clothes exist...), not ours to prove your imagination wrong.

I second Eva. Please post the proof, James. Thank you.
What does it say on the verso? Who was the daguerreian photographer?

[davg2000]

I absolutely intend to prove you and the entire Lincoln community wrong as it relates to the Abe and Mary dag. The truth, undaunted by all of the conjecture - speculation - opinion and theory, will ultimately wend it's way through the historical briars and brambles and obstacles until it emerges unscathed. Perseverance and patience.

------------

OK, James! You are correct--indeed cut through all of the conjecture, speculation, opinion, and theory. After you have done so, come back here and SHOW the results of your effort. Cite factual support. Truly, no one here wants anything else.

And, as I mentioned earlier to Donna, we'd all love to see a genuine photograph of Mary and Abraham Lincoln. I don't think Donna has it, but maybe you can establish that it is genuine. Maybe we will see.

[Susan Higginbotham]

It's not about money, yet you put the dag on eBay, an auction site?

It is possible to get a eBay listing removed for misrepresentation, although eBay seems to be more lax lately. Perhaps it simply realized that the sellers who claim that various photos are of famous people simply aren't fooling anyone. (My current favorite is the "John Brown and Family" daguerreotype offered for sale. No one in the dag bears the slightest resemblance to John Brown and/or his family.)

You seem better at asking questions than answering them, but I'll ask anyway. If this was a photograph of Abraham and Mary Lincoln, why would the Lincoln community want to suppress it? There are any number of private collectors or institutions which would love to own what would be the only extant image of Lincoln photographed with his wife, and which could afford to buy it. Think of the excitement the CDV of the younger Harriet Tubman generated when it was put on the market recently.

[L Verge]

(06-01-2019 12:29 AM)James Wrote:  Laurie and Susan, this is not about money. In 2000, the owner of the daguerreotype was contacted by Albert Kaplan. He was purportedly seeking to purchase the dag on behalf of a gentleman by the name of Louis Warter. Mr. Kaplan was told in no uncertain terms that the dag was not for sale, that the only priority and objective was authentication.
Approximately a year later, Mr. Kaplan again contacted the owner via email and was quite irate. He stated that Mr. Warter had sustained a life-threatening injury as the result of a fall in his home, was in critical condition at Mt. Sinai hospital in New York City, and was not expected to survive due to his advanced age. He said the owner had "thrown away millions of dollars, yes just thrown it away"! He went on to say that Mr. Warter was the largest private shareholder in this or that bank, had the single largest Lincoln library ever assembled, had a world class daguerreotype collection, and on and on and on. The biggest this, the most of that, etc. Mr. Warter had reportedly given his personal banker the green light to purchase the daguerreotype despite the protestations and reservations of several people close to him. He had DEMANDED, according to Albert. Mr. Warter died the following day in the hospital.
When the dag was on eBay years ago as a means of drawing attention to it, ALL members were blocked from bidding on it. Eventually, as you are probably aware, some members of the Lincoln community used their influence to have it banned from eBay.
Prove you wrong, you ask? I absolutely intend to prove you and the entire Lincoln community wrong as it relates to the Abe and Mary dag.
The truth, undaunted by all of the conjecture - speculation - opinion and theory, will ultimately wend it's way through the historical briars and brambles and obstacles until it emerges unscathed. Perseverance and patience.
Yes, the seed pearl jewelry debate is but one small piece of a much larger puzzle but a vital one. It illustrates the ensuing decades long scramble to re-write history after an image of Mary wearing a white ball gown and adorned with a suite of seed pearl jewelry was mistakenly designated as her inaugural ball attire at some point by someone who didn't do their homework. The white gown mistake has been rectified. The seed pearl jewelry mistake lives on. For now.
An echo chamber is not conducive to seeking an objective truth. That's what I'm chasing. That's ALL I'm chasing. The race for the almighty dollar is a fool's chase.

You mention the date of 2000 when the Kaplan/Warter campaign began and the debates over the dag's authenticity started. Nearly twenty years have passed; how many people have challenged your's/Donna's claims that the photo is genuine? You have had two decades to prove your claims, but yet you cannot post concrete evidence on this (or any) forum? Doesn't that tell us something?

[RJNorton]

One more comment, James.

Here’s what my eyes see on the watch chain. In the website photo it looks to me a good deal thicker than the one in the Chicago History Museum.

http://abeandmarydag.com/home

http://digitalcollection.chicagohistory....l3/id/2122

Can you explain? Thanks.

[L Verge]

And while you are explaining the watch chain, would you also explain how the section on abeandmarydag.com labeled "dag history" makes no mention of the dag's history - only a genealogical rambling about several families after stating that the photograph was owned by Ruth somebody. I would bet that the couple that y'all are passing off as the Lincolns was actually somewhere on one of these family lines. Those typed pages are at times difficult for my eyes to read clearly, so would someone else please read the dag history section to make sure that I did not miss how this lady came to get this item?

And while you are on the site, make sure that you read "The Experts" section. It will give you a very good idea of what opinion James and cohorts have of Lincoln experts -- we are all backwoods country hicks.

P.S. I thought that the "real" Lincoln watch and chain are in the collections at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History here in D.C. What's the story about the Chicago one?

[Susan Higginbotham]

(06-01-2019 07:58 PM)L Verge Wrote:  And while you are explaining the watch chain, would you also explain how the section on abeandmarydag.com labeled "dag history" makes no mention of the dag's history - only a genealogical rambling about several families after stating that the photograph was owned by Ruth somebody. I would bet that the couple that y'all are passing off as the Lincolns was actually somewhere on one of these family lines. Those typed pages are at times difficult for my eyes to read clearly, so would someone else please read the dag history section to make sure that I did not miss how this lady came to get this item?

And while you are on the site, make sure that you read "The Experts" section. It will give you a very good idea of what opinion James and cohorts have of Lincoln experts -- we are all backwoods country hicks.

P.S. I thought that the "real" Lincoln watch and chain are in the collections at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History here in D.C. What's the story about the Chicago one?

I would be willing to bet that the dag depicts one set of the lady's grandparents--whom the site doesn't name, lest someone be in a position to find a photograph of them and compare. It also doesn't mention any connection between the lady and the Lincoln family.

Personally, if I were trying to make a fortune off a photograph, I would spend more time trying to establish its provenance and less time writing snarky poetry about the skeptical.

[James]

Hello Roger ... you asked about the banning of the photograph from eBay, the gold watch chain, and corroborative evidence?
While the photo was listed on eBay years ago, a gentleman associated with the ALPLM contacted the owner and expressed concern about the listing, stating that eBay was not the proper forum to debate the issue of authenticity and that he intended to contact eBay officials about the listing. The listing was subsequently cancelled by eBay with the explanation that it was in violation of an "intellectual copyright" clause set forth in their rules.
The center or bottom portion of the watch chain shown in the dag image appearing to be larger than the upper ends of the chain is the result of photographic distortion and the manner in which gold reacts with the chemical makeup of a daguerreotype. In the late 1990's I ran across an old reference book at the local library that explained at some length this reaction to gold during the daguerrean process. Over the years I've attempted to locate other books or websites that touched on this subject with no luck, and the book was no longer in the library in later years, most likely having been sold in one of their old book sales they did periodically in order to upgrade their reading materials. I would assume that any professional historian whose research is focused on daguerreotypy would have some knowledge of this phenomenon.
Photographic distortion is inherent in all forms of photography and affects the daguerrean process moreso than others due to the long exposure time required.
The photographic image produced by the daguerrean process is "different" than that produced by any other method of photography. If you have any doubts about that, study the 1846-'48 daguerrean image of Abe. As suggested in earlier posts on this thread, try to find Abraham Lincoln in that image. You won't do it. He doesn't exist, at least not the Lincoln that we are all familiar with. To a lesser degree, the same holds true with the "companion" daguerreotype of Mary from the same time period. Compare either of those images with photos taken by an entirely different process a mere ten to fifteen years later. Did their entire physical appearance and facial structure change in that relatively short length of time? No. It's the result of the various photographic methods employed to capture their likeness.
It's been said by some photographic experts that daguerreotypy is the truest form of representational reality ever invented, including modern methods. So why would a mirror image with what has been described as having 3-D qualities produced by the best photographic method ever invented look a bit different than than those images emblazoned onto a piece of glass (ambrotype), a piece of tin (tintype), or a piece of paper (carte-de-visite)? It really self-explanatory.
Abraham Lincoln was six feet - four inches tall. Mary was five feet - two inches tall. Abe's height was disproportionately in his unusually long legs. In the Abe and Mary image, when comparing the necklines and waistlines of the sitters, it is clear that there is an obvious and considerable height differential, even without factoring in Abe's long legs. According to his contemporaries, Abe was no taller than an average man when seated, that only when he stood dis he tower above other men due to his unusually long legs (Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography ... by Phillip and Peter Kunhardt). There is ample visual evidence of the fourteen inch disparity in height.
There are countless biographies that describe the physical traits and characteristics of both Abe and Mary. (Mary had dark brown hair, light blue eyes, etc.) There are a couple of points of note, one of which is also highlighted in the Kunhardt's book. Mary was seldom pleased with her photographic likeness, even attempting to have Matthew Brady destroy the negatives of some of her photos. She complained that her "look" was too stern and her hands would appear too large in her images.
One identifying scar that is not mentioned in her biographies is the large scar on her forehead above her right eye. It is quite distinctive in shape and size, appears clearly in the dag image, and in some of her other photos where the resolution permits such an examination.
While on the subject of Mary, years ago when the daguerreotype was still listed on eBay, the owner was contacted by Michael Ballard, an archivist at Mississippi State University and told that while he (Ballard) didn't necessarily agree with their assessment, a couple of Lincoln experts were convinced that the woman pictured was indeed Mary Todd Lincoln, but that they "couldn't reconcile the image of Abe". He said they thought the man seated next to her was most likely her father, Robert Smith Todd (who died in 1849). When pressed for more details on the subject later on, Mr. Ballard refused to respond to email inquiries. He has since passed away.
Abraham Lincoln was an extraordinarily physically distinctive man, to say the least. He had a multitude of identifying scars and characteristics, but only a few are described in any great detail in biographies. At the top of the list is the mole on the right side of his cheek centered in the crease to the right of his lips. (Albert Kaplan has a website titled ... lincolnportrait.com ... that goes into exhaustive detail about this and every other scar on Lincoln's face). This mole is very prominent in nearly all of Abe's photographs, with the exception of the 1846 daguerreotype and a few others. In some photos the mole is minimized due to the angle of his head and the lighting used by the photographer. For the same reasons just mentioned, in a couple of his photos, the mole is nearly non-existent.
In addition to the more publicized and well-known mole on the right side of his face, there were two moles on the left side of his face, with the uppermost of these two moles being in about the same location directly opposite the one on the right. The bottom left mole is hidden near the edge of his beard but the upper left mole can be seen clearly on the actual daguerreotype, and to a lesser extent in the online images.
Abe had a cleft in his chin that was very distinct in shape and size. The right side of Abe's face was more fully developed than the left side (some historians suggest this was the result of being kicked in the head by a horse as a young boy) and not only the cleft but the entire lower chin and even his nose "pulled" to the right. This is obvious in the dag image.
Abe had a row of pockmarks directly below his left lip that appear as a dark line in most of his photos due to a lack of resolution. These pockmarks are seen in the dag image.
Abe had a blemish or bump or whatever you want to call it directly above the corner of his upper left lip. This is seen some of his photos and in the dag image.
Abe had a small crescent shaped scar in the center of his right cheek in line with center of his nose. This scar is seen in some of his photos and in the dag image.
In the "Gettysburg" photo, a small but prominent knot or bump or blemish can be seen near the hairline about midway on his forehead above his left eye. Very few of his photos show this, but is seen in the dag image.
Abe's right lower lip was larger or thicker than his left lower lip. This is seen in all of his photos and in the dag image.
If one were to cover the right side of Abe's lips, he appears to frown. Cover the left side, he appears to smile. This is seen in most of his photos and in the dag image.
Abe's left eye would occasionally involuntarily "turn upward" or "lapse into a dull, vacant stare", as is documented by many sources. (This is also attributed to being kicked by a horse in the head). This is seen clearly in the dag image.
As described in the Kunhardt's book, Abe had a "characteristic tuft of hair protruding from behind his right ear". This is seen in the dag image.
Abe's hands have been described as large, sinewy, rough hewn. This is seen in the dag image.
Abe had a large scar on his left thumb resulting from a misplaced blow from an ax as a young man. There are no other photos of Abe to my knowledge that show this scar, but it is seen clearly in the dag image.
The manner in which Abe is clutching the cane is a subtle indication of his weakened right shoulder, arm and hand. The presence of the cane provides the perfect prop for this ailment. Otherwise, his right arm would be hanging limply to the side or placed awkwardly on his lap as it is in any of the photos that show his right side. Look at any of the full length photos that show him clutching a rolled up paper or something similar. Why did Leonard Volk ask Abe to hold a piece of whittled broomstick in his right hand when doing a casting of his hands?
Every single identifying mark, scar and characteristic that is known to be unique to either Abe or Mary is present in the dag image.
There is none, not a single solitary scar, mark or characteristic foreign to either Abe or Mary that is present in the dag image.
Mary is wearing a blue watered-silk gown with a white Point D'Alencon lace collar. How do I know it's Point D'Alencon? Because she's Mary Todd Lincoln, and as has been pointed out earlier, Mary was a "fashionista" ... meaning she wouldn't have been "caught dead" wearing anything other than Point D'Alencon lace.
Abe is clutching the gold-headed cane he carried to the inaugural ceremonies earlier that day. He is wearing one while holding the other of the white kid gloves he wore to the inaugural ball later that night.
The gold watch chain seen in the dag image is in possession of the Chicago History Museum.
Abe is freshly shaven for the first time since he started growing his beard in October 1860, as is documented and to be expected for an inauguration.
Referring once again to Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography, there is a photo of Lincoln taken in January or February (can't recall offhand) that shows a scraggly beard with pimples clearly visible in the sparse areas on his lower right cheek. Even the pimples can be seen under magnification of the actual daguerreotype and correspond to those seen in the Jan. or Feb. photograph.
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!

[RJNorton]

(06-02-2019 07:17 AM)James Wrote:  The manner in which Abe is clutching the cane is a subtle indication of his weakened right shoulder, arm and hand. The presence of the cane provides the perfect prop for this ailment.

James, thank you for replying. I must admit that my mind is blank regarding Lincoln's "weakened right shoulder, arm and hand." Is there documentation for this?

Are you saying he did this with his left arm?

https://www.rrstar.com/article/20080222/NEWS/302229871

(Lincoln had "spent hours shaking hands with thousands of wounded soldiers" that day.)

[Susan Higginbotham]

If the "identifying scar" that Mary bore is not mentioned in any of her biographies, what is your source for the scar?

[James]

Roger ...It's just the visual evidence that sticks out like a sore thumb when studying the entire photographic record of Lincoln. There is always an excuse for his right hand by the various biographers, most of whom are ardent admirers of Lincoln and want him to be a perfect specimen beyond the frailties of a human being. He "shook too many hands". Leonard Volk " wished for Abe to hold something in his right hand" when doing castings of his hands. Why? What's the excuse for the rolled up papers he is clutching in his full length photographs? Does that at all look like a normal pose?
There are several colorful descriptions describing Abe's right side, a couple of which are highlighted in the Kunhardt's book I mentioned. Something to the effect that he teetered to one side like a sailor trying to find his sea legs. There are more descriptions that I've run across over the years that I can't recall at the moment but they are well documented, and coupled with the photographic record, leave little doubt about his right side being "compromised" for lack of a better term.
While the manner in which he is clutching the cane is admittedly subtle, and on a stand alone basis seemingly insignificant, it is just one more small piece of the larger puzzle that when fully assembled leaves no doubt as to the identity of the couple in dag image.
One more point about daguerreotypes. There have been many instances in the last few decades where famous individuals have been identified and authenticated as the result of a renewed interest in the daguerreotype. More people perusing photographic shops and flea markets and antique shops and estate sales. These images were hiding in plain sight in many instances for over a century. Why is it that only recently are the subjects in these photographs being recognized? Could it be that the daguerrean image is so different than the images produced by all other photographic methods that they were completely overlooked as a result? I think that may play a role, however large or small that role may be in the final analysis.

Susan ... by studying the photographic record of Mary. There are many of her photos that show the large scar. Why this has never been touched upon in any of her biographies is beyond me. Most likely because without the Abe and Mary dag surfacing, it would be be historically irrelevant.

[L Verge]

Convenient answers without citations once again. I'm still stuck on how you are identifying the lace as Point d'Alencon, which was of a very fine, soft, and expensive quality. What I can detect of the collar on Mrs. Whoever seems stiff and thick and typical for a middle-class lady.

On a personal note, it is amazing that this dag has survived in such great condition. I have quite a few family pieces dating to the 1850s and early-60s. They are in gutta percha cases and have been stored away from light for well over a century, but the images have faded greatly on most of them.

[Eva Elisabeth]

The first two are the pseudo "Abe" (he disliked anyone but stepmother calling him like that btw.), first the "original pseudo", second the photo shopped. Third and 4th the original Lincoln before and during presidency. Lincoln's ear lobes, eyes and "eye line" totally differ from the fake. Sorry, James, just the way it is. Ear lobes do not shrink and orbitae don't change shape unless by violence...
           
   
You can do the same with the "Marys". And still I want to know how she made it to secretly emaciate for this unique quick event. What a pity no one else back then noticed.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(06-02-2019 04:24 PM)James Wrote:  There have been many instances in the last few decades where famous individuals have been identified and authenticated as the result of a renewed interest in the daguerreotype. More people perusing photographic shops and flea markets and antique shops and estate sales. These images were hiding in plain sight in many instances for over a century. Why is it that only recently are the subjects in these photographs being recognized?

Can you give some examples?

[Steve]

Here's a comparison of the woman with Mary (although Mary's dag on the right dates from a decade earlier based on the other woman's clothing). Just study the couple's faces and compare them to the known images. Where's the resemblance at all to either of the Lincolns?