Seed Pearl Necklace and Bracelets

[Donna]

(03-17-2018 01:34 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(03-17-2018 01:25 PM)Donna Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 11:13 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Gene, your theory makes perfect sense to me!

I'm curious, Donna, are you the owner of the dag? Your remarks on this site have the same general tone and talking points as those on the dag's website, although I can see where you might be reluctant here to associate yourself with the website, given this diatribe there: "Since you Lincoln worshippers don't seem overly concerned with historical accuracy . . . "

I’m curious, Susan, are you owner of this site? Your remarks on this site have the same general tone and talking points as those on other Lincoln sites, although I can see where you might be reluctant here to associate yourself with those websites, given this diatribe there: “Abbott & Costello...1937...who’s on..........”
I suppose conspiracy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm sorry, but that seems to me to be a rather inane comment that does nothing to address the original purpose of your post, which I thought was to seek opinions from others well-versed in the field as to the authenticity of said daguerreotype. Do honest and well-thought-out opinions (based on years of research in the field) stand for nothing?

How many doubts does it take from well-trained folks before one concedes that the photo may not be of the Lincolns? On the other hand, can you post positive identifications and reasons that you have received from other well-qualified people?

So Laurie, are we now ready to dispense with the vitriol, sarcasm, condescension, (I’m guilty as well) and as noted in earlier posts, the guessing, theories, and opinions that only serve to muddy the waters? Not to belabor the point, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that ‘well trained folks’ and ‘others well-versed in the field (based on years of research in the field)’ yielded no positive contribution to an easily obtained truth until faced with incontrovertible evidence that could no longer be explained away with said opinions and theories. As I stated earlier, I’m interested in concise, factual, delineated arguments. No, I don’t own the dag. I know the guy that does. He attempted to register on this forum years ago to debate this issue but was denied membership. And no, he’s not going to “back off”. Won’t happen. It is incumbent upon the Lincoln community, if in fact their collective goal is to rid the internet of yet another in a long line of what they deem questionable photographs of Lincoln that they take issue with, to present a factual argument based on visual evidence present in the dag image that will put to rest once and for all any notion that the couple are Abraham and Mary Lincoln. A reasonable debate can’t take place if one side refuses to engage. There is a reason that the dag in question has never been legitimately challenged, and is not now being legitimately challenged on a forum maintained by and perused by highly intelligent men and woman fully capable of articulating such an argument if one were to exist. The reason is, as unpopular as it might be here, is that the argument for the daguerreotype being an authentic image of Abe and Mary is quite simply overwhelming and unassailable. If it were truly a mid-nineteenth century dag of an unknown couple who vaguely resembled the Lincolns, visual evidence would be, again, overwhelming and indisputable. End of story. Case closed. A nice vintage Victorian dag of no real historical or monetary value. But there is no such evidence. In fact, there is not a single scar or identifying characteristic present that one could point to as being foreign to either Abe OR Mary. This nonsense about comparative height is just that...nonsense. Abe’s height was disproportionately in his legs. He was no taller than an average man when seated. This not an opinion or theory. It has been described and documented by his contemporaries. Factor in the neck and waistlines - and the obvious fact that Mary is clearly seated higher than Abe - and this contentious narrative vanishes. As would many others if I had the motivation to pursue them on this forum. Which I don’t. It would most likely be an exercise in futility. I say it’s them. You say it’s not. Yes it is. No it’s not. Back and forth we go. You say something laced with sarcasm...I respond in kind. Or vice-versa. You think you’re right. I KNOW I’m right. To what end? Besides, Roger Norton is flat-out, hands-down the NICEST human being on the planet! Really. He founded this forum and deserves a more cerebral discussion than what we’ve delivered here. Sorry things kind of went down hill, Roger. This will be my last post here. Unless someone says something smart. Then all bets are off! My objective in starting this thread was to put to rest once and for all this mistaken notion about the blue gown and seed pearl jewelry being worn to the 1861 inaugural ball by Mary. Not because I care one whit about Victorian fashion, but because the blue gown Mary is wearing in the dag is just one more piece of the puzzle. So Thank You ladies, for posting the additional articles describing the gown, though it was like pulling teeth to get the ball rolling. By the way, those of you who really are interested in Victorian fashion should Google point d’ Alencon lace. It’s not your typical run-of-the-mill frumpy housewife clothing accessory. It has a fascinating history and was basically worn by royalty or the upper-upper crust, and young women had to apprentice for 7 to 10 YEARS before they could work in the factory that produced it. Wow! I wasn’t aware of that prior to Susan’s post. I would thank her, but her ESP appears to be finely tuned.