Seed Pearl Necklace and Bracelets

[James]

Roger - I was just going back over the last few posts trying to locate your post # where you asked a question somewhat similar to Steve's last post so I could respond to both. I noticed my post #177 contains but two paragraphs in response to your comments about provenance and authentication. I recall making a stark distinction between "historical items and artifacts, including pieces of art" and the world of photographs as it related to provenance and authenticity. There were at least a couple of more paragraphs between the first and second paragraphs that make up the entirety of the response.
Do you have any idea why that is? Also, after typing that response, I hit the "post" button and it showed that it had posted. I then responded in a new post to someone else and that post piggybacked and appeared on my post to you. I'm just curious as to why this happened so I don't repeat it. Thank you.

---

Susan - I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. I was in way inferring anything about you and the "seller". It was a feeble attempt at humor because you had finally agreed on a salient point. As with other respondents on here, we just don't communicate on the same wavelength.

---

(06-07-2019 04:27 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?

Steve and Roger ... there is nothing on the daguerreotype that would shed light on the photographer. The only marking is the hallmark on the plate itself that indicates it is of French origin. If memory serves, it is embossed with the initials H.B. with an eagle and the number 40 inside the rectangular hallmark. There is no accompanying documentation or provenance. It all begins and ends with Ruth Montgomery Day. Family members had always assumed it was an image of a distant relative.

---

(06-07-2019 10:21 AM)davg2000 Wrote:  

(06-07-2019 01:41 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.

Dave - I'm sorry that I annoy you. Heartbroken would be more fitting.
I don't think Abe would have had any problem whatsoever with me calling him by his given name, thank you.
You keep banging this "provenance" drum. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, associated with the ALPLM needs to be preaching to me about provenance! I read the Illinois Times and the Springfield Journal Register, and it would appear the ALPLM needs to get it's own house in order before issuing edicts to others. Abe's stovepipe hat, the bloody gloves, the fan..............