JWB Photo - Has Anyone Ever Seen the Full Length of This Photo?

[BettyO]

I have seen this photo a lot of times - too many to mention, but don't remember seeing the entire full length photo of this. It's usually just a head shot....

From what one can barely see of his legs here - it's no wonder he was called "Billy Bowlegs" in his youth! This photo also makes him out to be taller than I would have imagined....

[GARY POPOLO]

Betty, You are right this picture does make him appear taller then he actually was. I have seen this picture before but as you said never the full view. Actually I have seen this picture a number of times but as you said it was just a head shot. Still a good picture. You can see why he was called the ladies man. Best Gary

[KateH.]

Lincoln in Photographs: An Album of Every Known Pose, compiled by Charles Hamilton and Lloyd Ostendorf, includes the photo.

[Gene C]

I notice in this photo, and also one of Mary Lincoln, it appears as though they are only wearing one glove.
Anyone know why?

[L Verge]

Is this particular three-quarter length view in the Gutman book? What are its dimensions? Larger than the traditional CDVs? Could it be doctored? - especially if it only appears in the Hamilton-Ostendorf book.

I don't have an answer to the one glove poses unless it was just an accepted pose of the day. The "fair, fat, and forty" photo of Mrs. Surratt taken shortly before the assassination shows one glove off and one glove on also. The hand clenching the glove almost appears deformed - or even "photo-shopped" into the picture.

[RJNorton]

(08-22-2013 03:57 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Could it be doctored? - especially if it only appears in the Hamilton-Ostendorf book.

I don't know, Laurie, but it's also included in Lincoln's Photographs - A Complete Album. All it says is "Rare Standing Portrait" and "Ostendorf collection."

I have both books, and I don't recall what I paid years ago, but I am surprised to see what they go for nowadays on Amazon.

[KateH.]

As Laurie wrote, the one glove pose might have simply been a popular look for the time. The one hand in jacket pose certainly was. There are numerous pictures of the Booth men posed in that fashion.

[Eva Elisabeth]

(08-22-2013 04:17 PM)KateH. Wrote:  As Laurie wrote, the one glove pose might have simply been a popular look for the time. The one hand in jacket pose certainly was. There are numerous pictures of the Booth men posed in that fashion.

The one hand in jacked pose had even been popular before:

   


And the one glove pose was popular only until recently:

http://onthisdayinfashion.com/?p=13652

[L Verge]

Some of us have laughed for decades about the Napoleonic pose that men assumed during the 19th century. They must all have had a similar itch...

Why are certain names starting to pop up in association with "rare" images? Is it just because they had the income to afford such images?

[Eva Elisabeth]

Does anyone know how much it cost in those days to have one's picture taken?

[BettyO]

Quote:Does anyone know how much it cost in those days to have one's picture taken?

Eva -

I've had a little difficulty finding prices - as I'm at work; but I did find this one reference -

"In America, by 1851 a broadside by daguerreotypist Augustus Washington was advertising prices ranging from 50 cents to $10.[21] However, daguerreotypes were fragile and difficult to copy. Photographers encouraged chemists to refine the process of making many copies cheaply, which eventually led them back to Talbot's process."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography

Another reference stated that CDVs could cost anything from $1.00 to $5.00 (almost a week's pay!)

Here is an ad for photographs -

[Eva Elisabeth]

Thank you, Betty, I've always wanted to know this!

[BettyO]

Aside from the actual ads (and I don't mean to discredit Wiki - but it can be unreliable unless it's cited) - I would take this with a grain of salt -- I will continue to research this. It's really got me thinking now!

Thanks, Eva!

[L Verge]

The ad that Betty showed must come from a post-Civil War source. I don't know much about early photography, but weren't Cabinet Cards in vogue after the war? Also, it is advertising photos on porcelain, which I associate more with post-Civil War. I have a porcelain photo of my great-great-uncle mounted in a beautiful gutta-percha case. The quality and "softness" of the image is remarkable.

It was taken after the war and after he had suffered as a prisoner at Point Lookout Prison. While a prisoner, he served on the grave-digging detail and injured his ankle with a grub-hoe. The injury remained an open sore for the rest of his life (he lived until the end of the 1800s) because of the filth and germs that entered his system.

[Jenny]

Quote:This photo also makes him out to be taller than I would have imagined....

It's the coat length and the way the photo cuts off at the legs that makes him look so long from the waist down.

As someone who uses Photoshop to doctor a lot of photos and make web graphics, my opinion is that I doubt this was a tampered-with image. I blew up the image and took a close look; usually you can find evidence of tampering (even the best manipulators can get caught by tiny details), but I didn't. (Maybe someone else could look though as I do not claim to be a complete expert on catching manipulation.)

I just wish there was a full view down to the boots of Booth of this image! What you can see of his thighs do seem to suggest he had a case of "bowlegs" indeed!

OT: Wasn't 5'7" - 5'8" the average height for a man in 1865? I forget. I just remember it was something like 5'1" - 5'2" for women. Correct me if I am wrong!

Quote:Why are certain names starting to pop up in association with "rare" images? Is it just because they had the income to afford such images?

To be honest, that might be true, Laurie.