Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Susan Higginbotham · 03-01-2016, 01:17 PM

It looks to me as if it is a copy of an daguerreotype or an ambrotype. The former was around in Thomas Lincoln's lifetime; the latter didn't reach the U.S. until about the time of his death.

RJNorton · 03-01-2016, 02:25 PM

In the article in the Lincoln Herald the question concerning the image was posed to two experts. And the experts disagreed! The first one said he "would lean toward saying the original was a daguerreotype." The second one said "if you look at the vests on gentlemen in daguerreotypes they are reversed." He noted that this did not seem to be the case in the alleged Thomas Lincoln image. This expert felt the image was "from a wet-plate negative original," and the wet-plate collodion process did not emerge until the early 1850s.

The author of the article, Michael Lynch, also asked a specialist in historical clothing about the image. She stated that the man's jacket sleeve width was more indicative of the late 1850s, not c. 1848-1850 when the image was supposedly taken.

Gene C · 03-01-2016, 03:12 PM

This has little to do with the discussion, but I noticed the man in the photo seems to be missing the tip of his index finger on his right hand.
Probably a common injury back then, especially for a farmer or carpenter.

Steve Whitlock · 03-01-2016, 04:00 PM

I lied when I said I had no more to say! I do have one more comment to make. In "Abraham Lincoln: A Life" by Michael Burlingame, Vol. 1 Chapter 1, pg 16 footnote 64 there are good sources, including Robert Todd Lincoln who said he had "never heard of any picture of my grandfather, Thomas Lincoln". Other sources mentioned, who should have known, include John J. Hall, husband of Matilda Johnston, Thomas Lincoln's stepdaughter. Mr. Hall stated that "No photograph or likeness was ever taken of Thos. Lincoln". Hall also allegedly said that he and Sarah Bush Johnston-Lincoln insisted that Thomas have "a picture taken just a year or two before his death, but he neglected to have it done".

RJNorton · 03-02-2016, 05:54 AM

I can go either way on this "apparent" image of Thomas Lincoln. Robert Lincoln was not always correct on his memories regarding photos. Regarding the earliest known photos of his parents his reminiscence was that they were made in 1847-1849 in Washington (or possibly St. Louis). One reason he expressed doubt that these early images were made in Springfield was that Springfield was a small town at the time, and he doubted any daguerreians were located there in the mid-1840s. Robert was incorrect, however. Lloyd Ostendorf found there were several already operating in Springfield in 1846. Most Lincoln books say these two daguerreotypes were made 1846-1847 in Springfield.

Here is some more information from the Michael Lynch article regarding the alleged image of Thomas Lincoln:

During the Civil War a relative of Thomas Lincoln approached O.V. Flora, a soldier from Ohio who was stationed in Illinois, with an offer to sell him a photo of Thomas Lincoln. The relative told Flora the photo was genuine and he needed the money badly and was willing to sell it. Under the photo was written "Thomas Lincoln. Born 1778 Died 1851." The exact date and nature of the transaction is unknown. R. Gerald McMurtry researched Flora and found that Flora was indeed assigned (for a short time) to service in Charleston, Illinois, only a few miles from Thomas Lincoln's home.

The photo then ended up in the hands of Flora's daughter, Mrs. E.J. Shafer of Franklin, Indiana. In 1932 she loaned the photo out for display in Ft. Wayne. In 1933 McMurtry got her permission to publish the photo in Kentucky Progress magazine.

Although scholars disagree on the photo's authenticity, Charles Hamilton and Lloyd Ostendorf wrote, "Many scholars doubt its authenticity, but the rugged, angular features of the subject, so dramatically Lincolnesque, match contemporary descriptions of Thomas Lincoln." McMurtry speculated that the family member who sold the photo to Flora was probably "a member of the Johnston family, a descendant of Sarah Bush, the second wife of Thomas Lincoln."

In writing about the image Michael Lynch notes, "To argue that someone defrauded O.V. Flora requires a forger who successfully pulled some difficult and improbable stunts: locating a suitable picture to match Thomas Lincoln's appearance, discovering the correct dates, and passing himself off as a Lincoln relative in a community near where the family lived."

Susan Higginbotham · 03-02-2016, 08:27 AM

Where is the original photo? Is the Lincoln Herald article accessible online? (I know some issues are.)

RJNorton · 03-02-2016, 09:15 AM

(03-02-2016 08:27 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: Where is the original photo? Is the Lincoln Herald article accessible online? (I know some issues are.)

Susan, the original is in a vault at the Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum in Harrogate, Tennessee. It is part of the Lincoln collection there.

The Michael Lynch article can be downloaded here.

Steve Whitlock · 03-02-2016, 12:44 PM

Mr Norton,

I'm struggling to play nice here, but one wonders whether "a relative" (a nameless relative it seems) also had a bridge he might be willing to part with given his monetary issues. Out of nowhere "a relative" decides to sell the only picture there is of Thomas Lincoln to O.V. Flora, rather than getting a much higher price from other collectors, newspapers, etc. Since he is an unknown relative we can't authenticate the purchase, or source of said photo.

If I'm to disregard Robert Todd Lincoln, John J. Hall and other non-believers I need something stronger to go on. If the photo is genuine, great. If not, that's unfortunate. But I can't even begin to accept the O.V. Flora purchase of "Thomas Lincoln 1778-1851" if that's all we have for the story.

Thank you for the added information regarding the photo. That gives me something to try researching a bit more, rather than viewing it as a con job. I hadn't read about that account of how the photo came to light, but then I dismissed the photo early on as a fraud based on the Burlingame information and my own sense of when the photo was made, and other warning signals, that taken altogether was too much smoke to ignore.

On the other hand a little warning signal from my brain suggests that I not bury myself too quickly. If the photo is a fraud then I would have expected other purchasers to have been approached by "a relative" and to have bought the same photo, or another like it. I would also have expected by now that a whistle-blower would have appeared to say that the photo was his great grandfather, beloved uncle or at least someone he recognized. If the photo was acquired during the Civil War era surely there were some people still around who knew Thomas Lincoln and could corroborate the validity of the photo. John J. Hall and Matilda Johnston Hall, among many others, knew what he looked like.

Maybe I'm missing something here and am assuming they saw the photo. I need to regroup and try to gather more information before jumping to the conclusion I've already jumped to, which is that I can't accept the Lynch story of "a relative" and O.V. Flora as believable, if that is all there is for details.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 03-02-2016 04:26 PM by Gene C.)

From what little I have read about John Johnston (Lincoln's step brother) he had a tendency to laziness and not the best in money management.
(and not the sharpest knife in the drawer)
It has been alleged that Lincoln sent money for his step Mother's care, and that his step brother used it instead. So maybe the step brother tried to sell the photo....maybe.
And no big surprise that only one copy was made. Maybe they couldn't afford another copy, didn't want one, didn't know or think of having a copy made?

Wonder what Flora paid for it? Couldn't have been much of a demand for it.
We may never know the real story.

Steve Whitlock · 03-02-2016, 03:51 PM

Roger,

First of all I apologize for my flippant opening paragraph in my previous post! After reading the article you graciously provided, and imbued with some guilt for my statements, I will at least make an attempt to find something more conclusive than I currently have to either prove or disprove the Thomas Lincoln photo. The genealogical reward if it is truly a photo of Thomas Lincoln is too compelling to be dismissive out of hand.

In the meantime I'm struck by the sloppy circle that seems amateurish for the photo. Has a photo been cut and placed on a mat, or the hole in a mat been cut out? Efforts should also continue to firmly establish whether the photo is daguerrotype or ambrotype. I'm not qualified to do that.

RJNorton · 03-02-2016, 04:36 PM

I am curious if anyone on the forum who is familiar with men's fashions of the era could possibly comment on the specialist's opinion which stated that the man's jacket sleeve width was more indicative of the late 1850s, not c. 1848-1850 when the image was supposedly taken. Thanks.

L Verge · 03-02-2016, 06:45 PM

(03-02-2016 03:51 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: Roger,

First of all I apologize for my flippant opening paragraph in my previous post! After reading the article you graciously provided, and imbued with some guilt for my statements, I will at least make an attempt to find something more conclusive than I currently have to either prove or disprove the Thomas Lincoln photo. The genealogical reward if it is truly a photo of Thomas Lincoln is too compelling to be dismissive out of hand.

In the meantime I'm struck by the sloppy circle that seems amateurish for the photo. Has a photo been cut and placed on a mat, or the hole in a mat been cut out? Efforts should also continue to firmly establish whether the photo is daguerrotype or ambrotype. I'm not qualified to do that.

I know very little about photography (even modern photography), but the seemingly matted photo posted here seemed strange to me also. It certainly seems to be a paper photo matted on paper of some sort. Could they reproduce paper copies from daguerreotypes or ambrotypes of that era? Is this what the real thing looks like at the museum?

I have also fussed over the clothing. The sleeve line isn't what I would call tight and straight, but the deep, rounded lapel of the waistcoat is what has me wondering about the period. The width of and overall size of men's bow ties during the 19th century can also pinpoint down to decades. I just haven't had time to pursue the issue.

Susan Higginbotham · 03-02-2016, 10:11 PM

(03-02-2016 06:45 PM)L Verge Wrote:
(03-02-2016 03:51 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote: Roger,

First of all I apologize for my flippant opening paragraph in my previous post! After reading the article you graciously provided, and imbued with some guilt for my statements, I will at least make an attempt to find something more conclusive than I currently have to either prove or disprove the Thomas Lincoln photo. The genealogical reward if it is truly a photo of Thomas Lincoln is too compelling to be dismissive out of hand.

In the meantime I'm struck by the sloppy circle that seems amateurish for the photo. Has a photo been cut and placed on a mat, or the hole in a mat been cut out? Efforts should also continue to firmly establish whether the photo is daguerrotype or ambrotype. I'm not qualified to do that.

I know very little about photography (even modern photography), but the seemingly matted photo posted here seemed strange to me also. It certainly seems to be a paper photo matted on paper of some sort. Could they reproduce paper copies from daguerreotypes or ambrotypes of that era? Is this what the real thing looks like at the museum?

I have also fussed over the clothing. The sleeve line isn't what I would call tight and straight, but the deep, rounded lapel of the waistcoat is what has me wondering about the period. The width of and overall size of men's bow ties during the 19th century can also pinpoint down to decades. I just haven't had time to pursue the issue.

There are CDVs that are copies of daguerreotypes and ambrotypes; some studios specialized in making such copies. This is a good example:

http://www.ipernity.com/doc/292229/35575149

Steve Whitlock · 03-03-2016, 12:23 AM

I read an exchange of letters between Leota (Flora) Schafer, Mrs Frederick J. Schafer that is, and Louis Warren, also with R. Gerald McMurtry, and in one of them she states that a photographer informed her that the photo was a daguerrotype. That may be; however, the daguerrotype photos I've seen don't look like a photo has been glued to a piece of cardboard where something else has been.

With all the ostensible investigating for the authenticity of the photo I haven't seen any mention of other family members being interviewed to provide corroboration for the O.V. Flory and Lincoln relative story. Also, there is no mention of Leota's brother, Herbert M. Flora, a photographer of some repute in the Jefferson Co., IN area where Leota lived. Surely he could have some insight as to the photo's authenticity. He also would have access to a variety of photos.

Herbert M. Flora

Birth: Sep., 1869
Madison
Jefferson County
Indiana, USA
Death: Jan. 15, 1952
Madison
Jefferson County
Indiana, USA

From the Madison Courier, Jefferson Co., IN
Monday, 14 Jan 1952

Death Claims Herbert M. Flora

Services For Retired Photographer
Will Be Tomorrow

Herbert M. Flora, 82, a retired Madison photographer, died at 10:30 o'clock yesterday morning in the Obermale nursing home at North Madison, folloiwng a 17 months illness.

Mr. Flora was a native and life resident of Madison. for many years he operated a studio in the east portion of what is now the Edward Eckert & Sons store on east Main street.

He first was engaged in the portrait business, but later concentrated on scenic views of Madison and its environs. He was a pioneer in the view photo business here and numerous postcard colored views now being sold in this city may be traced back to his early negatives. He was the originator of the most popular picture of Clifty Falls which was taken many years before the state park was established.

The deceased is survived only by a son, Ervin B. Flora, a city mail carrier, and a granddaughter, Rebecca Flora, also of this city. His wife, the late Mrs. Rebecca Schafer Flora, preceded him in death about 25 years ago. He resided until his last illness at 603½ west Main street.

Funeral services will be conducted tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock in the Vail Memorial funeral home and burial will be in Springdale cemetery. Friends may call at the memorial.

Family links:
Parents:
Orlando Valentine Flora (1831 - 1915)
Elmirah C. Swope Flora (1832 - 1916)

Spouse:
Rebecca B. Shafer Flora (1869 - 1921)*

Children:
Lelia Pauline Flora (1898 - 1899)*

Siblings:
Lelia Flora Zuck (1854 - 1900)*
Lillian May Flora (1856 - 1878)*
Leota Flora Schafer (1858 - 1945)*
Ellsworth Elmer Flora (1861 - 1917)*
Florella D. Flora (1867 - 1868)*
Herbert M. Flora (1869 - 1952)
Archie F. Flora (1872 - 1872)*

*Calculated relationship

Burial:
Springdale Cemetery
Madison
Jefferson County
Indiana, USA
Plot: Lot 554, Plat 4

Created by: Karen Phillips
Record added: Mar 22, 2012
Find A Grave Memorial# 87199584

Herbert M. Flora
Added by: Karen Phillips

Herbert M. Flora
Cemetery Photo
Added by: Tamie Dehler

In all the find-a-grave memorials, (including Orlando Valentine Flora), and obits there is not a single mention of the Flora family's claim to historical fame, owners of the only purported photo of Thomas Lincoln.

Some of Herbert's photos are available and he was doing photography at least as far back as 1890 when he took a photo of his wife and daughter in a canoe. Other photos after that exist as well. I am not claiming that Herbert doctored the photo, merely noting that he was a photographer, and wondering why he wasn't interviewed for his opinion.

There is mention in other areas for one of the Johnston boys being a photographer, so why not Herbert M. Flora. If a photo was glued to a piece of cardboard (has the original been checked for that) as it appears, then it makes no difference whether there was writing on a piece of cardboard (not the photo itself, according to Lynch). The photo needn't have been taken in the correct time period if one wished to take a daguerrotype photo, and had the necessary equipment. Tintype photos are taken today.

Just adding some information here that seems to have been overlooked or ignored.

Steve Whitlock · 03-03-2016, 01:32 AM

Here is an excerpt from Mrs F. J. Schafer's letter that is of interest.

"All photographers I have talked to say it is a coppied (sic) picture from a daguerrotype and coppied later on as during the civil war but was not taken on paper as I told you that it was during the war that my father obtained it."

I'm not certain what she is saying there, but it seems to me that the Thomas Lincoln photo may not be as genuine as stated by the Lincoln relative, (certainly it isn't an original photo if "coppied") and the piece of cardboard with the name and dates for Thomas Lincoln may not prove anything. Yes, the John Johnston family could well be the Lincoln relatives.