Seed Pearl Necklace and Bracelets

[Donna]

Dave,

In lieu of sarcasm, I’m just going to tell you point blank that geocentric theories, big planets, and cute little dwarf planets that no one can see are quite simply extraterrestrialaneous issues that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the Abe & Mary dag or an unassailable truth. Nice try though.
In response to one of your assertions, allow me, to tell you, “the way this works”. The authentication process involves removing ALL theories and opinions from the equation, and replacing them with visual and circumstantial fact-based evidence that due to a preponderance becomes unassailable. The dag appears to be standing tall on its own merits. Wouldn’t you agree? You can’t knock it off it’s perch, can you? The Lincoln community, chock full of “informed, careful, responsible, credentialed people”, can’t touch it. It’s certainly not for a lack of effort or a dearth of desire. So what exactly does that tell you, Dave?
The one point you make that I can’t argue with is my sarcasm. I really, really, really am going to take that to heart and make an earnest attempt to stop it.
BTW, did I write the poem? 1st...THANK YOU for the compliment, Dave!!! As much as I’d like to take credit for it, no, I didn’t write it. I just flat out plagiarized it right off the internet. I can’t recall offhand who I stole it from,....maybe Longfellow,.....or Whitman, but it just dovetailed so nicely with the subject at hand that I couldn’t resist.
My other response to that question requires a sledgehammer, but I doubt if you’d get it. The others didn’t.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Donna, still the world is waiting for your fact-based evidence. (Without, the pic's standing remains a matter of perception and opinion.)

Waiting for Godot. So what.

And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream.

[davg2000]

I wish I had said it as succinctly as Eva has. Donna, your problem is that unless you produce, from some one, evidence to authenticate the picture, you are still left with your opinion. As I said earlier, everyone here would love to find a picture of Abraham and Mary Lincoln together. But I sincerely don't think you have it.

The best thing you can do is make the picture public and then simply wait until the world recognizes that it is genuine. If this recognition occurs, fine. If it never comes, you still have the truth.

Kudos on your recognition of your sarcasm and your desire to stop it. You held out well until your final two sentences.

[L Verge]

Dave - Thank you once again for your intelligent, appropriate, and gentlemanly response to what has become a whirlwind of words with no real meaning and no outcome. You're the type who keeps the history world viable and honest.

After my absence of a few weeks, I am catching up on the forum, and I am amazed at the patience and fortitude shown by so many of you on this thread while trying to instill the principles of good historical research and proof within a "stonewall." Sometimes, however, even good sense and a dose of dynamite doesn't work!

[davg2000]

Hi, Laurie--

I met Bill Binzel this weekend on the Springfield Tour. He told me a little about what you've been through. I hope you are feeling better. You are an important part of this Symposium.

Thank you for the kind words. They meant a lot.

[James]

Roger........did you ever contact Dr. Cornelius to satisfy your curiosity concerning the dag?

[RJNorton]

Yes, I did write him at the ALPLM last April, and there was no response. I know he had some difficulties with the ALPLM, and he may never have received it. I do not know. All I know is that my email went unanswered. Dr. Cornelius was fired in September after being on paid administrative leave for months.

[James]

(03-27-2018 01:07 PM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  Since some would consider me an expert on 19th century fashion, and definitely the clothing of Mary Lincoln, I have some comments about the daguerreotype previously mentioned. I did go to the website and read the commentary about the image.

This image was not created in 1861.
Since photography was new and expensive, most people wore their newest and best fashion when sitting for a photograph. Let's assume the couple in the photo did the same.
Someone previously mentioned that the dress in the photo appears to have been from the 1850's or as early as the 1840's. Based on years of research, my vote is for the 1840's - or at least the dress is from the 1840's. Day dresses (and this is a day dress not a ball gown) are unique because of the bodice style. They have tighter sleeves and the trim detail is placed from the elbow to the wrist. Bodices have a narrow shoulder line than previous fashions. Bodices often have flat folds in the front, and the waist line is lower and pointed. These details are all visible in the image. The women wears an 1840's lace collar (not a cape) that is wider than those of the 1860's. Her hairstyle is that of the 1840's with the hair closer to the head on the top and adorned with spaniel curls.

By now, most historians realize that Mary wore a blue, watered silk, ball gown with a bertha of d'Alencon lace, a head dress containing a blue ostrich feather, and the seed-pearl parure that had been recently purchased at Tiffany & Co.

Yes, there are older books which mistakenly name one of the white ball gowns as the inaugural gown. I believe this is because in his book, Lloyd Ostendorf speculated one of these gowns was worn at the inaugural ball. He made a mistake. It happens. Lloyd was not knowledgeable about women's fashions, nor did he research Mary's attire.

Concerning the purchase date of the Tiffany seed-pearl parure . . . According to John Loring's book, TIFFANY'S 150 YEARS, the set was purchased during the New York stop of the inaugural trip to Washington on February 20, 1861.

Laurie, I so wish I lived closer to you! I would love to attend some of the classes you mentioned and would enjoy seeing your d'Alencon lace. And yes, I too must say "sorry gents" for including so much women's fashion information . . . but admit it . . . you found it interesting too . . . now didn't you?

Hi Donna McCreary ..... as an expert on Victorian clothing and accessories, was it customary to wear a seed pearl necklace atop a white Point d'Alencon lace collar? Also, would it be at all unusual for a Victorian woman to wear an ultra-expensive lace collar with a 'day dress'? Thank you for your expertise.

[L Verge]

(05-21-2019 02:29 AM)James Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 01:07 PM)Donna McCreary Wrote:  Since some would consider me an expert on 19th century fashion, and definitely the clothing of Mary Lincoln, I have some comments about the daguerreotype previously mentioned. I did go to the website and read the commentary about the image.

This image was not created in 1861.
Since photography was new and expensive, most people wore their newest and best fashion when sitting for a photograph. Let's assume the couple in the photo did the same.
Someone previously mentioned that the dress in the photo appears to have been from the 1850's or as early as the 1840's. Based on years of research, my vote is for the 1840's - or at least the dress is from the 1840's. Day dresses (and this is a day dress not a ball gown) are unique because of the bodice style. They have tighter sleeves and the trim detail is placed from the elbow to the wrist. Bodices have a narrow shoulder line than previous fashions. Bodices often have flat folds in the front, and the waist line is lower and pointed. These details are all visible in the image. The women wears an 1840's lace collar (not a cape) that is wider than those of the 1860's. Her hairstyle is that of the 1840's with the hair closer to the head on the top and adorned with spaniel curls.

By now, most historians realize that Mary wore a blue, watered silk, ball gown with a bertha of d'Alencon lace, a head dress containing a blue ostrich feather, and the seed-pearl parure that had been recently purchased at Tiffany & Co.

Yes, there are older books which mistakenly name one of the white ball gowns as the inaugural gown. I believe this is because in his book, Lloyd Ostendorf speculated one of these gowns was worn at the inaugural ball. He made a mistake. It happens. Lloyd was not knowledgeable about women's fashions, nor did he research Mary's attire.

Concerning the purchase date of the Tiffany seed-pearl parure . . . According to John Loring's book, TIFFANY'S 150 YEARS, the set was purchased during the New York stop of the inaugural trip to Washington on February 20, 1861.

Laurie, I so wish I lived closer to you! I would love to attend some of the classes you mentioned and would enjoy seeing your d'Alencon lace. And yes, I too must say "sorry gents" for including so much women's fashion information . . . but admit it . . . you found it interesting too . . . now didn't you?

Hi Donna McCreary ..... as an expert on Victorian clothing and accessories, was it customary to wear a seed pearl necklace atop a white Point d'Alencon lace collar? Also, would it be at all unusual for a Victorian woman to wear an ultra-expensive lace collar with a 'day dress'? Thank you for your expertise.

I hope that Donna McCreary gets the word that her expertise is needed here! I am no expert, but I have looked at many period photos of women in day dresses, afternoon dresses, walking outfits, riding habits, etc. over the years at Surratt House Museum (where our docents are always in period garb). I subsequently searched period photos online last night after seeing your post.

Except for ball gowns, most of the examples were of ladies with dresses covering up to the neck, and the majority of the dresses sported lace collars. I could not determine the detail, quality, or value of the lace, of course, but it certainly appears that women preferred the lace collars - at least on the dresses that they chose for their photographs.

That said, I also did not (and can't remember ever) seeing a necklace of any sort laying on top of the collar. Brooches, bar pins, and ribbon "bow" ties (popular in mid-century) predominate. In fact, the most familiar photo of Mary Surratt shows such a tie with what appears to be a brooch atop it. I suspect that necklaces were reserved for ball gowns or lockets with longer chains that could tuck under the collar allowing the locket or pendant to appear farther down on the chest. Don't quote me on that, however.

As for your question regarding expensive lace, I am not even going to guess on that one. Are your questions related to a photograph that you own or a subject that has been expounded on earlier on this great forum?

[Susan Higginbotham]

If the question refers to the dress and collar that the lady in the purported "Abraham and Mary" daguerreotype is wearing, she appears to be wearing a good silk dress (not a ball gown) with a dressy collar. I don't think the collar is necessarily "ultra expensive," though; it strikes me as suitable for what looks to be a quality dress.

[James]

Thank you Laurie and Susan for answering my inquiry. After having read every entry on this particular thread on more than one occasion, I must say I'm intrigued and puzzled by the respondents' refusal to acknowledge that the much ballyhooed seed pearl suite of jewelry was not worn at the inaugural ball. There is ample evidentiary documentation showing that the jewelry never made an appearance in any of Mary's photographs until much later.
Since the basis for this conversational thread was primarily centered around the sitters in the image displayed on the website at abeandmarydag.com, so too are my observations and remarks. I believe wholeheartedly that the photograph in question is a genuine image of Abraham and Mary Lincoln, and have yet to witness a legitimate opposing argument anchored in a factual foundation. This specific example is just one of many that is truly astonishing.

[L Verge]

James - As I was carefully studying period photographs again and preparing a response to your original post, I had the feeling that this was all leading to an attempt to bring up the debate over the http://abeandmarydag.com/

But just in case it was not, I supplied the general history that I know about. Since you say that you have read the previous postings about the alleged photo, I doubt that you are going to get any better answers this go-round since the experts in the field weighed in previously.

[James]

Laurie - Thank you once again for your reply. I was actually hoping to hear from Donna McCreary on the subject but since you responded, I have one question for you. Forget about the website or the debate surrounding that specific daguerreotype. Did Mary Lincoln wear the seed pearl suite of jewelry that is in possession of the Library of Congress to the 1861 inaugural ball the night of March 4th, 1861?

[Susan Higginbotham]

Frank Leslie's (March 23, 1861) mentions her wearing "pearl ornaments." If you search for photographs of Mary wearing the set, you'll notice she wears it with low-necked evening dresses--nothing remotely like the lady in the photograph is wearing.

Illustrations of the first inaugural ball show the fashionable ladies in low-necked evening dresses. Do you think Mary would have been caught dead at such an occasion in a high-necked day dress?

[L Verge]

(05-29-2019 01:44 AM)James Wrote:  Laurie - Thank you once again for your reply. I was actually hoping to hear from Donna McCreary on the subject but since you responded, I have one question for you. Forget about the website or the debate surrounding that specific daguerreotype. Did Mary Lincoln wear the seed pearl suite of jewelry that is in possession of the Library of Congress to the 1861 inaugural ball the night of March 4th, 1861?

In my opinion, I believe that she did. I have seen this set up close and personal on several occasions when we took museum tours to the Library of Congress. We had a member of the Surratt Society who was second-in-command of the Lincoln items at the LOC, and he gladly brought them out for all to see and gave a brief history of each (more items than just the jewelry). The suite is lovely.

That said, the jewelry - especially the necklace - would never have been worn with a day dress or afternoon dress. It is a high-end set meant for evening attire, which means a low-cut bodice so that the jewelry is displayed best against bare skin.