Seed Pearl Necklace and Bracelets

[James]

(06-05-2019 08:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:04 PM)James Wrote:  Provenance has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity when a photograph is the subject of scrutiny.

I believe this is the first time in my life that I have read someone say this. I have always read that when it comes to historical items, including pieces of art and photographs, verified provenance goes a long way to proving the authenticity of a piece and greatly increasing its value.

Roger - regarding historical items and artifacts including pieces of art, verified provenance does indeed play a pivotal in determining authenticity. In a lot of those instances however, provenance is more instrumental in determining value (i.e. prior ownership by a famous individual) than establishing authenticity.
Based on the vehement and unequivocal denunciation of the authentic nature of the dag, should the members of this forum who have weighed in on the image then be willing to do a one-eighty simply by tracing ownership of the dag to the immediate families of either of the Lincolns, then there is something inherently wrong with the entire process.

---

Laurie - you said ... "I suspect that the scar is non-existent or not important to Mary's life" ... as a means of explanation as to why it has never been documented in biographical or historical materials. Would you be willing to apply that same logic to Abe? His "compromised" right side, outside of a couple of colorful descriptions that don't mention this condition specifically yet is clearly evident by studying his photographic record, has not been documented in biographical materials.

---

Abraham Lincoln was born February 12, 1809. He would have been 52 years old at the time of this sitting.
Mary Todd Lincoln was born December 13, 1818. She would have been 42 years old at the time of this sitting.

[L Verge]

(06-05-2019 02:26 PM)James Wrote:  

(06-05-2019 08:54 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:04 PM)James Wrote:  Provenance has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity when a photograph is the subject of scrutiny.

I believe this is the first time in my life that I have read someone say this. I have always read that when it comes to historical items, including pieces of art and photographs, verified provenance goes a long way to proving the authenticity of a piece and greatly increasing its value.

Roger - regarding historical items and artifacts including pieces of art, verified provenance does indeed play a pivotal in determining authenticity. In a lot of those instances however, provenance is more instrumental in determining value (i.e. prior ownership by a famous individual) than establishing authenticity.
Based on the vehement and unequivocal denunciation of the authentic nature of the dag, should the members of this forum who have weighed in on the image then be willing to do a one-eighty simply by tracing ownership of the dag to the immediate families of either of the Lincolns, then there is something inherently wrong with the entire process.

---

Laurie - you said ... "I suspect that the scar is non-existent or not important to Mary's life" ... as a means of explanation as to why it has never been documented in biographical or historical materials. Would you be willing to apply that same logic to Abe? His "compromised" right side, outside of a couple of colorful descriptions that don't mention this condition specifically yet is clearly evident by studying his photographic record, has not been documented in biographical materials.

---

Abraham Lincoln was born February 12, 1809. He would have been 52 years old at the time of this sitting.
Mary Todd Lincoln was born December 13, 1818. She would have been 42 years old at the time of this sitting.

Again, I don't think you can give me decent documented material on these supposed "deformities" or whatever you wish to call them. Since Lincoln is one of the most researched and written about figures in history, there should surely be a good number of legitimate scholars who would have noticed this and would have written about it in more than one place. What is the name of this person(s) that you cite, and where can we find this description? It is going to take way more than your claims - and other researchers of questionable reliability - to make me knuckle under.

I believe that I guessed at this couple's ages as at least mid-50s. The man is holding his age better than the woman, imo. The whole point of this never-ending debate, however, is that this man and this woman just do not look anything like the real Lincolns! What part of this are we missing?

P.S. What about my assertion in a previous post that the man's hand and cane and bright watch chain are not in the original? That hand, especially, just hops off the screen and screams, "Fake."

[RJNorton]

(06-02-2019 07:17 AM)James Wrote:  While on the subject of Mary, years ago when the daguerreotype was still listed on eBay, the owner was contacted by Michael Ballard, an archivist at Mississippi State University and told that while he (Ballard) didn't necessarily agree with their assessment, a couple of Lincoln experts were convinced that the woman pictured was indeed Mary Todd Lincoln, but that they "couldn't reconcile the image of Abe". He said they thought the man seated next to her was most likely her father, Robert Smith Todd (who died in 1849). When pressed for more details on the subject later on, Mr. Ballard refused to respond to email inquiries. He has since passed away.

It is beyond me how a couple of "Lincoln experts" could claim that the man in the daguerreotype is Robert Smith Todd. At least to my eyes the two men do not look anything alike. Robert Smith Todd was 27 years older than Mary; the two people in the daguerreotype are not that far apart in age.

Robert Smith Todd

[James]

(06-05-2019 04:20 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 07:17 AM)James Wrote:  While on the subject of Mary, years ago when the daguerreotype was still listed on eBay, the owner was contacted by Michael Ballard, an archivist at Mississippi State University and told that while he (Ballard) didn't necessarily agree with their assessment, a couple of Lincoln experts were convinced that the woman pictured was indeed Mary Todd Lincoln, but that they "couldn't reconcile the image of Abe". He said they thought the man seated next to her was most likely her father, Robert Smith Todd (who died in 1849). When pressed for more details on the subject later on, Mr. Ballard refused to respond to email inquiries. He has since passed away.

It is beyond me how a couple of "Lincoln experts" could claim that the man in the daguerreotype is Robert Smith Todd. At least to my eyes the two men do not look anything alike. Robert Smith Todd was 27 years older than Mary; the two people in the daguerreotype are not that far apart in age.

Robert Smith Todd

I couldn't agree more, Roger. It's just another illustration of the flawed subjective thinking and compromised powers of observation embedded deep within the psyche of the Lincoln community, for whatever reason. I didn't say it. Michael Ballard said it. He was contacted several times over the years with the hope that he would elaborate but he refused to respond.

---

(06-05-2019 04:01 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(06-05-2019 02:26 PM)James Wrote:  [quote='RJNorton' pid='77208' dateline='1559742851']
[quote='James' pid='77196' dateline='1559707481']
Provenance has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity when a photograph is the subject of scrutiny.

Again, I don't think you can give me decent documented material on these supposed "deformities" or whatever you wish to call them. Since Lincoln is one of the most researched and written about figures in history, there should surely be a good number of legitimate scholars who would have noticed this and would have written about it in more than one place. What is the name of this person(s) that you cite, and where can we find this description? It is going to take way more than your claims - and other researchers of questionable reliability - to make me knuckle under.

I believe that I guessed at this couple's ages as at least mid-50s. The man is holding his age better than the woman, imo. The whole point of this never-ending debate, however, is that this man and this woman just do not look anything like the real Lincolns! What part of this are we missing?

P.S. What about my assertion in a previous post that the man's hand and cane and bright watch chain are not in the original? That hand, especially, just hops off the screen and screams, "Fake."

Laurie - about that P.S. statement, I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Truly.
Mary has been researched and written about extensively also. One would also reasonably assume that legitimate scholars would have seen the large scar and written about it. Yet it doesn't exist, according to the written word. Of course now we KNOW it exists. Why? Because it sticks out like a sore thumb and we can see it with our own eyes.
There are undoubtedly people on this forum who know exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to the description of Abe by a contemporary source. I can't recall the quote verbatim, but it likened Abe to a sailor trying to find his sea legs. Since that information will obviously not be forthcoming from any source on this forum, I will track it down and post it. I've gotten used to doing your homework for you, so no worries.

[James]

On page 321 of the Kunhardt's book ... Lincoln - An Illustrated Biography ... is a description of Lincoln by his pastor, the Reverend Dr. Phineas D. Gurley. He states that when Lincoln walked, he looked as if "he was about to plunge forward, from his right shoulder, for he always walked, when he had anything in his hand, as if he was pushing something in front of him".
Directly above that is a quote from an unnamed source, stating that Lincoln's walk was undulating and slightly off balance, making him resemble, someone said, "a mariner who had found his sea legs but had to admit there was a rough sea running".
Without the benefit of the visual evidence available in the extensive photographic record of Abraham Lincoln, these observations would be completely irrelevant. But the full length photos (page 110 and 216) that show Abe in what could only be described as awkward or unorthodox poses, in conjunction with the numerous photos showing his right hand curiously clenched in his lap leaves little room for doubt that he had some sort of ailment that affected his right side. This doesn't even take into account the presence of the piece of whittled broomstick in his right hand during a sitting for Leonard Volk.
Abe's hands have been repeatedly described by contemporaries as large, rough hewn, sinewy, etc. It simply strains credulity that his right hand was "swollen and nearly paralyzed" (page 24) as the result of shaking hands. It is much more plausible that this explanation was a convenient excuse by those who were hesitant to reveal Lincoln's frailties, just as FDR's frailties (not that being bound to a wheelchair due to polio is in the same category) was hidden from the public by those around him.
I'm not suggesting that Lincoln was crippled. I'm simply saying that the manner in which he is clutching the cane, while subtle, is consistent with the evidence in the photographic record that indicates an ailment affecting his right side.

[Steve]

Thank you everybody who gave their age estimates of the couple based on their looks alone! It was very helpful. For the record if anybody is interested my guess was early 40's, possibly late 30's based on looks alone. I'll write a longer reply when I have more time!

[davg2000]

(06-05-2019 09:45 PM)James Wrote:  But the full length photos (page 110 and 216) [in the Kunhardt book] that show Abe in what could only be described as awkward or unorthodox poses, in conjunction with the numerous photos showing his right hand curiously clenched in his lap leaves little room for doubt that he had some sort of ailment that affected his right side. This doesn't even take into account the presence of the piece of whittled broomstick in his right hand during a sitting for Leonard Volk.
Abe's hands have been repeatedly described by contemporaries as large, rough hewn, sinewy, etc. It simply strains credulity that his right hand was "swollen and nearly paralyzed" (page 24) as the result of shaking hands. It is much more plausible that this explanation was a convenient excuse by those who were hesitant to reveal Lincoln's frailties, just as FDR's frailties (not that being bound to a wheelchair due to polio is in the same category) was hidden from the public by those around him.
I'm not suggesting that Lincoln was crippled. I'm simply saying that the manner in which he is clutching the cane, while subtle, is consistent with the evidence in the photographic record that indicates an ailment affecting his right side.

James, I do think that Lincoln could present an awkward appearance, with his long legs and shambling gait. His hands were huge. I don’t have access to the Kunhardt book you are speaking of, but perhaps you are referring to the 1861 Gardner photograph of Lincoln seated at a table, his left arm resting on the table and his right hand resting on his right thigh. His right fingers are folded under. I don’t see any “infirmity” in that hand. I do think, though, that Lincoln was sensible enough to follow the suggestions of his photographers—that he not splay his long fingers on his right hand.

About the Leonard Volk casting, I think the story about Lincoln’s hand being swollen from handshaking, and shaking itself, is perfectly plausible. Here’s another reason, this one from the Metropolitan Museum, which owns the original casting: “the hand grips a broomstick, a prop that Lincoln improvised upon Volk’s suggestion that he hold something cylindrical resembling a document.” Have you ever touched or gripped the cast hands? It’s difficult for me to see this right hand casting as indicative of any sort of ailment that affected Lincoln's right side. In fact, just the opposite: the casting reveals power and strength.

[L Verge]

(06-06-2019 01:47 AM)Steve Wrote:  Thank you everybody who gave their age estimates of the couple based on their looks alone! It was very helpful. For the record if anybody is interested my guess was early 40's, possibly late 30's based on looks alone. I'll write a longer reply when I have more time!

Sorry, folks, but take it from a 75-year-old. The couple in that dag are no spring chickens -- even though the man is better "preserved" than the lady. I remember well the changes that each decade brought, especially the downhill slide after age 50.

---

"Laurie - about that P.S. statement, I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Truly.
Mary has been researched and written about extensively also. One would also reasonably assume that legitimate scholars would have seen the large scar and written about it. Yet it doesn't exist, according to the written word. Of course now we KNOW it exists. Why? Because it sticks out like a sore thumb and we can see it with our own eyes."

I have had our research librarian here at Surratt House scan that photo of Mary on page 287 in the Kunhardt book. Hopefully Roger can insert it into this posting or post it on its own. After years of inheriting, owning, and perusing many photos of many people, I have learned to take the age of the photo itself into consideration. I believe that the "splotch" that you are referring to is on the photo itself - not on Mary. The aging and deterioration is evident in other parts of the photo itself.



Moving on to my posting yesterday about my suspicions of your spurious dag: Thanks to our members here, that dag has been enlarged in order to observe details. Just compare the hand that is draped over something (a chair?) near Mary to the plump, pinkish, perfect hand that is holding the cane - its a bad job of photoshopping in my opinion. The head of the cane has also been colorized as has the watch chain. I would never expect to see that on an original daguerreotype.

Since the only source of your research that you mention is the Illustrated Biography, I have asked our librarian to pull it from the shelves and bring it to me to peruse further, especially now that we are going to be judging Lincoln's health by the Meserve photos.

[James]

Dave - if the casting itself reveals power and strength, then the explanation sounds weak and contrived. Shaking hands? More than one occasion? The fact that there are multiple instances where a biographer or photographer felt compelled to provide an explanation should, in and of itself, sound alarm bells. Always the right hand - never the left hand. Whether in oral or written form, the historical grapevine is seldom a reliable conduit for an unassailable truth. That's why the photographic record of Lincoln is vital in establishing that truth.
A little smoke here and a little smoke there, and after studying the entire photographic record, there appears to be a little smoke everywhere. Not saying there's a bonfire there, just saying it appears someone was definitely playing with matches.

Laurie - you do realize that the "plump, pinkish, perfect hand" you refer to is actually gloved, don't you? Abe's left hand is clutching the left glove, the glove that Dan Weinberg and Timothy Bakken referred to as a "hanky".

There is a large circular "splotch" on the dag image (not the actual daguerreotype) after the glass had been removed. This is due to being scanned with a 4x5 scanback camera in a Berkeley, California photography shop. The image where the white spotting is evident was scanned on a flatbed scanner prior to the removal of the protective mat, retainer, and glass.

This is a hand-tinted daguerreotype. Tinting was a process done for more upscale clients to add a touch of color to the photo. Mary's cheeks have been tinted. Gold was also applied on items of jewelry during the tinting process on some dags.

[L Verge]

"Laurie - you do realize that the "plump, pinkish, perfect hand" you refer to is actually gloved, don't you? Abe's left hand is clutching the left glove, the glove that Dan Weinberg and Timothy Bakken referred to as a "hanky".

There is a large circular "splotch" on the dag image (not the actual daguerreotype) after the glass had been removed. This is due to being scanned with a 4x5 scanback camera in a Berkeley, California photography shop. The image where the white spotting is evident was scanned on a flatbed scanner prior to the removal of the protective mat, retainer, and glass.

This is a hand-tinted daguerreotype. Tinting was a process done for more upscale clients to add a touch of color to the photo. Mary's cheeks have been tinted. Gold was also applied on items of jewelry during the tinting process on some dags."

I'm sorry, James, but I believe you are wrong or have been given wrong information. That is no glove holding that cane; imo, it has been added in for some reason. My friend, Dan Weinberg, is correct that the other hand is holding a handkerchief (no idea why...).

I am aware of the tinting process on later 19th-century photos, but I don't believe that process was used on daguerreotypes -- and they really went out of favor fairly quickly because of ambrotypes, ferrotypes, etc. I'm going to send the link to the dag off to folks at the Center for Civil War Photography to see what they think.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I do have to agree that the man is probably wearing one glove and holding the other--a common pose in photos of the time. I have also seen tinted dags, some of them quite beautifully done (in fact, I own a couple of tinted ones). Here, from a reputable seller, is a nice example:

https://www.mikemedhurst.com/Image_pages...arket.html

But glove or no glove, tinting or no tinting, this couple doesn't resemble the Lincolns. Maybe someday you'll find that deep-pocketed, gullible buyer who believes otherwise, but I think you'd have better luck finding a unicorn.

[L Verge]

(06-06-2019 12:04 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I do have to agree that the man is probably wearing one glove and holding the other--a common pose in photos of the time. I have also seen tinted dags, some of them quite beautifully done (in fact, I own a couple of tinted ones). Here, from a reputable seller, is a nice example:

https://www.mikemedhurst.com/Image_pages...arket.html

But glove or no glove, tinting or no tinting, this couple doesn't resemble the Lincolns. Maybe someday you'll find that deep-pocketed, gullible buyer who believes otherwise, but I think you'd have better luck finding a unicorn.

My apologies to everyone for the wrong information regarding the tinting of dags. I was letting my experience speak instead of doing further research. However, I am holding strong on that hand appearing fake -- but then again, I consider the whole deal a fake...for the exact same reason that Susan just gave in her last sentence.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I think James's main beef with the "Lincoln Community" is that none of its members have yet proven to be foolish or naive.

James, have you ever taken this dag to a reputable auction house, like Heritage or Cowan's? If not, why?

[L Verge]

I found this account of the life masks and hands interesting (from that wonderful Abraham Lincoln Online site):

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/linc.../masks.htm

Now, compare the "real things" with the spurious dag...

[James]

DAVE - By the way, Dave, just to be clear, I was referring to the various explanations offered up over the years by historians, photographers, etc. when I used the term "weak and contrived" in response to your post above, not to your specific comments. I should have pluralized the word "explanation" to avoid confusion.
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.
The Metropolitan Museum's version of why the piece of whittled broomstick was being held differs from that of Leonard Volk.
On the link above that Laurie posted, Volk is quoted as saying, upon arriving at the Lincoln home in 1860; ... "then those two great hands took both of mine with a grasp never to be forgotten". A few days later, Abe's hand "was swollen from shaking hands the evening before", according to Volk. This simply defies belief.
Also, I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation for the unnatural poses on pages 110 and 216. The manner in which Abe is clutching the cane, in conjunction with the numerous other instances mentioned, leads me to believe that Lincoln had a physical ailment that affected his right shoulder, arm and hand.

---

(06-06-2019 12:04 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I do have to agree that the man is probably wearing one glove and holding the other--a common pose in photos of the time. I have also seen tinted dags, some of them quite beautifully done (in fact, I own a couple of tinted ones). Here, from a reputable seller, is a nice example:

https://www.mikemedhurst.com/Image_pages...arket.html

BFF's???