Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Steve · 06-07-2019, 03:27 AM

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?

Susan Higginbotham · 06-07-2019, 07:35 AM

(06-07-2019 12:41 AM)James Wrote: 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???

I was agreeing with you about the dag being tinted and the glove, but I suppose rudeness is reflexive with you.

No, the seller is not my BFF, but he is a a reputable dealer who doesn't peddle phony Lincoln photos, so don't bother contacting him about your dag.

davg2000 · 06-07-2019, 09:21 AM

(06-07-2019 12:41 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.

06-07-2019, 12:19 PM

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 03:27 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 09:21 AM)davg2000 Wrote:
(06-07-2019 12:41 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..............

RJNorton · 06-07-2019, 01:00 PM

James, I did not write the code for the forum, and occasionally things occur that are inexplicable. I am guessing there is something in the code that caused this, but in all honesty, I do not know for sure. Since 2012 other folks have also on occasion had unexplainable things happen. It sure does not happen often, and I think the volunteers who wrote the code did a good job overall. It is not easy; during the years 1988-1994 I wrote code for Commodore 64 computers, and I know that one small error in code can cause strange things to happen to computer programs.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 06-07-2019 02:20 PM by Gene C.)

Question for anyone - Who were the prominent photographers at the time of Lincoln's inauguration in Washington DC?
Would it be safe to believe that only an experienced and prominent photographer would be given the responsibility of taking such a historic photograph?
Would the prominent photographer in question still be using the daguerreotype process by 1861? Other photographs of the inauguration and of Lincoln from 1861 do not seem to be daguerreotypes -

https://www.google.com/search?q=1861+ina...rc=_&vet=1

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ph...am_Lincoln

The name "daguerreotype" correctly refers only to one very specific image type and medium, the product of a process that was in wide use only from the early 1840s to the late 1850s. - Wikipedia

L Verge · 06-07-2019, 03:57 PM

"Family members had always assumed it was an image of a distant relative." I suspect that those family members were absolutely correct. Who was the first to view it or obtain it and announce that it was Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln?

RJNorton · 06-07-2019, 04:14 PM

Gene, as far as Abraham Lincoln goes, the most frequent Washington photographers were Alexander Gardner, Mathew Brady, and Anthony Berger. Of these, Gardner took the most photos by far (36 according to Lloyd Ostendorf).

Anita · 06-07-2019, 07:51 PM

(06-07-2019 02:18 PM)Gene C Wrote: Question for anyone - Who were the prominent photographers at the time of Lincoln's inauguration in Washington DC?
Would it be safe to believe that only an experienced and prominent photographer would be given the responsibility of taking such a historic photograph?
Would the prominent photographer in question still be using the daguerreotype process by 1861? Other photographs of the inauguration and of Lincoln from 1861 do not seem to be daguerreotypes -

"By the late 1850s, most American artists had switched from the daguerreotype process to large glass-plate negatives and albumen silver prints that combined the exquisite clarity of the daguerreotype and the endless reproducibility of paper-print photography. The glass plates were also extremely light sensitive, making exposure times dramatically shorter." http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/adag/hd_adag.htm

Both the Matthew Brady Lincoln Cooper Union Portrait Feb. 27,1860 and the Alexander Gardner portrait of Lincoln taken on Feb. 24, 1861 at Brady's Washington studio used the glass plate negative and print technology.

James, in post 143 you said "It's the only known photograph of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln posed together, an original quarter plate daguerreotype taken the evening of March 4th, 1861. Period!" When there is major disagreement by viewers of your dag that it isn't Mary and Abraham Lincoln that's portrayed, it is your responsibility to produce additional documentation to support your claim. The image itself is not enough. Remember this is the President of the United States and the First Lady on inauguration day! If a portrait was made that day it would be by the top photographer in Washington and documented. The latest technology would be used. The print technology allowed copies to be made. That's why a number of forum members have asked about the photographer.

The activities/events of a President and First Lady on inauguration day is witnessed by many and well documented. Where in this account of that evening did they sit for your dag portrait? Who drove them to the studio? What studio?

"After the ceremonies, the Lincolns entered the White House wanting to rest and dress before the inaugural ball, a gala occasion for that dismal day. But there was the immediate Blue Room reception. And when about seventeen sat down to eat their first meal in the White House, Lincoln interrupted dinner and spoke to about one thousand delegates from New York. [11] Miss Lane made the gracious gesture of planning an "elegant dinner" for the Lincolns, their visiting relatives, and friends. The presidential party sat down to Miss Lane's wonderful meal and gratefully devoured both food and wine. No menu exists. After dinner, they scattered to their rooms and prepared for the inaugural ball. The presidential party finally arrived at the inaugural ball at 11 P.M. Stephen A. Douglas, Mrs. Lincoln's old beau, danced the quadrille with the new First Lady, a term first used with Mary Lincoln. The president left for the White House at 1 A.M., though Mrs. Lincoln remained at the ball. "
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/262986...-community

James, when people have questions about authenticity of an object it is the responsibility of the person or institution making the claim to answer those questions. Why is there not one single witness to this photography session or at the least knew of it?

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 06-07-2019 08:23 PM by L Verge.)

(06-07-2019 04:14 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Gene, as far as Abraham Lincoln goes, the most frequent Washington photographers were Alexander Gardner, Mathew Brady, and Anthony Berger. Of these, Gardner took the most photos by far (36 according to Lloyd Ostendorf).

Interesting article here: https://gizmodo.com/exceptionally-rare-p...1791111896

James, please go to this link and tell us which of the Lincoln photos best matches (or even resembles) the gentleman in your dag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ph...am_Lincoln

06-07-2019, 08:30 PM

Thank you, Roger, for the explanation! No worries. It's just that the information that was left out made it appear that I was in complete agreement with you as far as the importance of provenance as it relates to photographs. I AM in complete agreement with you on the other items you laid out (historical artifacts, art, etc.) but not with a photograph. I just feel that the sole criteria for authentication should be the visual evidence available. Only if one were to factor in the monetary value of a particular photograph would provenance then become relevant. Just my thoughts on it. I don't expect anyone else on here to agree with me. Thanks again.

Laurie ... the owner of the dag was the first to recognize the image as that of Abraham and Mary Lincoln.

L Verge · 06-07-2019, 08:38 PM

(06-07-2019 08:30 PM)James Wrote: Thank you, Roger, for the explanation! No worries. It's just that the information that was left out made it appear that I was in complete agreement with you as far as the importance of provenance as it relates to photographs. I AM in complete agreement with you on the other items you laid out (historical artifacts, art, etc.) but not with a photograph. I just feel that the sole criteria for authentication should be the visual evidence available. Only if one were to factor in the monetary value of a particular photograph would provenance then become relevant. Just my thoughts on it. I don't expect anyone else on here to agree with me. Thanks again.

Laurie ... the owner of the dag was the first to recognize the image as that of Abraham and Mary Lincoln.

And would that be "Donna" of previous postings? Did she inherit from that family; purchase it from that family; or find it in an auction, flea market, or yard sale? What research did the current owner do before determining that it was of the Lincolns? Has the owner received any positive confirmations that it is indeed the couple? My guess would be no or we would see dollar signs attached to it. BTW - are there dollar signs indicating that it is for sale?

Susan Higginbotham · 06-08-2019, 12:19 AM

One thing that is conspicuously absent from the dag's website is a photograph of its case. Is the dag in a full case? A half case? No case at all? A case can help to date a dag, as can its mat and preserver:

http://www.phototree.com/id_dag.htm

Likewise, someone well versed in fashion history could probably tell you a great deal about the date of that photograph from the lady's clothing, particularly her elaborate collar and her hairstyle.

In short, there are a number of ways to get a better idea of when this photograph was taken. Have you consulted a dealer in antique photographs? If not, why?

06-08-2019, 01:24 AM

(06-07-2019 07:51 PM)Anita Wrote:
(06-07-2019 02:18 PM)Gene C Wrote: Question for anyone - Who were the prominent photographers at the time of Lincoln's inauguration in Washington DC?
Would it be safe to believe that only an experienced and prominent photographer would be given the responsibility of taking such a historic photograph?
Would the prominent photographer in question still be using the daguerreotype process by 1861? Other photographs of the inauguration and of Lincoln from 1861 do not seem to be daguerreotypes -

"By the late 1850s, most American artists had switched from the daguerreotype process to large glass-plate negatives and albumen silver prints that combined the exquisite clarity of the daguerreotype and the endless reproducibility of paper-print photography. The glass plates were also extremely light sensitive, making exposure times dramatically shorter." http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/adag/hd_adag.htm

Both the Matthew Brady Lincoln Cooper Union Portrait Feb. 27,1860 and the Alexander Gardner portrait of Lincoln taken on Feb. 24, 1861 at Brady's Washington studio used the glass plate negative and print technology.

James, in post 143 you said "It's the only known photograph of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln posed together, an original quarter plate daguerreotype taken the evening of March 4th, 1861. Period!" When there is major disagreement by viewers of your dag that it isn't Mary and Abraham Lincoln that's portrayed, it is your responsibility to produce additional documentation to support your claim. The image itself is not enough. Remember this is the President of the United States and the First Lady on inauguration day! If a portrait was made that day it would be by the top photographer in Washington and documented. The latest technology would be used. The print technology allowed copies to be made. That's why a number of forum members have asked about the photographer.

The activities/events of a President and First Lady on inauguration day is witnessed by many and well documented. Where in this account of that evening did they sit for your dag portrait? Who drove them to the studio? What studio?

"After the ceremonies, the Lincolns entered the White House wanting to rest and dress before the inaugural ball, a gala occasion for that dismal day. But there was the immediate Blue Room reception. And when about seventeen sat down to eat their first meal in the White House, Lincoln interrupted dinner and spoke to about one thousand delegates from New York. [11] Miss Lane made the gracious gesture of planning an "elegant dinner" for the Lincolns, their visiting relatives, and friends. The presidential party sat down to Miss Lane's wonderful meal and gratefully devoured both food and wine. No menu exists. After dinner, they scattered to their rooms and prepared for the inaugural ball. The presidential party finally arrived at the inaugural ball at 11 P.M. Stephen A. Douglas, Mrs. Lincoln's old beau, danced the quadrille with the new First Lady, a term first used with Mary Lincoln. The president left for the White House at 1 A.M., though Mrs. Lincoln remained at the ball. "
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/262986...-community

James, when people have questions about authenticity of an object it is the responsibility of the person or institution making the claim to answer those questions. Why is there not one single witness to this photography session or at the least knew of it?

Anita - Thank you! This may well be the most probing response to any of my posts, and it requires more than a few modest comments. There are some very astute observations and great questions/statements in your post, and i want to respond in kind. I also want to respond to Laurie's and Susan's more recent posts as well. I have to work tomorrow and I'm too tired to deal with it tonight. After sparring with everyone on here over the last few days, I'm about one synapse misfire from a straightjacket. Give me a couple of days to give your comments the response they deserve. Unlike playing with Dave, I gotta do a little thinkin on this one.

06-09-2019, 03:51 PM

Have you received the ransom money yet, Anita? How about the message I sent along with it? No on both counts? I'm not surprised. Sometimes a glitch occurs during the delivery process, but it will get there eventually. First things first.
Do you know what "taken out of context means", Anita? That would be when somebody (you) takes the last sentence from a one thousand - two hundred and eighty word explanatory body of work and then proceeds to attack the final sentence with the following; "When there is major disagreement by viewers of your dag that it isn't Mary and Abraham Lincoln that's portrayed, it is your responsibility to produce additional documentation to support your claim. The image itself is not enough. Remember this is the President of the United States and the First Lady on inauguration day!"
Please address the REST of the 1,280 word body of work. Thoughts? Comments? Remarks? Anything at all would be an improvement on what has been offered up to date by respondents.

Laurie - no need to post a link photographs of Abraham Lincoln for my benefit. I've studied the entire photographic record of Lincoln a thousand times over, Mary to a lesser degree. So long as that 1846 - '48 daguerreotype maintains a prominent position in the Library of Congress identified as an image of Abraham Lincoln, a photo lineup would be tantamount to putting airbrakes on a mule; absolutely worthless!