Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Anita · 06-09-2019, 06:20 PM

(06-09-2019 03:51 PM)James Wrote: 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.

James, I didn't address your 1280 words because they didn't support your concluding statement. I asked you in my post to move beyond insisting that the dag is Lincoln and Mary Lincoln taken on Inauguration day evening, March 4, 1861 based solely on the image. All you have done is insist all the experts who have said it is not Lincoln and Mary are wrong. I had really hoped that my questions would give you another area to research and support your claim. That didn't happen.

Why can't you answer the questions I posed or be willing to investigate? Who was the photographer; why outdated dag photography used when glass plate prints were state of the art used by Washington's top photographers in 1861; when on inauguration day did they sit for the portrait; why was this major event not documented in the record; why are there no witness accounts?

With all due respect I will not reply until you can come up with new documentation.

Best,
Anita

L Verge · 06-09-2019, 06:25 PM

(06-09-2019 03:51 PM)James Wrote: 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!

It took you twenty-four hours to come up with these two nonsensical retorts to Anita and I? I thought Mr. G. was an expert at skirting issues when he could not give facts, but you are running him a very close second.

May I suggest that we all just drop this seemingly dead issue? We won't convince you, and you have certainly failed to convince the experts - or else we would have seen major news headlines in the history press about the "discovery" (and sale) of a priceless find. In the unlikelihood that we ever do see that headline, you can get back to us with your sarcasm and gloating.

Nice "chatting" with you...

06-09-2019, 09:45 PM

Anita - there was nothing in your post that required a serious response. It was beating a dead horse for no apparent reason. You missed the entire point. I mentioned earlier that we all don't communicate on the same wavelength. I had no idea just how understated that comment was.
I believe I made it crystal clear to in a reply to Roger and Steve that there was no accompanying documentation or provenance. There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. The visual evidence contained in the image points to March 4th as the date for this sitting. Some of this visual and circumstantial evidence has been laid out for all to see, some of it hasn't. It involves putting many pieces of a puzzle together to arrive at a clear picture. The Lincoln community has made it clear that they have no interest in this exercise. Judging from the commentary thus far on this forum, I truly believe they are incapable of the objective reasoning necessary to authenticate a national treasure. They simply dig their heels in and refuse to budge. They pick and choose which timeline fits their narrative and run with it.
The events of February 20 1861 that take place in New York City are well documented in the publication, The Lincoln Log, and leave no possibility for Abe to have obtained the seed pearl jewelry. Tiffany's own records indicate an April 1862 purchase date. Numerous newspapers that covered and reported on the event state that Mary did not wear the seed pearl jewelry to the ball. It's well documented that Mary did wear the lace collar, which would also mean she didn't not wear the seed pearl jewelry. Yet the Lincoln community refuses to budge in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
The continue to insist that the couple are of comparative height, which is clearly not the case to any reasonable individual with a pair of eyes.
If not for someone posting the head shot of Mary showing the scar on her forehead, they would continue to push back on even that easily discernible fact.
They refuse to even consider the possibility that Abe's right side was "compromised", in large part because they don't want his right side to be compromised.
They completely disregard the countless unique identifying scars and characteristics, along with the absence of a single scar or characteristic foreign to Abe or Mary, because they just don't think the Lincolns look the way they think they should.
They put forth their theories and opinions until, one by one, they are destroyed by factual evidence. They then retreat to the only safe shelter they have left, a sanctuary that cannot be penetrated by reason or facts; .... "it doesn't look like them".
If the Lincoln community were to try their case in a court of law, they'd be held in contempt and disbarred.
And you want MORE from me? I think it's about time the Lincoln community put a little skin in the game. I've been all in from day one. I don't backtrack because I've done my homework and I know what I'm talking about.

AussieMick · (This post was last modified: 06-09-2019 11:53 PM by AussieMick.)

James , you write ...
"The continue to insist that the couple are of comparative height, which is clearly not the case to any reasonable individual with a pair of eyes."

I have difficulty with those words ' of comparative height' because 'comparative' (IMO and Google's) means "estimating the similarity or dissimilarity between one thing and another".

I assume that you're saying that everybody else here on the forum is insisting that the couple are of the same or very similar height?
Well, this IMO is indeed the main crux of the issue.
Would you please hazard a guess as to the difference in height between the man and the woman? ( I think that a medical person or a police operative might take into consideration the size of fingers and hands ... but that's probably beyond us)

Obviously, they are not exactly the same height ( that would be zero difference). And obviously the difference is less than 50 cm ( 19.6 inches).
I'd say less than 6 inches. But its better to suggest a range. 4 to 8 inches?

So, somewhere in between ... ?
Between what, James? Please hazard a reasonable guess.

06-10-2019, 01:06 AM

Mick ...I don't play the guessing game. I don't deal with hypotheticals. I can state unequivocally, based on the incontrovertible evidence available, that the sitters pictured in the daguerreotype are Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln. Therefore - the height differential - based on every last scrap of information documented in the historical record, is precisely fourteen inches. The visual evidence in the image bears that out. Because there a lot more of you folks than there are of me doesn't make you right. An unassailable truth will not be forever restrained by a show of hands.
Hazarding a guess appears to be a favorite pastime for the Lincoln Community.

RJNorton · 06-10-2019, 04:04 AM

(06-09-2019 09:45 PM)James Wrote: They refuse to even consider the possibility that Abe's right side was "compromised", in large part because they don't want his right side to be compromised.

Not true, James. My eyes do not see it in the photos you mention. You see things that I don't; that's the truth. People who actually knew Lincoln, such as William Herndon and Ward Hill Lamon, would have mentioned it in their books had it really existed. Eyewitness accounts from New Salem stress feats of strength, not weakness. Dr. John Sotos studied Lincoln from head to toe, and he never found any right side weakness. After the autopsy in 1865, Dr. Edward Curtis wrote, "I was simply astonished at the showing of the nude remains, where well-rounded muscles built upon strong bones told the powerful athlete. Now did I understand the deeds of prowess recorded of the President's early days."

Gene C · 06-10-2019, 05:47 AM

It had to happen. After 216 posts, this topic reminds me of a song

Glenn Miller - A String of Pearls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qq2AV7Wx5w

L Verge · 06-10-2019, 09:01 AM

James - I don't want to leave until you supply direct answers to these questions that I posted several days ago:

[Re: current owner]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?

And your recent claim: "Numerous newspapers that covered and reported on the event state that Mary did not wear the seed pearl jewelry to the ball. It's well documented that Mary did wear the lace collar, which would also mean she didn't not wear the seed pearl jewelry." Please give us exact citations for which newspapers, dates, etc. for both the mention of the jewelry not being worn, but the collar being on the gown. I am reaching the point of saying (and pardon me folks), Put up or shut up.

06-10-2019, 11:30 AM

Roger... Dr. John Sotos studied the contemporaneous accounts supplied by others, he didn't spend one minute studying the actual subject of his investigation. He obviously didn't study the photographic record that has been passed down through history. Most if not all of these accounts were supplied by Lincoln admirers who, if not reluctant to cast Abe in a somewhat compromised manner, simply didn't think it was relevant. The preponderance of the photographic evidence is convincing. The cockamamie excuses supplied by biographers only bolster and lend credence to this.
Before Dave went running out of here with his hair on fire, I was trying to explain to him (when I said Bingo) that no, when first looking at the photo on page 24, I didn't see anything either. Just another Lincoln photo. It wasn't until I read the caption that my radar went up just a bit and stored away for future reference. "Swollen and nearly paralyzed" from shaking hands. That's unusual. Then again with Leonard Volk. The piece of whittled broomstick. What the broomstick wasn't long enough to cut and whittle a piece for his LEFT hand? Once again, "swollen from shaking hands" the previous evening. Then the photos on page 110 and 216. You have to admit that as stand alone images, those poses are unusual at best. The manner in which Abe is clutching just looks off. When I say "subtle", I mean subtle. But there is something there just isn't right.
There are other photos throughout the photographic record of Lincoln seated with his right hand lying curled up in his lap that, when taken in totality with all of the other instances and strange excuses and descriptions, point to a somewhat compromised right shoulder, arm and hand. I have no idea what that might be or the extent of it.
How do you square what is reported in the link you provided on an earlier post, about Lincoln "shaking hands with thousands of soldiers" and then immediately walking over to pick up a 7 pound ax and extend it horizontally at arm's length in a show of strength for a period of time, with the other reports? By the way, it doesn't actually say which hand he did that with. This was one week prior to his assassination. Yet a few years earlier after shaking hands, his right hand was "swollen and nearly paralyzed". Two and two don't equal five. Both of these stories can't be true. I choose to believe the one supported by visual evidence.
So tell me Roger, do you think all those politicians and celebrities and sports stars at autograph signings and the like, rush back to their hotel rooms to immediately plunge their hands into a bucket of ice because of the swelling. Did Hillary do that? If you look up either "frail' or "feeble" in the dictionary, there's a picture of Bernie Sanders right there alongside the definition (there should be). I wonder if Bernie had to resort to the ice bucket. Was Lincoln the "railsplitter!" or a hand model for Proctor and Gamble? C'mon. Think about it. Instead of making Lincoln look like a wuss with those idiotic excuses they used, his biographers should have just told the truth and not attempted to conceal it. It was just one more in a long line of obstacles that Lincoln overcame on his extraordinary journey to impact american history as no other - before or since. That's just the way I see it. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Laurie - I'm willing to talk about anything relative to the daguerreotype, the sitters, authenticity, etc. The questions you pose relative to Donna have nothing to do with that.
In some of the earliest posts on this thread, there are some of those newspaper accounts that were posted by others. Donna posted one by the New York Times? that was published March 6th that states explicitly that her "adornment was the simple diamond". This was authored by a reporter was witnessed the events of March 4th and submitted his article the following day. Is the Point D'Alencon lace collar still up for debate? I thought that was settled.
So when I say they reported she didn't wear the seed pearl jewelry, I don't mean the literal translation of that statement. That headline ... MARY TODD LINCOLN DID NOT WEAR THE SEED PEARL JEWELRY TO THE 1861 INAUGURAL BALL ... is down the road a ways.
So at what point do you folks, with all of the resources at your disposal that I don't have access to, do your due diligence and research some of this stuff yourself? Or is the objective to hold all of those materials close to the vest so the photograph cannot be authenticated? Seems like you're more of an obstacle that an asset in the search for the truth.
Put up or shut up? You betcha!

Hey Gene ... got an idea. At the next one of those shindigs the Lincoln community puts together over there in Springfield, how about you bring your karaoke machine and I'll set up a Kool-Aid stand. It'll be a real hootananny! Plus we'll be raking it in hand over fist.

Susan Higginbotham · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2019 12:43 PM by Susan Higginbotham.)

James, I have reached the point of believing that you know perfectly well that this is not a photograph of the Lincolns--hence all the flimflam you're offering about Mary's supposed scar (which none of the many people who made snide comments about her appearance mentioned), Lincoln's supposed weakness (which none of his political opponents ever mentioned), and Mary's ballroom attire (which requires you to studiously ignore the fact that the lady in your photo is not wearing ballroom attire). You have to spout this nonsense because you're stuck with the fact that anyone who's seen Lincoln's face on a five-dollar bill knows that your photo is not one of Lincoln. The best that can be said is that it's of a man and woman who lived during the same time period as the Lincolns.

Have you taken your photo to an auction house that specializes in historical memorabilia, or to a dealer in rare photographs? Of course you haven't, because you know that no reputable source, inside or outside of the Lincoln community, would accept this photo of being one of the Lincolns. You couldn't even find a buyer on eBay, where "caveat emptor" is the rule and where fakes are a dime a dozen.

I don't really understand why you keep posting here, except to assume that this site probably gets more hits than your website could ever hope to, and that you're hoping that someone will see this discussion, be dazzled by your arguments, and fork over whatever you're asking for the dag. The problem is, there are many Lincoln collectors with more brains than money, but not all that many with more money than brains.

My advice, which you certainly won't take, is to sell the dag for what it's worth and take Donna out to dinner with the proceeds. You'll get a decent meal (depending on where you live, of course), and someone in turn will get a nice dag of a pleasant-looking couple. It deserves a better home.

Gene C · 06-10-2019, 12:39 PM

(06-10-2019 11:30 AM)James Wrote: Hey Gene ... got an idea. At the next one of those shindigs the Lincoln community puts together over there in Springfield, how about you bring your karaoke machine and I'll set up a Kool-Aid stand. It'll be a real hootananny! Plus we'll be raking it in hand over fist.

James, it's about 3 1/2 hours travel time to Springfield for me. If I knew the state of IL wasn't going to take all the income with fees and taxes I'd say you had a good idea.

Anita · 06-10-2019, 03:21 PM

(06-10-2019 12:09 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: James, I have reached the point of believing that you know perfectly well that this is not a photograph of the Lincolns--hence all the flimflam you're offering about Mary's supposed scar (which none of the many people who made snide comments about her appearance mentioned), Lincoln's supposed weakness (which none of his political opponents ever mentioned), and Mary's ballroom attire (which requires you to studiously ignore the fact that the lady in your photo is not wearing ballroom attire). You have to spout this nonsense because you're stuck with the fact that anyone who's seen Lincoln's face on a five-dollar bill knows that your photo is not one of Lincoln. The best that can be said is that it's of a man and woman who lived during the same time period as the Lincolns.

Have you taken your photo to an auction house that specializes in historical memorabilia, or to a dealer in rare photographs? Of course you haven't, because you know that no reputable source, inside or outside of the Lincoln community, would accept this photo of being one of the Lincolns. You couldn't even find a buyer on eBay, where "caveat emptor" is the rule and where fakes are a dime a dozen.

I don't really understand why you keep posting here, except to assume that this site probably gets more hits than your website could ever hope to, and that you're hoping that someone will see this discussion, be dazzled by your arguments, and fork over whatever you're asking for the dag. The problem is, there are many Lincoln collectors with more brains than money, but not all that many with more money than brains.

My advice, which you certainly won't take, is to sell the dag for what it's worth and take Donna out to dinner with the proceeds. You'll get a decent meal (depending on where you live, of course), and someone in turn will get a nice dag of a pleasant-looking couple. It deserves a better home.

Susan, I am on your wavelength, thank goodness. Excellent post.

L Verge · 06-10-2019, 07:07 PM

(06-10-2019 12:09 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: James, I have reached the point of believing that you know perfectly well that this is not a photograph of the Lincolns--hence all the flimflam you're offering about Mary's supposed scar (which none of the many people who made snide comments about her appearance mentioned), Lincoln's supposed weakness (which none of his political opponents ever mentioned), and Mary's ballroom attire (which requires you to studiously ignore the fact that the lady in your photo is not wearing ballroom attire). You have to spout this nonsense because you're stuck with the fact that anyone who's seen Lincoln's face on a five-dollar bill knows that your photo is not one of Lincoln. The best that can be said is that it's of a man and woman who lived during the same time period as the Lincolns.

Have you taken your photo to an auction house that specializes in historical memorabilia, or to a dealer in rare photographs? Of course you haven't, because you know that no reputable source, inside or outside of the Lincoln community, would accept this photo of being one of the Lincolns. You couldn't even find a buyer on eBay, where "caveat emptor" is the rule and where fakes are a dime a dozen.

I don't really understand why you keep posting here, except to assume that this site probably gets more hits than your website could ever hope to, and that you're hoping that someone will see this discussion, be dazzled by your arguments, and fork over whatever you're asking for the dag. The problem is, there are many Lincoln collectors with more brains than money, but not all that many with more money than brains.

My advice, which you certainly won't take, is to sell the dag for what it's worth and take Donna out to dinner with the proceeds. You'll get a decent meal (depending on where you live, of course), and someone in turn will get a nice dag of a pleasant-looking couple. It deserves a better home.

Thank you, Susan, for the best response yet to someone who has no intentions of giving straight answers.

Eva Elisabeth · 06-10-2019, 09:19 PM

Susan, I think you are spot on, exactly what I have come to assume. Kudos to Jamie's boldness - offensive attack where nothing substantial is to defend at all.

06-10-2019, 09:25 PM

Susan - Anita - Laurie - Eva - Thank you so much for your thoughts, insight, and commentary! I mean that sincerely. A long and arduous journey cannot sustain itself without fuel. Thank you for the modest amount you have contributed to the effort. Every little drop helps. Thanks again.