Posted on 02/22/2004 6:14:02 PM PST by flying Elvis
Hand-tinted quarter plate daguerreotype of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln taken March 4, 1861.
No bids will be accepted unless prior approval is granted. Any potential bidder is asked to contact seller before attempting to place bid.
The 'mirror image' of the daguerreotype has been reversed to show the Lincolns as they actually appeared.
Two links have been provided at bottom of listing to view additional photos and the actual responses from the 'experts'.
Exhaustive biographical accounts covering every aspect of Abraham Lincoln’s life from birth to death were recorded for the historical record soon after his assassination by many of his contemporaries who recognized the enormous impact Lincoln had on the course of American history. Included in this body of work are 130 photographs of Abe and 26 photos of Mary.
Due primarily to Frederick H. Meserve, who singlehandedly sought out and compiled much of the photographic record, and to the detailed written accounts describing Lincoln’s physical being, we have a precise knowledge of the visual images of Abraham Lincoln and the various scars and characteristics that are unique to an individual and thus aid in identification. While most of this information is readily available to anyone with an interest, we rely quite heavily for purposes of authenticating Lincoln photographs and artifacts on the ‘Lincoln community’, a general term widely used to describe a group of authors, scholars, historians, dealers, collectors, and others genuinely interested in preserving and promoting the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. By virtue of their professed knowledge of all things Lincoln, they are, in effect, the final arbiters in the authentication process.
Upon discovering the photo of Abe and Mary in 1996, I contacted several esteemed members of the Lincoln community recognized as experts in the field of Lincolniana, seeking their assistance in authenticating the photograph.
A TOTAL OF TWO INDIVIDUALS HAVE EXAMINED THE ORIGINAL DAGUERREOTYPE SINCE IT’S DISCOVERY IN 1996. One was a representative of the National Portrait Gallery, and her literal two minute examination without the benefit of magnification at the Smithsonian in July 1998 resulted in the following statement;......” We all know what our family members, relatives, friends, and famous people look like, and this does not look like Abraham and Mary Lincoln.” And that was that.
The other individual who examined the original daguerreotype was Lloyd Ostendorf, who was generally recognized as the leading authority in the world on Lincoln photographs. At a meeting at his home in Dec. 1996, he spent all of ten seconds looking at a three inch by four inch mirrored image held at arms length without the benefit of magnification, before uttering his trademark reply.... “close, but no cigar.” His initial explanation was that the couple were not middle-aged and because the man had a beard, if it were Lincoln, he would have to be at least fifty-two, since Abe was clean-shaven throughout his life until the end of 1860. A suggestion that a magnifying glass would reveal wrinkles in the faces of both individuals that would dispel this notion was met with other explanations such as the hands not being big and bony enough. And that was that. This meeting lasted no more than seven or eight minutes.
All other conclusions reached by the experts are the result of examining seven by ten or eight by eleven prints of varying quality, and none of the prints used for analysis approach the quality of the online prints now in use.
If one were to apply the same standard of examination to the experts’ responses that the daguerreotype and prints received from the experts, say, just off the top of one’s head, then their conclusions would be convincing to most people, who have a preconceived notion as to what Abraham and Mary Lincoln look like.
If, however, one were to examine the responses with a fraction of the intense scrutiny that a historically significant artifact should be subjected to, one would quickly see a pattern of embracing any perceived inconsistency that might support the fervent belief prevalent in the Lincoln community that Abe and Mary were never photographed together, while completely disregarding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Abraham Lincoln is the single most researched, analyzed and documented human being in American history, and quite possibly in human history. There are literally tens of thousands of books written about this man. One would think that the experts, who wallow about in this ever-expanding sea of redundancy, could issue a condemnation of this ‘spurious’ photo containing some semblance of a fact. They can’t. Unfortunately, they are content to substitute ridiculous observations, a by-product of subjective reasoning and blatant incompetence, in lieu of factual conclusions.
With regard to their contention that the couple are of comparative height, a blind man can see that Mary is clearly sitting on something to appear somewhat equal in height. The top of their heads and their waistlines reveal a distinct contrast in height, and the well documented fact that Abe’s height was disproportionately in his legs suggests an unusual height differential. (Abe was six feet-four inches, Mary was five feet-two inches.) Abe’s contemporaries stated that when seated, he was no taller than an average man, that only when he stood did he tower over other men due to his unusually long legs. One can only wonder why Mr. Ostendorf echoed this observation as a point of dissent.
Mr. Ostendorf’s comments concerning the upper eye-lids, the lips, the hairline, the ears, the neck, the hands, and “stockier in build” remark have absolutely no basis in reality. For every one of the 130 images of Lincoln that one could use to bolster this argument, I can point to two that will refute it, which serves no constructive purpose whatsoever. The experts are aware that as long as the debate is restricted to the gray areas, their long held beliefs will never be challenged.
There are but two FACTUAL statements by Mr. Ostendorf in his reply to the McClerrens.
The mole is not ‘evident’. Evident being the key word. Due to the intense lighting, only with strong magnification of the daguerreotype itself can the outline and shape of the mole be seen. The online prints lack the resolution necessary to see this clearly. Mr. Ostendorf was politely informed of this and chose to ignore it.
The brass mat and preserver do resemble those of the 1850’s, and they are original to the daguerreotype. The paper tape was still intact when I discovered the photo. There are many plausible explanations for this, but I’d prefer to deal with facts instead of speculation. It is known, however, that many daguerreotypists in the late 1850’s and early 1860’s used older stock due to the phasing out of the daguerreian process in favor of other methods of photography recently introduced that were more practical and cost effective. John Craig is one of the leading authorities in the country on the subject of daguerreotypists. In Craig’s Daguerreian Registry, published in 1996, the last paragraph on page xiii, and the complete text on page xiv, is as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The message that does emerge from a lengthy study of the city directories is that there were far more people practicing the daguerreotype process in later years than previously believed. It has generally been acknowledged, because of Professor Robert Taft’s 1937 publication of PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE AMERICAN SCENE, that the daguerreotype process reached it’s height in 1853. Many believe that with the introduction of collodian (1852), the ambrotype (1852), and ferrotype or tintype (1854), the daguerreotype suffered an almost immediate demise.
Undoubtedly there were photographers in the mid-1850’s who called themselves “daguerreians” not because they practiced the process, but simply because the general public knew of that photographic process, but perhaps were not “modern” enough to respond to the words “ambrotypist” or “ferrotypist”.
But I also believe that there were a greater number of photographers in the same time period who were actively engaged in daguerreotypy, and moved much more slowly into the alternate process.
When one compares the process of the daguerreotype and that of the ambrotype, or of the positive-negative approach to imagery, there is no doubt the two are totally different in chemistry, in preparation, and in execution. Although a professional photographer operating a studio in 1857 or 1860 may never have had a request for a daguerreotype, it does not mean he was not trained in the process or that he had neither the equipment or chemicals to execute it.
In metropolitan areas, such as New York City, Philadelphia, or Boston, newer processes would be accepted and universally used far more quickly than in outlying areas. Photographers, like most professionals, do not like to be left behind when new advantages are introduced. But the evidence of the lingering attachment to the daguerreotype can easily be seen through a study of the city business directories.
In Auburn, New York, there were 7 daguerreians and 1 ambrotypist listed in the 1857-58 directory. In the 1859-60 directory, the next year for which one exists, there were 14 daguerreians listed. One photographer who had listed himself as a daguerreotypist in 1857 no longer offered the process for portraiture. In fact, 13 of these daguerreians were not listed at all in the previous directory.
In Albany, New York, the state capitol and an active metropolitan area, “Daguerreotypist” was still the principal heading in the mercantile listings in 1857. In individual listings in 1857, only one photographer chose to be listed as a “ambrotypist”. The remaining 14 individuals and partnerships remained solid in their choice of “daguerreotypist” or “daguerreian artist” for their profession.
The more my investigation continues, the more convinced I am that the daguerreian process, contrary to what has been previously believed, “hung on” well into the late 1850’s and early 1860’s in the studio.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to make it perfectly clear that John Craig is in no way associated with the photograph of Abe and Mary. I simply requested his permission to reprint a portion of the book’s introduction. I point this out only because most people feel that this photograph is being placed on Ebay in an attempt to defraud. When the smoke clears and the dust settles, we’re going to find out just who has been perpetrating the fraud on who!
The hands aren’t ‘right’ or ‘big and bony’ enough because the experts failed to realize the right hand is gloved. The left hand is a perfect match right down to the scar on the left thumb, and the ‘hanky’ Abe is holding in his left hand is the left glove. A white kid glove. Just like the white kid gloves Mary urged Abe to wear at White House social functions and just like the white kid gloves that the historical record shows Abe wore for the evening festivities after his inauguration on March 4th, 1861.
They say daguerreotypes were no longer being produced in 1861 when there are museums all across the country displaying dags made throughout the decade of the 1860’s.
They say the man is “ too neatly and nattily dressed” when in fact he’s wearing clothing identical to that of the clothing worn by Abe in nearly all of the 90 photos taken during his presidency, right down to the way he ties his tie. The historical record also points out that Abe had a ‘ new suit, hat, and boots for the inauguration.’
They say the frontal hairline is unlike Abe’s. It’s combed for one of the few times in his life, as one would expect when he sits for a formal photograph with his wife.
They say the woman’s face isn’t fat enough to be Mary when she’s got two inches of fat hanging from her jaw.
They say the dress is too shabby. It’s not the dress, it’s the tarnish on the silvered surface of the daguerreotype.
They say the ear isn’t big enough and the neck not long enough. This ridiculous statement is an indication of just how far the world’s leading expert will go to prevent this photograph from becoming the sprag in his wheel of conventional wisdom.
The inability of photographers and the great artists of Lincoln’s time to capture and present to the world his likeness has been written about ad nauseam. The correlation between Abe’s moods and the over-all appearance of his face led some to describe him as chameleon-like. Combine a generalized knowledge of this phenomenon with even a basic understanding of the distortion inherent in photography due to lighting, positioning, etc., and any Lincoln expert should know you don’t judge a Lincoln photo by first impression. When I contacted Mr. Ostendorf in 1998 and asked that he re-evaluate the photo due to more recent evidence, he replied “ I’ve already looked at the daguerreotype and I doubt that anything will change my mind, so there’s no sense beating a dead horse.” Spoken like a true expert.
This is not an attempt to denigrate Lloyd Ostendorf, or his memory. I just feel very strongly that the world’s leading authority has a heightened responsibility to perform a reasonable examination of a historic artifact, where proving or disputing authenticity requires extensive observation, when approached with respect, sincerity, and by invitation. A four or five minute examination and an unwillingness to pick up a magnifying glass should preclude him from even having an opinion on the matter, but since his decision to formally denounce this photograph effectively stopped it in it’s tracks, the basis for his qualification to evaluate this photograph should be known. Incidentally, a ‘letter of frustration’ detailing the aforementioned dealings with Mr. Ostendorf, in particular, and the Lincoln experts in general, was sent to one of the editors of The Rail Splitter in the fall of 1997, who no doubt saw fit to share the glowing critique with his cohorts. I can’t imagine why Mr. Ostendorf went from short and sweet in ’96 to curt and gruff in ’98.
When asked in 1998 for his opinion on another daguerreotype being touted as possibly the earliest photograph of Lincoln, Mr. Ostendorf replied, " whoever buys it will pay a lot of money for a FAKE", explicitly implying nothing less than fraudulent intentions. The editor of The Rail Splitter, in reference to Lincoln daguerreotypes, stated that “ many SPURIOUS examples are promoted by overly optimistic sellers, generating much controversy, but little money”. I can’t speak to the number of spurious Lincoln photographs out there floating around, but I’d be willing to bet that at some point in the future, this debate will be expanded to include spurious EXPERTS!
The experts can conjure up one excuse after another as to why the couple are not Abe and Mary, but what they CAN’T do is explain away the scars and physical characteristics that make it an impossibility to be anyone other than the Lincolns. It is humanly impossible for a couple to resemble Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln, however remote that resemblance may be in the opinion of most people, possess all of the physical traits and scars unique to both Abe and Mary, possess not a single scar or physical trait foreign to Abe or Mary, and be anybody other than the Lincolns. I challenge anybody on the planet to find a single scar or mark or physical trait on this couple that is foreign to Abraham OR Mary Lincoln. The experts certainly haven’t done it.
On page sixty-six of the Kunhardts’ book ‘ Lincoln........An Illustrated Biography’, is a full page picture of a daguerreotype of Mary Lincoln taken in 1846.
Daguerreotypy has been described recently as the truest and purest form of photography ever invented, up to and including modern conventional photographic methods. The resulting images are often referred to as ‘mirror’ images.
The striking similarity between Mary on page 66 and Mary in the Abe and Mary photo, although separated by fifteen years, is undeniable, right down to the large scar on her forehead above her right eye. The scar is more obvious in the photo on page 287, as are three additional scars or pockmarks on her chin that correspond exactly to those of Mary. The naysayers may choose to use the photo on page 287 exclusively as a means of visual comparison, but remember that this is a CDV that has been blown to smithereens to fill a page.
Some experts have said that the eyes of the woman in the Abe and Mary photo are spaced too far apart to be Mary, that she doesn’t have a snub nose like Mary, and that Mary never wore her hair in curls. If the spacing of one’s eyes and the shape and size of one’s nose is absolute and unaffected by photographic distortion, then the woman on page 287 cannot be the same woman shown on page 66. You can’t have it both ways.
There is a common misconception that Mary Lincoln was this fat, roly- poly little woman. She wasn’t. The large hoop skirts worn by woman in the Victorian era contributed mightily to this perception. Mr. Ostendorf authored a book in the early 1960’s titled; The Photographs of Mary Lincoln. A review of all twenty-six photos quickly dispel the myth that Mary was fat. On page seven (Kunhardts) is a photo of Mary and two of her sons as she was preparing to leave for Washington that illustrates this. The viewing of ALL of these photos provides a glimpse into the important role that lighting plays in photography.
By the way, why didn’t the world’s top expert on Abraham AND Mary Lincoln feel compelled to offer a single negative comment regarding the ‘imposter’ impersonating Mary?
Mary had a great disdain for the image she projected in photographs. She was quoted as saying that her hands were made to appear too large and her facial expression too stern. At one point, she requested that Brady destroy several negatives of her image in exchange for permission to place another for sale in his gallery (pg 285). It doesn’t require a tremendous leap of faith to imagine a scenario in which Mary prevented this photo from ever seeing the light of day until it eventually fell through the cracks in the aftermath of the civil war.
While the glove Abe is wearing on the right hand renders it useless as a visual aid in comparing vein patterns or the texture of the hand or fingers, the manner in which he is clutching the cane is consistent with a condition affecting his right side that some have speculated may have resulted from being kicked in the head by a horse at age 10. While the cause of the ailment affecting his right arm and hand may be open to question, the fact that it existed should not be, although some have gone to great lengths to minimize the severity of the condition or even deny it existed. While sitting for several photographs at Brady’s studio in February 1861 upon his arrival in Washington just prior to his inauguration, Abe’s right hand is clenched and partially hidden from view, as it is in most other photographs. The caption states that his hand was swollen from thousands of handshakes (page 24 &25), yet the very fact that anyone would feel compelled to offer up an explanation for such an innocuous pose only serves to draw attention to an otherwise unnoticeable condition.
Leonard Volk, the noted sculptor (page 119), stated that he “wished for Lincoln to hold something in his right hand” while doing plaster casts of both hands (a piece of whittled broomstick).
Why? Why then, not the left hand?
The photographs on pages 110 and 216 show Abe’s right arm and hand in a very unorthodox pose. An examination of every known Lincoln pose showing his right arm and hand, along with the written descriptions by those who knew him intimately, leave no doubt that Abe’s right side was weakened or partially disabled. The grasp of the cane is a very subtle indication of this condition, and the presence of the cane provides the perfect, inconspicuous prop for the weakened right arm and hand in a formal setting.
In the photograph opposite the front cover that was taken a few days prior to the Gettysburg Address, (also page223), a small bump or knot can be seen on the left side of Abe’s forehead near the hairline. There are very few photos of Abe where this is obvious, even in photos showing the left profile. His head has to be turned at a specific angle to see this. Due to the angle of his head in the photo with Mary, the bump is clearly evident on the actual daguerreotype, and to a great degree on the print.
In most photos, a dark line appears below Abe’s left lip running parallel to the lip. This ‘line’ is actually a series of pockmarks. The line of pockmarks is clearly evident on the actual daguerreotype, and can be seen on the print. They match those of Abe in the photos that permit such examination.
Abe had a dimple on his chin that was very distinct in size and shape and was more to the right side of his chin. The dimple is clearly evident on the actual daguerreotype and on the print. It matches that of Abe exactly.
There are three points to make referring to the photo on page 141.
1. Abe had a sparse area in his beard on the right side of his jawline directly underneath his cheekbone. Other photos also show this. While subtle because of how low the beard is shaved, one can still see the ‘low’ dip in the beard line that corresponds exactly to the sparse area.
2. There are several ‘pimples’ on Abe’s right cheek that can be seen on the actual daguerreotype through magnification, although the print lacks the detail needed to see them clearly. The photo on page 141 and the photo of Abe and Mary were taken less than two months apart. The location of the pimples on page 141 match those on the daguerreotype and are probably a result of the newly-grown beard, since the photo of Abe and Mary was almost certainly taken within 48 hours of Abe having shaved for the first time since he started to grow his beard.
3. Where is the huge mole? Why is the mole on page 141 not as obvious as on the opposite page? I don’t claim to be an expert on photography, but I do know that lighting plays a significant role in the finished product. It’s obvious that the lighting used by the photographer in the Abe and Mary photo was very bright and intense, since both Abe and Mary are squinting, and the wrinkles in their faces and the outline of the mole can only be seen with strong magnification of the actual daguerreotype or on an extremely high-resolution print. There is much more detail to be gleaned from the daguerreian image. I simply don’t have access to the photographic equipment necessary to achieve this.
On page 101, on Abe’s right cheek, there is a distinctive, crescent shaped scar about the same distance directly up from the mole and across from center of the nose.This scar is clearly evident on the actual daguerreotype and on the print, and corresponds exactly to the scar as seen on page 101, the ' Gettysburg Address ' photo, and a couple of others where it can be seen but lacks detail.
Lincoln’s airways or nostrils do not extend as far into the end of the nose as most people’s, making the end of his nose look blunt.
In many photographs, Abe had a tuft of hair protruding from behind his right ear, being best illustrated on pages 11 and 144. By clicking the link below, the large photo shows the 'tuft' of hair, although the lighting enhancement obscures some detail in Abe's face.
By covering the right side of Lincoln’s lips, the left side appears to frown. Cover the left side and the right side appears to smile. This is unique to Abe.
Abe’s left eye was set higher than his right.
Abe’s left eye was damaged due to being kicked in the head by a horse at age 10, and would sometimes turn upward or become a ‘vacant’ stare.
The right side of Abe’s face was more fully developed than the left side, again, as a result of being kicked in the head.
Abe also had a mole on his left cheek just beyond the vertical crease as seen on pages 302 and 317. This mole can be seen even on the prints.
The watch chain resembles Abe’s as seen on page 270.
The life mask by Clark Mills on pages 364 and 365 show the contour of Lincoln’s lower right lip. There is a ‘bump’ on the lip about midway. This is seen on many Lincoln photos.
The historical record states that two of Mary’s favorite colors were blue and purple. The color of the dress in the photo appears to fall in the middle of the color spectrum. According to some reports, Mary wore a blue taffeta dress at the inaugural ball. The dictionary defines taffeta as follows;{a fine, rather stiff fabric of silk, nylon, acetate, etc., with a sheen}. The dress Mary is wearing fits this description.
It is known that Abe never shaved his beard from the time he started growing it out in November 1860 until sometime just prior to his inauguration. It is also known that Abe trimmed his beard in different styles throughout his presidency, but in no other photo during this period is the beard shaven low enough to reveal the dimple. The next documented Lincoln photo after the series at Brady’s in February 1861 is the photo inscribed to Joshua Speed’s mother. The exact date that Lincoln sat for this photo is not known, but most reports place it between April 1st and June 30th of 1861. Assuming the timeframe is correct on the ‘Speed’ photo, there are but two windows of opportunity for the Abe and Mary photo to have been taken. It is virtually impossible for the photo to have been taken after January 1862 due to the frequency that Lincoln was photographed from this point until his death and what those photos reveal in relation to Abe’s beard, hair, body weight, and overall appearance. Ditto Mary, minus the beard.
It is possible, but very unlikely, for many reasons, that the photo was taken sometime during the last six months of 1861.
The historical record shows that, at his inauguration on the fourth of March, Abe had shaved for the first time since he started growing his beard.
It is possible, but unlikely, that on the third of March or the morning of the inauguration, Abe shaved his beard for the first time in a manner consistent with the ‘Speed’ photo (covering the dimple), altered the style weeks or months later, at which time he sat for a formal photograph with his wife, and then reverted back to the same style he would keep throughout his presidency.
It is much more likely that, just prior to the inauguration, Abe shaved his beard low enough to reveal the dimple, disliked it, and then allowed the beard to grow out to cover the dimple in the style he kept for the following four years and eighty some odd photographs. I believe the reason the beard was shaven low enough to reveal the dimple was because of the sparse areas on either side of Abe’s face where no facial hair would grow. (pages 144, 288, 320, 328, 354). Common sense would suggest that the pattern of the beard was influenced by these areas, and then adjusted the next time he shaved to allow the beard to cover the dimpled chin that jutted out, which incidentally, contributes a great deal to the unfamiliar look.
Due to the way the beard is trimmed, the length of the hair, the pattern of the pimples seen in no photograph prior to growing the beard, the body weight of both Abe and Mary, the gloves and gold-headed cane, the incontrovertible photographic evidence that make it impossible to be anybody other than the Lincolns due to the presence of at least two dozen scars or physical characteristics UNIQUE to Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln, the absence of any scars or physical characteristics foreign to Abe OR Mary, and the likelihood that a formal photograph of Abe and Mary would come after the inauguration and before the start of the civil war, logic would dictate that this photo was taken on or about March 4th, 1861.
The daguerreotype was formerly owned by Ruth Montgomery Day, b. 1884 – d.1974.
How, when, and where Mrs. Day acquired the photo remains a mystery despite extensive research efforts. There is no evidence to indicate whether Ruth Day was aware of the identity of the sitters. Her ancestors can be traced to near Alton, Illinois in 1825 and also to a settlement known as Otter Creek prairie in what is now Jersey county, Illinois in 1830. Other branches of her ancestral tree have been traced to central Illinois before 1840 and are now scattered throughout the central and northern part of Illinois. The research material is simply too vast to put on this site, and without a direct link to either Abe or Mary, its impact would be minimal.
One of the more interesting research papers is an original five page genealogy draft dated 1879 that traces Deacon William Douglas and family from Scotland in 1610 to Massachusetts in 1640, and eventually into central Illinois in 1825. It makes reference to Stephen A. Douglas’ arrival in Jacksonville, Illinois a few years after Gilbert Dennison Douglas and family made the trek from Vermont. G. D. Douglas’ daughter Harriet resided in Otter Creek and was the grandmother of Ruth Montgomery Day’s husband, which, unless or until somebody more qualified than I am can connect the dots, means absolutely nothing.
Ruth Day’s ancestry also leads directly to famed revolutionary war general Israel Putnam, and also to Israel Bush ‘Fighting Dick’ Richardson, civil war general killed at Antietam, and who is pictured on page 191.
Over seven years ago, I began contacting various members of the Lincoln community for help in authenticating this photograph. Once their vehement opposition to the prospect that Abe and Mary were ever photographed together became apparent, I simply asked this:....don’t just tell me it isn’t them, tell me WHY it isn’t? I’m still waiting for an answer.
Don’t tell me these people are the same size because I know better. If Mary is not sitting on something, then somebody please tell me what the alternative is?
Don’t tell me there were no daguerreotypes being made in 1861 because if there weren’t, then a lot of museums across the country are displaying fakes.
Don’t tell me ‘it doesn’t look like them’, and then confine your dissenting opinions to the realm of subjective interpretation that is inherent in all Lincoln photographs, where factual evidence plays no role.
And don’t tell me you’ve conducted a thorough examination and then point to a five-fingered ‘hanky’ as an element of contradiction. The fact that the hanky is actually a glove may be of minor consequence in the overall scheme of things, but it does indicate a superficial examination that serves to illustrate the level of contempt felt by the experts toward the very notion that the couple in the photograph could even be considered as Abe and Mary.
The experts have yet to present a reasonable argument that can withstand the scrutiny of anyone armed with half a brain and an ounce of common sense. I wonder why.
I would urge anybody interested in the photograph to completely disregard anything I have to say, and focus solely on what the Lincoln experts have to say. These are individuals educated in institutions of higher learning who have unrestricted access to enough photographic images and written material to fill a silo, with which they churn out more Lincoln books than there are people to read them. Their lives revolve around Abraham, and to a certain extent, Mary, Lincoln. Indeed, their very livelihood depends on their knowledge of the Lincolns.
The proverbial lifeblood of the Lincoln community is the ‘historical record’, an umpteen-million volume illustrated encyclopedia chronicling every move that Abraham Lincoln ever made and every word he ever uttered from birth to death. The meticulous compilation of this record began long before Lincoln was assassinated and will continue well into the future. Beginning in earnest in the 1860’s and continuing to the present day, Lincoln enthusiasts have left no stone unturned in their search for artifacts, photographs, correspondence, and anything and everything Lincoln. They have tracked down, interviewed and documented anything that moved and half of what didn’t in their efforts to capture and preserve for posterity the very essence of Abraham Lincoln.
In short, THEY KNOW ABRAHAM LINCOLN! They also know the historical record like the back of their hand. Due to the sheer volume of material contained in the record, and to the sheer effort it requires to transform a modest amount of relevant subject matter into the sheer volume of books that these people write, they do, from time to time, have to consult the historical record to refresh their memories and to sift through the material in hopes of stumbling across a subject or a paragraph or sentence or a phrase about Abraham Lincoln that hasn’t been documented in print a million times already. They are, after all, only human.
There is one subject, however, where research and consultation is unneeded. For over one-hundred and forty years the historical record has consistently taught Lincoln enthusiasts, newcomers and old-timers alike, that Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln were never photographed together. Never a question. Not even a hint. Any Lincoln expert worth his salt knows this, too, like the back of his hand.
So when some moron (me) approached members of the Lincoln community for help in authenticating not just a run-of-the-mill photograph, but a daguerreotype of Abe AND Mary, is it any wonder that the ‘authentication process’ consisted of nothing more than the obligatory glance,.. no,.. see ya? No need to see the daguerreotype, a print will suffice. No print? No problem. How about a phone examination? It makes perfect sense now. Like asking the religious right for help in advancing the theory of evolution. Intelligent, educated people. Just not prone to persuasion.
The reasoning displayed by Mr. Ostendorf and the other experts is not an example of superior knowledge and intellect, but merely an illustration of how superior knowledge and intellect can be rendered absolutely worthless unless accompanied by some degree of objectivity.
So you live and you learn. And what I’ve learned over the past seven years is this:......... if my head was to fall plumb off of my shoulders tomorrow, and roll away never to be seen again, I’d STILL know more about the Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln photo than everybody in the Lincoln community put together. You know why? Because I didn’t know that they were never photographed together. Nobody told me the photo didn’t exist. They didn’t sit, like I did, hour after hour, night after night, and week after week with a magnifying glass and every Lincoln book I could get my hands on. (Thanks for the proliferation).
In retrospect, I guess you can’t focus solely on what the experts have to say, since they never really said much of anything to start with.
Can any reasonable, logical person think for a second that if this were merely a photo of a couple who resembled the Lincolns, that these people couldn’t put forth a decisive, unequivocal denunciation of this photo, backed up with factual evidence, that would render any opposing view moot? Do you think they have sufficient motivation or incentive to do so?
Seven years after discovering the photo, there are three things that I have become absolutely certain of:
1. One day, someone capable of thinking for themselves, (fancy that), will look beneath the surface of the unfamiliar appearance, and realize that where there's smoke, there's fire. I have been told, on more than one occasion, that the original daguerreotype would be worth nine figures if ever authenticated, as ridiculous as that sounds. So don't wait for the price to plummet on THIS daguerreotype. I'm fully prepared to wait until 2030 when we go traipsing off to Mars in search of intelligent life. It certainly seems to be in short supply on this planet.
2. If this photograph is ever fully authenticated, it will be accomplished in spite of the efforts by the Lincoln community to prevent it, instead of with the help of the Lincoln community, as it should have been from day one.
3. This is unquestionably an original daguerreotype of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln taken on or about March 4th, 1861. It is the Holy Grail of photographs and priced accordingly. Whether it will ever be fully recognized as such remains to be seen.
Oh, no. Don't tell me "Admin Mod" (a code name if their ever was one) is in on this, too! Why can't an honest ebay seller make a crummy $50,000,000.00 without all this interference?
Robert Shaw, the captain in "Jaws"
Plausible notion.
Actually, there probably are a fair number of people who have, over the years, found artifacts in their parents' attics which they believed to be rare and precious historical items but which the parents had in fact picked up as cheap novelties. Not all 'fakes' are put forth by deliberate forgers; some are put forth by people who simply have no real idea what they're selling.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks flying Elvis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
