Featured Any ideas on this family daguerreotype?

I was under the impression that we had agreed to show a little respect for someone else's thread and call it quits, but hey, I get it. We stole it fair and square - we might as well use it now. I doubt if Melissa would get within a country mile of this thread now after what we did to it.
I really don't want to get on here and argue just for the sake of arguing. You folks have your point of view - and I have mine. I doubt that any minds are going to be changed at this point.
2manybooks - I do have a couple of serious questions for you though. Reading between the lines relative to that photo you posted a while back that purports to be Mary in her 1861 inaugural ball gown, am I safe in assuming that you still believe the photo and accompanying text is accurate? Just for the sake of argument .... suppose you're right, that the dress may actually be blue, due to the varying degrees of hue or tint as the result of the photographic process that is missing in the actual photograph.
Where does the white, deeply bordered, point d'Alencon lace collar go? As you are probably aware, the collar is well documented in contemporaneous newspaper accounts by reporters who actually attended the inaugural ball festivities.
And wouldn't the very presence of the lace collar preclude the very possibility of a low-necked, off-the-shoulder ball gown - regardless of color? Was it customary to wear the two items together? Just curious. I'm no expert on Victorian clothing, but a lace collar would seem to be out of place in that scenario. Thank you.

 

@Joseph Mason
I have not spent as much time as you obviously have delving into original sources on this particular topic. My view has been informed by a more general knowledge of the history of costumes and the history of photography. However, I have located another photograph that purports to be of Mary Todd Lincoln in her 1861 inaugural gown, (a different gown), taken by Mathew Brady:

https://www.si.edu/search?edan_q=Mathew+Brady+Mary+Todd+Lincoln, and
https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2016/12/rare-item-of-the-month-marys-treasures/

Here is another print of the same image, but easier to see the details:

https://civilianwartime.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/lincoln-in-keckley-dress.jpg

Again, the gown appears white, but may have actually been blue. The "lace collar" would refer to the the trim across the shoulders, at the top of the gown's low neck.

Here is the March 23, 1861 issue of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, with a cover illustration of the "Inauguration ball at Washington, March 4, 1861 - superb costumes of distinguished ladies present on that brilliant occasion / from sketches by our special artists". This shows the contemporary fashion for ball gowns, consistent with the photograph(s) of Mary Todd Lincoln's gown(s):
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/photos/president-abraham-lincolns-inaugural-ball
View attachment upload_2020-1-20_20-22-17.gif

 

2manybooks - thank you for your reply. As you pointed out, that's two different ball gowns that purport to be Mary's 1861 inaugural ball gown. Both of the photos also show her with the seed pearl necklace and earrings. Most folks who are familiar with high fashion (I'm not one of them - and I aim to keep it the way) know that the Tiffany jewelry company's reputation for record keeping is second to none (and they charge $1,000 to access their archives). Their own records indicate that Abraham Lincoln purchased the seed pearl jewelry set in April of 1862. How people in the Lincoln community can continue to reconcile this disparity is beyond me.
Below are some descriptions from some contemporaneous news sources who witnessed and reported on the festivities on March 4th. I'm technologically challenged and can't figure out to make that a clickable link, though the one on the first page of this thread is clickable, so I'll just type what the info is on the site.

https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium/thread-3648.html

(Excerpt from the March 6, 1861 New York Times edition)
"The parties were Mrs. Lincoln and Senator Douglas. Mrs. Lincoln appeared remarkably well; she wore a very tasteful and becoming head-dress, and a low-necked lavender silk, I think, of exquisite shade, perfect fit, and evident richness. Her lace was point, her jewelry was the simple diamond, and her attire such as commanded itself to the good taste, the sense of propriety and the love of the beautiful of every person in the room."

The following posts on the site were by Kerry.
"Senator Douglas, faithful among the faithless, gallantly gave his arm to Mrs. Lincoln. A few hours and a good dressmaker had transformed that simple little woman into quite a belle. She was tastefully attired in a very becoming blue gown, and she carried a large fan and an immense bouquet."
https://archive.org/stream/whenlincolnwa...k_djvu.txt

"Mrs. L. shows us, in her choice of blue on this occasion, as the color which suits her complexion best, that she is no stranger to the beautiful science of the toilet."
Friday March 8th 1861 Cincinnati Daily Press (Cincinnati, Ohio)

"All I can say is that she was tastefully and richly arrayed in blue and white, with a beautiful wreath, rising infant like a crown upon her head."
March 29. Evansville Journal's Washington correspondent.

Donna McCreary is one of the leading authorities on Mary Todd Lincoln. On the Symposium site she states, after giving her opinion as to the gown you have pictured above, that ..... "The gown chosen for the inaugural ball was the blue watered silk."

Susan states in another post .... "Mrs. Lincoln was superbly dressed in a blue silk, trimmed with point d' Alencon lace, and wore a blue ostrich feather in her hair, which was exceedingly becoming."
New York World ... March 5th 1861

Donald Ackerman is a lifelong collector of political memorabilia, specializing in Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis, and occupies a prominent position in the Lincoln community. He is an editor at The Railsplitter, an online Lincoln publication and auction site. As I sit here and type this, he is persistent in his beliefs that the dress you pictured above is Mary's actual 1861 inaugural gown, and is out there doing everything in his power in an attempt to track it down. It was an article that he published about the dress that led to some of the comments on the Lincoln Discussion Symposium site.
I would respectfully disagree with you as the location of the lace collar. Just about every reference I can find online about a Victorian lace collar indicates one worn around the neck as seen in the photo of the five young ladies on page one of this thread. But, as I said, don't quote me on that! I know about half as much as Colonel Klink when it comes to fashion.
The one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb in all of the contemporaneous accounts is the lack of a single mention of seed pearl jewelry. Call me a skeptic, but I'm thinking it's because she didn't have possession of jewelry that wasn't purchased until thirteen months later.

 

The timing of the jewelry is an interesting conundrum.
The quote from the New York Times, "her jewelry was the simple diamond", would indicate that different jewelry was actually worn at the ball.

I would suggest that there is no necessity for the photographs of either of the purported ball gowns to have been made on the day of the ball. In fact, it is quite unlikely, as the couple would have been very busy with other matters. It may be that the official portraits were made later in Lincoln's term, and Mary chose to wear the fine jewelry that she had since received. Unfortunately, it seems that Mathew Brady did not keep records adequate to identifying the specific day the photograph was taken.

Be that as it may, the dress described by those present at the inaugural ball is not inconsistent with the last one I posted above. "A low-necked lavender silk", "with a beautiful wreath, rising infant like a crown upon her head", "blue silk, trimmed with point d' Alencon lace". I think the major disagreement rests on the misinterpretation of the color as represented in the photograph, which as I have explained is an artifact of the photographic process.

These descriptions, at least, do not mention a "lace collar". Donna on the symposium mentions a "lace cape", without a citation. But there might have been a separate cape, such as shown on one of the women in the bottom row in the Leslie's Newspaper image above.

P.S. I now understand that you are probably "Donna". See my next post.

 

I have been reading the thread in the Lincoln Symposium Discussion that you provided a link to, and see that at least a few people were making the same observations we have made here, in reference to what I presume is your daguerreotype.

Post #34 by Susan Higginbotham:
Aside from the fact that the man in the cane picture looks nothing like Lincoln and the lady bears only a slight resemblance to Mary, the woman's large collar is one that was fashionable in the 1850s. Mary, fresh from a New York shopping trip, wouldn't be wearing that in 1861.

I don't see any evidence that the lady is wearing a blue dress. Could be gray or some other color.

Also, if this conspiracy-minded site is correct in identifying the image as a daguerreotype (and I can't say I trust the site), daguerreotypes had fallen out of fashion in favor of ambrotypes and CDVs by 1861. Daguerreotypes were still around, but a photographer taking a picture of the First Couple would be more likely to use what was current.

post #35 by RJNorton:
I am sorry, Donna, that I didn't give an explanation. In all honesty, I didn't do so because I didn't think the image is close enough (IMO) to be seriously considered.

I second everything Susan said above; she explained it better than I ever could.

And, in addition to what Susan said, Abraham was about 14 inches taller than Mary, and the couple pictured are considerably closer in height than 14 inches difference. Also, there is no mole (also called a wart in some sources) on the man's right cheek where there should be if he were Abraham Lincoln.

And post #36 by Susan:
I was curious so I checked with a Facebook group to which I belong, some of the members of which are experts in 19th century fashion. All agreed that the woman's dress was from the 1850's, possibly even the late 1840's (which would make sense if this is indeed a daguerreotype). Anyone who's read Mary's letters to her milliners knows that she wouldn't have been caught dead in such an old-fashioned dress in 1861.

I see that you have been flogging this theory for some time, with similar results. I will return to my earlier sign off:
It is clear that you have a lot invested in your misapprehensions. But I choose not to waste any more of my time trying to disabuse you of them.

 

2manybooks - Thank you once again for your comments.

"Interesting conundrum." You betcha. I really do commend you for attempting to explain it away. That's more than the Lincoln community is willing to do. You want to hear my take on it?
It goes as follows ..... once upon a time, soon after Lincoln's death, folks who write books for a living (which now number nearly 19,000) decided to start writing biographies pursuant to our 16th president. They felt a photograph of Mary Lincoln in her 1861 inaugural ball attire would make a nice addition, and since they only had a grand total of 26 to pick from, they simply chose the one that painted her in the best light. Of course, other biographers liked a completely different version. There was one small problem with that - the purchase date at Tiffany's.
So because the whole story was a fairy tale to begin with, they saw no problem with expanding on it by using Lincoln's February 20th stopover in New York on his inaugural journey as a convenient solution to this problem. But then that solution became an even bigger problem when some yahoo (me) pointed out to them that not only was there not one shred of evidence to corroborate their version of events - there was ample documented and incontrovertible evidence ( see... Lincoln ... Day by Day) to refute it, including the REAL photograph of Mary in her inaugural gown.
The Library of Congress, New York Times, etc,...... are in direct conflict with Donald Ackerman and his camp with their dueling photographs - and both are in direct conflict with reality and the historical facts that are available to all of us.
So they all respond as you have ...."Interesting conundrum ... but nothing to see hear folks .... let's move along." And all is forgotten and everyone lives happily ever after.
Well I ain't moving along! If gold is truth, the Lincoln community can keep piling on the overburden with their heavy equipment in an attempt to conceal it. I'm going to keep digging away with my pick & shovel trying to reach bedrock. Doubt if I'll ever get there, but hey, it's not the destination - it's the journey. Right?

BTW - there is a "Donna". I just sent her stuff to post on that site. "James" - I just pulled that pseudonym out of thin air like the Lincoln community did with their "story" about the gown.

 

Hi all! Meet the real Donna from the Lincoln Forum. Yes, Virginia, there is a real Donna . Do I believe Joe's dag is authentic? Without hesitation. Why? Because no one has given me any legitimate reasons not to.

 

Interesting thread with lots of interesting info, though I second JM's apologies to the OP for the hijacking of it.
It would be most appropriate, as the presumed owner of the AbeAndMary dag, for @Joseph Mason to start his own thread for further discussion, assuming he is a true scholar willing to hear more dissenting opinions and is not closed-minded to debate.

I stand by my own original opinion early in this thread: The couple in the AbeAndMary dag don't bear more than a superficial resemblance to Abe and Mary. It's actually difficult for me to see how someone could think otherwise, and I have yet to read anything more than loose conjecture that supports the A&M claim.

As a vintage clothing aficionado I appreciate the discussions on Mary's gowns.

JM, I have just re-visited your dag's website...
Your first sentence states outright, "This is the only known photograph of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln posed together..." KNOWN? By whom? Apparently, only by you and your small group of supporters. You make it clear that the "Lincoln community" disagrees with your claim so, right off the bat, you misrepresent your dag and red flags are already waving about you and your item.

Your website also demonstrates your unprofessionalism by showing that people who disagree with you are attacked and called names. In only your second paragraph, you disparage the "Lincoln community" and call them "MORONS!!!", apparently because they disagree with your assessment(s) of the dag. Truly learned/interested/inquisitive/impartial investigators don't react in such an emotional way to dissenting opinions. Honest and thorough investigators welcome critique as an opportunity to further their own knowledge through any potential new avenues of research. So, by showing this type of reaction, you demonstrate that you have not been impartially investigating your dag's authenticity. You have now demonstrated an emotional (and likely financial) interest in it depicting A&M, not an academic interest, and your investigative work appears to have been skewed by your belief/desire/need-to-prove that it is indeed A&M.
Your obviously biased research technique is therefore apparent in just the first two paragraphs of your website and caused me, for one, to immediately suspect any info you put forward.

By the way, the lace collar that the woman is wearing in your dag is not Point d'Alencon lace, Alencon lace is a needle lace. Simply speaking, it is done with a needle and thread and has a very fine net background. It was/is extremely expensive. The lace collar that your woman is wearing appears to be a simple homemade-style crochet or tatted lace, much more doable/affordable for the average woman. In fact, ladies magazines of the day had instructions on how to make such lace accessories. I doubt that MTL would have worn such "common" lace.



Making Alencon lace:


A finished piece of Alencon lace:


Crochet and tatted lace examples:

It is up to JM to prove that it is, not for others to prove that it isn't. He has not offered any proof, only opinions, postulations, and conjecture.

Editing to add: Apparently there are contemporary accounts referring to MLT's dress as both "blue" and "lavender". There actually is a color often referred to as "lavender blue" and it is a lighter color than depicted in the AbeAndMary dag.

 

I'm sorry , but that's not an honest reason to believe ...anything !!

 

Bluumz - As you are aware, I didn't initiate this thread. I ran across it by accident months after someone else had posted my photograph and invited comment on it. The tone of the subsequent comments deserved to be responded to in kind. Rancor and belligerence is a two way street. If you can't take it - don't dish it out. That's what I've encountered from day one in dealing with the Lincoln community. That's why my website looks the way it does. It's going to remain that way until they exhibit some willingness to engage in reasonable objective conversation.
Digging your heels in on this nonsense about Mary's inaugural gown and seed pearl jewelry pursuant to the 1861 inaugural ball is the antithesis of that quality. Ditto their ridiculous claims about the height disparity (lack of) and unwillingness to concede that Mary is seated on a cushion - and coupled with the documented contemporaneous accounts that Abe's height was disproportionately in his legs - leaves little doubt in the minds of reasonable people that there is a substantial height differential (14 inches). Some won't even concede that Abe is holding a glove in his left hand that is draped over the bench, insisting instead that the item is in fact a "hanky". (Laurie Verge - Dan Weinberg -Tim Bakken). Or that his right hand clutching the cane is gloved. Or that the two different gowns that are pictured on this thread with both purporting to be Mary's inaugural gown are blue. People are entitled to their own opinions and observations, but I take offense when someone attempts to insult what little bit of intelligence I have by trying to convince me that those gowns are blue. They're clearly white.
Cherry-picking images that reinforce one's narrative is not conducive to seeking the truth. There are roughly known 130 images of Abraham Lincoln. For every image someone wants to post that fails to show the cleft in his chin, I can throw two up there on the screen that does show it. That same exercise holds true with most of Lincoln's scars and identifying characteristics, but it's meaningless unless it's directed at an objective audience.
You folks can beat around the edges of the argument with the clothing and lace and width of lapel and other extraneous issues if it makes you feel better and smarter. I'm hanging my hat on one fundamental premise that I consider to be incontrovertible; it is humanly impossible for a man and woman to resemble Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln, possess every known scar and identifying characteristic unique to both individuals - and possess not a single scar or identifying characteristic foreign to either individual - and be anyone other that the famous first couple. If you can't wrap your head around that, then that's your problem. By the way, are you insinuating that I'm on here trying to convince people I'm some kind of fancy-schmancy scholar? Cause I ain't!

 

Dude, clothes, jewelry, and grooming aside, they just don't look anything like the people you're pretending them to be

 

I agree ... Joy.

 

@Joseph Mason / @Meet the real Donna!
When making an extraordinary claim such as "This is the only known photograph of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln posed together", the burden of proof rests on the person making such a claim, as @bluumz has said. It is not the burden of others to prove that the claim is not true.

Can you provide provenance for the daguerreotype - a history of where it came from? Without evidence directly tying the daguerreotype to the Lincolns, the case must rest on internal evidence - features of the photograph itself. Your contention is that the image was created "the evening of March 4, 1861", and that the two people are wearing the clothing they wore at the inaugural ball that evening. (Drawing from your website, http://abeandmarydag.com/)

Here, the evidence can be divided into two groups - features of the photograph as an object (the type of photograph - daguerreotype - the case, mat and preserver), and features/content of the image. You have not shown us the daguerreotype case, which can sometimes be useful in dating the object. We have already discussed features of the mat and preserver that would indicate a likely date between 1847 (when preservers were introduced) and about 1855 (based on the style of the mat and preserver).

We have discussed at length whether or not the two individuals in the photograph physically resemble Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln. The weight of opinion seems to be against any significant resemblance, and contributors here have given specific reasons for such an opinion. In this regard, your view must also be considered only an opinion, as there is no definitive proof either way.

So, we come down to other features of the image.

With regard to the height disparity between Abraham and Mary, you state that "Mary is clearly seated upon a cushion in an attempt to mitigate the fourteen inch disparity in height". No cushion is visible in the image. You seem to be reasoning in reverse - the photo is of Abraham and Mary, therefore she must be sitting on a cushion. This type of reasoning does not support your case.

You state that "The gold watch chain pictured in the dag image is in the possession of the Chicago History Museum". While the Museum does have Lincoln's watch and chain,
http://digitalcollection.chicagohistory.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16029coll3/id/2122/rec/14
it is impossible to say whether the chain shown in the image is the same chain. Pocket watches with chains were common appurtenances in the 19th century,and there is nothing unique about either Lincoln's watch chain or the one in the image to allow anyone to say they are one and the same.

You state that "Mary is wearing the blue watered silk gown with the deeply bordered, white Point D' Alencon lace collar that was her inaugural ball attire". There does seem to be some question as to whether either of the gowns recorded in portraits taken by Mathew Brady is the original inaugural ball gown. There has been some discussion of the color of the dresses, but it is not easy to interpret color from early orthochromatic black and white photographs. However, it is clear that the dress the woman in the image is wearing cannot be it. According to a quote provided by you from the New York Times from March 6, 1861, Mrs. Lincoln, wore "a low-necked lavender silk". A low-necked bodice would be a typical style for an early 1860s ball gown. The woman in your image is definitely not wearing a low-necked dress, but a style more typical of the mid-century. bluumz has also discussed the difference in the type of lace worn by the woman in the image, and a Point D' Alencon lace such as was worn by Mrs. Lincoln.

I hope I have provided a clear and objective summary of some of the legitimate reasons people have to doubt your identification of this daguerreotype.

 

You've got guys writing illustrated manuscripts here, post upon post , for & against.... and this is all you've got ?

This is all you bring to the table..." I don't believe you, cuz I believe him ! "

That's so very lame !

 

Hi folks. A little backstory on Donna. She's my sister. I had attempted to register on Roger Norton's site a couple of years ago hoping to initiate a conversation among members of the Lincoln community that would knock down this nonsense about the white inaugural gown and seed pearl jewelry. Roger refused to allow me to register. Can't say that I blame him. So I asked Donna to register and I emailed her things to post on their site. It didn't take them long to figure out it was me on the other end of those comments and they kicked her off. I then signed up using "James" as a pseudonym.
I texted Donna yesterday and asked her to check out this thread. I little while later, she texted back and said that not only had she looked it over, but she had signed up and posted. I've asked her not to post on here any more. I'm the heathen of the bunch, and I'm the one that's been poking the Lincoln community in the eye for the past 23 years, so I would respectfully ask folks to leave her out of this.

2manybooks - You say there is "some question" as to the inaugural gowns being dated correctly. Kudos to you. I really mean that. I would take that comment one step further and state unequivocally that the attributions relative to both photos are as phony as a three dollar bill. Just like the piece of roadkill that someone poofed up with a hairdryer, threw on a hatstand, and turned it into the cornerstone of the ALPLM collection. That also was proven to be a total fabrication by the Lincoln community. (see ... Chicago Sun Times ...December 24 2019 edition ...authored by Dave McKinney). They also went to great lengths to cover that up when people started questioning it's authenticity. That's just the most prominent "artifact" that has been put under the spotlight at that exalted shrine to Lincoln in Springfield. There are many others that have had their authenticity called into question.
You're right about the "low-necked lavender silk". But you conveniently forgot the next two words in that sentence - "I think". In the actual newspaper article, the author had put those two words in parens. I didn't - because I felt it would appear that those were my words. The parens have some significance, wouldn't you agree? Why would the author feel a need to highlight them? That article was one of many that I posted to illustrate that the gown was blue, and it was the one single reference that someone could cull from all those articles in an attempt to reinforce their beliefs by taking a partial sentence completely out of context.
Not that I care, because reasonable people know that a lace collar, which by definition would be around the neck, would never be worn with a low cut gown such as those in the Leslie's illustration. I don't need to be a fashion aficionado to know that.
I don't want to get into a long back and forth about the daguerreotype cases, mats, and frames. I touched on it briefly earlier. If you and other folks want to use this to bolster your argument, more power to you. But sitting directly within the boundaries of that shiny brass mat, and dressed up in that dress or gown, and suit with the wide lapels, are Abraham and Mary Lincoln.
I think what we have here is a tale of a mighty oak that is Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln standing proud. You folks are trying, indeed have been for quite some time now, to chop it down. And the Lincoln community doesn't have enough sense to realize it is indestructible! From where I sit, all I see is a bunch of zealots standing on their tippy-toes trying to knock the leaves off the lower branches with broomsticks. That ain't going to work! I have yet to see a single leaf hit the ground.
Oh, and another bunch standing there with that dead branch that was grafted onto it 150 some odd years by earlier zealots held in place and high over their heads in an attempt to convince folks that it's still intact. Turn loose of it folks. You can't put that branch that is the phony gowns photos back up there.
I think it's pretty obvious, as I mentioned earlier, that we're at an impasse on this. You folks are knee-deep in your beliefs ... and I'm up to my neck in irrefutable documented evidence and facts. Another aspect of the unassailable truth as I like to call it, which is evidence that there is a connection between Ruth Montgomery Day and descendants of either Abraham or Mary Lincoln, lies hidden in the archives in Illinois or D.C. or parts unknown. Some of these families (Richardsons, Montgomerys, Nobles, Douglas', Day's) were scattered in Illinois and well established before Lincoln ever set foot in the state. I'm not a digging-through-the-archives-for hours-on-end kind of guy, and that what it would take to tie it all together. I'm under no illusions that I'll ever be able to complete this journey, and quite frankly, don't really care that much anymore.
So how about we call it quits and stop arguing for the sake of arguing? If not, I'm just going to pull up a chair, kick back, grab a cold beer, and watch you all swing away. Ciao

 

Hmm. If you are "up to [your] neck in irrefutable documented evidence and facts", you must have forgotten to post any of it here. You had an opportunity to present those facts to an objective audience on this forum, with no dog in this fight except their own eyes. We are not the "Lincoln Community". You wasted that opportunity with insulting, bombastic blather. I must admit I have enjoyed some of the back and forth - it is good mental exercise to do some research and construct logical arguments based on relevant information. But it is no fun when the protagonist has to resort to complete nonsense as a defense, (I think). I know I have said this before, but I mean it this time. I quit.

 

Oh YEAH ... 2manybooks ... well .....well I quit first!! So there!!!
You're not quitting. I'd bet you a donut to a dollar you'd be right back on here if I kept posting. I can't count the number of times Laurie said that over on Roger's site and she about beat the doors off the buss wanting back on.
Listen, I just stumbled across this thread and decided I'd have a little fun. I just do this for, you know, and giggles. It's not like I'm actually going to accomplish anything here. Chill out. Life is short. Talk about ME being emotionally invested in this. Jeez.