Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;2manybooks, post: 1510762, member: 8267&quot;][USER=13529]@Joseph Mason[/USER],</p><p><br /></p><p>Regarding the inaugural gown - if you are correct about the photograph having been taken in early 1862, this does not preclude Mrs. Lincoln having posed for a formal portrait in her inaugural gown at a later date. As to the color, the chemicals used in collodion wet plate photography were not equally sensitive to all colors. Blue objects &quot;can show up anywhere from white to varying shades of gray depending on the shade of blue or violet, with the lighter shades being almost white in the photograph&quot;. (<a href="http://www.raggedsoldier.com/photo_article.pdf" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.raggedsoldier.com/photo_article.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.raggedsoldier.com/photo_article.pdf</a>) </p><p>The dress in the photograph may in fact be blue, but appears white due to the photographic process used. Perhaps you did not know this fact about the history of photography.</p><p><br /></p><p>The two gowns I cited do show the type of style Mary Lincoln wore in the early 1860&#039;s - clearly not the same style worn by the woman in your daguerreotype. But if someone cannot distinguish faces, it might be difficult to recognize differences in fashion as well.</p><p><br /></p><p>I note you do not address my specific points about the age of the daguerreotype, except to disparage my familiarity with the subject. </p><p><br /></p><p>Nor do you address the issue of the beard line, clearly demonstrated in [USER=7826]@BaseballGames[/USER] post.</p><p><br /></p><p>I, too, have a dictionary.</p><p>Delusion: a false, persistent belief not substantiated by sensory evidence.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in