Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;2manybooks, post: 1533892, member: 8267&quot;]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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Post #34 by Susan Higginbotham:</p><p>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, <u>the woman&#039;s large collar is one that was fashionable in the 1850s</u>. Mary, fresh from a New York shopping trip, wouldn&#039;t be wearing that in 1861.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t see any evidence that the lady is wearing a blue dress. Could be gray or some other color.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, if this conspiracy-minded site is correct in identifying the image as a daguerreotype (and I can&#039;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.</p><p><br /></p><p>post #35 by RJNorton:</p><p>I am sorry, Donna, that I didn&#039;t give an explanation. In all honesty, I didn&#039;t do so because I didn&#039;t think the image is close enough (IMO) to be seriously considered.</p><p><br /></p><p>I second everything Susan said above; she explained it better than I ever could.</p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;s right cheek where there should be if he were Abraham Lincoln.</p><p><br /></p><p>And post #36 by Susan:</p><p>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. <u>All agreed that the woman&#039;s dress was from the 1850&#039;s, possibly even the late 1840&#039;s</u> (which would make sense if this is indeed a daguerreotype). Anyone who&#039;s read Mary&#039;s letters to her milliners knows that she wouldn&#039;t have been caught dead in such an old-fashioned dress in 1861.</p><p><br /></p><p>I see that you have been flogging this theory for some time, with similar results. I will return to my earlier sign off:</p><p>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.[/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