Featured Shirtless Wild Bill Hickok tintype c.1870's.. input?

Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place, and once more in advance for the length.
Some time ago I acquired a pair of highly unusual tintypes from a local collector's estate. I've attached them here as files. They are unusual for several reasons:

1. The photos are of different men in the same pose, standing in the same spot with the same backdrop. These fellows went to the studio together to have their photos taken.
   
   
2. The younger fellow, by Victorian standards, appears to be underdressed (correct me if i'm wrong), wearing only an undershirt with no coat/vest and a pair of pants that are way too long. He wears a chain at the waistline, as does the other man, which I assume is connected to a pocket watch. The older fellow is rockin some dapper pinstriped pants and.. Boots. That’s it. What in the world is going on here? From what I understand, in the 1870's, men didn't just take their shirts off all willy-nilly for.. well, just about anything, let alone a photo op with a younger male friend at a professional studio!
   
   
3. The older gent bears a downright uncanny resemblance to James Butler Hickok (see photos). Like, down to the bald spot above his forehead. They even appear to be the same height. Hickok was 6'3". I know, I know, it's not him. I'm not fully convinced, myself.. HOWEVER this is when things get very strange.
   
   
4. These photos were taken in a studio in Leavenworth, Kansas, by a photographer named Ebenezer Elijah (E.E.) Henry. Henry was a very prolific artist, best known for photographing several famous people such as Buffalo Bill Cody, Boston and Margaret Custer, and.. Wild Bill Hickok. Old Ebenezer used this backdrop extensively throughout his long career, with many credited examples online. (See the "Everhard" collection. Link attached).
   
   
5. From what photos of Hickok I could find, I’ve reasoned that if this was in fact the same man (humor me), the photo would have had to have been taken very shortly before his untimely death in 1976. This is because he has a full head of long hair in nearly all his known photos; he was, however, reportedly going bald in his last couple years, and in some of his later photos his hair is visibly thinning.
   
   
6. The man in the photo has one eye that is halfway closed, possibly due to inflammation - a common symptom of trachoma, an eye condition which Hickok reportedly suffered from. What’s more, in early 1976 - months before he died - he was diagnosed with glaucoma and severe conjunctivitis by a doctor in Kansas City, Missouri.. Approximately 30 miles from Leavenworth, where Bill had once lived. Traveling from KC to Deadwood would also mean passing right through Leavenworth. Surely he would have stopped momentarily to see some old friends or acquaintances. Or, if nothing else, find a poker table and do what he essentially did for a living.
   
   
7. On the floor in the same spot in both photos is what I believe to be a carpet bag. At first I thought this was placed by the photographer simply to add some depth to the image. However, I noticed that the bag does not appear in any of the 140-or-so portraits I’ve seen accredited to Henry. Nor does he really use much at all as far as props. I believe the presence of the satchel is more personal to the men photographed.. Symbolic. Hickok was very likely living out of a satchel just like the one in the images. He was also arrested multiple times for vagrancy in his final few months.
   
   
8. Finally, note the guy’s expression. His look is not so much uncomfortable or embarrassed, but perhaps slightly begrudging, or annoyed. Like he’s merely fulfilling a debt. He was probably acquainted with Henry already, as he doesn’t have the mortified look one would expect on a man from that era while he’s half naked in front of a stranger being photographed. These last two are more conjectured, so disregard them if you like.
   

There’s more, but from here things start to become more theoretical, so I’ll leave it at that. Like I said, I’m not fully convinced. It’s just so outlandish. But holy hell that’s a lot of very unlikely coincidences stacked on top of a man who just happens to look like a balding, gimp-eyed hobo version of Wild Bill. Can someone please tell me it’s not him? Anyhow, besides all that.. wHeRe Is HiS sHiRt!? Any info or input y’all can spare would be immensely appreciated. If nothing else, I hope you found this to be an interesting post.
Sorry again for the length.

Everhard collection: https://www.cartermuseum.org/artists/e-e-henry

 

Not sure if it’s a satchel, looks rather small for a persons worldly goods and more like a foot pouffe to me but wait for others.

 

I'm sure I don't know but the ears look different to me. Could just be the angle or lighting I suppose.

 

I thought the same thing at first, but it's possible his hair is covering the top part of his ears due to it being too short to tuck it behind the ears.

 

Let's start by reposting your photographs as Full Image so they're easier for everyone to see. (You'll want to make sure to do this, instead of posting them as Thumbnail, in the future.)

Debora

 

Kudos on the amount of research you have done, and presented here.

The younger man looks like a simple working fellow, and possibly unrelated to the second photo. There are lots of 19th century photos of working men in their customary dress. His pants may be a little long, but the style of the period was to wear them longer than would be common now. (There is also the possibility that they were borrowed for the occasion.)

The watch chain looks like it might be the same in both photos (same square fob). It may have been one of the photographer's props.

You just might be right about it being Wild Bill. The facial features look very similar. I do not know how to do it, but if you can resize the little Hickok head to the left in your photo, try overlaying it on the tintype image and compare the dimensions/spacing of the features (eyes, nose, mouth).

 

What are the dimensions of these tintypes? Are they in cases? And, if so, would you please add photographs of the cases.

Debora

 

And tell us... Why have you attributed these to E. E. Henry?

Debora

 

father & son....?

 

Where did you acquire these and what were you told about them?

Debora

 

Very interesting, and thanks for all of the explanation.

I'm traveling right now, or would have more questions. Meanwhile, I hope to learn more from later comments!

 

...his untimely death in 1976.
...in early 1976 - months before he died -

Surely we're a century late in these dates?

 

Might be, if it is not Hickok.

If it is Hickok, according to the little I have read so far, he did not marry until March of 1876, and died in August of the same year at age 39. There is no mention of children, legitimate or otherwise.

 

They're sixth plates. No cases.

The painted backdrop used belonged to him, though I know that doesn't necessarily guarantee he was the photographer. Check out that link

They belonged to a collector who passed away. I purchased them in person from his sister, along with several boxes of vintage military medals. She told me her brother was an avid collector, but she didn't really know anything about the photos. I live in south Texas if that tells you anything.

Whoops xD

 

I think you mean... E. E. Henry used a similar printed backdrop. I don't think that's sufficient to assign attribution.

Debora

 

Thank you for the info!! Also check this out

 

I'll be damned, they are slightly different. Can anyone tell me why he doesn't have a shirt on though?

 

No, I can't. Did you notice that both are standing against a support to keep them stationary during photography?

Debora

 

Head clamps. Given the quality of your images, I would suspect they were done outside a formal photography studio with unsophisticated (perhaps first-time) sitters.

Debora

 

Often called a posing stand...