Opinions on Ancestor's Photos Wanted

Just throwing this out here, but how about the guy sixth from the right? Could that be your ancestor? Could you blow it up just for curiosity's sake? I tried, but it was to unfocused to look at details.
 
It doesn't look like the same man to me. The bridge of the nose is too narrow and the coloration is wrong. The later photo is of a man who seems to have blue eyes and medium coloring, while the earlier one is of a swarthy man with what appear to be dark eyes. It's easy to find correspondences when you're looking for them but I see nothing similar. The ears are also not really all that close.

Allie,

Thanks for your response! I've struggled with those discrepancies myself. Good observation on my confirmed ancestor's eye color, as they were indeed blue as indicated on his parole card when released from being a POW.


As far as his coloration goes, the photo that I posted above came out quite a bit darker than a printed copy that I have for some reason. I've always chalked that up to outdoor natural lighting vs. indoor flash, but it's a good point nonetheless.

WRT eye color, in the 1859 printed picture I have they seem to be light. I've cropped them out and zoomed in below:

image.jpg


The one on the right in particular looks like it could be blue to me, or at least lighter than the pupil, but YMMV!


Thanks for giving me more points to ponder. If only I could find just one more verified photo.....
 
Just throwing this out here, but how about the guy sixth from the right? Could that be your ancestor? Could you blow it up just for curiosity's sake? I tried, but it was to unfocused to look at details.


NL,

Can you tell me which post # you're talking about? I'd be glad to if I know which pic you're referencing.
 
I can never judge these sort of things very well. And yes I thought that was always considered to be Booth in that picture. Interesting to note that there's some conjecture about that

I hear you. I'm usually pretty good with faces, but since I want it to be him, I'm automatically biased.

I've long thought said conjecture comes from the fact that after what he did, nobody wanted to be even remotely associated with him, and add to that that it's likely that none of the Grays ever saw the 3 photos in their lifetimes, and they just slipped into obscurity.

I firmly believe it's him like you do, but I don't know if anyone will ever be able to prove it conclusively.


Kind of like my ancestor, who in all likelihood may be staring back at me from the other picture.....
 
t
I think Glabella sounds like someone's great aunt. My family has a Permelia and an Amoretta Floretta, why not Glabella?

You're very lucky to have even one photo!

Pretty sure I have an Aunt Chlamydia somewhere in my woodpile, or so I've been told.

You're correct about having the one photo! He was also a master at a local Masonic Hall where there should be a picture of him in that capacity.

However, since I'm not a Mason and don't know the ancient incantation and/or secret handshake that gets me in the door, they won't talk to me.

"Free and accepted" my backside.....
 
Last edited:

Thanks for the clarification!

The "Honor Roll" picture you reference contains the only known picture of my ancestor that I'm aware of. He's Gray # 7, as seen in the original pic in post # 1.

Genealogy as begun by my father several years ago traced us back to him in that photo, then to the possibility to him being in 1859 Grays photo, and then straight into a dead end.



My entire kingdom, for just one more photo!
 
Thanks for the clarification!

The "Honor Roll" picture you reference contains the only known picture of my ancestor that I'm aware of. He's Gray # 7, as seen in the original pic in post # 1.

Genealogy as begun by my father several years ago traced us back to him in that photo, then to the possibility to him being in 1859 Grays photo, and then straight into a dead end.



My entire kingdom, for just one more photo!
Is it possible that the reunion photo is mislabeled? After years of my own research, I tend to be skeptical of labeling until I have proven it to myself. Just a thought.
 
Is it possible that the reunion photo is mislabeled? After years of my own research, I tend to be skeptical of labeling until I have proven it to myself. Just a thought.

While that's indeed possible, it's highly unlikely.

The original of the "Honor Roll" photo is actually the property of the Valentine Museum here in Richmond, and has been vetted as much as is possible by their staff. I got an awesome high-resolution copy of it from my historian friend awhile back.

I trust in the veracity of that photo far more than I do the 1859 Grays version!


My ancestor was also part of the Grays Association committee C. 1891, and was elected its president in 1894!

1891:

grays reunion.png



1894:

grays reunion 2.png



All good thoughts on your part, but in all honesty I feel that the "Honor Roll" photo and its labeling is pretty much air-tight.
 
Okay, but I'm not sure I would feel comfortable with saying those are the same men in the two pictures, but then again, I'm not an expert.
 
Okay, but I'm not sure I would feel comfortable with saying those are the same men in the two pictures, but then again, I'm not an expert.


Sadly, I'm not sure either, and I definitely share in your non-expertise!

I might take both to an expert at some point in time, but I'm sure that will cost $$$ that I just don't have to put into it right now.

Even after going through something like that, can it ever be said with 100% certainty that they are the same person, after the passage of so much time? I have my doubts. If only I could find just one more verified photo!



I do very much appreciate your input, though. All good points to ponder!
 
Back
Top