- Joined
- Aug 16, 2015
Thanks for your response and the clarification.Let me address the last, first. The sword I mentioned is not being listed as having been a trooper or officer of the 7th. Rather, the sword is being attributed to an indian. http://www.ebay.com/itm/262466000615?
I've seen documentation that some warriors retreaved/carried/ swords from earlier battles. Offhand I don't recall anything about any carried by the Indians at LBH. But, then, there's still a lot to learn about LBH.
At any rate, I'll pass on bidding....
Love the skepticism, which I believe is a healthy trait. These subjects certainly look like they are holding props.As to studio photos, I have outlined my own thoughts on the matter and I have a hunch. if polled, the majority of researchers will agree with me. All photos bear scrutiny. Especially so in the case of archaic (sic) bare swords without scabbards, sword belts, etc. As to other weapons, some may well be questionable. I have no journals, nor inventories of the photographers but props have always and continue to be part and parcel of professional photographers.
I can only restate my opinion.
All ACW studio pictures are subject to serious scrutiny. A bare sword held for a photo op hardly confirmation of ownership.
Cheers
GC