First period photo

[scooter748driver]

I've wanted to purchase period photos for a while now but they've always seemed out of reach (price-wise) for pictures of armed soldiers. While browsing an auction site the other day I saw this picture and a few others and, on a whim, placed a bid. I just found out I won!

It appears to be a Union soldier but that is an assumption of mine. But given the number of photographs that I've seen for sale I'd estimate that 95+% are of Union soldiers so I'm playing the odds lol. I'm a little more confident about the pistol he is holding which is either a Whitney Navy revolver or a Remington (but I'm not positive about that either).

Anyway, here is my newly won period photograph. I haven't received it yet so this is a picture from the auction. It comes in a case but I know nothing about it. I'd appreciate and insight, corrections, comments, etc. as I stick a toe into the very broad and deep waters of Civil War photographs. Thank you.

 

[RedRover]

Yes, his cap appears to be the standard US Army forage cap of the period. and his uniform collar is trimmed in the manner of the 1858 army uniform coats.

Here is a flipped/corrected version of the image;

As you mention the pistol is clearly not a Colt's patent:

For comparison here is an 1861 Remington:

And a Whitney:

 

[Salterr]

I've wanted to purchase period photos for a while now but they've always seemed out of reach (price-wise) for pictures of armed soldiers. While browsing an auction site the other day I saw this picture and a few others and, on a whim, placed a bid. I just found out I won!

It appears to be a Union soldier but that is an assumption of mine. But given the number of photographs that I've seen for sale I'd estimate that 95+% are of Union soldiers so I'm playing the odds lol. I'm a little more confident about the pistol he is holding which is either a Whitney Navy revolver or a Remington (but I'm not positive about that either).

Anyway, here is my newly won period photograph. I haven't received it yet so this is a picture from the auction. It comes in a case but I know nothing about it. I'd appreciate and insight, corrections, comments, etc. as I stick a toe into the very broad and deep waters of Civil War photographs. Thank you.

View attachment 486331

Congratulations! Images are a fantastic way to reinforce just how real the war was and the people that shaped our world today. You probably already know but for anyone else new to images they are identified by size and material. Referred to in plate sizes full/whole, half, quarter ninth, sixth and sixteenth or gem size.

Ambrotype, daguerreotype or tintypes are the classifications of images before and during the war. Made on glass or rolled iron sheets. Some ambrotypes are referred to as ruby because they reflect a deep red hue when held up to light. Tin types are very common and made well into the later parts of the century along with cdv's and later on cabinet cards. The image you have seems to be in a half case meaning the other half is missing, it would have a padded insert to protect the image along with a plate of glass and a decorative mat and border on the image side. If you pull the image out it could have an identity or makers stamp. If you look closely some of the frames even have makers or patent dates on them. Some images are tinted or have gold flake applied to buttons and buckles. Images with weapons or outside images are worth more.

Reproduction images exist and have coloring that is off and images that are not crisp in their lines and appearance. The border of the image should have empty spots where there is no image due to the developing process. There are some who restore images to certain degrees, cleaning and resealing the daguerreotypes.

The cases are also reproduced so be careful to look for the molding indents on the frame for reproduction pieces. Real cases come in a few forms, thermoplastic and like a wood pulp covered frame.

 

[Old Soldier]

Once again, those tinypes and daguerrotypes are a direct-positive process, creating a highly detailed image on a sheet of copper plated with a thin coat of silver without the use of a negative, but reversed due to the lens used - IOW they are mirror images. The painting of buckle and buttons - and sometime cap badges - is to hide this. Ambrotype are also direct - positives on glass with a black background and look similar to the tintype - again, mirror image since the emulsion was usually at the back of the glass to prevent wear. As RedRover shows, they need to be flipped horizontally to show the actual figure. Be aware that many photographers arranged their subjects to look a 'normal' as possible, reversing their equipment and pose - like making them hold the (prop) revolver in the left hand - but it may still show, like this photo of 6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia (can you spot the 'deliberate mistake?):

 

[RedRover]

Once again, those tinypes and daguerrotypes are a direct-positive process, creating a highly detailed image on a sheet of copper plated with a thin coat of silver without the use of a negative, but reversed due to the lens used - IOW they are mirror images. The painting of buckle and buttons - and sometime cap badges - is to hide this. Ambrotype are also direct - positives on glass with a black background and look similar to the tintype - again, mirror image since the emulsion was usually at the back of the glass to prevent wear. As RedRover shows, they need to be flipped horizontally to show the actual figure. Be aware that many photographers arranged their subjects to look a 'normal' as possible, reversing their equipment and pose - like making them hold the (prop) revolver in the left hand - but it may still show, like this photo of 6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia (can you spot the 'deliberate mistake?):

View attachment 486367

That's a neat image. Not just for the trouble of re-arranging their kit. Their accoutrements are British, including the "expense pouches" on the waist belt, and the large cartridge box.

 

[R. Porter]

Once again, those tinypes and daguerrotypes are a direct-positive process, creating a highly detailed image on a sheet of copper plated with a thin coat of silver without the use of a negative, but reversed due to the lens used - IOW they are mirror images. The painting of buckle and buttons - and sometime cap badges - is to hide this. Ambrotype are also direct - positives on glass with a black background and look similar to the tintype - again, mirror image since the emulsion was usually at the back of the glass to prevent wear. As RedRover shows, they need to be flipped horizontally to show the actual figure. Be aware that many photographers arranged their subjects to look a 'normal' as possible, reversing their equipment and pose - like making them hold the (prop) revolver in the left hand - but it may still show, like this photo of 6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia (can you spot the 'deliberate mistake?):

View attachment 486367

The rifles appear left-handed?

 

[Old Soldier]

If you are a gunfanatic like me, it stands out like a sore thumb.

 

[Biscoitos]

The rifles appear left-handed?

Aren't civil war era photos "reversed" because of the development process "
Look at the image in a mirror.

 

[R. Porter]

Aren't civil war era photos "reversed" because of the development process "
Look at the image in a mirror.

I thought that since they were discussing switching their gear Around to the other side to make a normally reversed image appear normal, that is what they did in the image above. I couldn't see their buckles and badges well enough to tell if they were reversed.

 

[CowCavalry]

I've wanted to purchase period photos for a while now but they've always seemed out of reach (price-wise) for pictures of armed soldiers. While browsing an auction site the other day I saw this picture and a few others and, on a whim, placed a bid. I just found out I won!

It appears to be a Union soldier but that is an assumption of mine. But given the number of photographs that I've seen for sale I'd estimate that 95+% are of Union soldiers so I'm playing the odds lol. I'm a little more confident about the pistol he is holding which is either a Whitney Navy revolver or a Remington (but I'm not positive about that either).

Anyway, here is my newly won period photograph. I haven't received it yet so this is a picture from the auction. It comes in a case but I know nothing about it. I'd appreciate and insight, corrections, comments, etc. as I stick a toe into the very broad and deep waters of Civil War photographs. Thank you.

View attachment 486331

He has a serious dimple or in his chin! The geometry of the hammer looks like a Whitney to me.

 

[Old Soldier]

Aren't civil war era photos "reversed" because of the development process "
Look at the image in a mirror.

Read my answer above. That picture has not been reversed. If it was, it would look like this:

The rifles are the right way around and their coats fasten on the right side - but the pose and their equipment is all wrong. No one was left-handed in those days.

 

[nc native]

Congratulations on winning that auction! I'm not an expert on the photography of the Civil War or uniforms by any measure but I'm guessing he was in the cavalry.

 

[Biscoitos]

Read my answer above. That picture has not been reversed. If it was, it would look like this:
View attachment 486557
The rifles are the right way around and their coats fasten on the right side - but the pose and their equipment is all wrong. No one was left-handed in those days.

If no one was left handed, wouldn't there be no left handed shoulder arms?

 

[Old Soldier]

If no one was left handed, wouldn't there be no left handed shoulder arms?

In 1860, there were none. Certainly not in the form of a rifle musket or musket. The lock was on the RIGHT, like it or not. If you had ever fired a flintlock, you would know why.

Percussion caps were better, but are not too good for the aiming eye when fired left-handed.

 

[scooter748driver]

The picture and frame arrived today. Although small (it is a 1/9th picture after all), it seems to be in very good shape. The case is nice with just a little looseness about the front cover.

After close examination with a light & magnifying glass I do not see and makers name, date, etc. anywhere on the case.

Someone mentioned pulling the picture out of the frame to look for markings, identification, etc on the back of the photo. How do you do that without damaging the frame? It seems to be well mounted inside the frame with the gold tin attached solidly. I definitely do not want to damage it trying to get it out.

 

[Salterr]

The picture and frame arrived today. Although small (it is a 1/9th picture after all), it seems to be in very good shape. The case is nice with just a little looseness about the front cover.

After close examination with a light & magnifying glass I do not see and makers name, date, etc. anywhere on the case.

Someone mentioned pulling the picture out of the frame to look for markings, identification, etc on the back of the photo. How do you do that without damaging the frame? It seems to be well mounted inside the frame with the gold tin attached solidly. I definitely do not want to damage it trying to get it out.

View attachment 487198

View attachment 487199

It's held in by friction if you slip something thin in between the gold frame and the case you can carefully pry it out once you get a corner up. The frames come off they are just bent over the photo once the photo is out there is a paper backing that may or may not have a studio mark.

 

[scooter748driver]

I was able to get the picture out of the frame successfully. Unfortunately I did not see any studio mark on the back. There may be some letters or a design but it's almost impossible to see or make out even with a magnifying glass.

I guess this soldier is lost to the ages. Still, I'm very happy with the purchase and the image.

 

[Salterr]

I was able to get the picture out of the frame successfully. Unfortunately I did not see any studio mark on the back. There may be some letters or a design but it's almost impossible to see or make out even with a magnifying glass.

I guess this soldier is lost to the ages. Still, I'm very happy with the purchase and the image.

Don't worry too much about not finding anything. You're preserving it and that's the best part. It's a great image, not bad at all for a first image purchase. It really has a great look.

 

[Old Soldier]

Better the mystery than an image from the past unseen.

 

[JeffHendricks]

I am not on here to advertise, but I try to save as many 1850's - 1900's photo albums as possible for future generations of genealogists. I do sell what I get in, and I get a lot of civil war soldiers. So even after I have sold the image or album it is still digitally saved for those who would like to download the images or albums of their ancestors for free. I hate seeing albums sold on auction sites, just to have the soldiers and circus, etc. taken out and photos put in their place and re-sold on ebay as a family album. Anyway, I'll get off my soap box and if you are interested, you can take a look. www.ancestryphotostore.com