Is this genuine?

[Si Klegg]

Apparently between 1856 and 1859 14,182 were altered by Springfield and Harper's Ferry. They were altered by rifling the barrels and less than 10,000 had long range rear sights added.

Thanks Byron, that explains that then, cheers.

 

[ikesdad]

Like most, I don't get a warm and fuzzy with the photo. Are those creases in his pant legs or wrinkles ?

 

[Zella]

Are there other examples of period photos with the same background? What seems unusual to me is he is sitting with his legs open. Would this be unusual in Victorian times?

I also thought that pose seemed really unusual and informal for the time period.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

What struck me about his face was, *to me* he either just went into the service darn fleshed out in his face or he's on a darn good pasture in the service. Unless you are looking at pictures of some adolescents who are just entering the service and leaving childhood but aren't a man yet, most men who have been in the service have a much more lean cast to their face and cheekbones. Certainly, a lot of Confederates were described (even though this one isn't) "lean as wolves." I don't think Federals were that lean for the most part but they didn't have "baby fat" and shiny cheeks either.

 

[chubachus]

I agree. I'm no expert in photography, but the lack of irregularities over the face stands out to me as well. In addition of the appearance that the face of the man in Si's photo looks molded by modern nutrition, there are no scratches in the facial region of the photo. Also, notice all those white dots. None are present in the facial area of Si's photo. Now, compare those scratches and white dots to the photos posted by Aug and you will see they are ubiquitous- including in the facial area.

When I was a reenactor back in the 80's, I had a photograph done of me at the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg. I begged the photographer to make it look old. I wanted it blurred, scratched, etc. We worked on the blurred part while taking the photo. He was to add irregularities in his studio later. He did just that. However, when I got it back, he left the added irregularities off of my facial area but put them in other areas of the photo.

So, that element, too, stuck out at me when I looked at Si's photo, but was too lazy to mention it in my previous post.

If I had to wager, I'd bet that just off camera in Si's photo there is a cell phone and a bag of Cheetos nearby!!

People will go to great lengths to look authentic. That's what many hardcore reenactors strive for in living history. I see no reason why that passion would not be extended to photography.

But again, I'm no expert. It's just that for me, I would not pay much for it. Maybe what the frame is worth?

Most of the irregularities on that one just look like dust to me. The other one you mention with scratches looks its mat was replaced, probably by a much later collector in order to show more details of his equipment. The other scratches I'm guessing result from a time when the photo was caseless or else had no glass in front of it.

 

[Legion Para]

OK, you doubting thomases are convincing me the other way now!

Why? That is some pretty awesome tinting work. According to my monitor, I'm seeing the exact colour of my own JT Martin contractor pants. That's an awful lot of tinting work to do as well, considering the usual tinting subjects are buttons, buckles, insignia and faces (rosy cheeks etc.) Looks like he's had a go at the utensils and the bacon too, but ignored the brass and the face.

Mind you, in Aug's pic of the New Yorker, the Photog (or assistant) seems to have put in an awful lot of work on greening the grass!

So, still not sure ...

What do you think of this imsge?

 

[Legion Para]

Some are more obvious than others.

 

[Mike Serpa]

But again, I'm no expert. It's just that for me, I would not pay much for it. Maybe what the frame is worth?

It sold for $1,195 including buyer's premium.

 

[alan polk]

It sold for $1,195 including buyer's premium.

Whoa!! Suum Cuique, I guess....

 

[kbaxley45]

View attachment 196748

View attachment 196750

What do you think of this imsge?
View attachment 196753

That one of the fellas lounging is an original. The Liberty Rifles did a good job of copying it not too long ago:

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...58accd046b8f5b0606d834cf/1487719722149/75.jpg

 

[chubachus]

View attachment 196748

View attachment 196750

What do you think of this imsge?
View attachment 196753

That one is at the Library of Congress after being sold by Heritage Auctions as well.

 

[Mike Serpa]

Whoa!! Suum Cuique, I guess....

Well, it's not for me. That amount is probably chump change for some people. I'm not sure its fake, though.

 

[byron ed]

One last look: let's flip it so gun lock is on the correct side, brighten the whole pic up, and get rid of most of the distracting snow.

Depending on how well your computer monitor renders color, are you now noticing that the parts that are dye tinted are perfectly so? -- there being no overwash outside the items. I'm thinking too perfect for a period brush application. It's almost as if this started as a full color image (impossible at the time) and was 97 percent chemically de-saturated in order to mimic a very slightly tinted monochrome tintype. Notice the slight purplish dark blue of the jacket vs the slight medium blue of the pants, the slight yellow tinge of the bacon, crackers and tents, a similar yet different hue of the face, and the metallic hue of the gun lock and silverware.

I don't think I'm looking too hard. I'm going for not authenticating it. Poor buyer. For that price they should have insisted the emulsion be authenticated by a chemist, or the plate by a metallurgist.

 

[ikesdad]

I agree

 

[alan polk]

Well, it's not for me. That amount is probably chump change for some people. I'm not sure its fake, though.

Well, maybe it's not fake. Perhaps the person who paid that much had it tested by the right people or something.

But ...... me thinks I'll put my re-enactment photo in an original frame and offer it up - if that one went for that much, I ought to at least get a couple hundred bucks for mine. After all, it was taken at Gettysburg

 

[Mike Serpa]

Well, maybe it's not fake. Perhaps the person who paid that much had it tested by the right people or something.

But ...... me thinks I'll put my re-enactment photo in an original frame and offer it up - if that one went for that much, I ought to at least get a couple hundred bucks for mine. After all, it was taken at Gettysburg

I can pay as much as $200. Amy more than that and I have to ask the missus.

 

[lelliott19]

Well, maybe it's not fake. Perhaps the person who paid that much had it tested by the right people or something.

But ...... me thinks I'll put my re-enactment photo in an original frame and offer it up - if that one went for that much, I ought to at least get a couple hundred bucks for mine. After all, it was taken at Gettysburg

I might pay $5 just to see a picture of you in reenactment gear.

 

[Si Klegg]

/snip

What do you think of this imsge?
View attachment 196753

It's another wonderful image, never mind the er, enthusiastic tinting.

I don't suppose the lad in the artillery boots realised how much blister pain he was going to cause re-enactors in the future.

 

[Si Klegg]

Another thought. No reflection from those buttons.

It was a throwaway remark earlier about Goodyear or gutta-percha buttons, but could our man be from a Sharpshooter Company?