Reenactor or Real?

[Claude Bauer]

A friend sent me this photo asking if I had ever seen it before. I've never seen it, and not sure if it's really from the 1860s. He looks like a reenactor to me. The quality seems very high for a period photo, and it's odd that he would pose in a cornfield with what appears to be a perfectly clean battle flag.

It's posted on a Facebook page called "A Slice of World History" run by "two historians" --don't say who they are, who admit they don't have sources for everything and since everyone has Google, go look it up yourself. Weird. They have other pictures which appear authentic to other time periods, just not sure about this one.

 

[wilber6150]

Does look like a reenactor to me as well, but its very well done..And to add to your doubts images of Confederates in fields are extreamly rare, and images of any soldier standing alone outside are even harder to find.. Almost all individual shots are made with a back drop or other photography aids present. Also he would have to keep that flag absolutly still for no motion blur to show at all with it, an the shadow of him and the flag just seem off.. Great picture but I have to say I think its modern.

 

[wilber6150]

Also look at the focus and sharpness of the photo, it appears to look like its done with a muti-point focusing and not the single lens focus of antique cameras allowing the image to be focused on upper body in the foreground and background terrain as well, while the legs of the figure are out of focus.

 

[johan_steele]

Reenactor for all the points made by Wilber.

 

[wilber6150]

That image or at least the soldier looks familiar, almost like that one character from North and South I think..

 

[Anna Elizabeth Henry]

I've seen this photo on Pinterest recently. The link there took me to this post on Tumblr - http://americancivil-war.tumblr.com/post/126890394622/american-civil-war

I have to agree with wilber6150 that the soldier looks vaguely familiar. I don't think its authentic as the likelihood of a flag being that clear in an outdoor setting in that era would be unusual. Any flag I've seen in non-studio setting always has a tiny bit motion blur to it, even if it's just the edges of one corner.

 

[Anna Elizabeth Henry]

Well, I did a Google image search and I can't tell you how many different captions turn up for this photo. Some date the photo to Gettysburg in 1863, other sites just list it as a standard bearer for the Confederacy circa anytime during the war. Judging from harvested field and barren tree in the background would it be safe to assume its fall?

The most fascinating one is below, which has been colorized by a site stating it colorizes historic photographs. At least seeing it in color adds some depth to it...as I'm no expert on accouterments like haversacks, canteens, etc. maybe someone else can tell if these are modern reenactor gear or legit to the period.

https://historyinlivingcolor.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/color-standard-bearer/

 

[AUG]

He's a reenactor from the Centennial. Here's the original source: http://wesclark.com/jw/k_1960.html

Scroll down to the bottom there, and under "Postcard Images" click on #6.

Found the above source a while ago as I was wondering about this one myself. Its been circulated all over as "rare image of Confederate color bearer" or something along those lines.....

 

[Lost Cause]

The corn appears to have been machine harvested.

 

[gunny]

the legs of the figure are out of focus.

Good eye. Precisely what I saw too. And like Lost Cause said, machine harvested cornfield.

 

[gunny]

Well, I did a Google image search and I can't tell you how many different captions turn up for this photo. Some date the photo to Gettysburg in 1863, other sites just list it as a standard bearer for the Confederacy circa anytime during the war. Judging from harvested field and barren tree in the background would it be safe to assume its fall?

The most fascinating one is below, which has been colorized by a site stating it colorizes historic photographs. At least seeing it in color adds some depth to it...as I'm no expert on accouterments like haversacks, canteens, etc. maybe someone else can tell if these are modern reenactor gear or legit to the period.

https://historyinlivingcolor.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/color-standard-bearer/

The authenticity actually looks really good - including the jacket, belt and plate. Just don't like the socks pulled up over pants. I don't know when it was taken, but wouldn't it be neat if it was a descendant of a soldier wearing "grandpa's" old jacket and belt plate sometime during the first centennial? Don't want to give too many props for the jacket though, too small to discern details.

 

[Cumpston1862]

Aug351 is absolutely correct. The picture is a part of Ross Kimmel's journal relating to the centennial years of the Civil War. Mr. Kimmel has been involved in the reenacting/living history part of history for a long time and has also made many contributions in researching the Civil War and Revolutionary time periods.

He recently co-authored a book.

http://www.capitalgazette.com/blogs...mmel-civil-war-author-jpg-20141017-photo.html

Also he continues to educate the public with his gun crew in Maryland.

http://www.elizabethgrieco.com/publications/guys-with-guns/

 

[FarawayFriend]

But still a great photo!
Thanks for sharing!

 

[Bryan_C]

Hi Claude. Nothing really to add here but if you spend enough time looking at real period photos, this one will really stand out as "reenactor."

 

[Northern Light]

He's a reenactor from the Centennial. Here's the original source: http://wesclark.com/jw/k_1960.html

Scroll down to the bottom there, and under "Postcard Images" click on #6.

Found the above source a while ago as I was wondering about this one myself. Its been circulated all over as "rare image of Confederate color bearer" or something along those lines.....

Good catch!

 

[jay gale]

yeah, re-enactor but like so many others have said:

Cool Photo, really cool

 

[civilwarincolor]

I think it has already been thoroughly answered already in this thread. Here are a couple of things to keep in mind when things like this come up (and they will) in the future:

1. The exposure time during the CW for an outdoor image like this was 4-10 seconds. That meant that you would not want someone holding a heavy pole and flag that is unsupported for that period of time.
2. If you had taken that image with a period camera there would be at least SOME movement in the flag, even if there had been no wind the soldier holding it would have made some natural breathing or just shifting slightly and there would be blur. If you look at the flag in fact it appears that it was blowing in the wind. If there had been no wind it would hang down and at the right side it is bunched up like it is moving (but not blurring).
3. Images of Confederate enlisted is almost unheard of. With the exception of ones taken by Northern photographers (i.e. 3 prisoners at Gettysburg) you just don't see them due to lack of photographic supplies in the South. If you did have supplies you would be using it to take a picture of Lee or Jackson, not an enlisted flag bearer.
4. If this had been taken by a Northern photographer the Union army would not have allowed him to be holding a Confederate battle flag.
5. Damage, this is SO clean, negatives from the Civil War have a great amount of scratches, spots, and other signs of age. If this was from a print it would most likely have been Sepia, but even if it is a B&W scan of a sepia image it would show definite fading, there should be parts that are very light, hard to make out, etc. This one is just too perfect.
6. Lack of facial hair. While this is not 100% definitive, this guy is VERY clean shaven at a time when facial hair was the norm. This is more of a minor issue though since clean shaven was not unknown, just uncommon, so could have been, but probably would have had facial hair during the war.
7. Uniform looks like it was just issued yesterday. Look for some signs of repair, wear or anything that shows use. This looks like it came from the prop department.
8. If you are curious about an image try using Chrome and right clicking on it and do a search for the image. You can find other copies of it and see if it turns up as period of not.
9. Square. While this may have been cropped. An image like this would most likely have been nearly square and we would see more of the left/right. This is too well composed.
10. If it is too good to be true...A terrific image like this from the Civil War would have been front page on a number of books, featured on TV shows and would be really well known. If it was a recent find it should have a great provenance. In this case it had neither.

So there you have it, my 10 things to look for in a image of questionable authenticity. You could use these to help create a more correct period looking fake, but #10 will always get you. You need to have a way to prove that this is a new find on a period image. All of the rest could be faked and Photo-shopped.

 

[Bryan_C]

I don't know if it's been mentioned here yet but something else that gives this photo away as "reenactor" is the "clean sleeve" on the uniform. The man photographed with the flag would likely be the color sergeant, as in the case of this photo of William Smith, Color Sergeant of the 12th Virginia:

This is an actual period photo, which was hand-colored. I chose this one of it (I found a couple others online) because you can see the floor. The portrait is much more formal- Smith has removed his kepi; and he wears a sash, sword and gaiters.

It also struck me that there are, apparently, very few known photographs of Confederates posing with their flags. Just looking through the Liljenquist collection of the Library of Congress, I didn't find any photos of Southern soldiers with the flag. That is very interesting to me. Soldiers in these photographer's studio portrait photos frequently pose with weapons but typically not flags... as if the symbol were too sacred for a man to have his picture taken with. It actually makes me wonder how those men would feel about use of the flag as a pop culture symbol.

 

[Frederick14Va]

I agree with others that it is a reenactor image... The most obvious observation clue for me was the flag... incorrect pattern characteristics and details thereof was an immediate give away that it was not an original image...

 

[Claude Bauer]

Aug351 is absolutely correct. The picture is a part of Ross Kimmel's journal relating to the centennial years of the Civil War. Mr. Kimmel has been involved in the reenacting/living history part of history for a long time and has also made many contributions in researching the Civil War and Revolutionary time periods.

He recently co-authored a book.

http://www.capitalgazette.com/blogs...mmel-civil-war-author-jpg-20141017-photo.html

Also he continues to educate the public with his gun crew in Maryland.

http://www.elizabethgrieco.com/publications/guys-with-guns/

Well, that nails it! Thank you, Aug351. I knew the very perceptive members of this forum would be able to resolve this. So many of you pointed out things that would never have occurred to me, including the way the corn is harvested. Wow.

BTW, I'm a reenactor and don't live far from Antietam. I don't know Mr. Kimmel, but if I ever meet him, I'll mention this thread.