I would like to know the name of the man in the photo.  I believe he
is a 19th century politician or public figure, possibly southern
(Confederate trousers?)  <a
href="http://home.earthlink.net/~kada/photo">
Please click here</a> to see the photo.<P> <a
href="http://home.earthlink.net/~kada/photo2">
And  click here</a> to see the closeup photo.

---

Request for Question Clarification by kriswrite-ga on 04 Feb 2004 08:22 PST

It may be helpful to know *why* you believe the personin question is
well known or a politician? Any background info you can give is
helpful in answering the question.

Kriswrite
P.S. The trouser style (including the "stripe") is very common for the time period.

---

Clarification of Question by pdq2-ga on 04 Feb 2004 10:01 PST

I believe it may be a politician because there is an embossed seal on
the paper of the rear of the frame, reading "Woodward & Lothrop,
Washington, D.C."

---

Request for Question Clarification by kriswrite-ga on 04 Feb 2004 10:02 PST

I believe the seal is probably the mark of the photographer, but can
you post a link to a photograph of the back of the photo?

Kriswrite

---

Clarification of Question by pdq2-ga on 04 Feb 2004 16:15 PST

The photo is 11 x 9 inches and looks to have the original frame and
paper on the rear.  Shall I break into it to see if I can find
anything, or would that be devaluing it? Would there typically be
anything to find?  (Now that we know that Woodward & Lothrop is a
department store, I see no reason to post a photo of their mark,
unless someone still wants it.)  Regarding the backdrop - I see it
now, but don't understand how the table can be part of the backdrop. 
It seems to come all the way out to his right foot, well past the line
of the rear legs of the chair.  Also, his arm doesn't look to me like
it's suspended in the air, but resting on an object, perhaps a book or
newspaper.

I suspect that this is an old soldier and not a polititian let me explain why:

First, the setting is not consitent with what a person of high office
would normally be placed in. What you have here if you look closely is
a man deated on a chair with a canvas background. His arm isn't on a
table at all, but strategically placed to appear as if it is on the
tope of the table in the backdrop behind him. An elected official
would likley be in a real studio and not a false one.

Next, take a look at his trousers. The stripe, the loose design and
the fly are all consistent with the design of a confederate uniform:

http://extlab7.entnem.ufl.edu/olustee/uniforms/TrousersSuspenders.html

Keep in mind that this photo is "doctored" or colored manually after
the fact. The stripe could very well have been red in reality or
perhaps some color other than the finished photograph actually
depicts.

Then consider the boots. These apear to be confederate "brogans"
consistent with the uniform of a southern soldier as seen in this
example:

http://extlab7.entnem.ufl.edu/olustee/uniforms/Bootees.html

Even if he was a poor elected official he probably wouldn't have worn
these boots and these trousers and certainly not while in Washington
DC.

I also suspect that the jacket, shirt and tie are not his either. They
appear to be in too new condiction as copared to that of his boots and
trousers. The jacket appears to be velvet, which was not worn at the
time except for formal affairs and for burial purposes. I speculate
that perhaps these to are "props" for loan to customers, and that the
jacket in his lap is probably his own (again, this would lkley have
been removed for a photograph of someone in a high social standing).

Finally, the photo appears to have been made in a processing manner
called "sepia" or "sepia tone" as is evident by the un-retouched
portion sof the background that appear brown or bronze. These were
cheap photographs even for the day and not consitent with a person
held in high regard.

I could be wrong, by my suspicion is that this was a southern soldier
who seized an opportunity to have his photo made and some event where
a traveling photographer had set up shop to make a few dollars from
the passing military, who were all very keen to have their photos made
if the opportunity presented itself. The photo may have some historic
or collector value based in what it is, but probably not a lot.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

Regarding the "jacket on his lap", I may be wrong about that since in
second glance it appears to be a defect in the picture. However, do
notice that there appears to be an image of a "top hat" on the make
believe table "beside" him (but actually painted on the backdrop
behind him). A real politian would certainly have had his own hat
during this time period and not have had to rely on the image of one.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

I hate to contradict our ever-wise and adorable tutuzdad, especially
since he makes some very good points here. But there are a few
assumptions in his comment that are incorrect if you're more familiar
with antique photographs.

The photo in question is, indeed, handcolored, as was a common
practice at the time. (It cost a bit more, but was particularly
popular during the 1860s-70s). Although a limited range of colors was
generally used, war uniform stripes were typically painted in their
original color.

It isn't likely that any of the clothes are "loaners;" this was not a
common practice in the 19th century. Likewise, it was common to have
painted "faux" backgrounds (although pretending to lean on a fake
object would not likely have been done by someone of importance, even
if the background they were photographed against was fake). I have a
large collection of antique photographs, and it's very common to see
well-worn shoes with better-condition clothes. It was also common for
men to wear Civil War era Army-issue clothing after the Civil War.

The photograph is on paper (which is why it's sepia toned); from it's
apparent size, it's probably a cabinet card; I would need to know the
demensions to be certain. While this form of photography was less
costly than daguerreotypes, it was more expensive than tintypes.
Photos of many famous people can be found in this format.

This photograph was likely taken some years after the Civil War
(identifying the size, type of paper, processing, etc. could help pin
point the date). It may even have been taken late enough that
daguerreotypes were no longer in popular use.

I would still be helpful to see the markings on the photograph,
although, as I stated earlier, it would be unusual to *not* see a
photographer's mark.

Regards,
Kriswrite

Woodward & Lothrop (affectionately known as "Woodies") was a
department store in Washington, D.C. from 1880 until it went out of
business in 1996.  According to an article in the Washington Business
Journal, it operated in Boston from 1873 until it moved to D.C. in
1880:
Washington Business Journal: Past is present D.C. buildings with a history
http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/1998/04/13/focus9.html

markj-ga

So there ya have it. A famous so-and-so would not be photographed at a
department store. Still, it's an interesting photograph, and certainly
worth hanging on to.

Kriswrite

Hi pdq2~

Given the size of the photo, this is not a cabinet card, but a large
(for the time) print. It?s probably an albumen print, since these were
the most popular prints c.1860-1890. Albumen prints were made from
glass negatives and printed onto paper coated with egg whites. (It?s
estimated that six million eggs were used in 1866 alone for this
process.) If it?s an albumen print, it will have a semi gloss surface,
but this may be difficult to determine while it?s still in a frame. It
doesn?t matter too much, from a collector?s point of view.

Frankly, it?s difficult for me to determine whether the plant and
table as fake or not. It would be more common for them to be real, but
fake is a possibility.

If the photograph appears to be in it?s original frame with it?s
original paper, it?s probably best not to break into it, as ?all
original? is certainly favored by collectors. The only thing you might
find is more information on the photographer (a street address, for
example), or?possibly?some hand written notes giving dates or names
(less likely, given that the photo was designed to be framed).

Kriswrite