Supposed Jesse James tintype

[goamules]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/...2-million.html

Trying to match a found tintype to a famous person seems to be a current "jackpot" trend. I'm skeptical of most of them. I could buy 10 or 20 tintypes, then play "match the person" easily if all they go by is how the person looks. They put way to much credibility of "forensics" that just match up the facial dimentions of two photos. If you tried to match a tintype face to dozens of different people, you'd get matches. It's not that good a science yet.

We all see people on the street or in airports that look surprisingly like someone we know, but is not. There are only so many face types in the world. The buyer's, "He noticed a marked similarity between the youth in the picture and a photo of James in a book." is very...very thin.

Where is the provenance? Where was the photo shot? When? What town? Who owned it? No provenance at all but "gosh, he looks like...Jesse James!" ?

[Mark Sampson]

This 'find' has already been effectively debunked on the photo-history forum. Didn't take long.
I thought I saw Billy the Kid in the background!

[Mark Sawyer]

On the other hand, Will Dunniway, who authenticated it, posted on his Facebook page that, compared to another authenticated image of Jesse James that came from the James family, the newly-discovered tintype was taken by the same photographer on the same day...

[Mark Sampson]

Well, what do I know? Only enough to look into who's paying the 'experts'. As the philosopher sais about Christianity, "Astounding, if true."

[DBuck]

No serious Jesse James student takes this tintype seriously. Every month or so some starry-eyed bozo finds a photo at a flea market; announces it's Billy the Kid, Butch Cassidy, Peter Pan, whomever; finds a doofus, self-described expert; and declares a multi-million dollar value. The news soon hits the media, where such stories are known cynically as "too-good-to-check," and spins around the world for a day or two, before drifting into obscurity.

Exactly what evidence is there that both photographs were taken the same day by the same photographer? None. The same photographer same day assertion was made by one of the so-called experts. Evidence? None. The differences between the two photos are multitudinous. Look at the two images. Two different people wearing different clothing. The jacket lapels are different. The white shirts are different -- -- lad on left, collar tight; lad on right collar loose because the shirt was too big. Shirt & neck -- lad on left shirt high on neck; lad on right shirt low on neck. In fact, lad on right looks like Ichabod Crane. Shoulders -- lad on left shoulders seriously higher than lad on right. Ears -- lad on left ears lower on head than lad on right. Hair -- note difference in hair line on forehead, including widow's peak on left, vs. no widow's peak on right. Cravat-- same style dark cravat, but arranged differently on each lad.

When people look at two photos, especially when they've been prompted to think they are the same person, the eye (meaning the brain) naturally looks for similarities. The key is to look for differences. Finally, and just as importantly, there is absolutely no provenance linking the eBay tintype (photo on left) to Jesse James.

[pendennis]

No serious Jesse James student takes this tintype seriously. Every month or so some starry-eyed bozo finds a photo at a flea market; announces it's Billy the Kid, Butch Cassidy, Peter Pan, whomever; finds a doofus, self-described expert; and declares a multi-million dollar value. The news soon hits the media, where such stories are known cynically as "too-good-to-check," and spins around the world for a day or two, before drifting into obscurity...

The converse of this is also true.

For years a picture of Billy the Kid was proof positive that he was left-handed. The way he wore his revolver in his left hip proved it. However, no one bothered to take note of the apparent "flaws" in the picture: He had a left-side eject Winchester rifle, and his clothing was right-over-left closing. Winchester never made a left-hand eject Model 1873, and Billy the Kid probably wasn't a cross-dresser.

[DBuck]

That's not the converse. Unlike the eBay Jesse James, the authenticity of the Dedrick tintype of Billy the Kid was never seriously doubted. In fact, a line drawing from the tintype illustrated Pat Garrett's 1882 The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid. The image was, however, misunderstood by many to be an unreversed image, including most famously Arthur Penn, the director of the bio-pic The Left-Handed Gun.

The 2011 sale at auction of the Dedrick image for a whopping $2.3 million we can thank for the recent plague of bogus Old West photos, most of which represent a feckless combination of flea-market find, obliging expert (or two), and hallucinatory several million dollar estimated value. Dan

[cowanw]

Interesting responses.
Mark, as to funding, It is fair to be suspicious of where the funding comes from, but on the other hand who else will pay but an interested party?
DBuck; Welcome to the large format forum. Would you be Daniel Buck of the WWHA? If so you are more schooled in the time period than I ( if not you are still more likely to know a lot more of the period than I anyway) but I do pose portraits and collect portraits older than 1950 and as to the photographic differences, I thought it might be fun to consider them photographically.
Jacket lapels. Left lad seems to be wearing two coats; you can see the edges on his (photo) right side. Is one an overcoat and the other the coat on right lad? It was quite common to have portraits done with the overcoat on, in the time period.
Shirt neck and collar. Looks like left lad is looking down and has his chin tucked in. Right lad is looking to the right and has a slight tilt to the right exposing more neck. This will effect the appearance of tightness and position of collar. The button detail looks common.
Shoulders. left lad has two coats on adding extra thickness to his shoulders, building up the shoulders. Suit jackets by themselves were designed in this time period to have sloping shoulders, which was considered stylish.
Ears. Again affected by chin up and tilt of right lad.
Hair. Pass a hand through your hair and the front wave will shift.
Cravat. I have worn a bow tie all my life which is a simple square knot like the ties of this style. a simple tug on the ends will expose more of the knot between the first and second throw, which is arranged to travel straight down.
Provenance is convincing and simpler and wonderful but that does not mean that found images (or any artifact lacking provenance) should not be researched rather than rejected out of hand. It is possible to identify found images. I have had a Rogi Andre portrait of 1937 on my wall for 30 years and just recently identified the sitter, Dikran Garabed Kelekian.
Any way I don't have a dog in the fight. Thanks for joining. I always like to discuss older portraits.
Kindest Regards
Bill

[DBuck]

Bill,
My comments were in reaction to Will Dunniway, one of the two "experts" who concluded the eBay tintype was Jesse James. (The other expert, Kent Gibson has misidentified a slew of historic photos, most recently Amelia Earhart.) Dunniway said that the eBay JJ was identical to another supposed JJ photo, taken he said by the same photographer on the same day: "When it is compared to the much used comparison image I believe it was taken on the same day by the same photographer. It is very evident by the face, hair cut, jacket, shirt and tie that this is the same image of Jesse James at 14 years old." See, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ay-told-could/

Dunniway says the images show the same "face, hair cut, jacket, shirt, and tie." But they are not the same. That's my point. If he had said there are several differences between the two photos, but he still thought they depicted the same person, that would be at least a more reasonable opinion. But he did not. Dunniway also has zero basis for saying the two images were taken the same day by the same photographer. He's blowing smoke. He has no idea who took either image or where. Based on that the eBay tintype is worth millions?

Some differences can be explained, but others cannot. The ears on the eBay tintype lad are higher on his head than the other supposed JJ in the other photo. Hard to get around that.

The complete lack of provenance for the eBay JJ is not fatal, but it's a serious problem because here are many look alikes out there. If you spend enough time trawling flea market bins you'll find images of anonymous people who look vaguely like famous people. (Google Alec Balwin & Millard Fillmore -- they are twins.) Ebay sellers often use the tickler phrase "I've been told this looks like . . . . You be the judge."

Ever since the one authentic Billy the Kid tintype sold for $2.3 million a few years ago, "flea market Billies" as they are now generically called, have been falling from the skies. The eBay JJ is one of them.

[Bob Salomon]

Amazing, the one on the left looks just like Jared Kushner!