[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Both Corey and Jason are among the top early photo experts we have on the board, along with David Rudd, Rob Morgan and myself. I tend to side with Corey that the dag very well might be post-1850, but the difference of a couple of years either way doesn't mean much. I wouldn't put a premium on an 1848 image over an 1853 image, for example. More of a distinction would be made between a dag and an ambro, or an ambro and a tintype, where the photo process changed. Whether we date the mat precisely is merely an exercise and not critical to the end result. But I'm amazed that Jason was able to determine the stitching on the ball; the image just doesn't seem that clear. What kind of magnification did you use?