Henry Chadwick tin type photo

[asphaltman]

Mark-

Surely in this instance you aren't thinking that either image has a feature retaining enough integrity to confirm any characteristic is in fact different. The image on the left you can't get anything out of.

[asphaltman]

And for the record, I don't think it's Chadwick. I don't know that for sure...but I know for sure I wouldn't want to purchase it under the assumption of that being Chadwick.


To me...hard to say it is or isn't him....all I know is I don't want it.

[bmarlowe1]

Asphaltman said, "Surely in this instance you aren't thinking that either image has a feature retaining enough integrity to confirm any characteristic is in fact different."

------

The "argument" began with smokelessjoe's response that the noses looked similar - they don't - that is conclusive. So, do they look different because they are 2 different noses, or is it because of inherent image fuzziness and wash out combined with jpeg image compression distortion (which can actually change the shape of very small details) - On that I cannot be absolutely sure. An uncompressed scan might provide an answer.

[asphaltman]

Well, than if Shawn was saying the noses look similar and you're saying they don't...but both of you are feel your opinions are "conclusive" than I'm not on either side of the fence.


Based on that foggy hazy mess I don't know how anyone could think the nose is or isn't the same on both pics..."conclusively"

[jmk59]

The problem is in the probabilities. People usually unconsciously take this into account when discussing what appear to be very basic judgements.

There is only one man (Chadwick) that this could be that would lead to the conclusion "this is Chadwick". On the other hand, there could have been ~15 million white men in the US at the time that could lead to the conclusion "this is not Chadwick". In making the visual comparison and trying to decide between same guy and different guy, it is almost impossible to not have the effect of probability cloud the comparison.

Suppose you were given the picture of Chadwick and the tintype, told the Chadwick photo was Chadwick, and then told that the tintype was either Chadwick or one - only one - other unknown white man. You are also told that the other man was randomly drawn and not intentionally picked for his similar appearance.

Knowing nothing else, you would probably conclude that the tintype is surely Chadwick despite any small differences from the photo, because what are the chances that a randomly drawn second man would look more similar to the tintype than the Chadwick photo?

So it is very hard to purely objectively try to evaluate the similarity of the images without having that sense of probability be part of the mental equation. It's fine to consider the probability in your final determination of whether it is or is not Chadwick, but that's different than using it in your evaluation of pure photo similarity.

Personally, I think it is dead on regardless of the little photographic bobbles that may skew the similarity. But I also think it is not Chadwick because when I factor in the probabilities, now all those little bobbles loom large.

J

[ramram]

For the record, without provenance it's never going to add up. It may be a recent deceptive identification or it could be one of many different men named Henry Chadwick.

However, regarding the time frame of the image, if the tintype is original to the leatherette case, then the image is likely from the early 1860's (when Chadwick was in his 40's). Cases went out of vogue after the civil war. Also, tinting became much rarer after the war (btw - the yellow tint would actually be a very seldom seen tint as blue and red were MUCH more common). I have also seen a fair number of civil war images where the name was scratched into the surface like this. The mat is somewhat unique as well. I'm not going to take the time to dig up any info but, it does not appear to be one of the more common mats and, if it is a fairly thick mat, it would also place this image to the early 60's (if in fact, the image is original to the mat and case).

Rob M.

[barrysloate]

Dating images by the frame or case they are in is extremely unreliable. I used to always buy spare cases which I kept in stock for raw images. Then when I bought a tintype I would have a nice case to put it in. As such, dating them that way would be erroneous. I never consider the mat or case at all when dating a photo, unless it is a sealed dag.