1. "Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by stefani on Nov-21st-03 at 9:44 PM
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3639959871&category=208&rd=1
What say yous? Auction sez so.
2. "Re: Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by Tina-Kate on Nov-21st-03 at 11:32 PM
In response to Message #1.
Gut reaction, NOPE.
However, it DOES remind me of Sarah Borden...
3. "Re: Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by harry on Nov-21st-03 at 11:38 PM
In response to Message #1.
They offer NO details on it. I guess we are to take their word.
I say no way, Jose.
4. "Re: Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by Kat on Nov-22nd-03 at 2:06 AM
In response to Message #3.
Gimmee The Hat the Hat The Hat!
(Message last edited Nov-22nd-03 2:07 AM.)
5. "Re: Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by MarkHinton63 on Nov-22nd-03 at 10:46 AM
In response to Message #4.
Kat cracks me up!
Seriously, eBay should figure out a way to verify these things. I'm sure Lizzie Borden isn't the only historical figure used in this way.
6. "Re: Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by Susan on Nov-22nd-03 at 12:53 PM
In response to Message #1.
My initial reaction is no, not Lizzie. Did a quick search on tintype photography.
Introduced-1856
Peak-Popularity varied through the life of the tintype. They saw limited success in Europe, but were commonplace in American homes for decades. Before the carte de visite, they were the only alternative to more expensive types of photograph. The civil war years (1861-1865) saw great popularity among the soldiers. Then in the 1890s they were popular as quick and inexpensive image.
Waned-1900
Last Used. 1930s. For a long time from the late 19th century to as late as the 1930s itinerant tintype operators worked the back roads and county fairs. The tintype held on for so long because it was the only type of "instant photography" making it a popular item sold to tourists at seaside resorts and county fairs.
From this site: http://www.pcpages.com/oldphotos/tintypephoto.html
Lizzie was a baby during the peak popularity of tintype photography, so, if it was a tintype of her as a child, hmmm, maybe. Then they became popular again in the 1890s, we know what she looked like then and that doesn't look like her at all.
Plus, tintypes were cheap, they cost about a penny. Lizzie could afford the best when it came to photography. So, bottom line, I don't think so.
7. "Re: Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by Kat on Nov-22nd-03 at 4:32 PM
In response to Message #6.
That's really interesting Susan! Thanks for the info.
(Thanks Mark for your entusiasm!)
--That hat came from Susan and now I am putting it on the phonies.
New idea!
Due to your info, Susan, a faked photo of Lizzie as a child would probably *pass* better, in tintype.
BTW: This girls hair looks very soft and smooth and straight..no way is it Lizzie's hair!
8. "Re: Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by njwolfe on Nov-22nd-03 at 5:55 PM
In response to Message #1.
absolutely NOT, those eyes are too dark and happy!
PS: Susan I enjoy your research, tintypes etc, very
interesting,thanks
9. "Re: Is this Lizzie?"
Posted by Susan on Nov-23rd-03 at 1:29 AM
In response to Message #8.
You're both welcome. I'm always curious about stuff, have to find out for myself. I just had a feeling that the tintype photography was before Lizzie's adulthood, that it was from an earlier time and had to check it out. The way it was made to sound was that tintypes were very cheap and common which I don't think Lizzie was into. I have a feeling that it may have been used more by people with less means. That photo of Bridget that we have I assume is on paper and not a tintype, even she went the more expensive route.