pictures of lizzie......

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:03 am

Yes, of course there must be many photos of Lizzie Borden that we have never seen.

One was released on the Lizzie Borden Bed and Breakfast facebook page.

The more you look at it, the more it looks like a young Lizzie...........and then the more you look at it again the more it does not.

I find the lines of her face much softer than Lizzie's. Not sure Lizzie was that thin around the waste? Perhaps when she was younger. The hair is all wrong though. Attractive girl, no less.

Still, an interesting photo.

What do you think.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:07 pm

I'm thinking yes.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 12:40 pm

I'm leaning towards no.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:08 pm

Is there any way to identify the time period when the dress was in style? Fashions changed from year to year, so it might be of some help.

bob_m_ryan · Post by **bob_m_ryan** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 6:10 pm

That gal' looks way too thin for Lizzie.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:48 pm

Yes Yooper: It is interesting to note that Walsh Photographers was not much more than 500 feet or so from Lizzie's front door....about a block away.

The button craze on the girls jacket started around the late 1880s.

By this time buttons were becoming a fashion statement—the more the better. By the middle of the 1890s buttons on coats the size of silver dollars were all the craze. Also, it was not until the 1890s that mutton sleeves had graduated to coats, jackets or outside over garments.

This photo was taken before 1896 for sure.

By 1896, Walsh photographers had disappeared from Fall River directories.

So we know that the photograph was taken before 1896.

Also, the mutton sleeve fashion for "jackets" did not start until the 1890s or very late 1880s. Thus, I think it is safe to say that the photograph was taken any time between 1888 and 1896. (taking liberty to go as far back as 1888) You could say that the photo was taken around the time of the Borden Murders, circa 1892, and you would probably not be wrong.

Now if we say that the photo was taken in 1889, that would make Lizzie 29 years old. This girl looks much younger. NO

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:35 am

Yes:

Here's a typical example. This photo is on ebay as we speak. It is dated August 1890. Notice the girls clothing. Buttons down the dress starting at the neckline. And the girl on the right is already sporting the very late buttons on her dress vest.

Also notice the sleeve action at the shoulders. As the decade progressed these became larger and longer.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:10 am

Yes: As the 1890s wore on, more emphasis was placed on the sleeves and a lot less on buttons. A good example of the sleeve trend is demonstrated by Lizzie herself in this 1893 photo.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:23 am

Yes, there's an excellent study about period dress and how to identify and distinguish it. It's an essential and indispensable tool for writers and others with an interest in vintage Victorian photographs and how to date them by clothing.

The book is called DRESSED FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER Ordinary Americans & Fashion, 1840 -1900.

I use it all the time.

If you want a copy though, you will probably have to shovel into your bank account and come up with 50 dollars or so. (Large Hardcover)

Oh yes. The photo of the two little girls below?

Well it has nothing to do with anything.

I just like it and wanted to share it. Something mysterious or spooky about it. (also listed is the cover of the book I spoke of above)

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:13 am

The face is too thin for Lizzies face. And the whole woman looks to thin, not to call Lizzie is fat, but Lizzie seems to be heatlhier.You know, sturdy.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:07 pm

If the subject is Lizzie, then she looks to be perhaps near 20 years of age in the photo. That would date the photo to somewhere around 1880. There is something about the photograph that makes it appear to be a composite, the face almost appears to be superimposed on the rest. Maybe it's just me, but the light and shadow values seem inconsistent as well as the focus. It could be that I'm just staring too intently!

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:18 am

my first thing i noticed was the eyes -- the odd difference between the two which you can also notice in the famous "chair" photo. ????? i don't feel sure though.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:33 am

Lizzie has a distinctive tilt upward to one eye. I have this trait as well, though not quite as pronounced. Which is why I always photograph better from the left. But I'm still leaning more towards no. She seems too young to be our Lizzie. Her face seems to have softer lines. In all the Lizzie pictures she has taken time to curl her bangs. There are those distinctive curls. It seems, according to newspaper accounts, many women in the area shared the same facial features of our Lizzie Borden at that time. I''m still leaning towards no.

DJ · Post by DJ » Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:05 pm

I don't know-- you all make excellent points.

One thing's for sure-- if my waist were that thin, I'd sho-heck go have my picture taken!

Speaking of which, the waist is no doubt tightly corseted. It could be that Lizzie went through a spell of illness and/or dieting, came out of it on the thin side, and decided to record herself for posterity. It could have been taken just prior to the time that she went on her grand tour, having perhaps acquired some fashionable new clothes. She could be around 29. If this is Lizzie, she doesn't look as young as she does in those early "adult" photographs.

Anyway, from comparing this to photos of the young Lizzie, I could believe this is Herself, aged about 29.

DJ · Post by DJ » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:55 pm

Apologies for the double-post, but, if this is a pic of Lizzie, it ought to be considered carefully.

What keeps me returning to the possiblity are the eyes, nose, mouth, and

The Fullness of the Face.

One would think a woman with this full a face couldn't be possessed of such a figure. Of course, she's all trussed up in a corset, but also-- what sort of retouching was done in this period?

It was probably primitive to the point of painting the actual prints.

Might the photog have touched up the lines from the bust-line to the waistline to enhance thinness and curvature of the hips?

One of our main problems with this photo is the waistline. And, there is something slightly unnatural about the photo itself, which lies in the contrast between the fullness of the face and the tiny waist.

The photo does seem to have been touched up to enhance the waistline; the question is when?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:13 pm

Yes: it was around 2:30 in the morning. Soaking with insomnia I just could not sleep so I sat in front of the tv watching an episode of Gunsmoke. I had just viewed that episode the week last. So I took the sound off and grabbed my laptop.

"Think I'll look for a never seen photo of Lizzie in this auction site" I said to myself......kidding.

The dealer on the site had a series of cabinet photos, tintypes and CDVs. There were three or four of them from Fall River, Massachusetts.

When I clicked on the second page, POP, there it was. An image of a young lady. A striking likeness of Lizzie. Was it Lizzie? In that short moment I was positive. It was a young twenty something or late teen Lizzie.

Had to have it.

Bought it.

Looking at the image there was no question in my mind that it is lizzie. Or was it?

There is one problem with it.

The girl in the photo has the wrong clothing on. This was later verified by myself and the FRHS. I should have known better. I should have known when I first saw it. The girl looks in her late teens or early twenties. She is sporting a winter jacket with large buttons and longe bellowed elbow length leg of mutton sleeves, sleeves that were not popular until the very early 90s. The age and the clothing did not compliment each other if this was indeed Lizzie.

Now, as many here may know, Lizzie had her photos, (most, all?) taken at Gay Studios. Here is some proof........ a quote from Parallel Lives by Martins and Binette:

Sometime between the years 1890 and 1892 Lizzie sat for her photograph at the fashionalbe studio of Gay's Gallery of Art at 39 South Main Street in Fall River."

Another quote for Parallel Lives is: [/i][/b]One gift presented by Lizzie A. Borden to her friend Minnie, dating to about 1916, was a recently taken photograph of herself......"[/i][/b] etc.

The point I am making with these quotes is that Lizzie was friends with Minnie and Winona Gay, owners of Gay Studios. (at 39 South Main Street)

Now, 39 South Main Street was the property owned by Andrew Borden. Later it became the A. J. Borden building when a new building was put on the site.

Back to my photograph of Lizzie......supposedly Lizzie.

It was taken at Gay Studios at 39 South Main Street and it states it on the bottom of the cabinet card. Andrew Borden owned the building that housed Gay Studios. Gay Studios was a block from 92 Second Street. Chances are Lizzie would have gone to Gay Studios before she would have gone to Walsh. (Not that she did not go to Walsh)

When I compare it to the photo above of the girl that looks like Lizzie, my photograph looks a lot more like Lizzie, a bit heavier, a little more plump, stout, not fat or portly though.

I don't mean to tease everyone here with this information and not show you the photograph in my hands, but I want to make sure it is or it is not Lizzie before I post it. I am going to have it professionally analyzed by face recognition experts before I do.

Until then I will post a portion of it.

The eyes.

You can compare the eyes of my Lizzie with the eyes of the Lizzie in the photo at the beginning of this tread and reach your own conclusions.

Again, sorry for the tease. If I thought it was someone who looked like Lizzie, I would post it. But, I truly believe it is Lizzie, an unseen cabinet photograph of Lizzie Borden.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The photo below is of Lizzie Borden's eyes.

The sepia colored eyes on the bottom are taken from my photograph. The smaller ones on top is a well known photo of a young Lizzie, probably close to the same age.

What do you think?

Are those Lizzie eyes or what?

If it is Lizzie Borden you will see the entire photograph in the HATCHET MAGAZINE.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:33 pm

Well, the eyes appear to be very similar, but the eyebrows are not.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:07 am

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:38 am

es:

I'm OK, I'm Ok, Angel. Give me a minute while I wipe away my tears.

That's good to know, though.

Most of my friends who I have shown the photo to have no interest in Lizzie. So I feel they are telling me what they think I want to hear. I'm sure I will get a more objective opinion here on the forum. Just don't do it again! (just kidding

)

I picked out the same thing you did, of course, twinsrwe. You really need to see the entire photo. I believe it was Jullian Ralph of the New York Sun who made the comment that lots of people up here in Southern New England had the same facial features as Lizzie. I have a friend of mine who moved up here and made the comment that lots of people looked alike to her, similar faces.

(photo removed

)

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:51 pm

Hmmmm… The lips in the two photos appear to be very similar. However, the lower lip appears to have protruding areas beside the indentation in the second photo. The indentation of the lower lip in the second photo appears to be deeper. Also, the upper lip in the second photo seems to have a sharper or be closer together around the peaks of the Cupid's bow.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:19 am

Tantalyzingly close, MB... I think your photo is much closer than the one at the beginning of this thread. Is it, or isn't it? We will have to wait until The Hatchet comes out...

DJ · Post by DJ » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:45 pm

Yes, at least close enough to be a relative. Interesting how Emma resembles Lizzie so little, and here are two women in photographs of the era who may be Lizzie, or at least who look a heck of a lot like her.

I would say Andrew was gettin' around, but Emma appears to favor him. Lizzie must favor her Mother, or her Mother's side, exclusive of J. V. Morse.

RivkahChaya · Post by **RivkahChaya** » Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:13 pm

mbhenty wrote: The photo below is of Lizzie Borden's eyes.

The sepia colored eyes on the bottom are taken from my photograph. The smaller ones on top is a well known photo of a young Lizzie, probably close to the same age.

What do you think?

Are those Lizzie eyes or what?

This is my first post here. I hope you don't mind that I'm jumping in and playing with your image, but I thought it looked like one set of eyes might be a mirror image of the other. It doesn't hit you at first, because they are looking the same direction, but I copied the image, and flipped the second set, and also resized them, so they are a little closer, and this is what I got:

(I hope that posts OK-- photobucket has changed the format, so i might have to repost a couple of times to get it right.)

Anyway, it's looks like the shape of the left eye in the top picture is rounder than the right, and the right eye is flat particularly on the bottom. The second set have the same features when they are flipped. I know it's hard not to be distracted by the fact they they are gazing off to different sides, but try to block the pupils in your mind.

They both have the same remarkable clarity or the iris-- bright blue eyes, with a thin dark circle of pigment around the edge, and they are both sets of wide eyes, where almost the whole pupil shows. The shadows under the the eyes and along the nose look very similar. I also think that the eyebrows match up better when the second image is flipped. They both look rather close-set, although I didn't print the picture out, and actually measure they eyes, and the proportion of the space between them-- which wouldn't need to be an exact match, since these are images that have been repixilated and otherwise minutely manipulated, not to mention that turning her head slightly more in one direction in the original photograph would change the proportion. But just looking at it, it looks really close. You wouldn't describe either of these women as having "wide-set eyes." They also both have "cats' eyes," that is, eyes that angle up (think of Audrey Hepburn). It doesn't mean anything, other than being somewhat less common than eyes that angle down, or are straight. In the few verifiable photographs I can find of Emma Borden, she seems to have had the trait too, although it isn't as pronounced.

If there is any other evidence that it is her, I would say yes. If it's a random photo from the right time period and approximate place, I would say it's impossible to tell.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:34 pm

Yes:

Thanks everyone for your response. Its like asking a mother if her child is ugly. She will never admit it. Thus this photo is my baby. I discovered it and would be very happy it it was indeed Lizzie. And it is important to get the opinion of others. This way you may see the tree despite the forest.

Thank you for the input on the photo RivkahChaya. Your post was very appreciated and interesting.

A couple of other factors apart from the image itself speaks to the fact that this may indeed be Lizzie. One: It was taken at a photographic studio less than a block from her house. Two: Lizzie's father owned the building where the photographer had their studio. Three: Lizzie Borden was know to have most of her photographs taken at this photographer. Four: Lizzie was very good friends with the woman photographer who owned the studio along with the owners daughter. (Gay Studios was owned by a woman)

Is it Lizzie? I hope so. Very difficult to keep an open mind. Just like a mother who will never admit to an ugly child, I don't (can't?) see how I can and admit that it is not, if infact it is not.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:18 pm

I think Walsh was the photographer who took the crime scene pictures.

It sounds as though if Lizzie was going to be photographed, it would likely be at the Walsh studio. However, that is not to the exclusion of others being photographed there. So, taken by itself, the idea that Lizzie was likely to be photographed by Walsh does not conclusively put Lizzie in that particular photograph. I wish we had evidence indicating that Lizzie had been photographed at about the time the photo in question was taken, about 1880 +/- would be ideal, putting Lizzie at about 20 years of age.

The person in the photo looks remarkably like Lizzie; was there ever any mention about someone very closely resembling Lizzie in Fall River? Maybe someone at the Walsh studio mentioned a resemblance at some time or another. If the woman in the photo is not Lizzie, then both Lizzie and her "double" had been there and the photographers might have noted the same remarkable resemblance, especially if Lizzie was well known at the studio. Come to think of it, if Lizzie and her "double" were of the same or similar age, then the "double" might also have been ostracized after the trial. Was there any scuttlebutt about "be careful who you snub, it might not be Lizzie" around Fall River?

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:03 am

Yes:

I must admit that the "Walsh Lizzie" looks very much like her. But, there's something about the looks of the girl in the Walsh photo that is up and above Lizzie's other photos which impels me to believe it is not her. Something a little to refine, classy, chic if I may.

Yes, Walsh was indeed the photographer at the Borden house on the day of the murders. It would be my guess (and yours may be as good as mine) that he was probably chosen by the fall river police. I find it very doubtful that they, or Lizzie, would have called the Winona or her mother Emily of Gay Studios to come and take the gory photos. Not a woman. The distance between Walsh Studios and Gay Studios was almost the same distance to the Borden house right to the foot........one block away.

Though there is no proof that Lizzie had photos taken at Walsh Photographers, there is proof that she did have some taken at Gays Studios. (not that she could not have had Walsh photograph her. Though there is no proof she did. There is no proof she did not.)

Below is the most famous photo of Lizzie taken at Gay Studios at 39 South Mains street, an address and building owned by Andrew Borden. You can verify this by referring to the book Parallel Lives.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:17 am

Yes: Sorry. I had to do it again.

Thanks for flipping that photo of Lizzie's eyes for me RivkahChaya. I would have no idea how to do it. Your complaint about photopail, or is that photbucket, is well appreciated..........if I knew what it was.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:40 am

Yes:

Face recognition experts will tell you that the best way to look at two photos and make a comparison is to look at them up-side-down.

So, here it is.

Also is another photo with the Walsh Lizzie in it. It's not that clear. I'm not good at such things.

And enough said.

I will not tease you any longer.

But, if you're annoyed, just tell me it's not her............that'll fix me.

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue May 01, 2012 5:06 pm

Seems t hat Lizzies face is rounder, as is her eyes.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu May 10, 2012 8:34 am

As for the picture of the two girls---do you think it could be a postmortem? The girl on the right's eyes seem vacant.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Fri May 11, 2012 2:32 pm

I had to laugh when I saw Lizzie's eyes being put upside down. Sometimes there is no length we won't go to when it comes to this subject.

I remember someone putting a coat on backwards and re-enacting If Lizzie had on the Prince Albert. And someone using their diabetic finger blood sample, putting it on their reddish hair to see how dried blood would look on Lizzie's reddish hair (okay, that was me...).

With so many Bordens alone living in Fall River in Lizzie's day, I guess it's no wonder that some people look alike there.

I don't think it's Lizzie.

Sorry, mb.

stargazer · Post by **stargazer** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:21 pm

If possible, I always look at the ears. The shapes, lobes and swirls, and the angle, distance from the top to other parts of the face. Lizzies nose is more "pinched" and narrowed between her eyes than the other photo of mystery girl. There is another picture of a woman in a group of women who looks very much like Lizzie, but the hairline wasn't right. The brows seem more pointed on one brow (top area). The lady with the wasp waist seems to have a different aura from Lizzie. Lizzies face seemed to be hiding a secret all the time, even before the murders. Okay, I will put my magnifying glass away for now.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sun May 13, 2012 11:23 am

It may just be the lighting, but the woman in question seems to have a flatter face than Lizzie. Lizzie's eyes appear more deep set, the brow is more pronounced as well as the cheek bones. It really is a remarkable resemblance, the closest I've seen. Lizzie's lower face, her mouth and jawline, were rather coarse. Her mouth and lips were heavy and pronounced and she was a bit jowly. The woman in question doesn't seem to exhibit quite that degree of weight to the lower part of the face.

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Wed May 16, 2012 10:28 am

There was a mention in one of the newspaper articles I read in the Lizzie Borden Sourcebook that talked about how many women in the area shared the same facial features as Lizzie, I am not sure at the moment what page or what article because I am not at home to have access to my copy. It surmised that people who were coming from other parts of the country to attend to the trial were probably surprised at how many women walking down the street looked like Lizzie Borden. The article stated were many women who had the squared lower jaw, the face that was widest at the cheekbones...etc. I wish I could get a hold of my copy to quote it more accurately, but it was something to that effect.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:40 pm

There may be something to this.

I found this on foot book. Or was it face book? In any event, it was posted by someone who claims to be related to the Bordens. He had titled it as "Lizzie Borden cabinet card and pic given to me thru my family the Bordens"

The quality is not good but the facial lines are there. If this is Lizzie this is the first time this photo has been posted anywhere. You be the judge.

(click photo to make large)

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Thu Oct 13, 2016 3:00 am

The costume here is 1886 - 1887, if it helps any.

Jersey · Post by **Jersey** » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:32 pm

Sorry, but that "Welsh" photo is NOT Lizzie -
just my opinion, however, the mouth and the eyebrows
(eyebrows MUST match) are totally different.
Not Lizzie.

Twokeets · Post by **Twokeets** » Tue Dec 27, 2016 3:38 pm

The 2 eyes pictures do look similar. I would love to see the new photo. As for possible post-mortem in the twins photo, it would be a good job. Though I know what you mean about "vacant." I would guess they are both alive and it's just that twins are creepy. Hard to be positive, though.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:08 am

Hello Jersey and Finnegan, welcome to the forum.

Jersey, I apologize for failing to welcome you before this, I meant to submit a welcome post to you, but got caught up in activities that needed to be done for the holidays.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon May 22, 2017 11:09 am

Everyone with a photo of a Victorian lady on eBay for sale thinks it looks like Lizzie Borden. NOT

I suppose Lizzie, or her name, brings buyers. Cleaver selling tool, I suppose. (yes, I did mean, cleaver)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Photogr ... SwG-1WwMUO

Jersey · Post by **Jersey** » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:05 pm

mb -
The seller is STILL trying to sell that photo of 'Lizzie'! lol

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:12 pm

Here we go again

5000 dollars for a photo of NOT Lizzie. On eBay as we speak.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lizzie-A-Borden ... 2421098681

.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:05 am

I think this last woman looks more like Lizzie than most of the other women we have seen being passed off as her. But, the shape of this woman's eyes and eyebrows, as well the her nose, does not look like the real Lizzie.

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:03 am

The same seller has this bunch of nonsense..

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PORTRAIT-of-19t ... xyTjNSfEnG

!

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:34 am

Actually, it's entertaining, a look at this wonderfully brash seller. He goes for the big names. He's had Lincoln looking out a window. And Tesla. I want to see that, Tesla - big fan of Tesla - and photos are rare as hen's teeth. This seller claims he had a Serbian one of Tesla. But really he's taking very common cartes de visite and deciding who they most resemble.

'A little bit about myself, pictures2die4: I recently sold a CDV that looked very similar to the great inventor, Nikola Tesla. It was taken in Serbia, where he grew up, and just 2 years before moving to America! Jury is out on this one! I also sold a photo of Abraham Lincoln's Springfield home. Under a strong loop, I believe to have identified him in his bedroom window.

Isn't it priceless? and not in the ways he intends.
Has anyone seen the 'Lincoln at his bedroom window'? That might be funny.
He has a bod who 'looks like' a young Mark Twain, another who 'looks like' Queen Victoria, an 'Edison' for $5,000 (wow that poor little chap looks nothing like Edison) and an 'authenticated Jesse James'... But he can't spell Gounod's name, when reminding us how 'famous' a composer he was.

He's stating the Lizzie is Lizzie... But it's surprising she's named in pencil - which you can't date, unlike ink.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:39 pm

Hmmm

You don't like that one, eh

Well how about this one of Emma Borden selling for 8000 dollars....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/19C-American-Fo ... 1438.l2649

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:24 pm

Well somewhere under there is an authentic canvas from the 1830s but it's suffered some bizarre over-painting, the face especially. Hideous isn't it. Those little paper-scrolls should have identifying script if the Seller took a magnifying-glass to them.

The one which looks like it might be impressive is your ever-so-blurry photo from last year - dating to the late 1880s, to judge by the clothing. Did you ever see anything more of this one?:

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:57 am

....And another thing... Why is this photo

image.jpg

always identified as Sarah A. M. Borden when it doesn't look a scrap like her? It's Abby, surely, a younger Abby.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:54 am

Yes:

We tried contacting the individual who posted the framed photo of "Lizzie standing" but he/she never replied. We requested a better image.

And, as for the center photo in your post above... that is definitely Abby.

Of course, the other two is of a dour Sarah.

InterestedReader · Post by **InterestedReader** » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:39 pm

mbhenty wrote: And, as for the center photo in your post above... that is definitely Abby.

Of course, the other two is of a dour Sarah.

Yes, I'm sure it's been attested by 'scholars' and has all its scholarly bits n' bobs.
But to my own eyes that first photo of 'Sarah' resembles Abby, not Sarah. The features are so like Abby's and so unlike Sarah's. To my own eyes.

Our view of the first photo isn't optimal but there's enough information to date it by the hair and clothing, while the known photo of Sarah gives a full account of itself in terms of costume-dating. Due to the human foible of fashion, costume-dating is a reasonably accurate science. The first photo was taken some ten years after the third - it dates to the mid 1860s, when Abby married Borden. The third photo is earlier, from the early to mid 1850s. Sarah died in 1863, aged 39. Abby was only 5 years younger than Sarah but her dates are a better fit.

Pinterest has this one - below, badly reproduced - as Emma. Is this a known one of Emma?

image.jpg