Gay’s Studio Photo — Lizzie?
BACKSTORY: In the January 1998 edition of The Lizzie Borden Quarterly there was a story titled “Lizzie Yes, Lizzie No,” which debated the question as to whether the woman in the group shot was Lizzie Borden. The image was thought to have been taken by the Gay Studios of Fall River (date unknown), and was then on sale by the photo’s owners through the auction house Swann Galleries. The owner had the image posted on the web stating “Gay’s Studio was the most important photographic studio in Fall River in the late 19th century. The quality of the image does not come through when reproduced here. When viewed in person, it becomes immediately apparent that the photo is indeed Lizzie Borden.”
Quarterly Publisher Jules Ryckebusch concurred with the owners, based on the following observations:
1. I have examined all known extant photos of Lizzie and find that the facial features, especially the strong protruding jaw and piercing eyes seen in this photo, areconsistent with all the other photos of Lizzie.
2. At the time of the murders, and later at the trial, there was never any reference made to a Lizzie look-alike.
3. After having one of my best students pursue the identity of the photo and having pursued it myself at the Fall River Historical Society, no other identification could be made.
4. The Fall River Historical Society has had a copy of the photo for four months and has not yet been able to identify any of the women in the picture.
Maynard Bertolet, the editor of the LBQ took the nay position with this argument:
1. Several years ago the same photograph had been offered for sale by Swann Galleries who requested prior authentication from the Fall River Historical Society. Mrs. Florence Brigham was Curator at the time and refused to authenticate it, consequently the Fall River Historical Society declined authentication. Subsequently, the photograph was withdrawn from that year’s Swann Galleries’ auction.
2. The family of the estate from whom the photograph was probably purchased were not members of Lizzie’s church for at least two prior generations. A group picture of this sort would suggest a local church missionary or fruit and flower society endeavor, which is not in evidence.
3. None of the ladies have been identified nor have copies of the photograph surfaced in other Fall River estates, suggesting that the photograph may have been taken elsewhere and transported to Fall River.
4. Speaking as an archivist for many years, a photograph, recording or document cannot be authenticated and/or verified without documentary evidence, sourced research or first-hand testimony. Consequently, I must decline authentication.
Authors and interested parties sent in letters to the editor voicing their say, and eventually an update was printed in the April 1998 issue that said, in part,
After examining the photograph, the people at Swann Galleries had concerns about the Gay Studio signature. They thought there was the possibility of forgery. Consequently, Swann Galleries insisted upon authentication prior to offering it for sale. Since evidence was not to be had, their management decided to withdraw the photograph from the auction. Daile Kaplan, Swann Galleries’ Curator of Photographs, called the LBQ Publisher, Mr. Jules R. Ryckebusch, and relayed their decision.
Coincidentally, Mr. Ryckebusch had been having second thoughts himself. He had become uncertain about the photograph’s origin after the Fall River Historical Society could not identify any of the eleven ladies pictured. Since there was now a distinct possibility that the photograph may not have been taken in Fall River, the only sensible course of action was to concur with Mr. Kaplan and the Fall River Historical Society. However, our publisher continues to point out the similarity of features between the lady in the photograph and Miss Lizzie Borden.
Consequently, complete agreement has now been realized between the Fall River Historical Society, Swann Galleries and the Lizzie Borden Quarterly, if not the owner.
Why bring this all up again? Well, there is a site (you knew it had to be that!) that again offers the image for viewing, this time an extremely fine scan showing great detail. Unfortunately, they are also asserting that a “noted authority on Lizzie Borden” believes that this woman, who does not look like Lizzie to the trained Lizzie Borden eye, is she. I guess a sucker (and an Lizzie expert) is born every minute — especially on the Internet. File this one under D’oh!
Well, you can see for yourself.
June 17, 2006 at 8:30 am
I do not understand how anyone can think that is Lizzie!
June 20, 2006 at 1:56 pm
The woman in the photo seems to have a longer neck than Lizzie and the left ear seems a bit different.