After several years of using the internet for research I have come to the obvious conclusion that we really need to be careful when quoting things read or viewed on the web. I realize that this is not astonishing news, but I am getting more and more frustrated at the stupidity and sometimes just plain foolishness that goes on.
I recently posted a video from the Doc Holliday museum in Griffin, Georgia. The owner is a distant cousin of Doc's. Now some clown responds to my video that he knows the owner is no cousin of Doc's and would bet his life on it. (It really wouldn't matter either way.) This same person also responded to a video (not mine) about driving safety featuring Wyatt Earp of Phoenix, the man who performs on stage with wife Terry, not once but twice, to tell the video maker that Wyatt Earp died in 1929 so this is not Wyatt Earp. Well, duh. But, he IS Wyatt Earp. Just not the one who died in 1929. He also responded to another guy's video about going to Doc's grave site in Glenwood Springs and told him that he "knew for a fact" that the video creator had never been to Doc's memorial grave site in Glenwood Springs, even though he doesn't know that person.
Just for kicks, I researched this guy's profile on YouTube. My God, what a troll! There are three pages of negative comments posted there, many of them quite vulgar, telling this jerk what an idiot he is. Not a single positive comment.
Where do people like him come from? How do they rationalize their behavior? It is bad enough that there are well meaning but uninformed people who state things that are untrue, like the guy who informed me that the cow-boys in Tombstone all wore red sashes, but these people who intentionally try to muddy things need to go away. There are worse examples than what I have mentioned here, but this troll is the most recent I have had to deal with. What if someone else believes anything this guy says?
The first image is the 'Bork photo,' which was given to William Bork by Kate herself in the 1930s. The 'wedding photos' are entirely phony. They're the ones that came out of Tasmania. The 3rd photo I've never seen before, but the subject doesn't appear to resemble any of the photos of Kate I've seen.
However, I've only seen 3--1 taken when she was 16 or 17, 1 taken when she was probably in her 60s, & a snapshot taken at the Haroney home when she was in her 70s. #3 could be a photo of Kate, but I've never seen one of her at that stage of her life. People change. If you compared photos of me taken at 17, at about 50, and this week, you'd swear they're not of the same person. If the Earp provenance is genuine, it probably is Kate.
Thanks for pointing out the bogus images that came from Tasmania and for your opinion on the others.
About those Tasmanian photos.I saw these when they first appeared and got a good laugh at the time.The gilt pcture frames and convex glass are Edwardian period.Between about 1900-early 20's these large oval hand colored photos were popular and the stiff stock of the photos themselves are bowed or convex.Moreover the woman's hairstyle is late and that collar is in the style of the teens.I'd be willing to bet both are from 1913-17 or so.The man's tie is pretty late looking as well-far too skinny for the 1870's time period.I'm a very serious costumer and restoration consultant and these just don't fly.1870S and 80s photographs have their own distinctive look and this ain't it!
There's a photo of a particularly ugly woman that's often labeled 'Big Nose Kate.' The woman does have a large nose. It's a picture of 'Nosey Kate,' a Tombstone madam who was run out of town after about a year. It's a Fly photo, the only known photo of Nosey Kate. Nobody knows much more about her, but the photo was authenticated by Ben Traywick, Tombstone's official Town Historian.
I had not scrolled down far enough on the Maggie Van Ostrand article to see the 2nd photo. The photo of the 2 girls is a photo of Kate at about 16 or 17. The original of that photo was obtained from the Haroney family by Jane Candia Coleman & she owns the copyright on it. Kate is the seated girl in the photo.
Incidentally, Kate was never known as 'Nosey Kate' in spite of Maggie's article. Nosey Kate was an entirely different person.
You know,one could write a treatise on dating a Victorian photo on so many levels.It is generally easier to do so with reasonable accuracy for womens clothing within about a 3-4 year period.It gets a little trickier for menswear between the late1870's until well into the 1890's,assuming of course that it isn't a garment that is a bit out of style but still servicable.I look for quite a number of indicators-types of card mounts,studio painted backdrop styles,posing chairs and other studio props and then look at subtle clothing details such as coat lapel height and roll,fabric styles,shirt collar style,height and front spacing-even the size and shaping of collar wings can date an item and necktie variations can do the same.Certain styles of watch chains had periods of peak popularity.Any of these features alone may leave lots of dating latitude but a number together makes for pretty compelling dating accuracy!That should always be the principal criteria on dubious photos.If it is claimed to be, for example,Texas John Slaughter in1889 without definite provinance one must compare the subjects face and then analyze the dickens out of all the other details!
You know Chuck,you touched on a great truth-the under 40 set stay current in their styles,especially the under 25 segment,which was almost as true then as now judging from period photographic evidence.I remember seeing a late 1870's photo of U.S. GRANT and family at their summer vacation home and Julia Dent Grant's father had elements of 1840's -50's style.Older people tended to dress in" frozen style",Favoring the fashions of their youth.Even at a commercial level that was catered to until fairly recently.I'm 56 now and can remember older folks who still bought clothing and shoes that were very passe in style,I had one great uncle who always wore stiff,detachable collars to his dying day!
But I digress a bit and should steer this back on point.The most sensible response we can make to folks who make uninformed claims about source material is careful historic analysis to the best of our abilities as lovers of history.As for the geeks,trolls and mutants who walk up to us at living history events and perversely enjoy contradicting real experts who've earned their knowlege from years of devoted research and acquisition of original material I say be tolerant at first then shoot 'em down in flames if they keep it up!Bungalo Bill is so right about those characters!
I've got a photo of me that, if it wasn't for the fact that the fountain pen in my shirt pocket is showing, you'd swear was taken in the 1880s. I tend to wear, at least when I'm dressing for an occasion, 1880s/'90s style clothing. When I'm down at Chaparral Wildlife Management Area teaching 4-H & VoAg kids how to shoot muzzle-loaders I 'dress the part,' though most of my clothing is '80s/'90s vintage, which is too late for the guns I'm teaching them to shoot. Both my partner & I do this regularly. The kids really enjoy it. We also put out some period clothing for them to put on & have pictures taken in.
We do this twice a year, in March & October, thru a regular program TPW has established there. I've been volunteering there for the program for abt 20 yrs & it's a high point in the otherwise pretty humdrum life of a writer.
That's great, Charley. I wear my old duds whenever I get the chance, but not often enough for me. Also, I remember one of my dad's uncles back in the 1950's who dessed the same as men did in the 1900's, so Anthony makes a good point just above your reply.