What is 1.50 worth in todays money?
That is hard to say and computing the relative value of money is always a headache. As an example a new Victorian two story home of 1800 square feet cost $1,000 in 1898. (I owned one.) today? Oh, (depending upon location) $250,000.
A new Colt Peacemaker cost $13 or so then, and today bout $1300. A beer then, cost from 2 cents to a nickel. Today? $4.
In those days housing was cheap and food expensive, relatively speaking. A steak dinner cost .20 or a quarter. Today, maybe $25.
So, it's hard to know, but I'd guess that $1.50 then would have the purchasing power of about $150 today, but it depends upon the product and its rariety. During the California Gold Rush an egg cost a buck.
I have a "Remember When" sticker on my frig. According to it the cost of a new house the year I was born (1946) was approx. 5,600.00. Average income per year was 2,500.00 and a new car was 1,125.00.
I was born in 1945.
My dad bought a home in San Anselmo CA in 1961 for 16,000. Today? It'd sell for about 1,300,000. At the peak? $3 million.
The relative value of money is always hard to compute because manufactured items were hand made and expensive and today mass produced and cheaper. Lots of reasons it is hard to do.
As an example: The Emperiior Napolean ate with the most expensive table ware in existance. More expensive than gold. What was it made of? Aluminum.
At this point according to what the expert told me the only authenticated photo of BTK is so damaged that it would be impossible to say for any certainty that any other photo is a match. About the only thing we are left with is a maybe.
I discussed the image with an "expert" at the Smithsonian and was told the same thing, however; we can take some hints from the Upham tintype. We know, for instance that the kid's eyes were blue (or gray) he had longish wavy hair, we see his buck teeth and something of the shape of his jaw. In that picture he has shifted his neck backwards to fit into the neck brace so it distorted his jaw and neck. He looks like he had a goiter. He did not.
Yes you could call me an expert.I have degrees in art history and social history.have worked with museums in artifact conservation as well as accession/de accession of materials.,deal in antiques(mostly Victoriana with a focus on early clothing and paper ephemera,especially photographica),consult on interior renovation of historic structures,am a working artist and have a sideline business making authentic men's Victorian clothing reproductions.I collect early view and portrait cameras and early photographs and a friend and I are undertaking reproducing original process collodion ferrotypes and pre gelatin albumin prints.
Why can't the "experts "agree?Most have very specific knowledge and haven't devoted themselves to learning all the areas that they should be familiar with.It takes a lot of experience in a number of areas of study to see the broader picture and actually apply them usefully.
Anthony: I have seen some of the new tintypes...Ferro graphs and I'm glad to see people making them again. Do you have a copy of Revealing Character? Shows many modern tintypes, mostly of cowpokes in one ranch. It's interesting.
The making of tintypes was popular from about 1855 (the process was discovered in France in 1852) until the early 1920's. They were not expensive and they lasted. They didn't break like the glass plate processes. They didn't fade if properly displayed. The fact that the subject has to "freeze" for the camera, I believe, makes for a truer image.
I wish I could show you my collection in the flesh. Arrayed on a table top it becomes obvious that they are authentic. They overfill a card table. I'm showing them to John Middlteon's grandson (great grandson?) [He's not sure which either.] tomorrow. I'll take a pic of them in mass and post it.
Did you note the picture of the gent in tails that I posted yesterday? Interesting clothing. I'd like your opinion.
As for experts agreeing? If we were talking about images of Abe Lincoln and his family there would be no issue as to authenticity, but the kid is a loaded topic.
I very much appreciate your input in all of these threads here. I'm happy that we've had this chance to chat.
I'd say this is compelling proof-the same intelligent facial expression,the same sly grin.This must be a more formal sitting however as the famous hat is missing.Correct me if 'I'm wrong here but he looks rather drunk-well in his cups!
In my opinion it's not a formal portrait, but a mug shot.