The August issue now on sale everywhere. Hitherto unpublished documentation on the tintype of Billy the Kid from my research on the LCHT's photo-analysis project. One of three papers on the tintype I have coming out this year.
If there are any questions about the tintype I will be happy to answer them here.
Awesome! I'll pick up a copy after work today!
I wrote the article to correct the misinformation and misrepresentations of Mark Boardman and Bob Boze Bell in True West and elsewhere. There was not one single fact in Boardman's report in the June 2011 issue. Instead of interviewing the people who actually worked with the tintype, they spread vicious rumors. The Lincoln County Heritage Trust did not damage the tintype. Neither did the conservators at Eastman House. These accusations are preposterous and unsupported. The tintype was in rough condition when it was recovered in 1986, and my article lays out the evidence.
I thought BBB and Boardman both stated that even though there were rumors of the tintype being in poor condition due to the LCHT, it didn't look like it was damaged at all after they saw it during the auction? To me that sounded like they disproved the rumors of the damage done to the tintype by the LCHT and Eastman House.
Nick, is this the past article in TW?
The Holy Grail for Sale
That is an article I remember. In it Mark Boardman does state both sides. That the rumor was that the LCHT caused damage to the tintype- although the Upham family also stated that there was no damage done to the tintype and that it was given back to the family under mutual agreement. The article goes on to say that the image did not go dark like the rumors said it did.
OK! What can we learn from this $2,300,000 photograph?
The 1st thing we can learn from it is the Kid's ears were the same size on both sides, which puts permanently to rest any possibility that Oliver Partridge 'Brushy Bill' Roberts could have been the Kid, since he had the 'Roberts ear.' That's a genetic anomaly in the Roberts family of Coleman County, Texas. Their right ears are twice the sizo of their left ears.
I found your WW article informative & well researched, but your comments here are unbecoming & over the top. There's "not one single fact" in Mark Boardman's article? Really? The TW article is full of facts. "Spread viscious rumors"? Really? The TW article debunks the rumors. Best, Dan
I finally found a copy and I enjoyed the article. Some of the information in your article brought to mind something I've wondered about for years. Do you believe the stand used to hold Billy motionless had an effect on the appearance of his ears? I've seen speculation that his hat is pushing his ear(s) out but I've tried this and it doesn't work on my ears. I've speculated that the stand might have impacted the orientation of his ears. My current thinking is that what we see is the way his ears really looked. However, I don't know if the discrepancy between his ears can be accounted for by shadows, angles, etc..
Having spent time with the original tintype and high quality reproductions, have you come to a conclusion on this issue?
What the head-steadier didn't do was increase the size of his right ear to double the size of his left ear. Ir clearlly shows his ears, however prominent they might be, were both the same size.
The right ear is pushed forward. My theory is that the Kid's uncomfortable posture moved the head-brace out of alignment so that the clamp is pushing against his ear. Of course, I could be wrong. There are several distortions, or optical illusions, in the tintype. Not as glaringly obvious as Dali's dripping clocks, but present. There are reasons. Bends and crimps in the plate, a smudged emulsion and soil accretion have a lot to do with it. The book goes into more detail on the ear puzzle.
My comments are perfectly reasonable and accurate. The only thing that is over the top and beneath someone is your put-down of me. Boardman's article was about gossip, not history. It was poorly researched and lazy in its thinking. Why write about gossip if it isn't true? Wouldn't the space be put to better use reconstructing the history of the tintype. Oh, I almost forgot he doesn't know the history. The photo-project staff is still around, but he didn't bother to interview any of us. The whole point of the article was to slam the LCHT. You don't like the criticism, tough. I'll go into more detail in a day or so when I have the time to write a longer post.
Is this the part of my post you consider a put-down? "I found your WW article informative & well researched . . . ."
I did find your remarks that the TW article "did not contain a single fact" and " spread vicious rumors" over the top and unbecoming to you.. Boardman's article contained plenty of facts and as well discussed and debunked many of the rumors that apparently have buzzed around the Billy tintype for years. Useful information for we lay people far from the fray.
The pea under the mattress appears to be that someone else published an article on the Billy tintype -- at least that's the impression I get -- and reminds me of Ambrose Bierce's remark that "calamities are of two kinds: misfortune to ourselves, and good fortune to others." Best, Dan