Newly Discovered Tumblety Photo

[Nemo]

Thanks Mike

Neil Storey had a lot of communication with Stewart who would no doubt have been interested in the Tumblety photo

I know a number of forum members are personally acquainted with Stewart who is normally extremely helpful so I would suggest contacting him if possible as to the provenance of the photo

Is there a problem in contacting Neil?

I understand he attended the Whitechapel Society meetings on a number of occasions

[mklhawley]

Hi Nemo,

And I believe Stewart Evans identified the medals on the on the 1872 portrait. I recall him discussing his high resolution image of it.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Nemo]

I thought the medals had already been identified - can't remember by who, probably Wolf or Tim

I thought the elaborate medal was the French Legion de Honor, with the crown, later replaced by a laurel wreath

IIRC, the bow tied ribbon at the top signifies that it is the version of the medal only given to females

[mklhawley]

Hi Dave,

Great thought. If you read Riordan's book, he comments about having a high definition image and could read the metals. We should definitely think about this with all of the portraits and photos involved.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Cogidubnus]

Just to complicate matters, quite coincidentally, I had the thought that maybe the Prussian Officer photo had been printed reversed...This was quite often done when compositionally it improved the picture...it was also sometimes done accidentally.

My father was basically a hobby photographer/processor, but in the post war years did a lot of professional stuff too on a part-time basis to try to make extra money...his darkroom would leave a lot of alleged professionals looking silly...for example he was doing colour processing before many labs were...

But he'd also worked with a lot of old time material, and I can recall him telling me that lots of glass plate negs were printed "wrong way round" out of sheer idleness...and also how sometimes it was done deliberately...

I've tried enlarging the Tumblety image to try to look at the medals (the Cross looks like a Pour la Merite) to see if this might be the case but no joy - the detail is lost...does anyone have a better quality image to try this on?

All the best

Dave

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

A photo can be a portrait photo though, can it not?

Hi Nemo, That certainly would cut to the chase.

Hi Bridewell, We know that the 1872 portrait is an engraving of an older looking man, and we also know that it's a different portrait than the 1871 photo. Charles Carr's court discussion was in 1873. We just don't know which portrait Carr was talking about. My opinion is it's most likely the 1872 engraving and Wolf's opinion is it could very well be the 1871 photo. I just wouldn't put it past Dr T to use a good-looking model for the photo, especially when Dr T around 40 at the time.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Nemo]

IIRC, Neil Storey discovered the photo in the Hall Caine collection on the Isle of Man, held by the Manx National Heritage (Eiraght Ashoonagh Vannin)

In his book, he even gives the name of a contact there, archivist Wendy Thirkettle

Perhaps someone could telephone her?

I'm not certain though that this is the "private collection" he is referring to

He mentions a Vivien Allen in connection with the collection, she being Hall Caine's biographer - perhaps it is her photo?

I think it would be easier to contact Neil himself and ask the question

[Bridewell]

We need to clarify something you wrote, since it seems you are not entirely accurate. Here’s what the London Times (Dec 1, 1873) stated:

The front of the pamphlet bore a portrait of Dr. Tumblety, dressed in the uniform of a Prussian officer. Witness said that this was the person who had decoyed his son away.

The Times said portrait, not photo.

Hi Mike,

A photo can be a portrait photo though, can it not?

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

As a left hander I would hold it the other way around

Cheers

James

Hi James,

That's that argument dead in the water then!

[mklhawley]

Hi Wolf,

How intriguing that the 1871 photo, which clearly came from Tumblety, is not identical to the engraving, which clearly came from Tumblety. I wonder if there was more to the change than just being a cheaper option?

Mike

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike.

We need to clarify something you wrote, since it seems you are not entirely accurate. Here’s what the London Times (Dec 1, 1873) stated:

The front of the pamphlet bore a portrait of Dr. Tumblety, dressed in the uniform of a Prussian officer. Witness said that this was the person who had decoyed his son away.

The Times said portrait, not photo. Note what Riordan stated in the Prince of Quacks:

As he had done earlier, Tumblety published his life story to boost his claims against the government. The first of his new editions was published in 1871 and bore the title “Dr. Tumblety’s Narrative… More importantly, this edition replace the cover sketch showing his arrest with a photograph of Tumblety dressed in what was supposed to be a Prussian Hassar’s uniform…

Perhaps because the photographs were too expensive or the uniform was so laughable, Tumblety published another pamphlet in 1872. This one was published in New York… Probably the most significant item from this edition of the autobiography is the picture on the cover. Tumblety reports that it is an engraving done from a photograph taken while he was in Berlin. It shows him dressed in the uniform of the Imperial Guard with a large walrus-type moustache. His hair is cut much shorter than in 1866 and he looks older and heavier. Three of the other medals are not picture well enough to distinguish but Tumblety would later claim they were the Iron Cross of Prussia…

Henry Carr most likely had the 1872 engraving of Tumblety not the 1871 photo, since the case was in 1873…

Perhaps you should look up the word “portrait” in the dictionary. It means a likeness, usually of a person, which has been created through various mediums such as drawing or painting or photography. “Photographic portraits,” (staged photographs taken in a studio by a professional photographer using props and backdrops, exactly like the Tumblety photograph) although seemingly passé today, were fairly common in 19th Century. To professional photographers of the Victorian era, this was their bred and butter and they would advertise their skill at portraiture. Mathew Brady, the great American Civil War photographer, for example, titled his shop of photographic prints a “portrait gallery.” The use of the term “portrait” in the Times, therefore, doesn’t disprove that Carr might have used the 1871 biography.

Also, how was Tumblety dressed in his photograph? In a Prussian officer’s uniform. Since both the 1871 photograph and the 1872 engraving show Tumblety dressed in a supposed Prussian uniform there is, on the face of it, no concrete proof that Carr wasn’t using the 1871 biography in Court. It is just supposition on my part, as it is supposition on Tim’s part that Carr had the 1872 biography.

…We should actually be looking at the engraving and comparing it with the other photo.

The funny thing about the engraving, which is supposed to be based on a photograph, is that it doesn’t really look like either Tumblety’s photograph or Storey’s. However, there are definite differences between the engraving and Storey’s photograph, made more apparent because both are of the same three quarters facial view.

The nose is similar but the nostrils are very different. The eyes aren’t as deeply set in the engraving and the eyebrows are not the same. The hair of the man in Storey’s photo is short and, more importantly, straight. The hair in the engraving is short and wavy. In fact, a look at other drawings of Tumblety show that he had thick, wavy hair. The most important difference, perhaps, is that the engraving clearly shows Tumblety had an earlobe which Storey’s photo clearly does not. So Storey’s photo doesn’t match the engraving of Tumblety either.

Wolf.

[james]

Hi Bridewell,

As a left hander I would hold it the other way around

Cheers

James

[mklhawley]

More importantly, in 1873, when Henry Carr appeared before a police magistrate in London for unlawful ownership of Tumblety’s gold watch chain, Carr’s father produced a copy of the bio in court and, showing the photo of Tumblety on the cover to the judge, stated that this was a photo of the man who had “decoyed his son away.” We know, therefore, that the photo is of Tumblety and not some younger, good looking model.

Wolf.

Wolf,

We need to clarify something you wrote, since it seems you are not entirely accurate. Here’s what the London Times (Dec 1, 1873) stated:

The front of the pamphlet bore a portrait of Dr. Tumblety, dressed in the uniform of a Prussian officer. Witness said that this was the person who had decoyed his son away.



The Times said portrait, not photo. Note what Riordan stated in the Prince of Quacks:

As he had done earlier, Tumblety published his life story to boost his claims against the government. The first of his new editions was published in 1871 and bore the title “Dr. Tumblety’s Narrative… More importantly, this edition replace the cover sketch showing his arrest with a photograph of Tumblety dressed in what was supposed to be a Prussian Hassar’s uniform…

Perhaps because the photographs were too expensive or the uniform was so laughable, Tumblety published another pamphlet in 1872. This one was published in New York… Probably the most significant item from this edition of the autobiography is the picture on the cover. Tumblety reports that it is an engraving done from a photograph taken while he was in Berlin. It shows him dressed in the uniform of the Imperial Guard with a large walrus-type moustache. His hair is cut much shorter than in 1866 and he looks older and heavier. Three of the other medals are not picture well enough to distinguish but Tumblety would later claim they were the Iron Cross of Prussia…



Henry Carr most likely had the 1872 engraving of Tumblety not the 1871 photo, since the case was in 1873. We should actually be looking at the engraving and comparing it with the other photo.

Mike

[Brenda]

.

The man on the right side has arched and groomed his eyebrows.

[mklhawley]

The photographs are obviously of two different men so they aren't both of Tumblety. Until some actual proof is offered (as opposed to conjecture) as to where the photo that appeared in Storey's book came from AND, more importantly, why it is supposed to be a photo of Francis Tumblety; AND exactly why it doesn't match Tumblety's own photo of himself; AND why Henry Carr's father used Tumblety's photo in a Court of Law to identify Tumblety if it wasn't an actual photo of him, then Storey's photo must be considered to be of someone else. The existing evidence and provenance sides with Tumblety's own picture of himself being genuine.

Wolf.

I agree 100% wolf, but I'd recommend not putting too much money on it.

Mike