New photo looks like a good match to Billy The Kid

[MissyS]

I haven't seen this one posted yet?, it does look like a good match to the famous tintype of Billy, comparison has been done.

m.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-photo-believed-clean-cut-billy-kid-article-1.1941269#bmb=1

[Wayne Land]

Actually the tintype image they are using here has already been flipped to the correct orientation and the pinky ring is on opposite hands. Also, this guy's hair is parted on the right and I'm pretty sure Billy's was parted on the left. A very good likeness though. Could be the real deal but I think they need to know the provenance. Ray DeAragon has presented other photos in the past. Why would he hold this one back? Why publish it now when his other photos were published years ago?

[sherlockholmes]

Wayne, your analysis is 100% correct.

[sherlockholmes]

Wayne, something very fishy is going on here. I was sent the news video of this identification and MissyS has sent you the newspaper version. It claims to be the 2nd authenticated photo of BTK. The Bean authenticated tintype also claimed that status about 1 year ago (and I do think it is BTK, although it does not quite look like him). But the fact that is missing from both stories(newspaper & video) is that DeAragon's tintype that sold in 1993 is actually the 2nd BTK tintype to be authenticated (although I am 99.99% convinced that it's not). Why does that matter? If I were to authenticate and knew that the same man had already had a BTK photo previously authenticated then I would not only compare the new photo to the BTK tintype, but to the 1st tintype that he had previously authenticated. You know as well as I that this new photo bears no resemblance to the 1 he sold in 1993. From what I take from the video, DeAragon never informed the examiner of the 1st tintype(since it is not mentioned) and she certified the "new" photo without knowing of the first ones existence. That is very, very, odd. As far as provenance, it is the same 'ole my great-great blah blah was a medicine woman(although he calls it something else) doctored BTK and he gave her this photo. this is exactly what he said about the tintype he owned. This is not a new photo as it is in that same book he has been showing for years and was likely one he had submitted to the LCHT in the late 1980's. He says he will not "sell" the new BTK photo as it is a family heirloom, and correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he say the same thing about the tintype he sold in 1993? Wayne, have any thoughts on this? Also, did you read the Interview:Keliy Anderson-Staley story? It does reasonably explain how tintypes are unpredictable and that the tintypes often do not "look" like the person who is being photographed. MissyS thank you for your input on the threads as you are a great asset to the discussions. Your "Crockett" reference was certainly helpful and keep on posting, and Wayne thank you for your work.

[MissyS]

I do think the photo is a good match mainly because of the teeth, I don't know how or why there's even any kind of match when one photo is turned the opposite way?, it's strange indeed. I want to quote something important from that article " And while one cannot make a perfect comparison, she says she is confident it is Billy the Kid in the photo." The words "cannot make a perfect comparison" tells me there couldn't have been one. I do think there is a slight difference in the eyebrows, & the article is misleading cus the expert said the hair matched, obviously that can't be true, Billy's hair in the genuine BTK photo cannot be seen under his hat, how can one photo having long hair and the other very short be called a match?,as far as the pinky ring matching; one is shiny, the other not, the reason is explained as being the lighting , how can that be certain?, and just how common was it back in the day for a gentleman to wear a gamblers ring on his pinky? I'v seen many photos of Billy that claimed to be him and there's no pinky ring in those photos, so the fact that there is a ring in the photo isn't much proof to me. My big question is how can an alleged photo of a famous person be considered genuine by just facial comparisons?, doesn't the proof of ownership have to be proven also? I thought that promenance had to be verified for a historical item to be auctioned or sold?, so when John De Aragon said he didnt want to sell, could he if he wanted? I don't believe many people would pay millions for a photo of a famous person and not have solid proof of origin, even if a photo album could be proven to have belonged to someone that was close to Billy The Kid and it was kept in the family for years, how can the photo be proven to have come from the album? Also I would guess the odds of finding that many photos of a young Billy The Kid in an album is probably astronomical considering the chances Billy had to pose for portraits while he was running for his life had to be slim? , but stranger things have happened I guess? Sherlockholmes you keep posting too, just like your name you've done good detective work on the boards.

[sherlockholmes]

MissyS, if done properly by a "real" expert(normally 3 months to a year of comparison) can lead to a satisfactory or high degree of certainty of whether a person is, or is not the famous person pictured. If sold, the buyers(or bidders) pay accordingly to their perceived accuracy of the identification. Tintypes are tricky to compare, as they do not often "look" like the person pictured. The BTK-Dedrick tintype comparison was made to the authentic tintype of BTK, and I do believe it is BTK, so it was a tintype/tintype comparison. Comparing tintypes to photographs is even trickier as features on tintypes may be distorted or exaggerated. The article on: Interview:Conversation with Keliy Anderson-Staley will explain much as she has probably taken more tintypes than anyone alive(more than 2000 by now). I do not agree with the new BTK photo id and we will see how it plays out. DeAragon can sell and ultimately will sell the photograph. The BTK-Dedrick will also be sold and we will see who the buyer's believe is the most accurate ID. The reason people are turning to facial recognition to ID photos is the shear volume of people who lie. Provenance has been corrupted at every level and can no longer be trusted. In your scenario, you are correct to point out that there is no way to know if a photo was original to an album or added later. As you point out the hair and pinky ring proof is ridiculous, unless the ring can be magnified to match another, it is no proof at all. The pinky ring(or gambler's ring) was common and is found on 1000's of tintypes of men in the 19th century. Chain of Custody (although preferred) cannot always be established. Famous paintings,relics,books,coins,etc., and even copies of the Declaration of Independence have been found and cannot fulfill the requirements of provenance and yet they are authentic. That being said, "true" partial provenance is very helpful. Even the Upham tintype of BTK does not have full provenance, but it does have the best partial provenance of any BTK photo ever verified. For something to have Full, True, Unbreakable Chain of Custody Provenance the item must be tracked from the maker(or originator) to present day. The photographer of the authentic BTK tintype is unknown and therefore even it cannot meet the criteria of Full or Total Provenance. This level of authenticity can rarely, if ever, be achieved.

[Wayne Land]

I've been out of pocket for a few days (vacation time/travel) but have also been intrigued by the discussions about whether a tintype "looks like" the person being photographed. I wanted to understand the "why" of that and the "how". I read the article referred to by sherlockholmes and it was very interesting. My take on it was more a discussion of the artistic qualities of tintypes vs. other medium. This lady is doing modern day tintype portraits and is discussing the reasons why she prefers tintypes. The article displays a number of her photographs and what I'm seeing is that the focus is off in the areas that are farther from the camera lens. Even a few inches as in the nose and eyes are in focus and the ears and neck are not. I don't know if she is doing that on purpose, but I suspect she is. Even modern photo techniques can easily achieve a similar effect and that is often used to bring out the subject more clearly than the background. In her photos, it is exaggerated more than I've seen it on other historic tintypes. Her comment that tintypes often don't "look like" the person in the photo, I believe, is describing the reaction of individuals who view the tintype of themselves or an acquaintance never having seen that person in a tintype before. The image is reversed, and her photos exaggerated the distortion of portions farther from the camera and so the gut reaction is "that doesn't even look like me". She wants that to be the case. She's an artist, not just a picture taker.

Bottom line is, I don't see any evidence that this means a tintype stretches dimensions of a photo in anyway. It can't make a persons arms longer are their eyes closer together or their nose wider, etc. While some facial features may be out of focus in a tintype, I believe they keep their correct size, proportion and proximity to other features.

I also question the "3 months to a year" being required to complete a valid comparison of facial features between two photos. If you have a photo and you send it to an "expert" to be evaluated, it might take months to get an answer but that's not because they spent that much time on the project. I don't believe the expert worked on a comparison full time (up to 8 hrs a day, 5 days a week) for 3 months to a year. If that is the assertion here, I"m sorry but I don't buy it.

Example, if you take two photos of a full body image and size them so they are the same height, and one of them has arms that are two inches or so longer than the other, that can not be attributed to the inaccuracy of a tintype. Those two people can not be the same person no matter how well everything else matches. One physical feature that is clearly different means the two photos are not the same person.

[sherlockholmes]

Wayne, the 3 months to 1 year was based on the assumption that the person was doing the comparison in much of their spare time. These experts have regular jobs. I should have been more clear on that point. I could not tell from the article whether she was manipulating the tintypes from an artists perspective (much like caricature portraits) or whether she was just trying to make "straight up" tintypes and they turned out that way. Tintype distortion is a known fact, but to what degree it actually effects the tintype has probably never been determined. It does not seem to follow any pattern. It would be nice to actually talk to this woman as I know of no person who has more experience to find out the answers to our questions. If I were buying(or bidding) on a tintype of a famous person (as MissyS talked about), I would give more weight to a tintype to tintype comparison, or in the case of a regular photo, a photo to photo comparison. As I have explained comparing photos is tricky enough, but trying to compare a photo to a tintype(with the uncertainty of the tintype process) is not something I believe Western Collectors are willing to gamble millions of $$$$$$$$$$'s on. When the DeAragon photo is sold (and it will be sold, despite his claim), and the BTK-Dedrick tintype is sold (owner has already said he is going to sell), we will see which photo ID the buyer's believe the most. You did see some of the extremely long necks on some of Anderson-Staley's photos. That is not normal, whether other parts of the body then become minimized in the process and the height is true or whether this would cause the actual person to appear taller overall is not known to me. I have also seen many tintypes where the hands or some other body part nearest to the camera seem unusually large and out of proportion. Two other points never discussed but are tintype relevant 1) Some tintypes can be positive (just like photos) and not negative images (as most tintypes are), by using either a mirror lens or a right-angle prism lens to make a tintype "look" as a photo would look. 2)Many people want to know why sandy-blonde to brown(and reddish) hair appear on tintypes as black hair. Answer: The photo sensitive emulsion on a tintype is not as sensitive to reds and shows up much darker. With my own experience pure blonde hair on a tintype shows up brownish except for a few highlights. Look at the BTK-Dedrick tintype and you will notice that the hair on BTK exhibits this phenomenon.

[sherlockholmes]

Wayne, I ended my post, and forgot to look on the backside of my notes and it answers your question as to whether these effects were induced for artistic reasons and here is the quote: "My portraits are odd, though, in the sense they don't always look like the person, in that features may be distorted or blemishes exaggerated, and they can look "off" in some way, even when they are beautiful". If she were manipulating the photos for artistic effect then she would not have made such a statement. She would have known they would be "odd" or "off" and would have given a different response. My interpretation is that she was taking "straight-up" portrait tintypes and the anomalies in the finished tintypes surprised her.

[Wayne Land]

I believe what she describes as distortion is just a blurring of parts of the picture, not a resizing of some parts compared to others. Blemishes can appear exaggerated because they are either more or less blurred than other portions. She is talking about blurring, not stretching or compressing parts of the photo. I believe so at least.

[MissyS]

Thank You so much Sherlockholmes for the information and the resource to learn about this artist and the art of tintype photograghy, also thanks for explaining the buying and selling aspect of alleged famous photos, I understand more how these photos are being sold, I guess the value depends on how much a buyer will pay? It will be interesting to see how much the Dedrick/Billy photo will sell for? In the BTK tintype a reflector was used to add light under the hat of Billy so his face would be better seen and not shaded or dark, I was wondering if this reflector could have caused some shading in places such as from the rim of the hat , the eyebrows, and nostrils and may explain eyebrows looking darker and thicker than other photos of him and one nostril larger than the other, and maybe even the facial skin to look lighter? there's photos that I believe is not BTK due to the eyebrows looking too thin and this could explain the difference? Sherlock you mentioned that the more recent photo wasn't compared to his other photo of Billy, thats interesting, I wonder if it did match?

[sherlockholmes]

[sherlockholmes]

Wayne, I think the Dedrick hand blows your theory out of the water. Please explain the tiny hand.

[sherlockholmes]

MissyS, if you've ever seen the DeAragon tintype it appears as if he has the largest ears in history. The cabinet photo does not look like that. In both the authentic tintype and the BTK-Dedrick Billy's ears do stick out, but that is because the hair behind ears is pushing his ears forward and in the DeAragon tintype the ears stick out with the hair draped over his ears and no hair behind them. Why someone authenticated it and an Historian accepted it are beyond me. Part of the reason to conclude it was BTK was because the ears stuck out and yet I used those same ears to conclude that it wasn't BTK. MissyS, there is so much going on when making a tintype just about anything can happen. Bad lighting(too much or too little), many times people could not sit completely still for the time needed for the tintype to look perfect, exposure times, the activator being put on too soon or too late, the varnish applied too early and many other factors. So one may ask why is it that I have seen tintypes that are nearly flawless? There were some really good tintype makers and few amateurs ever attempted it, so nice, clear tintypes did happen but aren't that common, but many of the clearer tintypes are actually tintypes of photographs. The tintype photographer would use a magnifying lens to make a tintype from a photograph and often times he did the same with paintings. The better the quality of the photograph(often retouched) or painting, then the better the tintype that was made from it.

[MissyS]

Sherlockholmes that DeAragon photo your refering to is the one that sold for $50.000, it is another one that has the thin eyebrows, if you compare it to yet another DeAragon photo the eyebrows are different, in one the eyebrows almost meet, and the nose looks different to me. Interestingly the photo on the bottom does look like the same photo of the second DeAragon photo? I do agree about the hair over the ears.

www.angelfire.com/mi2/billythekid/photos5.html