2nd Beaver Smith lens image

[Nosameer6]

Hello all,

This is my first post. I noticed there are two Beaver Smith Saloon portraits posted in the Billy the Kid museum. It's even shown in the YouTube video" Brad Meltzer's decoded: Billy the Kid's mysterious Death (S2,E6) at 37:50.
You can lookup "Billy the Kid Museum Family days out" on Google images as well.

There are two different Beaver Smith Saloon images of Billy the Kid!! I am not sure which lens out of the four yet it's a dead-on image(pun intended). The different images are next to each other

www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbillythekidmuseumfortsumner.com%2Fuploads%2F1%2F3%2F1%2F0%2F131043196%2Fbilly-portrait_orig.jpg&tbnid=xd8_8TeG29MXeM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.billythekidmuseumfortsumner.com%2Fabout-billy.html&docid=Vv781RFAj0w1JM&w=247&h=666&itg=1&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2




So the question is where did the BTK Museum get the other image that they have blown up? Did they enlarge the image from another tin type? If so, cha ching.. if not, how has nobody noticed this. Consequently, he looks much more sublime and symmetrical. In addition, this means another comparison can be made of Brushy, this time without using AI because the image is not bleached out. My theory is this..
Now that there is a verified other lens image available, and un-edited, un-altered etc etc.. We should ask why the mile wide difference in quality? He actually was a handsome individual that was cast in such a polarizing light..Heyo!! I think they wanted to embarrass him, kinda like what they did to John Tunstal with his horse. I think back then the image was bleached out to make him look "uncooth", when all the while they(Lew Wallace, Sante Fe Ring and Garrett) had this #2 lens image from the original photoshoot outside Beaver Smith Saloon.
The Billy the Kid Museum blew up this other image and I'll just say it's a forgone conclusion it's probably worth millions.

[Wayne Land]

I have studied the photo very carefully in comparing to the other tintype (long believed to be the only one) and I believe it is indeed a separate photo taken the same day as the other one. Likely the two shots were taken back to back or one right after the other. Tell tell signs that make it pretty conclusive are:

1) the hat is shaped different
2) his right hand is posed differently
3) the right lapel of his vest is visible in this second photo with shadowing right below it that doesn't show up at all in the other photo
4) his facial expression is slightly different as in position of the mouth, more squinting eyes.
5) it appears the camera was in a lower position looking more up toward him because his head seems smaller in relation to the size of his body. This is partially due to the angle the camera was looking at the photo as it lay inside the display case, but I don't think that explains the difference fully.
6) his right shoulder is not sloped nearly as much
7) his right earlobe looks more attached because the oxidation spot that distorts the other photo is not present.

I believe this is a separate distinct photo from the other one. It is not an original tintype because it is too large and appears to have been restored some. (not sure about that) So it wouldn't have the value of the Koch purchase. It's just a photo of a photo. It has even been reversed to correct the problem tintypes had of reversed images.

This is exciting and profound. Thank you so much for finding this and pointing us to it.

[Wayne Land]

Here are the two tintypes side by side. Look carefully and I think everyone will agree these are two separate photos.

[Nosameer6]

Jan 24, 2024 21:18:14 GMT -5 Wayne Land said:

I have studied the photo very carefully in comparing to the other tintype (long believed to be the only one) and I believe it is indeed a separate photo taken the same day as the other one. Likely the two shots were taken back to back or one right after the other. Tell tell signs that make it pretty conclusive are:

1) the hat is shaped different
2) his right hand is posed differently
3) the right lapel of his vest is visible in this second photo with shadowing right below it that doesn't show up at all in the other photo
4) his facial expression is slightly different as in position of the mouth, more squinting eyes.
5) it appears the camera was in a lower position looking more up toward him because his head seems smaller in relation to the size of his body. This is partially due to the angle the camera was looking at the photo as it lay inside the display case, but I don't think that explains the difference fully.
6) his right shoulder is not sloped nearly as much
7) his right earlobe looks more attached because the oxidation spot that distorts the other photo is not present.

I believe this is a separate distinct photo from the other one. It is not an original tintype because it is too large and appears to have been restored some. (not sure about that) So it wouldn't have the value of the Koch purchase. It's just a photo of a photo. It has even been reversed to correct the problem tintypes had of reversed images.

This is exciting and profound. Thank you so much for finding this and pointing us to it.

Just doing my part to help Mr. Land.
I defer to this board to assess respectfully.

[RonBk]

8) Billy's left eyebrow is not raised but vertically aligned with his right eyebrow in the new photo.

9) The jawline is different

[Nosameer6]

Jan 27, 2024 17:22:33 GMT -5 RonBk said:

8) Billy's left eyebrow is not raised but vertically aligned with his right eyebrow in the new photo.

9) The jawline is different

Agreed Ron. Wayne, I concur with your assessment, and thank you for that. I didn't catch the lapel until you pointed it out. I believe the value is literally in the millions just by being the other only known photo of Billy the Kid, with all of the new comparisons and tracking for this other tin type floating out there somewhere.

[MissyS]

Which photo is closer to what he really looked like? Would there have been four of these taken? I have seen other variations and wondered about them also those are Paco Anaya’s picture of Billy the Kid and also Charlie Siringo’s photo in his book. Paco Anaya’s picture shows what looks like the same pose but Billy’s hand looks to be on the back of a chair?, and Charlie Siringo’s picture looks to be the same pose but darker clothes and hat looks different. They may be copies of the original but odd. Here is a link to those posts.

brushybill.proboards.com/thread/776/paco-anaya-photo-billy-kid

[Nosameer6]

Jan 29, 2024 11:17:10 GMT -5 MissyS said:

Which photo is closer to what he really looked like? Would there have been four of these taken? I have seen other variations and wondered about them also those are Paco Anaya’s picture of Billy the Kid and also Charlie Siringo’s photo in his book. Paco Anaya’s picture shows what looks like the same pose but Billy’s hand looks to be on the back of a chair?, and Charlie Siringo’s picture looks to be the same pose but darker clothes and hat looks different. They may be copies of the original but odd. Here is a link to those posts.

brushybill.proboards.com/thread/776/paco-anaya-photo-billy-kid

Excellent point, and yet there are two photos newly discovered of the original tin-type-set. 4 images were produced. The one I discovered is unaltered, and is showing the full frontal portrait of "Billy the Kid" at the highest resolution. Before, the "Slouching Billy" has always been altered, drawn, AI enhanced etc..

You now can reference the new Billy to any of the many matching likeness. I have a few I think are direct matches including the one where his hand is on the chair that you referred to Missy.

kchistory.org/image/billy-kid-and-friends

[noreaster]

Everyone'e eye is unique and sees different details. To my eye, the creases in the sweater and shirt are identical in both photos. If this was a different and unique picture, he did not move between shots. Someone would have had to adjust the hat. At first glance the photo looks almost like it was altered. However the shoulders are less sloped and also the angle of the rifle muzzle entering his hand looks a little different. The camera looks clearly to be at a different angle relative to the "known" photo however I do not think it would make those differences. His head looks to be a different proportion to the body, almost too small. Interesting photo, I am skeptical however its interesting..

[Nosameer6]

Jan 29, 2024 17:02:52 GMT -5 noreaster said:

Everyone'e eye is unique and sees different details. To my eye, the creases in the sweater and shirt are identical in both photos. If this was a different and unique picture, he did not move between shots. Someone would have had to adjust the hat. At first glance the photo looks almost like it was altered. However the shoulders are less sloped and also the angle of the rifle muzzle entering his hand looks a little different. The camera looks clearly to be at a different angle relative to the "known" photo however I do not think it would make those differences. His head looks to be a different proportion to the body, almost too small. Interesting photo, I am skeptical however its interesting..

I guess that's the point. To discuss it..

#1. It's in the museum. They make a habit of having the real thing.

#2. I think it's possible it may have just slipped through, and I caught it.

#3. My understanding is Garrett gave one of the tin types out of the four, of Billy, to be enlarged for Lew Wallace. It probably blended in and went unrecognized, until now..

#4. Scrutinize it all you want, his face is clear and matches other images in likeness in a clearer resolution than the uncouth Slouching tin type itself.

#5. Again, all the images you have ever seen of the original have been altered.. There have been many illustrated versions, some showing him with long hair. One version was printed he was relatively unrecognizable to the new one. One AI version has cleaned up the resolution to the point we can see the rust spots in some areas that distort that particular image. This upright Beaver Smith Saloon image has the intended resolution the camera was actually capable of. This is unique, and that's why I found it sitting in plain site.

[Wayne Land]

I'm pretty sure the only version of this picture we have to look at was taken while the photo was inside a glass case and was taken from a fairly steep angle, making the proportions look different. I'm also pretty sure it's not just the result of the view from a different lens, due to the differences I pointed out earlier. Most importantly, his head is not tilted in this photo and his hat is different.

[noreaster]

It is a great find and excellent post. Many thanks for both. I would love to understand the photo's context a bit better. Was there any captions with the photo? I ask because it looks like a yellow arrow pointing to the hat.

[Nosameer6]

Jan 29, 2024 20:40:25 GMT -5 Wayne Land said:

I'm pretty sure the only version of this picture we have to look at was taken while the photo was inside a glass case and was taken from a fairly steep angle, making the proportions look different. I'm also pretty sure it's not just the result of the view from a different lens, due to the differences I pointed out earlier. Most importantly, his head is not tilted in this photo and his hat is different.

I agree Wayne.. Remember, there was a gentleman standing next to him using a reflector board to alter the lighting. Lighting is everything in photography, and especially in this case we now see how drastically it can effect an image of an outlaw on the RUN.

Look at all the crappier versions in the media up until NOW. Other than the AI version (worked a little too well), this one is the exact same person in different lighting or RATHER a more respectable pose.

Maybe the different poses meant something on a Masonic symbolic sense. This was and is still prevalent in society. Uncooth vs Not uncooth.

This was in front of everyone and it's just so happens to be in the museum.

These are clues.. In my opinion, respectfully.

[Nosameer6]

Jan 29, 2024 20:40:25 GMT -5 Wayne Land said:

I'm pretty sure the only version of this picture we have to look at was taken while the photo was inside a glass case and was taken from a fairly steep angle, making the proportions look different. I'm also pretty sure it's not just the result of the view from a different lens, due to the differences I pointed out earlier. Most importantly, his head is not tilted in this photo and his hat is different.

The more I'm looking at the image the more this "angle" is becoming more of curiosity in as far as the lens goes. There are two sizes of heads. The only conclusion is, barring any shenanigans,... The lens has an outter distortion distance around it. If you pose it too close, and from the upper lens you'll have a bigger head..and thusly, the bottom cam is going to make the lower look bigger to smaller going up.

Case solved!! These two images are the upper right hand lens, and the newly discovered lower left side lens. The shadow differences are due to the contrasting light and positioning of camera or both. The head actually looks too big in the original, however, there is an equal angular distribution making the heads proportionally look relatively normal.

Do you understand? They were taking the image too close when they took it!!
Paulita was there when it was taken. And remember hearing about the body being displayed at Beaver Smith's saloon. It's very compelling.
The controversy, and the wonderlust of the story has these interesting details that lends itself to the mystique. All in all some of its getting easier to prove.

[Wayne Land]

The photo you're looking at is a snapshot of a photo that was lying inside a display case. The person taking the photo was standing with their camera pointed down at a steep angle rather than from directly above. That is clearly obvious and causes the difference in the size of the head, etc. But it "can not" account for the difference in the hat and the angle of the head which make it obvious the two images were not the result of one picture from different lenses, but rather two separate pictures, posed separately.