Source for this photo of Billy the Kid?

[MissyS]

I found this copy of a photo at an antique shop, it says it’s Billy the Kid printed on the bottom of it, and I was wondering about the source of the photo?, and if it has any provenance? It looks to me to have a little similarities to the Brushy photo below, with the eyebrows and part in hair, and also the bow tie. If the hair were a little over the ears and mustache missing on the Brushy photo then perhaps the two would look closer alike? Sorry if it’s not very clear, I tried to make it as clear as I can Thanks

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2021 16:50:35 GMT -5 MissyS said:

I found this copy of a photo at an antique shop, it says it’s Billy the Kid printed on the bottom of it, and I was wondering about the source of the photo?, and if it has any provenance? It looks to me to have a little similarities to the Brushy photo below, with the eyebrows and part in hair, and also the bow tie. If the hair were a little over the ears and mustache missing on the Brushy photo then perhaps the two would look closer alike? Sorry if it’s not very clear, I tried to make it as clear as I can Thanks

I don't know. Does the antique shop know where it came from? The reason I ask is that if you can find out how they obtained it, then you could establish provenance.

[Deleted]

It looks like it could have been drawn too.

[MissyS]

No I tried to get information when I purchased it but the seller couldn’t remember where it was purchased, it could be made from some kind of drawing and maybe stamped on a card? I don’t know? I thought I had seen it before somewhere maybe in a book?   

[Deleted]

I think I could have seen it in a book too. I am not sure. I have read so many of them. I wish I could help, but I don't know.

[Nosameer6]

Jul 1, 2021 17:34:30 GMT -5 MissyS said:

No I tried to get information when I purchased it but the seller couldn’t remember where it was purchased, it could be made from some kind of drawing and maybe stamped on a card? I don’t know? I thought I had seen it before somewhere maybe in a book?   

Found it here..

www.ebay.com/itm/285782026253?itmmeta=01HT41PFEY94ZFGP9NBK30RZ5H&hash=item4289efa80d:g:71YAAOSwg5JlAKqf

[MissyS]

The photo on EBay looks very close to the other, but I’m not sure it’s the same photo the other picture is made from? Interesting  🤔 

[tboor74]

They're similar but definitely not the same pic, look at the hair and eyebrows. I've seen both those pics pop up in various places before. The ebay one looks like a random pic to me,

[tboor74]

I do ponder the photography angle. Not in terms of getting a photo of the body of BTK, but in general. I've done a lot of reading the last couple of years, regarding the history of photography, from pre Civil War, through said war, and into the latter days of the West. It's a never ending rabbit hole, and very interesting.

The official ('proven') timeline is we have rudimentary photography stretching to New Mexico pre Civil War, scenery first, then Nicholas Brown and Matthew Brady gaining the trust of the natives to get some images. Presumably using advancements in the Daguerrian process, pioneered in France back in 1839 and brought across the water.   A shared assistant was William Pywell, who seems to have seen a lot, E to W, from Civil War, to being under Custer's control on the Yellowstone Expedition. There was then a chap whos's name I've not noted, but have written as German, who was allowed to take some up-close ceremonial images. There was also some use of photos proving how native children, who'd been taken away for education or medical treatment by the settlers, were doing, so trust was plainly established.

My point of intrigue is this, these were all renowned, accomplished photographers, who were operating way out West very early on. They were active pre and during the Civil War into NM, the timeline would suggest to me there would be plenty of coat-tail photographers, in the 2nd, 3rd wave etc, arriving in the West, offering to take pics of all and sundry. Drunk bandits letting off steam would have been first in line for a picture. Wannabes and show-offs would be pushing to the front of the queue.
There surely would have been lots of photos taken of the likes of Billy and his ilk, they were the internet heroes of their time? Bear in mind all the places they rode to / hid out at / dropped cattle off. They probably saw some of the same photographers in Texas that they saw in NM?

As always, just my thoughts. But as a celebrity of the day, if I was a photographer and heard BTK was in town, I'd make sure to get him in front of my camera.


Thoughts?

[MissyS]

Mar 29, 2024 15:57:03 GMT -5 tboor74 said:

I do ponder the photography angle. Not in terms of getting a photo of the body of BTK, but in general. I've done a lot of reading the last couple of years, regarding the history of photography, from pre Civil War, through said war, and into the latter days of the West. It's a never ending rabbit hole, and very interesting.

The official ('proven') timeline is we have rudimentary photography stretching to New Mexico pre Civil War, scenery first, then Nicholas Brown and Matthew Brady gaining the trust of the natives to get some images. Presumably using advancements in the Daguerrian process, pioneered in France back in 1839 and brought across the water.   A shared assistant was William Pywell, who seems to have seen a lot, E to W, from Civil War to being under Custer's control on the Yellowstone Expedition. There was then a chap whos's name I've not noted, but have written as German, who was allowed to take some up-close ceremonial images. There was also some use of photos proving where native children, who'd been taken away for education or medical treatment by the settlers, were doing, so trust was plainly established.

My point of intrigue is this, these were all renowned, accomplished photographers, who were operating way out West very early on. They were active pre and during the Civil War into NM, the timeline would suggest to me there would be plenty of coat-tail photographers, in the 2nd, 3rd wave etc, arriving in the West, offering to take pics of all and sundry. Drunk bandits letting off steam would have been first in line for a picture. Wannabes and show-offs would be pushing to the front of the queue.
There surely would have been lots of photos taken of the likes of Billy and his ilk, they were the internet heroes of their time? Bear in mind all the places they rode to / hid out at / dropped cattle off. They probably saw some of the same photographers in Texas that they saw in NM?

As always, just my thoughts. But as a celebrity of the day, if I was a photographer and heard BTK was in town, I'd make sure to get him in front of my camera.


Thoughts?

tboor74, Iv always been interested and fascinated with Historical photography. The fashions, and customs and historical events are like frozen in time. The photography process was like a new invention then. What a great way to spend a quarter to have a cherished picture of your baby or child or other loved one and yourself to keep and cherish. I can imagine back in the day a lot of people would if they could stand in line to get a photo taken when the traveling photographer was in town. I wonder how long the Kid had to wait in line? I wonder if the photographer knew it was Billy the Kid, or if the photographer was shaking in his boots hoping the photo turned out right, possibly scared he may be shot if it didn’t. It wasn’t a particularly good photo of Billy, and I wonder if he complained? But since he was famous I believe like you that a photographer would want to get him in front of his camera even paying him. 

[chivato88]

Tboor74, excellent post! Those who believes that BTK only had 1 photo of him taken , should read what you've written above

[RonBk]

I totally agree there should be a number of photos of the kid out there, and some of them are probably posted here on this board. However, Im not inclined to believe the photo in this thread is Btk. I don't see any resemblance. In my opinion, this is a completely different person.

[tboor74]

Mar 30, 2024 8:20:21 GMT -5 chivato88 said:

Tboor74, excellent post! Those who believes that BTK only had 1 photo of him taken , should read what you've written above

Thanks chivato88, as always, I'm just trying to keep the chat flowing, these discussions are so enjoyable and I love reading new insights on here, share what I think may be interesting, and try to be objective.

I firmly believe there will be numerous pics of most of the famous names we discuss out there, for the reasons stated above. 

The never-ending, irritating issue for people like us on this board, is clowns posting any random old pic / tintype / likeness they come across, and claiming it's a historical figure. Integrity is everything in life....some of the things out there are hilarious. Those sites with a series of pics of 'Subject A' over many years are beyond parody, it's clear there's a collection of random people in the photos.

Another angle to explore is when the pics were taken , ie, how many of us now may see a pic of ourselves, taken by a friend on a night out, appear on social media? How often does that pic not look like a true representation? Imagine being a young, reckless, cattle rustler, on day 3 of a whisky fuelled , payday celebration, back in the 1870s......  when a photographer pops up?

The outcome is obvious. I bet there were many cases of serious, hungover, regret. No wonder we find scrutinising old, grainy pics so hard.