Comments on: “It will change our idea of her”: Is this the grown-up Emily Dickinson?

By: This Week’s Top Ten Poetic Picks | TweetSpeak Poetry

This Week’s Top Ten Poetic Picks | TweetSpeak Poetry — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:06:23 +0000

[...] up until now, only two photographs have been known to exist. The daguerreotype includes a friend, believed to be Kate Scott Turner, a friend who was mourning the loss of her husband. Dickinson’s stiff-arm gesture may have [...]

By: Poetry Project – Read a Classic in September | Regular Rumination

Poetry Project – Read a Classic in September | Regular Rumination — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:02:35 +0000

[...] Dickinson (December 10, 1830 – May 15, 1886) – With the possible discovery of a new photograph of Emily Dickinson, this poet has been in the news a lot the past few days. Emily Dickinson is, in my opinion, a [...]

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:43:34 +0000

A major difference, as far as I can see, is the chin. In the photo known to be Dickinson, the chin seems to be cleft and is on the small side. In the newly discovered photograph, the chin is much more prominent, and is fuller on the left side (i.e. our left). I also see a difference in the nose. Dickinson’s nose is squarer and wider. One last difference I see, which is not as significant as the first two, is that Dickinson had thin fingers with bony knuckles, while the woman in the other photograph has pudgier fingers. (I may be stretching things here, though.)

By: Possible Emily Dickinson photo surfaces, R.J. Ellory caught faking Amazon reviews, and more | Quillblog | Quill & Quire

Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:10:11 +0000

[...] this a photo of Emily Dickinson, all grown [...]

By: Mr. Lent

Mr. Lent — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 02:44:32 +0000

… and a closer reading of the Amherst College announcement makes several mentions of the “original daguerreotype” in a collector’s possession, and multiple modern copies using the same process on display at Amherst and the Emily Dickinson Museum. So it probably is a a daguerreotype. But are the copies reversed? Or re-reversed and right-way around now? Always more questions…

By: Mr. Lent

Mr. Lent — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 02:33:51 +0000

I find Phil’s observation about the mystery lady’s fingers compelling. Another point of comparison might be the mystery lady’s earlobes. 19th and early 20th century forensics focused on the earlobes as a possible unique identifying mark. The earlobe closest to the other sitter appears nearly identical to the one in the identified image of Dickinson at 16. Perhaps a high-resolution comparison could provide a match?

I’m avoiding using “left” and “right” to describe the sitter’s anatomy as the viewer of an original daguerreotype sees a mirror image, with left and right reversed. Whether the reproduced images have corrected for this or not, I cannot say. However … the newly-discovered image is reproduced here in a case with the hinge on the left. This would be the convention so it opens like a book. If so, we are seeing the two ladies in mirror image. So the mystery lady on our left, as we view the reproduction, would actually be sitting to the left of the known woman, Kate Scott Turner. Thus the mystery lady has her RIGHT arm around Turner. This seems reasonable. Was Dickinson right-handed?

I must also add, as an amateur photo historian, that while the image is described as a daguerreotype … is it really? A true daguerreotype has a highly-polished silver surface, and must be lighted just so to present a positive image to a viewer or a reproduction camera. The surface of this one seems dull … more like a tintype. I’m just asking …

By: Cynthia Haven

Cynthia Haven — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:42:21 +0000

But wait! I didn’t say that! I haven’t expressed any opinion at all!

Scholars weigh in, please.

By: Andrea Myers

Andrea Myers — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:36:22 +0000

I agree with Cynthia. I don’t think it’s her. Compare pics with this one that is presumed to be her in later years, which I think it is: http://www.unc.edu/~gura/dickinson/ed1.jpg And the one we all know: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Emily_Dickinson_daguerreotype.jpg I see nothing similar in the one above. =/

By: Jonathan Dickinson

Jonathan Dickinson — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 04:45:07 +0000

Sharp eyes indeed, Phil. The index finger certainly is distinctive. I focused on the similar wide set of the eyes, perhaps because it is a trait that seems to have persisted. You may have noted more nuanced similarities, Cynthia.

By: Cynthia Haven

Cynthia Haven — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 03:34:34 +0000

That’s what my post says. She apologized to friends about her out-of-fashion clothes. Early 50s would fit.