OT- Old "Cowboy" Cabinet Photo?

[rangerider7]

Is this young fellow a true cowboy or a "want to be"? I will let the experts talk first and explain their reasons for yes or no. Let's have some fun!

[Andrew]

Too clean, no wrinkles in his clothing of any kind, and he's not holding the pistol with very much confidence: kind of like it's his first time.

VOTE: Poser

[FWiedner]

His outfit doesn't look contrived. Everything seems in place, but brand spankin' new.

A fine lookin' young fellow. Just like the models you see in catalogs today.

I vote wannabe.

[kimwcook]

Most cowboys/buckaroo's had their pictures taken after the end of the trail, when they were paid off for the drive and they replaced their old worn out clothes and accoutrements with new. Granted some of the old pictures were propped, but a lot of them weren't and they looked just like this young man. I'll say one thing, the clothes and accessories are top notch. The props, not so much. Makes me think the young man is a true cowboy as they generally bought quality when they could as it did the job. That's my vote and I'm stickin' to it.

[C. Cash]

Don't confuse me for an expert, but here goes. He might be a real Cowboy, but the stuff he has on seems to be props. No ammo in his belt, chaps brand new, gun belt so big it would flop around like mad if you were on a fast moving horse. Everything looks too good. I have seen men from that generation point their pistols like that with their elbows bent, and he does look like a working feller. So, again...could be a rough tough cowboy, but some of the stuff, like the chaps and gun leather, look like props.

[2ndovc]

Ya gotta cock that thing to make it work boy! As the Old Man would say.

And get yer finger off the trigger!!


Looks like he's kinda afraid of that shooter.

Neat photo though.

I've got to sit down and scan some of the ones I've got.

jb

[J Miller]

Wannabee or not he's got huge hands. If that's a full sized colt that guys hands are bigger than John Waynes and his hands were big. Just look at the white knuckles on his hand and then visualize where the grip would be in that paw. Of course that Colt could be a Bisley by they way he's holding it.

I vote a real cowboy with new duds.

Joe

[gundownunder]

Just my opinion and could be all wrong but it seems to me the scenery behind him is a prop. The grain bag to the right looks two dimensional, and the grasses or grain growing to his left appears to be growing out of the frame of the prop. If he is a real cowboy he is wearing his Sunday best hat cause its seen no dirt or wear ands tear. I dont know if they're chaps or trousers he's wearing but the leather looks too fine, almost like vinyl.

[Gun Smith]

Looks like a SAA hammer. Boy his paws are huge. My little finger is almost flush with the bottom of a SAA grip. I don't see the grain bag.

[2ndovc]

That's no Bisley. Sits too high in his hand.

I can't see a grain bag either.

Really looks like he's posing w/ his new duds.

Even the rocks he's siting on are posing

But I've had a couple "shooters" this evenig

jb

[Sixgun]

He is probably the real deal because what other occupation was there for a young man in Montana? The SA Colt is not his. Looks like a nickel plated engraved one. In fact, I think thats the exact gun I have downstairs. ------------Sixgun

[rangerider7]

Let me put in my opinion. I agree with kimwcook, They got new duds when they had money after the drive. He is wearing all new goods. The Colt probably is a prop, most cowboys left them in their bedroll and didn't wear them in town. He probably got the new goods for the trip home or for working on the ranch he brought the herd to. The goods he has on are top quality for the 80s. I noticed the boots the most. They fit him exactly as do the spurs, leathers and chains even though they look new too. The boots have been walked in probably to the studio or close by. No studio boots wood fit that good. Most of the studio cowboys had on their tie shoes or brogans. It is a great photo and I could be all wet, but it is fun to try and make an educated guess. Here is a photo of my wife's grandfather after he got back to De Leon, Texas from a 800 mile cattle drive from Hereford to Alpine, Texas in 1898. He took the photo to remember it by. As you can see he is a little worn. He took the train home and wasn't staying in the cattle business. Keep them coming!

[Griff]

I'm gonna agree with Kim also. New duds at the end of the drive. And Wiley's was a photo studio that would have had the requisite prop to outfit the drover and the dude alike, just the drover would have required no clothing. Aged photos, especially the sepia tones of the tintypes sometimes loose details such a definite tan line at the wrist and brow line I would anticipate seeing on a young cowboy that has been out in the sun for several months, wearing hat and long sleeve shirts all the time.

This young man's face appears to be darker in the area just under the eyes, not at the browline as I would expect. However, this could simply be due to the age of the photograph or the brightness of the overall photo to bring out some of the details in his outfit.

Again, his boots don't appear new, but not all that worn either, as one would expect of a drover that spend at least 50% of his time ahorseback. I disagree about his hands appearing all that large. An average size man's hand would place the little finger below the grip frame of a Colt SAA. That appears to be a 5-½" Colt, and as the average man's hand is about 4" across at the knuckles, his hand may be average in size. The one piece of equipment that he appears to lack are leather cuff's. Now, he may not have seen the need as a drover, but a cowhand working a ranch would want them for roundups where ropework is likely to get furious and tough on exposed wrists. I've never used them myself, but then I haven't done that much rope work.

A townie or dud would much more likely be wearing his own broghams or a lace up shoe rather than boots. That style heel is also distinctive, appearing to be of the "Coffeyville" style where it is curved, rather than just a slanted heel as would have been found in TX.

Rangerider, if you have more info, does this just happen to be a know hand on one of Goodnight's drives?

Yes, this is interesting, also I found this on Wikipedia under "Tintype" and it explains some of the anomolies we've noted in other period photographs:

"While the ambrotype remained very popular in the rest of the world, the tintype process had superseded the ambrotype in the United States by the end of the Civil War. It became the most common photographic process until the introduction of modern, gelatin-based processes and the invention of the reloadable amateur camera by the Kodak company. Ferrotypes had waned in popularity by the end of the 19th century, although a few makers were still around as late as the 1950s and the images are still made as novelties at some European carnivals.

The tintype was a minor improvement to the ambrotype, replacing the glass plate of the original process with a thin piece of black-enameled, or japanned, iron (hence ferro). The new materials reduced costs considerably; and the image, in gelatin-silver emulsion on the varnished surface, has proven to be very durable. Like that of the ambrotype, the tintype's image is technically negative; but, because of the black background, it appears as a positive. Since the tintype 'film' was the same as the final print, most tintype images appear reversed (left to right) from reality. Some cameras were fitted with mirrors or a 45-degree prism to reverse (and thus correct) the image, while some photographers would photograph the reversed tintype to produce a properly oriented image.

Tintypes are simple and fast to prepare, compared to other early photographic techniques. A photographer could prepare, expose, develop, and varnish a tintype plate in a few minutes, quickly having it ready for a customer. Earlier tintypes were often cased, as were daguerreotypes and ambrotypes; but uncased images in paper sleeves and for albums were popular from the beginning.

Ferrotyping is a finishing treatment applied to glossy photo paper to bring out its reflective properties. Newly developed, still-wet photographic prints and enlargements that have been made on glossy paper are Squeegeed onto a polished metal plate called a ferrotyping plate. When these are later peeled off the plate, they retain a highly reflective gloss."

[RIHMFIRE]

well... I pretty much agree with you guys...
but... i'll bet that fellow did'nt do much shooting...
look at they way he is holding that hogleg...
elbow is bent way to much....
great pictures!

[gundownunder]

Sorry, I thought it was a bag of grain. What ever "that thing" is in the picture next to his holster looks two dimensional.

[rangerider7]

gundownunder, the photo was taken in a studio. The photographer had backdrops painted to make it look like anything he wanted or the person that was being photographed would choose what he or she liked. It was probably supposed to be a corner pillar for a fence or something like that. I hope this helps. Griff, I don't know any details about the photo. Sorry

[C. Cash]

well... I pretty much agree with you guys...
but... i'll bet that fellow did'nt do much shooting...
look at they way he is holding that hogleg...
elbow is bent way to much....
great pictures!

I believe that was the way men held their pistols then....I've seen a number of photos of AZ and TX Rangers holding their pistols with bent elbows like that, though we tend to do it differently today.

[Gun Smith]

Well, we sure had fun with this one! Got any more?

[rangerider7]

C.Cash, I agree, many of the old Texas Rangers photos shot outdoors at their camp had the ranger pointing his revolver with a bent elbow.

[RIHMFIRE]

C.Cash, I agree, many of the old Texas Rangers photos shot outdoors at their camp had the ranger pointing his revolver with a bent elbow.

REALLY?
LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERYDAY....

[Griff]

Well, I'll add one technical reason his, & others, may pose with their elbows bent; cameras were large affairs, most often a single aperature lens which controls depth of field... so, if you were going to spend 25-50¢ of yer hard earned money, ya wouldn't want that $11 Colt to be all fuzzy and get mistaken for a $9 Remington! Remember photos were an expensive luxury, representing 5-10 beers which had been very scarce during the previous 3-4 months studyin' the southend of northbound bovines.

[JerryB]

I think the boy is a real hand. As far as the bent elbow goes, I believe Russel and Remington both painted scenes with the elbow bent holding a sixgun.