Great old western cabinet photo! Identified!

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:52 am

What do you think?

Don McDowell · Post by **Don McDowell** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:12 am

"what do you think?"
I think it won't be to long until an entire batch of wishtheywas's that couldn't last a day in that mans place will be along to bash and smash and belittle.....

jnyork · Post by **jnyork** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:15 am

Great shot, guy is the real deal for sure, likely a lawman, I think. Thanks for posting.

kimwcook · Post by **kimwcook** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:19 am

Great picture. Looks like a ranger. Real deal.

Terry Murbach · Post by **Terry Murbach** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:25 am

WONDERFUL !!! THE REAL McCOY RIGHT THERE IN ALL HIS WESTERN SPLENDOR.

20cows · Post by **20cows** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:28 am

The occasion does appear to be a traveling photographer passing through. The photo is taken outside, but there is a painted backdrop behind the subject. I recon the photographer set up shop on the street and took anybody's picture that was willing to pay for a portrait.

This is by no means a statement as to the authenticity of the subject. (I do note the first response might put a lot of reviewers on the defensive).

.45colt · Post by **.45colt** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:49 am

Could be a Young Gus from Lonesome dove.Great picture. I see the rifle is on the left side of the horse. seems most I have seen have been on the other side. Any reason for this.?

20cows · Post by **20cows** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:12 am

Personal preference, just like the crossdraw holster.

Batman1939 · Post by **Batman1939** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:34 am

Hanging the rifle on the left side would make it more readily accessible upon dismounting--in the event of attack by hostile forces or if one were attempting to "make meat".

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:58 am

I think that is a kewl reminder of how it was and in fewer cases, how it is. thanks

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:48 pm

A genuine specimen... Wonder what his line of work was, using that outfit???

Borregos · Post by **Borregos** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:49 pm

Looks like he is ready for anything

jp · Post by jp » Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:04 pm

Can't see a lawman letting anything get in the way of his gungrip. Namely the knife.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:06 pm

I think the man in the photo could have been real.

I think the man in the nasty post is a fake.

Leverluver · Post by **Leverluver** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:14 pm

Interesting that it appears to be a pistol gripped short rifle. Not terribly common for a "working" man. Probably a little more well heeled than the average puncher.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:27 pm

That fellow spent money for the best. His rig is far from what a working cowboy could afford.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:40 pm

That knife handle is not in the way of his pistol grip. The knife handle is pretty tight to his body, the pistol grip is not but is in good position for the crossdraw grab, where the hand and fingers come onto the grip on the outside, away from the body. A tinhorn poseur would not likely have his gun in a cross draw position. I also prefer to keep my right side free of things hanging off my belt, so there is merit to having the knife also on the left side, provided the handle is tight to the body. I think the fellow is the real deal. In fact, given a number of things I see in the photo, it would be hard to argue he was not the real deal.

I also have an old photo in one of my books that shows a number of fellows from the early 1870's. What struck me is the number who had BOTH a sixgun and some sort of Bowie type knife on their belt.

One other thing. That rifle is a deluxe with a pistol grip. That tells me two things. First, a photo studio is not going to have a deluxe pistol grip rifle as a prop. Second, it tells me this man is a shooter, i.e., he appreciates a nice rifle and is prepared to put the extra money it takes to get one, yet the fact that he is carrying it in a scabbard tells me he is a practical man ..... i.e., his gun was bought to be both enjoyed AND used.

I think he has some money. Not only does he own a deluxe Winchester, but the grips on his pistol and his knife appear to be ivory. He has a pocket watch in his vest. Of course, it is possible that he spent his cattle drive money on a first class outfit, so one cannot say for sure, and then he was passing by when he spotted the photographer set up on the street, ready to photo the fellows with their new duds which they bought at the end of the drive.

The horse has both the bridle and the halter on. I've been thinking about that. It means that he intends to tie his horse up securely. When I was back home and would go on a day trip with my horse, when I tied him up for anything more than half an hour, I'd take his saddle and bridle off and tie him up using his halter. In other words, it was handy to have both the halter and bridle on. If, however, I was working with cattle on our farm, where I'd be working for a few hours, then come back to the yard, the halter would stay behind. If this were a prop horse, I think they'd take the halter off to make it look more 'authentic'. I think this horse is being used by the fellow in the photo, and he is expected to tie up his horse various times during the trip to town, or even overnight in the livery stable.

I have to admit that I do not like how tight those reins are, though. At least his horse is not going to dip his head down with the reins like that .... maybe he wants his horse to keep his head up for the photo. The stirrups look to be about the right length. When all is said and done, I think he's the real deal, with enough money to afford a nice outfit.

bmtshooter · Post by **bmtshooter** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:00 pm

I was just curious if the horse's tack provides a clue for any of you folks?

RIHMFIRE · Post by **RIHMFIRE** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:55 pm

nice pic
looks like a cattle baron...
nice shooters....cloths..boots...
but his horse look a little rough....

pokey · Post by **pokey** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:27 pm

not a puncher, law of some sort or another.
wish he'd take a step back so i could see his saddle a bit better.

about that six shooter, i can think of three possible explanations
1. it usually sits on his right hip, and he spun it around his belt for the camera.
that would explain why his knife is in front.
2. he's a lefty[or there is another on the right] and favors a reversed draw.
3. ex-military, right side, butt forward, as issued. old habits are hard to break.

like was mentioned, nice rifle.

horse looks like a tough trail horse, quarter x cayuse.
by truck, out of state.

rimrock · Post by **rimrock** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:41 pm

I have to say this is a city slicker because the saddle pad is too fancy for cow punchin. There's something strange about the horse's left front foot--it appears much longer than the other 3. Also, the three "normal" hooves are trimmed too vertical--that horse couldn't go long distances with that hoof angle, but it might be a freight wagon horse and not a tack horse since it resembles a draft horse.

The saddle is slick forked (no bucking rolls) not something a regular range rider would use. The saddle horn is not for hard and fast ropin usually done on the range. There's no rope awywhere near the saddle, and a cow puncher would have one.

rimrock

pokey · Post by **pokey** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:38 pm

rimrock wrote:I have to say this is a city slicker because the saddle pad is too fancy for cow punchin. There's something strange about the horse's left front foot--it appears much longer than the other 3.[there is a mark on the ground in front of the near front that makes it look funny, i think.] Also, the three "normal" hooves are trimmed too vertical[the rear hooves are a little steep,but not that bad ]--that horse couldn't go long distances with that hoof angle, but it might be a freight wagon horse and not a tack horse since it resembles a draft horse.[i don't see any cold blood showing, no leg feathers, no huge feet, a little beefier than the run of the mill back then perhaps.]

The saddle is slick forked (no bucking rolls) not something a regular range rider would use. The saddle horn is not for hard and fast ropin usually done on the range. There's no rope awywhere near the saddle, and a cow puncher would have one.

rimrock

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:59 pm

I'm thinking you found another very cool photo!!!

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:51 am

That's pretty darn cool and I'm really curious about what his business was in that outfit. That's a pricey rig he's got assembled there and I noticed the high grade rifle right away also. Very interesting!!

Oly

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:22 am

A couple more comments about the sixgun/knife combination and location:

1. On page 72 of R.L. Wilson's Winchester: an American Legend, there is a photo of Company D, Texas Rangers, taken around 1887. It is hard to see the belts and equipment of the men in the back row, but in the front row there are six men. At least four of them are wearing both a sixgun and a bowie knife. Three of them have the knife on the same side as their pistol, with the pistol in the strong side and the knife forward of it. The fourth fellow has both his pistol and his knife right in the front, with both pointing down toward his crotch. What I see is a propensity for wearing both the knife and the pistol on the same side of the belt.

2. In the back row, I can see one fellow wearing his pistol in the cross draw position alongside his knife, with the pistol grip pointing at the knife grip. He is a lefty and both the pistol and knife are mounted right on the front of his belt.

3. I strapped on my gunbelt with the holster in the cross draw position and the bowie knife in the position shown in the old cabinet photo. The knife handle did not in any way interfere with a rapid cross draw. The knife is tight to the body, and the pistol grip tilts out from the body. I prefer wearing the rig this way when in the wilderness, as the angle of the gun stays out of the way much better when sitting, bending over, etc then it does when mounted on the strong side, unless it is hitched way up, which I do not like at all.

4. From what I've read in a book I have called Gunfighters, a look at the actual history of these men, the vast majority of men who packed a pistol where not fast draw men and they did not depend upon a fast draw, nor did they ever actually get into any shoot outs. For the fellow in the photo, even though I do not think his knife interferes with his cross draw, he may never have had to draw on a man and he, like most, may not have seen a need to practice fast draw (in spite of the belief that there were regular quick draw shoot-outs all the time in the Old West). Although I enjoy practicing a fast cross draw, control is much, much more important to me than speed. In the Old West, according to one fellow in that book I mentioned, the fellow who took enough time to take careful shots was the winner more often than not. Bottom Line: if that fellow was a city slicker, he'd have the pistol on his strong side, the knife on the other side, because that is what he would naturally think is the 'right' way to wear them.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the west did not consist of nothing but cow punchers and city slickers. The owner of the ranch, or his sons, might be able to work cattle as well as their hands, but might have more cash to spend on a nice outfit. There were a whole range of people who rode and packed iron and they were not all cowpunchers.

Just a few thoughts, none of which I'd be willing to stake the farm on.

COSteve · Post by **COSteve** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:29 pm

KirkD wrote:I have to admit that I do not like how tight those reins are, though. At least his horse is not going to dip his head down with the reins like that .... maybe he wants his horse to keep his head up for the photo. The stirrups look to be about the right length. When all is said and done, I think he's the real deal, with enough money to afford a nice outfit.

That rein length looks like it's a Mexican set as they like them shorter there. Also, the saddle horn is larger like the Mexican's like them. I'm guessing that his tack is a Mexican or Mexican influenced set. Maybe this guy is from close to the border where the two different styles mingle.

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:43 pm

Walter Durbin, Texas Ranger Co. D, 1888, Rio Grande City, Texas

Here is a more familiar Photo that will settle a few of the observations. He is forth from the left, seated. 1888 in Realitos

Walter Durbin was a man not to be trifled with, he killed quite a few men in gunfights. I was friends with Robert Stephens when he wrote his Biography.

Hillbilly · Post by **Hillbilly** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:45 pm

That saddle horn pattern shows up on a lot of 1880-90's Texas built saddles. Any idea were that photo was taken?

If he's not a law man, he could be full time help-like a ranch foreman or something. Who knows?--- but it's a neat photo.

Edited... posted without reading the whole thread

jnyork · Post by **jnyork** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:08 pm

Interesting in that for the seated photo he wears his revolver and knife on his right side in a normal manner. In the standing photo, the revolver is worn on his left in a crossdraw rig.

airedaleman · Post by **airedaleman** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:51 pm

Looks to me like Durbin's fancy rifle is an 1876...

Buck Elliott · Post by **Buck Elliott** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:08 pm

Like a lot of old boys who posed to "get their picture made..." he twisted his knife and belt gun around to make sure they got in the photo... they were necessary tools of his trade, and a badge of his office...

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 4:03 pm

Ha! That was the very photo I was referring to in my previous post. Little did I know that the same fellow was in that photo. I guess we can safely say that he's the real deal. This was interesting and enjoyable, Rangerider. I do agree with Airdaleman that the rifle looks like a '76, judging from a comparison I made with the buttstock between a deluxe '73 and a deluxe '76. I think there is more drop in the deluxe '73 whereas this one looks more like the '76 drop.

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 6:17 pm

The man sitting to Durbin's right is Capt. Frank Jones. He was later killed on the border by Mexican bandits in 1893. The five Rangers with him at the time each made a list of the bandits and would mark through their name when they were notified by one of the others that one of the bandits had met his death until all were dead. The list was pretty long.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:18 pm

Buck Elliott wrote:Like a lot of old boys who posed to "get their picture made..." he twisted his knife and belt gun around to make sure they got in the photo... they were necessary tools of his trade, and a badge of his office...

That is possible, but I noticed that if he simply twisted his belt around, the knife should be behind the gun, not in front of it. It is possible that he did relocate both the gun and knife for the photo, but he would have had to remove both the pistol and the knife in order to relocate the knife. The other option is that he was comfortable with both cross draw and strong side draw, but always preferred to have his knife forward of his pistol regardless of side. I sure would love to read an account of he and his partners' experience as a Texas Ranger. Someone mentioned on this forum that one of the Texas Rangers did write an account or a book. Does anyone recall that?

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:25 pm

I was just studying the group foto. Top row, second in from the right ... that does not look like a Winchester to me.

Also all the Colts I can see have ivory grips.

That's a pretty fancy bunch of law men.

Joe

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:31 pm

J Miller wrote:Top row, second in from the right ... that does not look like a Winchester to me.

Also all the Colts I can see have ivory grips.

Joe, is that a Spencer he's holding? By the way, that is the fellow I referred to earlier who is a lefty and is wearing his pistol in the cross draw position. His particular pistol looks to have wood grips.

Malamute · Post by **Malamute** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:32 pm

J Miller wrote: Top row, second in from the right ... that does not look like a Winchester to me. Joe

Looks like a Colt/Burgess Joe. Anyone else have a thought?

KirkD wrote:...I do agree with Airdaleman that the rifle looks like a '76, judging from a comparison I made with the buttstock between a deluxe '73 and a deluxe '76. I think there is more drop in the deluxe '73 whereas this one looks more like the '76 drop.

Kirk, a simple way to determine between a 73 and 76 when scale isnt evident, the rear edge of the receiver terminates in the hammers rear arc on a 76, it terminates behind the hammer on a 73.

J Miller · Post by **J Miller** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:47 pm

Kirk, Malamute,

I was thinking the same; Colt Burgess. I looked at the Colt page here
http://www.leverguns.com/leverguns/colt ... vergun.htm
and I think that's what it is.

Kirk, I didn't see that guys pistol because it was so dark. Matter of fact all the pistols in the back row have wood or hard rubber grips.

Joe

kimwcook · Post by **kimwcook** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 8:56 pm

Okay, rr7, what do I get for getting it right?

LOL

NonPCnraRN · Post by **NonPCnraRN** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:11 pm

J Miller wrote:I was just studying the group foto. Top row, second in from the right ... that does not look like a Winchester to me.

Also all the Colts I can see have ivory grips.

That's a pretty fancy bunch of law men.

Joe

I guess they believed that killing bad guys didn't mean you couldn't look good while doing it! I wish we had that bunch in AZ right about now. Truth be told I have the feeling that the present Gov of AZ wouldn't mind having them there either.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:14 pm

I was going to say the horse photo might be reversed, since his rifle appeared to be on the mounting side. But, the seated photo makes it look like he did, indeed, rotate his revolver around to the left side to be seen in the photo.

If we only knew why he really did the things he did. We'd probably be amazed at how little we knew.

rangerider7 · Post by **rangerider7** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:21 pm

KirkD, look on Google for "WALTER DURBIN" Texas Ranger And Sheriff by Robert W. Stephens. It doesn't cost much and is a good factual read of his life and the Frontier Battalion.

kimwcook, you get an at-a-boy!

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:23 pm

That was very neat to see Rangerider. Thank you. I love a good mystery solved.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:37 pm

Malamute wrote:Kirk, a simple way to determine between a 73 and 76 when scale isnt evident, the rear edge of the receiver terminates in the hammers rear arc on a 76, it terminates behind the hammer on a 73.

I couldn't tell from the photo posted above, so I checked the photo in Wilson's book, which is clearer. It is a Model 1876 deluxe with checkering. That Walter Durbin had class. Thanks, Rangerider, for the tip on the biography. I'll look forward to the read.

airedaleman · Post by **airedaleman** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:03 pm

Relative size of '73/'76 receivers is easy to spot...

Hankster · Post by **Hankster** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:07 pm

As to the horses feet... hard to see it's so grainy... but the back look a bit off. It wasn't uncommon then, especially in that area, to shoe the front, and run the back barefoot. That could account for the rear looking a bit different, tho they SHOULD have been trimmed equal! We ride ours barefoot all the time... only "boot up" the front if we go where it's REALLY harsh.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:14 pm

He may have worn it in the cross draw sometimes for no particular reason at all, other than to break the monotony.

VERY neat photos! Thanks again Rangerider!

bogie

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:18 am

Spiffy get-up. But then Texas Rangers were not known to be "shrinkin' violets". Unoubtedly he was showin his matchin' handles off!

If Texas Rangers didn't invent the "BBQ gun", they certainly took to the idea like a duck to water!

TX50Cal · Post by **TX50Cal** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:44 am

[/quote]
That is possible, but I noticed that if he simply twisted his belt around, the knife should be behind the gun, not in front of it.[/quote]
If the gun was worn on the right side, the knife would be behind the gun. When he twisted the rig around the knife would be in the front on the left side.

KirkD · Post by **KirkD** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:05 am

TX50Cal wrote: If the gun was worn on the right side, the knife would be behind the gun. When he twisted the rig around the knife would be in the front on the left side.

But my point was that in the group photo, when the gun was worn on the right side, the knife was in front of the gun (on the opposite side as the pistol grip), not behind. In the single photo, the knife is on the same side as the pistol grip. He could not have simply twisted his belt around. He would have had to remove both the pistol and the knife to switch them around for the individual (cross draw) photo, assuming the group shot shows the way he normally wore it (strong side). Of course, as I mentioned before, he may have been comfortable wearing either strong side or cross draw.