http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274510/Oldest-surviving-photograph-U-S-president-features-John-Quincy-Adams--called-hideous.html#axzz2JlTPdJAl

Wonder why this made the news? The Atlantic article linked from the Telegraph page says the photo has been known since 1970.

Really fine; he was the son of -- the second President? -- and was himself President. I'm guessing...the reasonably early 1800's. Isn't it a marvel that so many undiscovered relics of essentially lost yesterdays, ex. this photograph and Richard II's skeleton and battle-hacked skull, are coming to light. One wonders what the future might discover of the past, if Islam can be managed.

Agree jicky.

Photography started taking off right after Texas independence, so early 1840s. This photo was taken in 1843, so over a decade after Adams was president. Incidentally, it's not even the only photograph of him, just one of the earliest.

You know, I constantly wonder how close portraits were to what people actually looked like. It's easier to tell with people like Washington and Napoleon, because there are so many portraits and you can see what is consistent among them. For folks who there is just one portrait of, it's hard to be sure, but when you do find pictures like these, it generally lines up with the images.

Here is a comparison. The photo is a little later in life, but these portraits are pretty much dead on:



We can also look at early photos to get a better idea of what pre-photograph people looked like. A case in point is Juan Seguin. There are no photos of him in Republic of Texas days, but there is one from a couple of decades later:



Or Andrew Jackson, a pre-photo president who lived into the photo era:



[This message has been edited by aalan94 (edited 2/12/2013 1:10p).]

[This message has been edited by aalan94 (edited 2/12/2013 1:12p).]

Not to hijack this thread, but these A. Jackson photos look like Faces of Meth from the 1800s!

quote:

---

Or Andrew Jackson, a pre-photo president who lived into the photo era:

---

quote:

---

Really fine; he was the son of -- the second President? -- and was himself President. I'm guessing...the reasonably early 1800's. Isn't it a marvel that so many undiscovered relics of essentially lost yesterdays, ex. this photograph and Richard II's skeleton and battle-hacked skull, are coming to light. One wonders what the future might discover of the past, if Islam can be managed.

---

My goal is to be the one to find the fair copy of the declaration of independence. The copy that was signed and at the Smithsonian is from August, the fate of the copy that was actually agreed to in early July, known as the fair copy and only signed by 2 people, is unknown. It was used to make around 200 copies known as the Dunlap Broadsides, of which around 25 are known to exist. The last broadside that came up for auction went for around 8 million dollars, so it's almost unthinkable as to what the original is worth both for our country and monetarily. As to where it went, some believe it was destroyed in the printing process, some believe it was destroyed so as to not fall into British hands...but there is always that chance!

The other great missing document is an original "Oath of a Freeman", which is not only an excellent historical piece of freedom, but believed to be the first document printed on a printing press in the colonies in the mid 1600's. Worth millions probably since only 50 copies were made.

[This message has been edited by Oragator (edited 2/24/2013 12:17a).]