Share your favorites on Show & Tell

RARE Unpublished CDV of General US Grant (NOT Really)

In Photographs > Show & Tell.
Photographs2677 of 50681986 - Halley's Comet PhotographWinter work 1947
Love it
Like it

Daisy1000Daisy1000 loves this.
MarmorealMaidenMarmorealMaiden loves this.
yougottahavestuffyougottahavestuff loves this.
Vynil33rpmVynil33rpm loves this.
welzebubwelzebub loves this.
ttomtuckerttomtucker loves this.
roddyqroddyq loves this.
shareurpassionshareurpassion loves this.
JohannBJohannB loves this.
sklo42sklo42 loves this.
ho2cultchaho2cultcha loves this.
blunderbuss2blunderbuss2 loves this.
edkal65edkal65 loves this.
btruebtrue loves this.
NutfieldHistoryNutfieldHistory loves this.
antiqueroseantiquerose loves this.
southcopsouthcop loves this.
JewelsJewels loves this.
marcobabe13marcobabe13 likes this.
PhotoGuyPhotoGuy loves this.
mackay1stmackay1st loves this.
PaperHoarderPaperHoarder loves this.
lisalisa loves this.
WindwalkerWindwalker loves this.
Moonstonelover21Moonstonelover21 loves this.
tlmbarantlmbaran likes this.
DrFluffyDrFluffy loves this.
AmberRoseAmberRose loves this.
vetraio50vetraio50 loves this.
See 30 more
Add to collection

    Please create an account, or Log in here

    If you don't have an account, create one here.

    Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate

    Posted 8 years ago

    (931 items)

    RARE unpublished image of US Grant.

    The unique and rare image has been examined by experts-- a GREAT piece of American History!

    Grant is shown holding his trademark cigar in a typical pose.

    SORRY: While this guy bears a strong resemblance to Grant, this image has not been documented to be him!

    MOST "looks like" images simply are NOT the subject. Today it is possible to assemble a varied collection of look alikes, but without any provenance or documentation, the collection will always be nothing more than a curiosity with little value either monetary or historical.

    I have seen the "looks like" image trap set on online auction sites many times. Popular subjects are Jesse James, Lincoln, Doc Holliday, Thomas Edison, etc...

    Often these "looks like" images are posted with low prices (for an authentic, RARE or unique newly found image).

    Don't be fooled. Without provenance or documentation, facial comparisons are rarely an accepted form of ID.

    As best stated on wikipedia concerning "Doc Holliday" images:

    "There are three photos most often printed (but of unknown provenance) of Holliday, supposedly taken by C.S. Fly in Tombstone (but sometimes said to be taken in Dallas). Holliday lived in a rooming house in front of Fly's photography studio. Many individuals share similar facial features and faces on people who look radically different can look similar when viewed from certain angles. Because of this, most museum staff, knowledgeable researchers, and collectors require provenance or a documented history for an image to support physical similarities that might exist. Experts will rarely offer even a tentative identification of new or unique images of famous people based solely on similarities shared with other known images."

    Reproduction of my "RARE" image of "US Grant" is prohibited.


    See all
    Vintage CDV Photo  Civil War Soldier??? #3. CONFEDERATE?
    Vintage CDV Photo Civil War Soldie...
    Vintage Ambrotype Photo  Civil War Soldiers???
    Vintage Ambrotype Photo Civil War ...
    Vintage CDV Photo  Civil War Soldier??? #4. CONFEDERATE?
    Vintage CDV Photo Civil War Soldie...
    Vintage Tintype Photo  Civil War Soldier???
    Vintage Tintype Photo Civil War So...
    Vintage CDV Photo  Civil War Soldier??? #3. CONFEDERATE?
    Vintage CDV Photo Civil War Soldie...
    See all


    1. AmberRose AmberRose, 8 years ago
      You are so funny but it is so true
    2. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Glad you enjoyed it amber-- I tried to keep it light!

      I hope that it saves someone from buying THE STORY or making an actual purchase of a supposed "rare" image!

    3. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Thanks for looking fluffy.

    4. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Thanks tlmbaran.

    5. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Thanks for looking moonstone!

    6. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Thanks for looking geo and walker.

    7. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Thanks for looking buss!

    8. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Thanks lisa.

    9. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Link below shows the DANGER of "looks like" images:

      Someone just paid $1000 for this "Jesse James" and "Arch Clement" tintype!

      Don't know the appraiser (or even if it is accurately represented in the auction), but there are obvious mistakes in the appraisal used to support the IDs:

      -Arch Clements DIED IN 1866
      o the tintype post dates this time by over a decade (1880- 90s)
      o the pistol in "James" hand and on the right side of Clement post 1866

      Those are two quick observations on the image-- I am sure that there are other things that would come out with a more detailed analysis.

      Sadly NO detailed analysis was documented on this paperwork.

      I would have expected a family tree to the Grand Nephew to at least show a family connection and then a detailed analysis of the photo itself.

      Seems as though a family story was accepted without investigation.

      Incidently, the "James" in the tintype doesn't bear much of a resemblance to any historically accepted images.

      The photograph itself is an interesting image in its own right without the wishful attribution.

      Double armed men playing tough guys-- it probably would have garnered $200- $300.

      BUT some poor sucker just put a grand into this!

    10. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Lots of other "identified" images offered online that don't pass close scrutiny.

    11. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Here is another example of an IDd image with no basis in fact:

      I hope this doesn't end like the "Jesse James" image (post #9) with someone wasting their money!

    12. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Guy with beard-- must be Nathan Bedford Forrest:

      Just another wish or "looks like"!

    13. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Thanks for looking mac.

      Lots of these "looks likes" available on ebay at bargain prices!

    14. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Another "looks like" cabinet card. Supposed to be James and Younger brothers with nothing more than vague similarities as proof:

    15. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      ebay used to do a good job policing up these "looks like" images-- not lately. Lots of "looks like" bargains to start a collection with. Sadly, little value in these for those who BUY the bs.

      Old guy must be John Brown:

    16. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      "Possible Bat Masterson- Whyatt Earp...." Yeah ANYTHING is possible, but much more likely it is just two unknown guys with moustaches-- but then a $1000 price tag would be silly!

    17. solver solver, 8 years ago
      Hi, scott, and a very belated thank you!

      Your "rare unpublished image of US Grant" is closer to reality than the plethora of other "wanna be" images for sale online. You gave great information and examples.

      Here is a caricature of Ulysses S. Grant" published in "Vanity Fair," London, June 1, 2872. The resemblance is noteworthy, especially since he is holding his infamous cigar in his left hand. :-)
    18. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Good to hear from you again, solver!

    19. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      ANOTHER JOKE of a listing:

      ".... many people I show this specimen to that it looks an awful lot like butch Cassidy on the right, or other outlaws from the time."

      Good thing the folks that sell this bogus garbage, don't even bother to do SIMPLE Research. One MAJOR problem-- Cassidy was born in APR 1866 and the tax stamps on the back identify this as MAR 1866! Cassidy wasn't even born when the image was made!

      Oh well, I guess it is the "other outlaw from the time"!!

    20. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Another joke of a listing.


      Who could disagree with the analysis (NONE is provided), but a death photo of Hardin is provided for comparison:


    21. scottvez scottvez, 8 years ago
      Uknown CDV of Mark Twain, BECAUSE it is NOT TWAIN:

    22. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      Another BS ID-- this one is supposed to be Jesse James in this CDV:

      "A Fool and his money..."

    23. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      Thanks for looking photo!

    24. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      Thanks tom!

    25. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      Thanks for looking marco.

    26. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      Outlaw Frank James images:

      FACTS easily dispel the mythical ID:

      Photo #1:

      - Image is on a typical 1890s mount
      - F. James would have been in his 40s- 50s and the subject is much younger
      - Could be an "F. James", just NOT the infamous outlaw

      Photo #3:

      - Photograph dates from the 1880s- 90s (clothing, bench, loose tintype)
      - James would have been in late 30s at the Youngest
      - "Guerilla Confederate Army Suit" is actually CIVILIAN clothing
      - Revolver in his lap (REALLY shows that folks see what they want to!!)

      IF the family tree is accurate, these MAY be in the James family, but the facts don't support the famous outlaw ID.

    27. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      More James Brothers images and for ONLY $20,000!

      This silly listing doesn't even pass first glance:

    28. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      The Younger gang for only $1500:

      What PROOF or DOCUMENTATION?? NONE-- just a group of photos for comparison.

      I hope no one BUYS the attribution.

    29. PhotoGuy, 7 years ago
      At least he "contacted" eBay so he could deceive people without breaking any rules.
    30. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      Yeah, I saw that part as well photoguy! I didn't know ebay gave listing advice.

      In the past (in my opinion) ebay did a better job of policing these "looks like" images!

    31. PhotoGuy, 7 years ago
      Maybe users don't want to take the time to report such images or maybe eBay tends to over look such reports. It seems like there are a lot of questionable Western memorabilia on eBay in general besides these looks like photos. There is one seller who usually lists a lot of questionable items but I can't seem to recall his username or if he still even has an account.
    32. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      I believe it is the latter.

      I know of several sellers with regular sales of questionable items. Photos are an area that I regularly see. I remember one seller in particular. He bought a photo and then sold it again with a different backmark and ID on the back (when bought the photo didn't have a backmark)! He's a Power Seller!!

    33. PhotoGuy, 7 years ago
      Thats surprising. I've heard that eBay is very hard on sellers that sell such items but I guess if the buyer is uninformed only the seller would know of the deception. The seller I am thinking of always had Western documents and usually some kind of "well known person" owned items. I remember several items he was trying to, and sometimes successfully, sell such as memorabilia owned by Bat Masterson, playing cards from various Tombstone, AZ establishments, and Gold Rush era Alaska paper. It was all obviously fake and aged to look real. In fact, several items had handwritten COAs written by random people.
    34. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      ebay used to have a Member Reporting program, where ebay used folks (unpaid volunteers) with recognized expertise to "police" certain selling categories. The member would report fraudulant auctions, which would be ended very quickly.

      This spring the program ended and the junk has come back!

    35. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      MOST COAs aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

      There is a well known Civil War faker, who adds HIS OWN COA to every item.

      Most of his items have an invented provenance-- sometimes to a famous battlefield or even bogus letters from descendents.


    36. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      In keeping with CW rules and staying "on topic" I deleted the last few comments that were not related to BOGUS antique image attributions.

    37. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      See post #26.

    38. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      Represented as THE Frank James:

      Attribution is EASILY refuted with just a cursory analysis of the photo:

      - Image is on a typical 1890s mount
      - F. James would have been in his 40s- 50s and the subject is much younger
      - Could be an "F. James", just NOT the infamous outlaw

      This image comes with several others represented as THE James family.

      The letter of provenance does little to prove anything.

    39. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      Big joke of an image with a big joke of a price:

      Fortunately at this price, no one will bite!

      Everyone with a chin beard must be Lincoln!

    40. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      John Brown's son:

    41. scottvez scottvez, 7 years ago
      "John Wesley Hardin" photograph for only $40,000:

      The story just doesn't check out.

      A quick debunk on the ID-- the image is an 1890s format and style, while the killing took place in 1870!

    42. scottvez scottvez, 6 years ago
      Expensive "looks like" image of "Doc Holliday" and the "Earps":

      What authentication or PROOF of the ID does the seller offer:

      "Please take into consideration that we do not have any authentication.
      as to these photos being who we claim they are. We are leaving that up to the winning bidder."

      And with a price tag of $250,000-- it makes perfect sense that it is up to the buyer to authenticate!

    43. scottvez scottvez, 6 years ago
      Available on ebay-- undocumented tintypes of the Younger Gang-- for only $1500:

      A fool and his money.....

    44. scottvez scottvez, 6 years ago
      Lincoln/ Mrs. Lincoln/ Booth:

      These are so far off from the famous subjects-- just a group of three images from the Civil War era.


    45. scottvez scottvez, 6 years ago
      "Yes, I've seen that one. Not Lincoln at all. Doesn't even look like him. Not Mary either. I get these kinds of photos every single day."

      Joelle Steele's comments on the "Lincoln/ Mrs. Lincoln" images presented on this site (See post #44 for a link).

      Here is Steele's website:

    46. scottvez scottvez, 5 years ago
      Looks like image of Billy the Kid and Regulators (well sort of??):

      A bargain (not really) at just under $300,000!

      "I am selling this photo AS A POSSIBLE MATCH AND OR LOOK ALIKE. I AM SELLING IN AS IS AND IN THE FOUND CONDITION SHOWN. The identification of these men will be left up to you."

      Wow, $300,000 and now to PROVE the attribution!


      Me: IF it is NOT proven, then it is worth about $100! AND since the seller has NO PROOF (as they have admitted), it is about $300,000 over priced.

    47. scottvez scottvez, 5 years ago
      Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson and of course Doc Holiday:

      "This was already labeled from a late collector that came from estate sale in RI and have not been verified in any way."

      But only $500 buy it now or $100 auction.

      A fool and his money....

    48. PostCardCollector PostCardCollector, 5 years ago
      This is a magnificent and so important post! We need to know how fortunate we are to have Scottvez here with us.
    49. scottvez scottvez, 5 years ago
      Thanks much pccollector-- I appreciate your kind words.

    50. PostCardCollector PostCardCollector, 5 years ago
      Hi Scott---Could you possibly check something out for me
      eBay item number:201611070503
      Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing.
    51. PostCardCollector PostCardCollector, 5 years ago
      Hard to believe--can that be faked?
      eBay item number:201611070503
    52. scottvez scottvez, 5 years ago
      A US Grant tintype on ebay:

      Doesn't even look like Grant! Seller has several other "identified" but "unverified" images from a collector.

      It is relatively easy to assemble a collection of "looks like" images.

      At least this seller isn't looking for a fortune, but still way overpriced for what they actually are.

    53. btrue, 5 years ago
      Lots of info! Thank you so much. Every buyer needs to be cautious and educated. I still love the old photos for what they are - a little piece of history!
    54. scottvez scottvez, 5 years ago
      So true, btrue!

      Unfortunately, there are a lot of whim buyers out there who don't know what they are buying and take sellers's hype as fact.

      It is evident on this site with the regular postings of junk with a great story!

      Some sellers on internet auctions see high selling items and then adopt the hype. I see it regularly with these "looks like" photos-- post mortem photos are another area full of myths and misinformation.


    55. scottvez scottvez, 5 years ago
      The DALTON GANG:

      Four word description of "original Dalton gang photo", with no analysis or provenance presented.

      But of course the seller is only asking $1,000-- what a bargain!


    56. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Another questionable attribution:

      ONLY $100,000-- better act quickly!

      Interestingly, the seller's dating is off as well. Format (loose tintypes), clothing and backdrops would put most of these in the late 1870s at the EARLIEST.

    57. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Another Jesse James related grouping:

      "Rare opportunity at a Great Price for the right buyer/seller/collector."

      "See pics for verification array"-- a few comparison photos used to make the case for a $7,500 price!

    58. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Thanks for looking cultcha!

    59. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Another outlaw Frank James/ family images offering-- amazing how many of these were taken:

      ONLY $5,000 and "Limited time offer only, Act Now!"

    60. sklo42 sklo42, 4 years ago
      If there was a competition for having the most interesting and long running CW post ever I'd vote for this one!
    61. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Thanks peggy-- appreciate it. I hope that it gives pause to some potential buyers!

    62. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Older ID that was wrong:

      NOT Twain!

    63. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      An entire collection of "looks like images":

      I'll pick one of the easiest to debunk! Listed as "#3) A 1850 photo of young Jesse James approximately 3 years old has a pillow sitting next to the chair with embroidery letters saying James".

      A quick look at the format of the image and clothing of the boy shows that it that the photo itself dates from the 1890s- 1910 and NOT 1850. But of course the pillow with "James" embroidered is compelling!!

      I don't know why ebay allows this type of listing.

    64. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Jesse James image:

      This one is a REPRINT of a looks like image. You know it's bad one reprints are being sold!

    65. shareurpassion shareurpassion, 4 years ago
      Well said!
    66. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Thanks passion-- I appreciate you chiming in on the CW tintype!

    67. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Thanks for looking johann. Also thanks for posting your educational image!

    68. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      "it was said to be Jefferson Davis when he was a senator":

      ONLY $5,000!

    69. RosaLinda RosaLinda, 4 years ago
      This was awesome and informative. Really appreciate it.
    70. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Better jump on this one quickly!! For 1 million dollars you can buy a Billy the Kid image:

      And the seller touts the image with-- " If this is really Billy the kid the clarity of this photo helps us to see what Billy looked liked."

    71. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      A steal on this image:

      Add a few photos of "outlaws" for comparison and turn this image into a $25k listing!

    72. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      The myth on post mortem images continues:

      While all are dead now, there is nothing in these tintype images that suggests they were photographed after death!

      These two images are worth a few dollars not hundreds.

      Will someone bite?

    73. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago

      Funny that "possible" is the only word in the title not in caps. In my opinion the attribution is much more LAUGHABLE than possible!

      Seller was "lucky" enough to find another rare image that he claims shows Jesse/ Frank James:

    74. scottvez scottvez, 4 years ago
      Seller says: "He looks a bit like Jim Younger to me!"

      Looks like two 19th century unknowns to me in a rough condition image:
    75. scottvez scottvez, 2 years ago
      Thanks much craig and brunswick.

    76. scottvez scottvez, 2 years ago
      Every guy with a chin beard is Lincoln:

      Lincoln photographs are well documented and these aren't part of the group. Sometimes all it takes is a beard to make folks think it is Abe!

    77. scottvez scottvez, 2 years ago
      Laughable "post mortem" photograph:

      I hate to see the posing stand myth continue. Posing stands were not capable of holding up a child, much less an adult.

      The guy was very much alive when photographed. Open eyes are a key indicator. The terrible condition image has little/ no value. Hope that no potential buyer believes the bs...

    78. scottvez scottvez, 2 years ago
      Wyatt Earp and the Tombstone:

      Documented through slightly similar photos and only $30,000-- better jump on this bargain quickly. Someone is sure to snap it up!

    79. scottvez scottvez, 1 year ago
      Better hurry on this one! Rare Billy the Kid.

      At $4.9 MILLION it won't last long:

      The grainy blow up comparison images are laughable.

    80. scottvez scottvez, 1 year ago
      Thanks for looking maiden-- lots of bogus stuff with a great story out there!

    81. scottvez scottvez, 10 months ago
      Bogus images out for the Holiday buyers:

      Unfortunately neither one is Stonewall Jackson, nor are they even the same man.

      Originally listed as 1853 and 1860 carte de visites.

      When informed that cdv photographs didn't exist in 1853, they became copies of earlier tintypes! They are NOT.

    82. scottvez scottvez, 7 months ago
      Lincoln and Johnson images from this website:

      First and probably most obvious to everyone (other than the poster), is that these two don't bear the slightest resemblance to the US Presidents they are being attributed to.

      Beyond that, a little knowledge on the history of photography dispels the attributions.

      Poster claims that the Johnson image shows him in his very late 30s-- which translates into the photograph dating from about 1845- 47.

      While I am not sure what format the photograph is, it is either a tintype or ambrotype. Both forms had their start in the US in about 1854/55.

      So we have the "Johnson" photo that was created 7-10 years PRIOR to the first tintype/ ambrotype being made (an impossibility)!

      Poster also seems to think that these two being found together, along with another photo in a similar brooch of Jefferson Davis; cements the attribution.

      This type of brooch is not "one off" or "three off" item. I have owned several of them and have seen enough of them in my years of collecting and dealing in antique photographs to say that they were sold in quantity by many photographers of the era.

      Based on the clothing of these two men/ format/ and brooch style, I would think that these images date from the mid 1860s- 70s.

    83. fhrjr2 fhrjr2, 7 months ago
      If the guy gets an accurate date, I will check my appointment book. I was probably there when the photo's were taken ;)
    84. scottvez scottvez, 6 months ago
      Laughable attributions:

      Guy with chin beard= Lincoln, guy with moustache= Booth, woman with brooch= Mary Todd.

      Not even the slightest resemblance to those attributed.


    Want to post a comment?

    Create an account or login in order to post a comment.