The physical evidence that it’s Kate Turner is very strong. Besides the matching moles, it’s her dress. She wears black. It is about 2.5 years since her first husband died (May 1857), so she should be out of mourning. But Kate chose to wear black all the rest of her life. It’s also stated, by one who knew her, that Kate “allowed herself” only a white collared blouse underneath, after mourning. You see Kate wearing that here. There is also another photo of Kate Turner recently discovered at the NY State Historical Society. It shows Kate in the same style dress (late 1850’s, photo by W.G. Smith), and the face is the same. Along with the moles, eye’s, nose and mouth.

As to the eye color? The one photo of Kate with dark “looking” eyes is because of the “lighting and shading” in the photo. Eye surgeon Dr. Susan Pepin examined that photo and said there is no way you can tell the color of her eyes from that photo. She said you can’t tell the color of a person’s eyes, in a room - as light & shadow changes come into play. Look toward a wall with a window, the eyes are light. Look to a wall with no window, they’re dark. Dr. Susan Pepin has worked on thousands of eyes. You may also wish to view photos of another close Emily friend, Mrs. Elizabeth Holland. They are documented family shots. But one of Mrs. Holland - in middle age, show very dark eyes. But an older Mrs. Holland – shows totally the opposite - the palest of eyes. Same woman. Same eyes. Documented. It is the shadow, lighting, pose and closeness of the camera….. that makes things look different - but superficially so.

Dating the daguerreotype? It has to be after 1859, you’re correct. It is late for a daguerreotype. But the photographer is believed to be J.C. Spooner of Springfield. He advertised in the 1859 Springfield Business Directory, that he “Still executes Daguerreotypes when desired” – even though ambrotypes were more popular by then. But, an ambrotype cannot hold a candle to a daguerreotype - for clarity, depth, beauty, and contrast. So it doesn’t surprise me that Emily chose a daguerreotype - if she saw a similar ambro in the studio. J.C. Spooner also purchased Otis Cooley’s whole studio, in 1855. And many believe that Cooley photographed Emily in 1847 (I do). So there is a Cooley/Spooner connection. Cooley also daguerreotyped Emily’s sister, Lavinia, in the early 1850’s…. so, that’s more of a Dickinson family connection.

Experts have seen the clothing styles. Emily is wearing very early 1850’s style, YES. Kate is wearing late 1850’s style dress. Kate’s hairstyle is not early 1850’s. It is possible to wear an early 1850’s dress - in 1859. But it is impossible to wear an 1859 style dress - in the early 1850s - because it wasn’t invented yet (unless you are a time traveler). In the early 1850’s Emily wrote to a friend that she was “old fashioned” in her dress. So much so, that she feared it would “Embarrass them”. In the Spring of 1854, Emily went to Washington, and her parents bought her “new” dresses for the visit. Emily did not like them. She wrote she thought they make her look like a “Peacock”. So she liked older styles. Emily was always quirky with her dress. How else can you explain that from the mid 1860’s on, she mostly wore a white dress? So trying to down the date of this image – by a single dress of Emily’s, is a tricky proposition..….because….. Emily didn’t care for the latest fashion, or the date of it – or whether it was in…or out. And, she basically came right out and said so. Emily wore what she liked.

I’m going to try and have DEA post the photos of a middle aged Mrs. Holland and an old Mrs. Holland - with eyes that clearly do not match. Emily wrote to Mrs. Holland for several decades. She addressed her often as ‘Sister”. A book has been written on their correspondence. If the photo’s come up - look closely at how the photographs are “lighted” and “posed.” It IS the same woman - for a fact. But the eyes do not match, because of the lighting. It’s the same with Kate’s photos. But they are Kate.