Posted 13 years ago
USACollect
(30 items)
The only way I could think of two explain this tintype is that it is of co-joined twins. I am thankful for any input about this image.
Tintype of Co-joined Twins? | ||
| Tintypes207 of 251 |  |  |
Tintype of Co-joined Twins? | ||
| Tintypes207 of 251 | | |
Posted 13 years ago
USACollect
(30 items)
The only way I could think of two explain this tintype is that it is of co-joined twins. I am thankful for any input about this image.
Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
GREAT tintype-- I don't believe it is conjoined twins. I think that it is two friends one facing front and one facing backward. There may have been another image when first made that showed them reversed.
Scott
Doubtful that it is a double exposure-- that is rarely seen on these tintypes with folks "touching".
In this era a double exposure is usually found with the same subject separated by a few feet. Additionally, you will usually see some form of a joint line in the image. Here is an example from an ebay auction that shows the typical joint line:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&hash=item231bb1b964&item=150788487524&nma=true&pt=Art_Photo_Images&rt=nc&si=1smSw2XKQlt2gyFH5o18C6JaboY%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc
Scott
Thanks Robin-- very luminating! I forgot about those styles.
I don't think it matches those either:
-The ghost or spiritual images usually show a full and light exposure. It is much harder to complete two full exposures unless the photographer uses the divided plate technique-- shown in my example with the line.
- The other example shows movement-- double shirts, buttons and arms. In this example there is no movement. Additionally, I think the arm/ hand on the "woman in the back" is telling. It is visible and then disappears behind the other subject.
Based on your examples, I concede it is possible. I believe that it is much more likely that the photograph represents two subjects.
Scott
Thanks Scott and Rob!
This could be an image of conjoined twins but more specifically what is know as a parasitic twin. In the case of a parasitic twin they are smaller, as they rely on the other for the majority of their bodily processes.
A very intriguing photo!
Rob-- I think her arm is tucked under the arm of the woman with only the back visible. The difference in size also points to two people.
Walks-- a parasitic twin (as I understand it) would be just body parts (arms/ legs) and not a functioning head.
I don't think this is a parasitic or conjoined twin.
Scott
A parasitic twin most times will be just as you say, but sometimes they are complete but usually smaller,as they are reliant on the heart & other internal organs of the primary twin for some or all of their existence.
Link to article & pictures of conjoined twin slaves
http://www.phreeque.com/mckoy_sisters.html
These are the only twins from that era that I could find reference of, so more than likely there is another explanation for this picture.
The larger woman does appear to be supporting the other one though, maybe she is hiding a deformity of the smaller woman.
I can't make an age determination on the person facing away from the camera.
Based on the casual/ somewhat humerous pose (to me), I would think that the two women were friends of a similar age (18- 25).
Based on what I have seen in years of collecting antique images, I would think that this was one of a pair of front/ back images.
Scott