🚀 go-pugleaf

It was indeed common, especailly after paper processes were introduced
and multiple copies could be made; but dag studios often advertised that
they would make copy dags of dags.  Since many dags were post-mortems of
people who hadn't had their picture taken in life, copy dags for family
were quite common.
  The vertical lines where the tower meets the wall might be buff or
wipe lines from the dag plate, hard to tell from the scan.
  If the details of the sole woman's clothing were clearer, I could give
you an approximate date.  As pure tupence opinion, I'd say that it might
be a farewell picture to the old building, given the number of broken
window panes.

Susan Knoer
Special Collections: Photographic Archives
University of Louisville
smknoe01@gwise.louisville.edu

<<< Jon Reynolds <REYNOLDJ@GUNET.GEORGETOWN.EDU> 10/ 8  5:53p >>>
I would be interested in opinions on whether it
was at all usual to copy
dageurreotypes/ambrotypes, etc.  in the 1870's
or 80's.  We have a photo - (see
www.library.georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/i/page/holytr1.jpg ) - that
would seem to be from that
period. However, it shows the old Trinity Church
in Georgetown, which was replaced in 1851 by
an adjoining structure.  Why would they pose
around the old church, and not have a similar
photo of the new?  The newer church is very
close to this structure, so close that I would
think it would be visible, or at least its shadow.  I
thus wonder if this is not a copy of a very early
photo.

We have a c. 1900 view of the two also, after
the old church was extended. see:
www.library.georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/i/page/trinit~1.jpg

I know this can't really be answered, but I would
be interested in any thoughts.

Jon Reynolds