Featured Real CDV or Garbage? Plus Some Really Cool Extras

I bought 4 bags of old photos, and there's quite a few cool ones. Mixed in were two small CDV sized of General Grant and General Hooker.

Both have their corners cut. Grant looks more believable than Hooker. Grant is actually attached to the cardboard. Hooker is one part of the cardboard. They're each roughly 2.5" x 3.75".

Are these real or just made from photos from a book? Souvenirs? I do know. Any info would be appreciated.




Onto the cooler stuff.

This is the photo I wanted.


How cool is this landscape postcard?The student body of Penn State University 1909!


My wife bought at the flea market today a Dauggero and Ambroytype photos, and asked if she spent too much on them. She said she talked the woman down from $25 to $22. She said "I know you like this kind..." YEAH, anyone who collects these LOVES these kind.
This is the daguero -

If anyone can make out what this says, I'd appreciate it. I get the date, but nothing else.

This is the ambro - I'd have give the woman $50 and RUN.

 

Catharin W. Barreett I think the writer was semi-literate. Desutate? Deceased? Destitute? of my property Wonder if the last word is a place name. I see it as A(o?)roshomel, but that completely flumoxes Google AI.

 

That's what I see. Catherin W. Barreett. January 24 AD 1858.

Debora

 

After the date it's DESIRTATE (desires) of my property.
Whatever the last line is, is probably the person who wrote it, name. But, Bronwen and my own guesses at the name are bizarre.

She's neat. The post mortem boy is astounding. My mouth dropped when I saw it.

 

The CDVs are "filler" cards. Usually you'll find them in the back of old photo albums, as they were meant to fill any empty spaces one might have after a family had put in all their own photographs.

https://inthecards.medium.com/generic-cdv-album-card-fillers-of-the-1860s-79eaa12a43a

 

Nice CDV of Grant. I cannot yet find the same image, but I believe I found another image from the same sitting.

It shows Grant as a Two Star General looking at us. My assumption is that your image, head slightly turned and looking in that direction, was manipulated later as his rank changed.

 

I also think the post mortem image is a gem.

 

I have a few old albums I'm putting the pictures I like in. When I get to the back and the smallers CDV I just don't own many I like. I don't think I'll be keeping these.

The side by side comparison I thought they were the same photo. But, he's looking off in the two star one. It's pretty incredible that his hair and facial hair are almost exact.

 

The images show him as a 2 & 3 star general. Your's is the 3 star version retouched by hand and was most likely done by the original photographer.

 

The Grant image is based on one of the photographs taken by Mathew Brady -

https://petapixel.com/2025/09/19/that-time-mathew-bradys-assistant-almost-killed-ulysses-s-grant/

Images of Grant were popular, and reproduced in various types of prints as well as photographs. The photo of Hooker is clearly reproduced from a print, and I suspect the Grant image may have been a print as well, or at least highly modified. Both are real in the sense of being actual 19th century albumen prints.

https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/U...-Lithograph-/7E561E5C0374FD69DF59419003B65694

 

I found someone on ebay selling my exact Grant. They're asking $85 down from $100, and it's just sitting there. But, since I got 50 photos for $12.50, and plan on keeping quite a few, if I get back my $12.50 for him and Hooker I'll be happy. Though as I clean out my mess of a room, I found a bunch of modern signed General photos from WW2 or the Korean War, some aircraft carrier photos from the Navy. I should bunch them together and see what I can get.

The difference is $5 from $500. Since I probably paid a quarter for it, given how many photos I got, I won't complain. There's quite a few nice ones.

 

Just an fyi, the 1858 written information pictured is second hand. It looks like faded ink or pencil beneath it. The style of the A in A.D. is round on top and pointed under.

 

Barreett could be Barratt, written rather awkwardly.

 

This appears to be the original photographic image upon which the Hooker print was based:

Courtesy of The Gilder Lehrman Collection, New York

Reference Number: GLC 05111.07

Found here: https://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.or...eph-hooker-1814-1879/joseph-hooker/index.html

 

It absolutely was gone over, probably in the late 18 or early 1900s. Because of the way the ink looks.