|
THE ONLINE VERSION - FOR SUBSCRIBERS
[Page 2]
by George W. Penington - Editor
DECEMBER 24, 2003
MERRY HOLIDAYS
ISSUE #47 PAGE ONE OF TWO
Page 2
1) WELCOME TO THE NEW
HUNLEY NEWSLETTER
A special
welcome to all the new subscribers. This newsletter is published every
two weeks so no one is bombarded with mail. This issue
contains an article about
George Cook and some of the controversy about the only photograph of the
Confederate Submarine H L Hunley. Looks like interest is sparking around
finding the USS Alligator. There is not much surprise in the news
that North Charleston will probably get the Hunley Museum. As
always there is good stuff in the guest book and some very interesting
E-mails.
THIS IS THE
LAST NEWSLETTER FOR 2003 AND I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO SUBSCRIBED AND
CONTRIBUTED TO A GREAT YEAR ON NEWS. I GET A GREAT DEAL OF PLEASURE
WRITING THESE LETTERS AND THE FREQUENT PATS ON THE BACK MAKE IT ALL
WORTHWHILE. WE LOST SOME GOOD FRIENDS THIS YEAR WHO WILL BE SORELY
MISSED. WE HAVE TRIED TO STAY FOCUSED DESPITE CONTROVERSY AND HAVE
STRIVED TO PUBLISHED BOTH SIDES TO THE STORY.
NOTE: Some of
the greatest Engineers and Hunley thinkers have contributed to this
newsletter and I want to thank them all. If you would like to join
and add to our discussions, please do. Click here.
JOIN THE CSS HUNLEY CLUB
- CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION - It's Free
|
THANK YOU
GEORGE AND HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A GREAT NEW YEAR FROM
THE STAFF AT HUNLEY
STORE. COM |
|
|
The Hunley store supports all the volunteer
efforts made by the publisher of this newsletter |
|
Chapman's painting
Framed Special
Price:
199.99
plus S&H ( Product # HL-1000F)
|
|
Print of Conrad Wise Chapman's
painting of the Confederate Submarine Hunley. The Hunley
print is framed in1 1/2 inch mahogany molding and has a double
matting in sand and tampico brown. The total size of the print
and frame is 22'' x26 3/4''.
www.hunleystore.com
UNFRAMED PRINTS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR $65
They are very difficult to get so allow
some time for shipping
|
|
|
2)
PHOTOGRAPHY
Photography:
|
|
 |
 |
|
Confederate States Navy Coat Button with Cannons,
Anchor and Rope |
Confederate Artillery Button similar to the one
found on the Hunley |
3)
Charleston photographer
George S. Cook >
George
S. Cook
(1819-1902)
George S. Cook,
born in
Stratford,
Connecticut
in 1819, was studying painting in
New Orleans
when photography was introduced in
America
in 1839. He immediately espoused the new medium and, until he settled down in
1849, helped to spread photography throughout the South. First, he ran a gallery
in New Orleans, then he set out to teach the tricks of the trade to others in
small, inland towns. He would teach a few students in each town while
establishing a studio, then sell the business to the most promising student.
Cook settled in
Charleston,
South Carolina, to raise a family. During the Civil War, he was one of the
foremost Confederate photographers and became famous by recording the gradual
deterioration of Charleston and Fort Sumter. When he moved his family to
Richmond
in 1880, his older son, George LaGrange Cook, took over his studio in
Charleston.
In addition to his active studio, Cook bought the negatives and businesses of
other Richmond
photographers who were retiring or moving. In doing so, he amassed the most
complete collection of photographs of the city in one studio. George Cook
remained an active photographer all his life. During the 1880s his younger son,
Huestis, became interested in photography and eventually went into business with
his father. After George's death on November 27, 1902, Huestis took over the
Richmond studio.
http://www.library.vcu.edu/jbc/speccoll/cook/cook08.html
|
<maclilus@p...> wrote:
I assume most everyone is familiar with the
sole photo of the
Hunley, which is very similar to the Chapman
painting. I have a few questions about it.
1. Provenance: What is the source of the photo? Who brought it to
public knowledge? Has a chain of possession been established?
2. Area: Where was the photo likely taken - Charleston, Mobile, or
somewhere in-between?
3. Hunley: Is it really the Hunley or its predecessor, the American
Diver/Pioneer II? Could it be some other undocumented
submarine?
4. How authentic is it?
|
MaCLILUS started this discussion in the CSS h L Hunley Club. I decided it
was a topic worth investigating and it led to building this year end Newsletter.
His questions started a small uproar of comments from some of the best Hunley
experts aground. ....pun intended. Hope you enjoy the
results....George ....#1 no
definitive answer...after several hours of research- could not find .#2 Is
without a doubt taken in Mt. Pleasant. #3My opinion is that it is the
Hunley. #4 The authenticity I can not establish...yet.
|
Is the above picture a photograph?
On the same day he photographed Union
gunboats in action, Confederate photographer George S. Cook
also took this image (reproduced from Miller's
Photographic History of the Civil War) that purports to
show smoke from a shell exploding inside Fort Sumter. Although
the negative apparently no longer exists and all prints of the
image show moderate to heavy retouching, Cook seems to have
captured at least the haze of the smoke from the shell. His
photographic feats were reported several newspapers, both in the
North and the South.
|
"Charleston photographer George S.
Cook was inside Fort Sumter on September 8, 1863 during a huge
Naval battle."
Charleston photographer
George S. Cook was inside Fort Sumter on September 8, 1863 during a huge Naval
battle.
|
Where
was The CSS h L Hunley?
"I overlaid the supposed photo on the Chapman painting in a
graphics program and came up with this"...Tim
Smalley |
Conrad Wise Chapman Print
|
|
Pencil sketch by Conrad Wise Chapman, showing H.L. Hunley
from the starboard stern, while she was out of the water at
Charleston, SC, on 2 December 1863.
|
|
TIME LINE
On Aug 29 the Hunley was struck by
tragedy-the first sinking. Just as the submarine cast off
from a dock, Lt. Payne, who was still attempting to position
himself while standing in the forward turret, became
entangled in a hawser (a mooring rope). While attempting to
clear himself, he accidentally stepped on the lever which
controlled the diving fins.
September 1, 1863 , two civilian
Charleston divers, Angus Smith and David Broadfoot were
hired and set about to bring the tiny boat back to the
surface. September 11th with Confederate and Federal
ironclads battling directly above their heads, Smith and
Broadfoot raised the Hunley. By September 14th the craft
was back at Ft. Johnson floating at the berth. She had been
pumped dry and the grizzly task of removing the bodies
completed. Bloated, decomposed, and rigor mortis filled, it
was reported that the extremities of the men had to be sawn
off to release them from their small tomb.
October of 1863. It was decided that the steam powered
David could be implemented as a tow vehicle for the Hunley.
Confederate Flag Officer John Tucker, commander of the
Charleston squadron was contacted and he in turn ordered
that in the future the Little David would assist the
submarine by towing the Hunley toward her target for a few
miles then would break loose and go on to it’s assigned
mission for the night leaving the Hunley to continue on it’s
own.
except:
Terry L. Coats Article C.S.S. H.L. Hunley
AMTRAIN@aol.com |
|
Comparison :
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:08 AM
Subject: [CSS H L HUNLEY] Re: Hunley Photo
"Tim Smalley" <Tim.Smalley@c...>
wrote:
Looking at them together, there are fairly strong differences
between the two images - the perspective on the sub is different,
the spar, the horizon, the sailboat, the shape of the hatches, the
spar etc.
I partly disagree with you on the differences, Tim. I posted
this some months ago when we last discussed the Cook photo in
detail.
The quote is slightly edited.
'I overlaid the supposed photo on the Chapman painting in a
graphics program and came up with this:
1)
The Hunley matches almost exactly.
2) The pier matches very
well, but there may be some mismatch on the left corner.
Interestingly,
3)
the small boat in the background is clearly placed
differently, but improves its position if the pier corner is
adjusted.
4) The beams the
sub is resting on match almost exactly. The horizon details
also match very well.
5) The sub's shadows, which in both cases
are very
difficult to interpret, match very well.
The "photo"
foreground is smeared so there is no detail to compare.
The
major difference is the
figure.
a) His appearance looks identical, but his stance is
very slightly different and his head is turned toward the
"camera" in the
"photo".
b) The painting figure is looking at the seated figure,
who would be mostly out of the "photo" in any case.
c) The block
he is
sitting on is also missing.
d) The figure's shadow in the
"photo" differs from in the painting, and although hard to
interpret, it may be cast
differently from the sub's.
'What can we conclude?'
The alleged photo has a very close
relationship with the painting. It very well could be
Chapman's source. It
would be interesting to know if Chapman worked from photos for
any of his other paintings and if so, if he reproduced them
"photographically".
|
 Sepia
wash drawing by R.G. Skerrett, 1902, after a painting by
Conrad Wise Chapman then held by the Confederate Memorial
Literary Society Museum, Richmond, Virginia.
|
The port-side sketch seems to
indicate Chapman did see the Hunley in person. There is
a possibility the figure doesn't match the rest of the photo.
The possibly wrong shadow is not conclusive, nor are several
lines that appear to show through
the figure. I could entertain the possibility that this is a
photo of the painting in work, before the artist made his
final composition
changes. It's really impossible to say anything with
certainty except that there is a definite relationship between
the two and that they
are not identical.'
Additionally, we should keep in mind that Chapman's figures
are not to scale with the sub. The standing figure in
particular is too large. The seated figure is considered to be the artist
himself. He often painted himself into his pictures.
Michael
|
|
----- Original Message -----
Subject: [CSS H L HUNLEY] Re: Hunley Photo
Is the "Cook photo" really a photograph? Is there a
negative? I'm no
expert but I've seen thousands of civil war photographs and
I've
never seen one as poor quality as that photo. Why wood Cook
make a
photo of the Hunley at the very same angle, distance and time.
And
only ONE photo? Wouldn't you take several pictures and at
different
angles? Cook was a famous photographer, I think if he did take
a
photograph of the Hunley it would have been better than what
we have
now. When the negative of the shroud of Turin was studied much
more
detail was reveled, how about the Cook negative?
Just my two cents.
Mike.
------------------
|
|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 1:49 PM
Subject: [CSS H L HUNLEY] Re: Hunley Photo
First, I am now wondering why Cooke (I presume who was the
photographer) would have been allowed to take a photo, unless
commissioned by the military authorities? Perhaps I am applying
20th
Century security measures against a then-19th Century novelty. My
impression was that some secrecy was in force at the time. How
would
have Chapman have obtained the photo (negative or positive)?
Also, is the Cooke image of the submarine the exact same size as
that
in the Chapman painting?
Is it possible that Chapman could have used the Cooke negative as
part of a camera obscura (similar to a slide show projector) and
traced an outline of the submarine on his canvas? Perhaps, he
could
have his canvas at an angle from the projection, accounting for
changes in proportion.
maclilus
|
| --- Original Message -----
From:
yello_armadillo
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:19 AM
Subject: [CSS H L HUNLEY] Re: Hunley Photo
<<I think Chapman obtained one of Cook's prints and
used it as a guide for his painting.>>
Hi Tim,
I'm with you. The two are obviously related, but I can't see
the "photo" being of the painting. I've never heard of that
being done, especially a photo of an uncompleted painting.
Not that it couldn't
have been done, but why bother? It is more likely the photo
was of the genuine article so it could be used as a
reference so the artist could later make an accurate
painting.
Even though they are very close in many ways, there are too
many differences. The top spar droops in the Chapman
painting, and also the diving plane looks like it is
sagging, compared to the Cook
image. Also the rear hatch is smaller on Chapman, and the
cutwater is longer than the Cook image. These last three
things --the diving plane, the rear hatch and the cutwater,
all look better
(more realistic) on the Cook image. I doubt Chapman would
have had them "right" early on, and then later changed them
so that they looked worse. (Of course these "changes" should
be verifiable,
if in fact Cook is an early view of Chapman's painting.)
--Mike Mc
|
|
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:44 AM
Subject: [CSS H L HUNLEY] Re: Sketch of Torpedo
Spar
Hi Bruce,
I wasn't disputing your suggested spar arrangement. I just
noticed the re-creation of the scene for the Chapman
painting and the Cook image inaccurately showed the thing
dangling off the end of the dock. That's all. Thanks for
the explanation.
Later,
Mike Mc
Yea, that's my fault Mike. I had sketched those from how I remembered the
photograph and painting. Actually, both the painting and
the photo show the
first section of the lower spar, from the mount to the
vertical bolt, running from
the sub to the dock. The outer section of the spar
having been removed.
I still feel the lower spar theory as it is being
presented has major holes that
have yet to be satisfactorily addressed. FOTH
seems to
believe that pushing a
90 pound object at the end of a 20 foot pole through a
fluid (sea water) is the
same as pushing a 90 pound object at the end of a 20
foot pole though a gas
(air). I.E. The setup looks real interesting attached
to a static model on your
mantelpiece but don't try pushing it around your
bathtub, 'cause you'll break it.
Bruce
NOTE: We have
concluded that the explosive was 135 pounds
|
|
Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:21 PM
Subject: [CSS H L HUNLEY] Compare the Images
I'm adding a graphic to the Artwork/Chapman folder that lists the
differences I
and others see between the Cook photograph and Chapman painting.
I've numbered them, so go you can look at the image and follow
along:
1. The spar: This is not proof that Cook's image is a photo of the
Hunley, but it's potentially the most important detail should the
Cook image prove to be a photo of the Hunley.
Cook's spar is parallel with the horizon, What this means in 2
dimensional graphics perspective, is the spar is laying cross wise
to the
observer's position. Looking at Chapman's painting, the spar
clearly runs in
line with the deck and also gets progressively smaller the further
away it goes from the observer. Chapman painted his spar sticking
out in front of the Hunley.
I believe Chapman painted his Hunley in the studio, using the
photograph as his model. I don't believe the Hunley had any spar on
it the
day Chapman saw it on December 2nd. The Hunley also did not have
the
forward hatch or the air box on it either. How do I know? Look at
the sketches he did on December 2nd. No spar, no forward hatch and
no airbox. Either he came back at another time to do the study for
his painting, or he used something else.
I believe the boat was being overhauled the day Chapman arrived to
paint it. I think he discovered, or had knowledge of the existence
of the photograph of the whole boat taken earlier and decided to use
that as his model instead.
Because Chapman saw the Hunley with no upper spar at all, and had
been
conditioned, just like us, to expect a spar sticking out of the
front of the boat, that's what he saw when he looked at the
photograph, and that's what he painted.
Whether you believe the Cook image is a photo of the Hunley, or
something
else is moot. All I'm going to say about the subject is, be
prepared to accept a new paradigm of what the Hunley looked like in
the years ahead.
2. The diving fin. This has also been recently pointed out.
Chapman was a
wonderful artist, but he was not a master. He still messed up a bit
on
perspective. The diving fin of Chapman's painting is canted
downward. The shaft, if you could see it, would cross the cabin at
an upward angle and the opposite fin would stick out quite a bit
higher up on the hull.
Cook's image shows the fin level, as it should be and as it would be
in a
photograph.
3. The hatch. The forward hatch is angled off a slight bit in the
Chapman
painting. but the rear hatch looks almost if it is sagging and
melted. The ridge between the hatch and hull fluxuates and is also
quite a bit larger than is seen on the sub in the lab. The rear
hatch in the Cook image is straight and perfectly proportioned. the
hull to hatch ridge is also consistent and properly sized. As they
would be in a photograph.
4. Chapman's depiction of the iron strap that splits the hull is
pretty good until he gets to the rear hatch. From there back, the
rivets and plate edge become inconsistent. The rivets run in
disjointed lines and the width of the plate varies as it runs toward
the aft casting. In Cook's image, the consistency and smoothness of
of the plate is obvious, even though rivets cannot be seen.
Also, unseen in Cook's image are the hull plates, but Chapman's are
uneven
and do not form a smooth and cohesive unit (proving, I guess, that
Chapman's image is a painting:)).
5. One of the most difficult items to paint or draw correctly are
circles seen
from an angle. The guard around Cook's image shows correct
perspective,
as it would in a photograph of the actual object. The guard in the
Chapman
painting is more round than it should be. Again, this is not a
criticism of
Chapman's abilities, since all art is subjective and no artist is
able to paint
everything perfectly. The masters were able to show proper
perspective with uncanny ability, but those artists are few and far
between.
|
After comparing these 2 images, I found myself weighing 4
possibilities:
1. A master artist, better than Chapman, painted the Hunley, but
screwed up
when he/she got to the spar.
2. Chapman executed a perfect painting, took a photo of it and
painted a
lesser version over the original.
3. The photograph is a very, very, very good hoax.
4. It is a photograph of the Hunley, taken in the winter of 1863.
OK. crew. Form your own opinion and let the discussion begin.
Bruce
|
|
