Is this Robert Campbell?

Posted 3 years.

17 Comments

  • Kristine - 2 years ago

    Oops. I accidentally mixed up the dates on the portraits in my previous comment. The 1850's date I reference throughout my comment is actually supposed to be referring to the known Campbell portrait, not the mystery man portrait. Sorry!

  • Kristine - 2 years ago

    I am going to say yes. There are just too many similarities. The brow line, the nose, shape of the face, and even possibly the hairline all look very similar.

    I thought perhaps the ears on these two gentlemen were different. Then I realized that the problem with examining the ears, while the faces are side by side, is that the mystery portrait's face appears to have been digitally flipped to better match the direction in which the 1850's face was positioned. The full portrait of the mystery man is looking toward the right, and the zoomed-in (face only) image of the mystery man is looking to the left when compared side by side to the 1850s image. I don't believe the ears exposed in the two images are the same ear. The ear that needs to be compared to the mystery man's ear, to see if its the same, is hidden in Robert Campbell's 1850s portrait.

    This is truly an interesting mystery! I hope you can solve it! Doing the detective work is aways frustrating and fun at the same time. :)

  • Donna Nestor - 2 years ago

    The distance between the base of the nose and the upper lip seems identical. Also, the shape of the nostrils is the same. I have no problem stating that both of these photos are of Mr. Campbell.

  • LInda - 2 years ago

    When applying for a green card, the government takes a photograph of everyone's ears. They are distinct....better than a fingerprint. Perhaps you could zoom in on the ear lobe and compare? Many parts of the face change with age so it's difficult to compare. Are there any other photographs to use?

  • LInda - 2 years ago

    When applying for a green card, the government takes a photograph of everyone's ears. They are distinct....better than a fingerprint. Perhaps you could zoom in on the ear lobe and compare? Many parts of the face change with age so it's difficult to compare. Are there any other photographs to use?

  • Arthur Love - 2 years ago

    The distance from the bottom of the earlobe to the outer ear canal is totally different. This is not something which would have changed with age.

  • Dorris Keeven Franke - 2 years ago

    I wish you had a "maybe " in your poll! I see similarities but differences too. Maybe another Campbell?

  • Deb Aubuchon - 2 years ago

    Our noses tend to droop as we age, and 1865 Robert's nose actually looks shorter than the earlier Mystery Man's nose. Also, there's more space between Robert's earlobe and his neck than there is in MM's; as the gent aged & plumped up, I'd expect to less space there. Sure could be a relative, though! And I'm no expert, but I sure do appreciate the chance to share my opinion!!!!

  • Nancy - 2 years ago

    You cannot flip the image and superimpose. Faces are not symmetrical, so you are overlaying the lmright side on the left of the other image. It does look like him, though.

  • Ann - 2 years ago

    My "no" vote is based on the gentlemen parting their hair on opposite sides, as someone else noted in his comment.

  • Adriane Bloyer - 2 years ago

    No, the ear shapes are quite different.

  • Richard - 2 years ago

    No, the noses are different lengths, and the hair parting are on opposite sides.

  • Pam Hagin - 2 years ago

    No. The younger picture is a young man who cannot grow full facial hair yet. If you are saying Cambell was 40 years old at the time then it cannot be him. This man is early 20s at the absolute oldest. Did Cambell perhaps have a cousin or nephew visiting around that timeframe? There is an uncanny resemblance.

  • JACK SWANSON - 2 years ago

    My YES vote is conditioned on the chance that Easterly photographed the mystery man at least 10 years prior to the c.1850 date. Having already gone through the aging/thickening process that kind of change represents more than a 15-year period.
    Otherwise, could it possibly be brother Hugh?

  • Ann Delaney - 2 years ago

    It is a hard call, but I do think it is Robert. And I must say that I think he got better looking with age.

    The unidentified picture and the one we know to be Robert are just too similar not to be the same person. Assuming the portrait was taken in 1850, the great sadness which I find evident in his face is readily understandable. Robert and Virginia had married in 1841. By 1850, they had buried four of the five children born in that decade--only Hugh was living and he nearly died in 1849 during the cholera epidemic, which claimed his older brother James.

    In the portrait of Robert, c. 1860, we are looking upon the countenance of a successful man, a life well lived who has spent the past 20+ years with a woman he loved and admired deeply. He has three living sons, two of whom are thriving and beginning to take their places in the world. There is still a tinge of great grief in his eyes, which is understandable, because we know that Robert and Virginia buried an additional six children during the 1850s and 60s.

    And that is the take of a woman/wife/mother...for what it is worth!

  • Patricia - 2 years ago

    Robert would have been 46 in this picture if the estimated date if 1850 is accurate and this appears to be a much younger man to me.

  • David Brown - 2 years ago

    Could it be a self-portrait? See Easterly's photo here: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=11177669&PIpi=90209816

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment