Talk:John Armstrong Jr.

The photographic image of Armstrong is dubious
The Daguerreotype image dated 1840 and purportedly of Armstrong in the sidebar is dubious, to say the least. First, the Daguerreotype process was just introduced that year to the American marketplace and there were few cameras, and not many more competent photographers to operate them. Second, Armstrong would have been 82 years old in 1840; the image does not look to me like that of an 82 year-old man. The sitter's face looks to me like that of a man in his 50s. His bearing is upright, his hair and eyebrows are not white, hands are uncommonly fleshy for an 82 year-old man. Indeed, the portrait painted by Rembrandt Peale also in the article shows Armstrong as already mature or elderly (depending upon one's opinion), and the painter would've flattered the sitter by not emphasizing his apparent age. Yet Armstrong was just 50 at that time, 32 years prior to the date of the photograph! A Google search for "daguerreotype john armstrong" returns just one hit with this image, and no relevant text links that I could find. This is surprising, if he was indeed the only delegate to the Continental Congress to have been photographed, as claimed. So unless someone can produce compelling evidence to support this extraordinary claim, I think it should be removed. Occam&#39;s Shaver (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur. At the very least, its dubiousness ought to be mentioned. 68.172.38.134 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)