Patricia Hogan, the curator of the Strong Museum dolls, kindly spent a few minutes talking with me about the Izannah Walker dolls in their collection. While there she had a folder with information about the various dolls. The doll shown below was undressed with the back shown. The curator mentioned that she had received a letter saying that this doll was not an Izannah Walker doll. I saw the letterhead at the top of the page the curator was holding and I have a good guess as to who the writer of the letter might be. What fun! This doll has an Izannah-esque head shape with applied ears. It's a bit hard to see because of the way she was positioned. But she has a very different body. Here's are several theories of mine...
1) She's an Izannah doll that has been amended or fixed. Perhaps she lost her body covering or was damaged in some way and some kind grandma gave her new arms and legs. Grandma did a nice job shaping the body, if that's the case.
2) Perhaps she is a Jane Walker doll?
3) Perhaps she is a later doll made inspired by Izannah Walker made by someone else?
4) Perhaps she is an early Izannah Walker doll?
Well, there are many guesses. And it's very interesting to see this doll standing next to all the others - her mitten hands, unpainted arms and legs don't fit into the category of Izannah. Looking at these dolls is all part of the search. By the way, if you haven't read the article The Search for Izannah Walker by Monica Bessette, it's a must read. I just purchased an old copy of Doll News with that article in it from Ebay ;-)
Here are the pictures I was able to take. Apologies for reflections and ghosts of cameras.
Very interesting Dix, this doll has the same lower torso as the 'Izzy' that was relisted? Wow, to only know the true origin of this doll.ReplyDelete
Were you able to see the front of the head? I didn't even notice this at first! But after looking closely I see those mitten hands! Wonder what the face looks like??ReplyDelete
Denise - they wouldn't open the case...so I have no idea. Which is too bad!ReplyDelete