Can anyone help date this photo?

[paretree]

Found this photo among my late mother's posesions and can only assume the subjects are my ancestors - presumably my mother's grand parents and possibly the baby is her mother or father.

Any help in dating this would be appreciated.

Graham

[bluedooo]

Hi Graham

I've touched up the image you posted for dating - hope you dont mind !

Tom

[paretree]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for touching up the photo - it looks great!

Graham

[old rowley]

Morning Graham,

An interesting study. This shows a married couple with, I would imagine their first child. The male has his hair cut short and close to the head leaving the ears exposed and is clean shaven except that is for a wonderous walrus moustache (sometimes refered to as "an old Bill moustache" ). He has a full stand collar and a tartan (?) tie, tied in the four in hand style. The tie has a small tie or stick pin showing in the centre. There are only two other things to note with his attire, the first is that he has a watch chain hole set into his waistcoat where his Albert passes through and the other is his button hole display and silk in his breast pocket. (alright that's three things but its early for me)

The woman has her hair taken away from her brow, although there is a whisp of a fringe showing and has it in a bun at the back of her head. Dressed in this fashion the hair has left the ears exposed. She has a high, laced, neckline and the sleeving on her bodice is in a stepped epaulette form at the upper portion of the arm. What I first took as a plastron fronted bodice I know feel is a "full apron" or over cover to protect the clothing from dirt etc as it does not look right with this attire ( I could be totally wrong here). Like the man she has a flower sprey on her bodice top (note that it is not on the "apron") Which leads me to the flowers not only on the woman but also on the male.

I noticed that the button hole is of a dark colouration and has small decoration behind the head of the "flower" on the woman her's is also of a white and a dark flower sprey. Couple this with the dark silk in the gent's breast pocket could this be a photograph taken after the small baby has died I wonder as a way of remembering "baby" and the family that once was? or am I reading too much into this photograph. I would be interested in what the other might think.

oh nearly forgot, as a date line I would suggest around 1888 to 1889.

old rowley

[paretree]

Hi old rowley,

What a wonderful evaluation! Thank you.

I suspect the married couple are my grandmother's parents, Charles Saunders and Jane Emily Cleaver.

Their eldest child was born 1884, which may be too early by your estimate?

What is particularly interesting is your comment "could this be a photograph taken after the small baby has died " as the family suffered three child deaths during the 1890's. Their eldest son Cyril Edward Saunders died 1896 aged about 1 year.

Thanks again for the thoughts,

Graham

[chinakay]

At first I wasn't so sure this could be a post-mortem photo as the woman doesn't seem to be wearing black, which is mandatory for the Victorian mourning customs. But after digging a bit, I find that according to Harper's Bazar magazine (an authority on fashion and etiquette), mourning for a child should last nine months and the clothing need not be completely black as for a husband, but should be edged with black crape. Since we can't really see much of the woman's dress, the crape edging may well be there.

Certainly the couple look even more somber than most photographic sitters, and the baby does not look at all normal.

Postmortem portraits of deceased infants were not considered gruesome in Victorian society, but were treasured mementoes of a departed family member.

As always, a sterling analysis from OR.

Cheers,
China

[paretree]

Hi China,

Thanks for your input, Clearly this isn't the happy family photo I thought it might have been and explains the solumn appearance of the parents - I thought this was 'normal' Victorian restraint!

Graham