RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Wiggy on Monday 31 July 17 06:25 BST (UK)
-
Please would you tell me if this dress and photo would fit for a man who lived 1790 - 1856.
I am having my doubts that this is the right person assigned to this photo. :-\
The other contender is also Daniel Stanfield but born 1829 and died 1902. :-\
My thought is that the latter could be more likely.
No restoring required thanks . . . . Scan is not good.
Thanks folks,
Wiggy
-
It's certainly named as the 1790 -1856 one on the web, Wiggy
https://firstfleetfellowship.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Daniel-Stanfield-cropped2.jpg
Dress style suggests 1850s to early 1860s.. so :-\
Best wait for Jim - I'm not too good with estimating dates of gentlemen.
-
Have we seen this before?
This man's dressed typical of the 1850's - early 1860's.
This looks like it's been digitally altered at some point & may possibly reversed.
-
Have we seen this before?
I thought so too ???
PS - glad we agree on the date, Jim :)
-
Oh dear, Wiggy :
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=774479.0
-
Oh dear indeed. :(
SO SORRY. THE MINUTE Jim said about it being reversed, I remembered I'd posted it before. :-[ :-[ :-[.
I do beg your pardon....... Obviously I didn't add this to my list of posted threads.
Apologies all round.
Thanks for confirming that this is most likely the son and not the father (to whom the photo has been assigned !) Thought it looked wrong for someone dying of congestion in 1956 aged 66. Well I think that is what you have done. I think he is too young to be the 1790-1856 man.
Thanks Gadget and Jim.
Wiggy. I will try not to repeat the error. :-[ ;)
-
Here is a much later - and poorer photo of the Daniel who died in 1902 - so 'they' say. . . can you say whether this is the same person??
What do you think?
-
Similar eyes and nose, Wiggy, but not sure - do you have anything bigger and less contrasty?
Trouble is, if he's son of , then he could have similar features :-\
PS - this one has a definite ear lobe but not sure of the other as hair is over part of it - it may be a joined one
-
No sorry nothing better - found this on the internet just by chance - my line had gone off sideways by this time so I don't have access to this line's photos.
The one who died in 1856 was my GGGgrandfather - the one who died in 1902 was a distant uncle, but yes, his son.
I know what you mean about familial similarity. Tricky isn't it.
The first photo just doesn't look like a bloke near the end of his life to me. :-\ :-\
Thanks for your thoughts - I thought the nose, eye shape, and 'close' ears looked similar too. i.e. not wide, sticking-out ears.
-
If the assumption is that the 1st. photo is someone born in 1829 it would make him 25-30.
If the assumption is that the 2nd. photo is someone born 1790 it would make him 112 when he died.
Not the same person.
-
If the assumption is that the 1st. photo is someone born in 1829 it would make him 25-30.
If the assumption is that the 2nd. photo is someone born 1790 it would make him 112 when he died.
Not the same person.
I believe it's the other way around, Jim.
Daniel Stanfield, snr b. 1790 d 1856 is the first pic - he's shown on a number of Aus sites and is quite famous
The second one is Daniel Stanfield, jr b. 1829 and d 1902, his son. Also on many Aus sites.
Wiggy, I think, would like the first one (and the second one) to be junior (1829-1902) but an awful lot of evidence to the contrary.
Gadget
-
Actually I think it could be the Daniel Stanfield born Peterborough, UK 1766 - or something - who is the most Famous of them Gadget . . . .he was a marine with the first fleet!
. . .sold out and became a very wealthy free settler after he'd done his time in the army.
Yes his son also did a lot in the early Tasmanian community and owned a lot of land and I think was something in the government of the colony, as well as being among the first free-born children in the colony
. . . . . and I suppose HIS son did too, but I haven't followed him!
I will have to chase him up further . . . but he isn't my direct line - (Daniel 3rd that is.)
Thanks for your thoughts about him.
the first photo looks closer to 30 ish than 60 ish to me . . . so maybe the second photo could be him at 60ish depending on when it was taken . . e.g. about 1890-ish. . . . maybe? :-\