RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Guy Etchells on Monday 04 December 17 12:24 GMT (UK)
-
I have a couple of daguerreotypes or ambrotypes that I have no identification for, both are in small cases one red one brown.
I have uploaded a rough and ready page showing the likely connections and possible relations. For some reason Elizabeth Dutton’s image does not want to appear above her name but is the 1st picture on the page (top line left hand image)
I should also note that William Guy married Elizabeth Dutton not Mary Dutton but every time I try to change something, something else gets disrupted.
http://www.anguline.co.uk/fampics/Pics.htm
I think one ( image 4) may be Mary Anne Hickling but she had 5 sisters so image 4 is possibly a sister rather than Mary Anne.
On the other had Mary Anne is my grandfather’s mother so I think it is more likely a second photo of her.
Image 5 & 6 are digital photos of the same daguerreotype but due to lighting conditions are slightly different and I cannot decide which would be the most useful here.
They may also be of Mary Anne but there do seem to be subtle differences (Mary Anne seems to have a more pointed chin)
I would like to hear other people’s opinions please.
Cheers
Guy
-
Hi Guy...Daguerreotypes are metal and Ambrotypes are glass...a magnet with tell if they are Daguerreotypes.
I have messaged Jim to get him to take a look as his dating is more accurate than mine...You are very lucky to have them.
Dates of when the women were born would help too.
Carol
-
Hi Guy...Daguerreotypes are metal and Ambrotypes are glass...a magnet with tell if they are Daguerreotypes.
I have messaged Jim to get him to take a look as his dating is more accurate than mine...You are very lucky to have them.
Dates of when the women were born would help too.
Carol
Thanks Carol.
Yes unfortunately three are framed with glass front and wooden backs and the two in cases are also protected from a small magnet except from the glass front and I would be cautious to use a big magnet on them there in case I cracked the glass.
The life spans are 1800-1881, 1801-1856, 1832-1888 (not sure about the two in cases) which really means they could be either process or even tintype.
I think the image of Elizabeth Dutton (top left) could be a tintype as the background looks to be painted black rather than the grey it appears on the photo.
The three in frames are identified but the two in cases have no id on them.
Cheers
Guy
PS I have added a slightly better close up image of Elizabeth Dutton here
http://www.anguline.co.uk/fampics//Elizabeth_Dutton_cu.jpg
-
I see what you mean now...See here:
http://www.cycleback.com/photoguide/dags.html
Carol
-
Thanks.
What I mean is they are all either in frames or in a case.
There is at least an eight of an inch beteen the image and the glass and the one of Elizabeth Dutton has about half an inch between the image and the glass.
Without taking them apart, which I am not going to even attempt I cannot see if they are printed on glass.
One of the ones in a small case (image 4) is very reflective, like a mirror so I suspect it is an ambrotype.
Really I am hoping someone may be able to date the two at the bottom image 4 and images 5/6 by the hair styles of dress styles etc.
Cheers
Guy
-
First just for clarification Dags are on copper so not magnetic.
If it's a Dag you will lose the image if viewed at an angle which you don't get with Ambro's.
They look to me to be 1850's Ambrotypes but could be into the early 60's.
-
Oops...schoolgirl error...that's tintypes that are magnetic :-[
Thanks for wading in with your expert opinion Jim ;)
Carol
-
Thanks Jim, two of the framed images Ann Phipps (1800-1881) image 2 and Mary Anne Hickling (1832-1888) image 3 seem very flat and can be viewed from all angles so from your description are Ambrotypes.
The larger image Elizabeth Dutton (1801-1856) image1 (top left) may also be a Ambrotypes but it seems to have the background painted black and when you look at it at an angle the person seems to be on a very slightly different level than the background.
The two which are in small cases are probably Daguerreotypes the image disappears when you look at them from an angle and they are very reflective like a mirror.
Cheers
Guy
-
The two which are in small cases are probably Daguerreotypes the image disappears when you look at them from an angle and they are very reflective like a mirror
.
These are definitely Daguerreotypes & would date them slightly earlier as they were superseded by Ambrotypes in 1851 but there may have been a period where they ran together.
So late 1840's-v.early 1850's for those 2.
-
Nice one Jim :D ...you are so lucky to have them Guy 8)
Carol
-
Thanks again Jim, your knowledge seems to show that the two images 4 & 5 are very likely to be different ladies.
I did wonder if they were younger images of Mary Anne Hickling image 3 but it seems likely now that one may be but possible the other or even both is/are Mary's sisters (she had 5 sisters and 4 would fit in with a photo taken in the 1840s or very early 50s.
Your dating also seems to show the two images 4 & 5 were taken before Mary's marriage in 1858.
Thank you.
Does anyone have any suggestions about the clothes or hair for images 4 & 5.
Yes Carol, it seems to stem from my interest in family history that I keep being giving items from the estate of relatives when their houses are cleared after their deaths.
I have all sorts from valuable items that have to be kept in the bank through a silver plated trowel presented to a great aunt and her husband who paid for a Baptist Church to be built through samplers made by ancestors as schoolgirls, a miniature oar given to crewmen of an Oxford boat and photos such as these daguerreotypes and ambrotypes and a weight lifting medal my grandfather won in New Zealand and two books he wrote.
Every item means so much to me, even a book written about my eldest brother's father (a well known horseman) in which the author was not very complimentary about my mother who left him for my father is precious to me.
That may seem strange, but I have also been left the letters he wrote to my mother and the letters she wrote to him for many years after their separation their affection for each other even though they were not suited to each other.
All these artifacts are a window into my ancestors lives and I hope one of my sons (or perhaps my grandaughter) might carry one being the family historian when it is my turn to depart. ;)
Cheers
Guy
-
OK. Dress & hairstyles were pretty much the same in the 1840's & 50's so the only dating is whether they are Dag's or Ambro's.
Highly unlikely you will see a Dag as late as 1858 as the cost was greater than an Ambro & were discontinued soon after their introduction.
However the 2 ladies are wearing rings that (on a least one) appear to be wedding rings.
As these images were in reverse the ring looks to be on the wrong hand as you can see in pic.4.
however again I have seen these were the wedding ring has been placed on the right hand to make it look correct as in pic. 5.
So at least one of these ladies is married, possibly both.
Hands on confirmation that they are Daguerreotypes will help although from what you say they appear to be.
-
What an idiot I am Jim, I never even thought the images were reversed, or flipped.
Having read your post I opened the images in Photoshop and flipped them horizontally and the postures look far more natural and as you say the hands are now on the right side.
The number of times I have read about the images being negatives and I never really thought of the consequences.
Cheers
Guy
-
They're are not negatives, they're positives as the media the image is on was that placed in the camera that's why they are reversed.
If you've reversed them digitally it's best to put that info on them.
-
Yes, I totally agree any manipulation of images needs to be recorded.
I when I save the "new" images on my computer will add that they have been digitally flipped horizontally, I also save the original images.
Cheers
Guy
-
I print it on the image that way anyone seeing it will know.