RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Steeple1 on Friday 02 March 18 12:38 GMT (UK)
-
Only because of the very distinctive floor covering I'm hoping it's possible to say if this photo was likely to have been taken in Scotland or Tunbridge Wells, Kent. TKS.
-
Hi Steeple and welcome to Rootschat...It will be very hard to identify where the photo was taken without the photographer's name...is there anything written on the back? Have you found the family on the 1861 census which might give a clue to where they were living at the time.
Carol
-
TKS for yr response.The photo was stuck onto a card without any writing on it at all. The child is my gm née Welsh, with her mother being one of the two at rear. Seated is their mother, surnames Sanderson. All were bn Penicuik MLN except gm, bn Tunbridge Wells KEN. I was hoping that someone might have noticed the highly patterned floor covering elsewhere.
-
PS. Birth certs show family were living in Soho in 1861 but the relevant census pages are missing.
-
I may be telling you something you know but just in case,the background is painted,so not outside an impressive building and the carpet is a dead give- away.
Sometimes the photographer would visit an area and take photographs, taking with him his own background cloths.
At other times he would take the photographs in his studio and people could choose which background they preferred.
Sorry this info won`t be of much help.
Judging by the exquisite clothes the ladies were quite well to do.
Thanks for sharing a lovely photograph
Viktoria.
-
Thanks for the info. I've read about studios and have several 19C photographs of set-ups clearly not what they are made to look like.
The Scottish family were involved in the papermaking trade at Penicuik but at what level is unknown. However, the little girl's grandfather answered the call of the City of LND police c 1838 and emigrated as did his bride, the child's mother, the one rear left. She married a builder / carver gilder / painter. In 1851 he is shown as a Footman at Clapham SRY to the Cubitt family, (later national building contractors) so I suspect that there is a connection which caused the move to Tunbridge Wells and the building trade.
With 13 children, his various trades hardly point to wealth so the clothes may have been Sunday best.
Some of the birth certs were bought back in pen and ink days by writing to the Supt Registrar and cost 3/9d (<20p)!
-
Welcome from me too Steeple.
I think Carol is suggesting this photo was taken quite early - like late 1850s or early 1860s - those big sleeves and large crinolined skirts would indicate so.
. . . . in which case if that baby is your grandmother?? - rather than Great, or even Great great - well, . . . . . it seems to me there is a generation or two missing.
I am no spring-chicken, but my grandmother was born in 1892. This photo is likely to be 30-35 years before! :-\
It is a lovely photo and one to treasure!
Wiggy
-
What year was the baby born?
It may be possible to narrow down the photographer based on the year it was taken
M :)
-
Welcome from me too :)
Apart from the crinolines, the hair is worn over the ears which suggests late 50s or very early 1860s, as Carol and Wiggy have suggested.
The child looks to be about 18mths old +/-. Can you confirm your grandmother's date of birth.
Gadget
-
My gm, the baby at centre was bn 1870 and d 1959 and the photo was always on display while she was alive and I clearly remember being told it was her.
Presumably there can be a discrepancy between comparatively inexpensive hair fashion, and clothing which would have to last a long time. Or less likely, fashion tended to take time to travel – pointing to the photo having been taken in SCT?
-
The photo is all wrong for 1870 and it's my belief that the baby is more likely to be your Great Grandma and some confusion has led to misinformation. Your Grandma could have genuinely believed it was her as a baby. Some did wear dated clothes for the reason you have mentioned but not by over a decade, the hair, clothes and backdrop are all wrong for 1870 in my opinion.
Carol
-
Agree with what's been said re the date.
Fashion periodicals travelled the Empire very quickly so no-one was more than a few months behind the trend.
Younger women were the most fashionable & I wouldn't expect to see these 2 wearing hair/clothes like this later than mid 1860's.
It was a cost free exercise to move hair from ears & the 7 hooped crinoline frame which is what happened mid decade. The Bell sleeve & Bertha on the one & the Brettelles of the other are an 1850's style that crossed over into the early 60's but by late 60's younger women would have considered this style old fashioned.
By 1870 there was a sea change in hair & dress styles & you won't see any woman dressed like this irrespective of their location or social standing.
So I would suggest a start date of 1858 as this is when CdeV's first appeared to around 1863/4.
-
Thank for your advice which I'm happy to take on board, even though it causes doubt as to who the others are. Now that the names assigned need revising, there are a couple of Private Trees on Ancestry which seem connected so I shall try asking them if they have ever seen the photo.
-
You may also like to consider the possibilty that the child could be a boy.
Carol
-
Yes boys were dressed as girls until they were "Breeched",at about five years of age.
They were then dressed in trousers, about knee length.
Viktoria.
-
A possibility as the firstborn was Edward, bn.1861 and the balance of probabilities tends to point to a fuss being made about that child that may not have been repeated.
-
A possibility as the firstborn was Edward, bn.1861 and the balance of probabilities tends to point to a fuss being made about that child that may not have been repeated.
Sounds a good match.
Added - but it would be worth looking for cousins, etc. b.c. late 1850s.