RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: rlw254 on Friday 02 March 18 19:00 GMT (UK)
-
Hello, I'm hoping you'll be able to give me a better idea of the dates both of these photographs were taken. I'm trying to see if they are potentially the same women and dates would be very helpful.
-
Hi
I'm thinking that the first photo might be 1915ish*. Not sure of the wedding photo - maybe a bit later.
Gadget
* the older woman's dress and the child's button boots might suggest earlier though :-\
-
Not sure of the dates, but the men in the (double?) wedding photo look like brothers, if that's a clue?
Based on looks, the women look similar in the photos, but I'm doubtful they're the same.
M :)
-
I have some hints for the wedding photo based on the fact that they're getting married and I have an idea of what family this is from.
The first generation was married twice in Dec 1881 and Nov 1893. I don't think these are quite that old. The wife would be age 24 and 36 respectively.
The second generation was married twice also, in Nov 1903 and June 1909. The wife would be age 18 and 24 respectively.
The third generation was married between 1927-1934. The wife would be around ages 21-28.
The second generation had two sisters that were married two years apart in July 1901 and Nov 1903. It's possible that maybe the first had their official wedding ceremony at a later date and this photo was taken at a joint ceremony. Other than that, I can't find any evidence of two members of the same family that were married around the same time. I suppose they may not be family.
The first child in each case was born shortly after, meaning the family photo likely came soon after one of the generations was married.
Additionally, here's a photo of one of the women in the second generation taken sometime in the 60s-70s. Does anyone think that her face matches any of the women in the two original photos?
-
If that's the family, I think it would be most likely the 1909 marriage but they're puzzling me :-\
Gadget
Added -I don't think the first two photos are of the same women
-
I can't see any likeness between the people in the wedding photo and the people in the big photo.
Are you saying they are the same women? :-\ :-\
I do wonder if the woman in the last photo could be the one on the right in the first.
Wouldn't swear to it in a court of law though. ;)
Wiggy
-
Wiggy and I were wondering about the wedding photo. Where was it taken?
-
The large family photo and the double-wedding photo may not strictly be of the same people but I do believe they are somehow the same family. Story goes that the older woman of generation two (pictured last) gave the wedding photo to someone in this family. The owner thought that the two women being married were her daughters (third generation) but it appears to be much too old for that.
The picture I just shared from the 60s-70s is certainly a woman of the second generation - her name was also given to me along with the large family photo so I believe she is one of those women. For a while I believed that she was the older one in the back of the family photo, but I now think that the photo is a generation older than I though it was.
The photos were likely taken in Newfoundland.
-
I think there is too much time lapse for the coloured photo to be of the older woman in the first photo. Much more likely to be the youngest- I think!
I think the wedding photo has a distinct European look to it - could be very wrong though. ;)
Wiggy
-
Let's assume that the two young women in the family photo are generation two. This generation consisted of two daughters born 1882 and 1885, and a son born in 1883. The older daughter was married in 1901, the younger daughter in 1903. The first child of the older daughter was a boy born in 1902. The first child of the younger daughter was a girl born in 1905. I'm also going to assume that the child in this photo is the first child since others would probably be included if not. I can't personally tell if it's a boy or a girl...
If this photo were taken around 1904, for example, the girls would be 22 and 19. Their mother would be approximately 47. The gen 2 daughter born in 1885 lived to be 96 years old, hence the more modern photograph. In this case, one of the two young women would have to be her.
-
Bumping this to the top of the board - I'd love some more opinions! :)
-
Looking at the two photos I think that they were different women. The women in the photo with the older woman (mother?) I think was taken at a later date. These women look more attractive than the women in the wedding photo. :) Deb
-
I'll give a little bit of an update here. In photo #1, the woman seated at the left is most likely the older woman from photo #3, and I believe this was taken around 1905.
I am still working on photo #2. I would love to get a good date range on this one as I think it would be very helpful for ID. Personally I think it looks a good bit older than photo #1. Maybe it contains the oldest woman in the back of photo #1 at her marriage? Somehow it is related to this family.
Any input on photo #2 is much appreciated. Any clothing experts?
-
I have looked again, but can add nothing new to what has been said by everyone. :-\
Wiggy
-
Perhaps if you could scan the whole of the wedding photograph (including the edges) and the back it may help in dating the photograph?
-
Great idea! I've had it in a frame knowing there was nothing to see on the back. I looked again at the full scan of the front to find a very faint signature at the bottom - E. J. Davis, a photographer in Philadelphia around 1908. I'll use this information and try to reference everything in my tree around these people to find anyone married around this time.
I still have a hard time believing that either of the two girls are the same as those in photo #1. I don't see the resemblance.
-
I think the woman in the right hand of the wedding photo could be the same woman in the right hand side of the second photo as there mouths look same quite wide. I don't think the girls in wedding photos look related as one on left very distinctive looking. Maybe 2 brothers marrying at same time. I think the wedding photo quite early 1900 as veil seems a bit over the top like something from 1890s.