Old portrait painting c.1817 - Please date J J Cumming and Wife

[wurding]

The image is kept by an elderly woman in Zimbabwe who is a descendant of the couple she believes are depicted. If correct this would mean the image was made in the West Indies as the man who was married in 1811 in guadeloupe, was by 1916 promoted to rank of Captain of the 8th West India Reg. The date scrawled on the back of the image is 1817. It has been passed down the generations as an heirloom. Can the authenticity by verified?

[Handypandy]

 Edit:........... sorry I misread.....My first guess would be a print behind glass or a pastel, that has been kept in a damp atmosphere, judging by the water marks. 

[Ruskie]

I think it would be necessary to see the original before offering an opinion on authenticity. Fashions may indicate the date of 1817 is about right.  But when was that date written? It may have been years later and may be someone's best guess, or it may have been written by the person who drew it at the time. 

The figures are oddly proportioned - the man's bottom half and the chair in particular are tiny in comparision with the rest of him. (Unless this is due to the angle the photograph of the artwork was taken) . It looks like it was executed by an amateur.

[Regorian]

It could well be c1817. Pity, it's faded. He's wearing a long tailed coat which should be scarlet. The ladies dress and hairstyle are fine for 1817. He has lace on his collar, the design of which, would suggest a staff officer. Also, the detail on his facings and arms suggest something a lot more than a captain.     

[wurding]

I think it would be necessary to see the original before offering an opinion on authenticity. Fashions may indicate the date of 1817 is about right.  But when was that date written? It may have been years later and may be someone's best guess, or it may have been written by the person who drew it at the time. 

The figures are oddly proportioned - the man's bottom half and the chair in particular are tiny in comparision with the rest of him. (Unless this is due to the angle the photograph of the artwork was taken) . It looks like it was executed by an amateur.

Yes I suspect an amateur painter was all that was available in the west indies. the date was not written until probably the late 19th or early 20th century, perhaps as many as 100 years later. It was written by a descendant based on what they remembered being told. It was also accompanied by erroneous information about the man, saying he was in a different regiment than he ever served in.

It could well be c1817. Pity, it's faded. He's wearing a long tailed coat which should be scarlet. The ladies dress and hairstyle are fine for 1817. He has lace on his collar, the design of which, would suggest a staff officer. Also, the detail on his facings and arms suggest something a lot more than a captain.   

If it was who it is supposed to be, then that makes sense, since he was  deputy assistant quartermaster general of barbados until 1822

more information here https://rowsellfamilyhistory.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/danish-aristocracy-in-the-caribbean/ if you are interested.

[jim1]

The 8th. were disbanded in 1817 so may be a picture done before leaving the islands.
The blue coat is the only problem I have as has already been mentioned.
I can't find any reference to their uniform except the snippet below.
The 8th. did have a history in the Leeward Islands so much of it stacks up.

[Regorian]

Well, there you are, DAQG, that will be the uniform.

[e_m]

Several things point to its authenticity. Not only the detail of the costume, but the interiors...everything is correct for the period from the carpet to the wall panelling to the furniture. Look at the small marble topped side table. Delightful. I think this is so charming. Oh, please try and get it restored. It is somewhat amateurish but surprisingly good nonetheless. Look at the baby--it looks like an actual child instead of an adult's face on a little body. The detail of the clothing is there, the jewelry, chair leg shadows, everything. I love it. Without knowing the date on the back, I'd say it was 1815 or so, so there you go. If you can locate the birth record of the child you could add one or two years and arrive at the exact date, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was 1817.

[Handypandy]

Following e_m's gushing remarks but bearing in mind the original is artwork, I didn't resist the temptation and tried to give this image a sensitive touch.