DATING please ?? Daniel STANFIELD

[jim1]

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.

[Gadget]

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

[Wiggy]

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?