Date??

[Wiggy]

Really? . 

I would have thought she would be earlier than that.  I think others thoughts would have indicated that too.

  Born 1920 means this photo would have been taken well into the 1920s and I think that is too late for the black stockings, and boots.  Those ribbons were around during the 1910 - 1920 also as Gadget mentioned.

Could be wrong of course!     


Come in Jim!

Wiggy

[Gadget]

I'm puzzled too, Wiggy.

Are you sure it's Margaret?  I thought you only though it might be.

she is an enigma to us at the moment think her name is Margaret

Can you post the back of the picture, please?

Added - been looking at photos of girls early 1900s and quite a few like this 1905-1910. Think mid 1920s is a bit late for those boots.

[bailey216]

Well that sort that out then! Ahhh thought we might be getting somewhere! Will try and get a picture of the back of the photo sorted. Thanks

[bailey216]

Back of photo! Was stuck in an album! Did they put pictures onto postcards?

[Gadget]

Well, if it was divided by a vertical line, it would definitely be after 1902* but yours seems to only have a small line. is there anyway that you might have a careful look around where the stamp should be placed to see if there's anything printed there.

Photos were printed onto postcard photo paper.

* 1907 if US

Added - I gather that, although girls normlly wore their hair long, there was a  window of 1 or 2 years in the lte 1890s (say circa 1897) that hair was cut short .

[Treetotal]

Shame the stamp box isn't visible as it may have helped to narrow it down...some printers didn't take the dividing line all the way down on the postcard...I have many like it... so still post 1902 in the UK.
Carol