when was this taken? Graham's Art Studios, top end of The Parade, Leamington

[KN]

Dear Fellow Rootschatters

Have very luckily found this photo, and I'd love to be be able to deduce some information from it. 

I know who I would like it to be, but don't want to influence your opinions in any way. 

The back of the photo tells me that it was taken at Graham's Art Studios, top end of The Parade, Leamington.  Mr Graham moved into those premises in 1877.

Could any of you experts out there tell me when you think this photo could have been taken please?

with best wishes

KN

[jim1]

Children are quite difficult to date as these clothes styles were popular over quite a long period.
Taking it all into account I would suggest 1890's but could easily be into the late 1880's or early 1900's.
Can we see what's on the back?

[IgorStrav]

No help with dating, but

aaaah, velvet.  So practical for small boys, especially when playing cricket 

[KN]

Dear Jim and Igor

Thank you for your responses.  I've attached the back of the photo, which is itself a lovely thing!

KN

[jim1]

The back is a mid-late 1880's style so I would suggest a date of 1886-89.

[KN]

How old do you think that the boys look, Jim?

[jim1]

7/8 & 9/10.

[KN]

Very interesting estimates Jim.

Doesn't quite fit with what I hoped.

I had wondered if they were twins, born in March 1877. 

I've found some other photos taken by Mr Graham - here's one using the same furniture! https://www.ourwarwickshire.org.uk/content/catalogue_wow/leamington-spa-graham-studios-portrait-114  this one from 1879

Of course we don't know how long this furniture was around for. 

IF the boys in the photos are say 7, and they were born in 77, then the photo would be from 1884 which doesn't quite tie up with your estimates, and is a few years after the other photo that I found.

I don't think that I'll ever be able to identify these two but it's fun trying!

with many thanks for your interest.

KN

[jim1]

I thought they might be twins as they look identical & are also wearing identical clothes. However the lad standing looks taller than the other one & he looks about 9 so I guesstimated the other being a year or two younger.
If they are twins & the apparent height difference is down to the photo angle or the way he's sitting then 1886 would be about right.
OK. I've put your photo into my editing prog. & made a few comparisons.
Their heads are pretty much the same distance from the camera are exactly the same size.
The length of leg from knee to ankle is slightly longer on the seated boy but that would be expected as he's nearer the camera.
So it's possible it's the way he's sitting that makes him look shorter.