RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: bradelkington on Thursday 10 April 14 11:05 BST (UK)
-
this is my second great grandmother 1873-1916 she seems to be holding a tissue maybe indicating its a mourning photo? she lost her father in tragic railway accident in 1889 does that seem to be too young for her as she would be 16 years old in that year?
-
I have done a quick clean up for you. I would say this lady is older than 16 years.
Pat
-
Wow thanks looks wonderful thanks for that. She had 18 children throughout her life and lost a few in 1890s I wonder if it's for one of her children
-
Doesn't look like a mourning photo to me! Also think it may be early 1900s - I think she has her hair up and in a net/restraint.
She is wearing an apron. :-\ Or does the apron have a similar piece at the back and is part of the dress.
The dress is very simple
She died at 43 having had 18 children :-\ - - - Wow - she was busy - it hardly seems possible!! ;)
Wiggy
-
They didn't have tissues in the 1870's when this was taken. It's an embroidered handkerchief.
jim
-
I may be very wrong but the apron effect suggests 1870s to me. Like Wiggy, I don't think it's mourning.
Snap, Jim - I was right then ;D
-
Hi, I remember seeing a similar photograph on another thread but I think it was a much older lady, it was mentioned about a possible connection with the empty chair she was standing beside and if it was in respect of someone who had died and the chair had some kind of significance to them.
So it may well be a mourning photograph :-\
I'm rambling on again................... ::)
Regards.
Frank.
-
Ah well - way out with dates - but right about not being mourning! ;)
- and also right about feeling it may not be the lady you think it is Bradelkington.
-
It's defiantly my second great nan born 1873 so it can't be 1870s? She looks at least 18 so 1890s onwards. Her dad was run over and killed my a train in 1889 she married the same year and had 18 children and died in 1916, hard to date it through as it's difficult to guess her age
-
this is a photo of her mother who lived 1847-1913 she is the widow of the man who was killed in 1889 any idea on date for this one please?
-
It's defiantly my second great nan born 1873 so it can't be 1870s?
Who told you it was her? Jim is excellent at dating and my book suggested 1870s. Did she have any elder sisters?
Could you posiibly scan the back, please - all of it including the edges. This could further help with dating.
Gadget
-
It's defiantly my second great nan born 1873 so it can't be 1870s?
Definitely 1870's.
Is there much point in dating this if you don't believe what's being said ?
-
Hi I appologise if I sounded ungrateful in your estimate of date I was disapointed that its not who ive been told it is, what do you date the second photo perhaps they have bren confused unfornunatly I do not iwn the origina vopies
-
The second one looks to me as though it is 1880's, possibly 1885ish :)
Joy
-
Just to add and also to confirm on the date of the first image being from the 1870's.
The subject's hair is off the forehead and taken back towards the crown and the back of the head leaving the ears uncovered, where it has been put into a Chignon, due to the lowness of this where it is on the nape of the neck it then is termed as being in a Catagan style. She only has two pieces of jewellery that I can see these being what would appear to be be dropped earrings and a brooch. Her Bodice would have had a dropped shoulder seam, which because of the small shawl that she sports can not be seen. The sleeves of the bodice it self are "coat sleeves" which have no overal design shape to them stopping short of the wrist and having a single button at what would be the cuff, however this area is extended an inch or so by the inclusion of some lace work which then takes this to the wrist. The skirt, seperate from the bodice, is typical of the era with a sweep from the waist to the hem, which falls just above the floor and in line with the toe of the footwear, above the hem can be seen the "frilling" of the skirt sometimes this is only one line of material other times it can be two, three or more. The skirt also has fabric dropping down from the waist, both front and back, which gives the skirt its name of being an "apron skirt" (the fabric at the back, which one can just make out, is known as a peplum and in todays fashion both front and back go by that name). As Jim has alsready said, the hankerchief would be of lace and I would not put to much store on the fact that she is holding it because of mourning. Photographers were, at this time, getting the sitter to hold things be it a book, glasses or in this case a hankerchief. I would also not put too much on the fact that she is standing next to an empty chair, which by the way is a Jacobian revival chair with barley twist back supports, an over the top decorative splat and turned stetchers again typical of the date given by Jim & Gadget, it did happen that chairs were used in the fashion that Frank has described but again I feel that in this instance the chair has been utilised more as a prop by the photographer to even the image out and also to lend some support to the subect (not forgetting that due to the exposure time one had to stay stock still.
OR.
-
What a lot I learn on this site! ;) ;)
-
Don't you just love it, I find every day is a learning curve.
Thanks for putting that on OR.
Frank. :)
-
A long time since we had an OR master class.
-
Wonderful stuff, OR - glad you've popped back :D
-
Wonderful analysis as always from OR :)
Well, again, it's an 1870s photo. The colour of the dress she is wearing will never be known, but it could be any dark colour as they all showed up pretty much the same in old photos. Even yellow could show up dark...and in this photo the dress doesn't even look very dark.
The second photo would be mid 1880s, not as late as the change of sleeve style in 1889. As a lady in mourning would have likely acquired the latest fashion, quite suddenly, I doubt this is a mourning photo from 1889 or the year after. The dress looks quite a bit darker than the one in the first photo but again, it could be any dark colour. Also her beaded chatelaine chain seems to have bright shiny bits in it, which was frowned upon for mourning. My opinion :)
Cheers,
China
-
So I was correct in saying that the second photo was 1880's ;)
I enjoyed reading OR's analysis of the first photo...it was amazing 8)
Joy
-
HI all sorry to be late to reply I find it hard to find the time with work and having a baby to come onto pc. Thanks a lot in the information and dating for me, I was told the first photo was of my second great 1873-1916 and the second photo of her mom who lived 1847-1913 so the second one could well be right but the first one is strange how old do you think the lady in the first photo is? for it to be the wrong person and be my third great nan born 1847 she would be maybe mid twenties to thirty years old?
it was a lady I spoke to on ancestry she uploaded a photo of a different ancestor and when I got speaking she said she had these photos and told me who they was and sent them me via email. Maybe someone in her family got them muddled up ?
again thanks for analysing them for me
all the best Dave
-
Reckon she got something muddled up! :)
Wiggy
-
The 2nd. photo seems to show a single woman, also I believe this was taken early 1880's because the bodice on this outfit extends well over the hips which is a late 1870's - early 1880's style. By the early 80's the bodice style had changed to a shorter "v" or "w" shape.
If the 1st. one is anyone in the Simkiss family you'd have to say Mary.
-
Jim I think you may be right saying it could be Mary simkiss she lived 1841 until 5 sept 1874 her dad died 2 months prior to her own death so if it was a mourning photo it could be for her dad. She had my second great grandfather John Henry in 1867 the man in ww1 photo you've helped me with and I can see they look alike now. She had John Henry illigimatly and lived with her parents abednego and ann simkiss. She died in 1874 aged 33 of TB I guess it must be her!