RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Girl Guide on Monday 24 July 17 17:28 BST (UK)
-
Can anyone tell me when they think these photos were taken please?
The photographer is a Thomas Stearn of 72 Bridge Street, Cambridge. In 1861 he is a tailor but by 1871 he has become a photographer.
I believe the couple are from the Watson family.
-
here are photos for dating
-
Thanks for putting them on for me Loord. I must have done something wrong somewhere!
-
Late 1860s early 1870s for the first and 1870s would for the second would be my guess.
Carol
-
Thank you for that information Carol. I'm not much good at trying to date photos.
So I think they may be Kate Watson's grandparents then. Kate was born in 1875 and the couple don't look young enough to be her parents.
The choice is between her father's parents or her mother's!
Okay, fine, at least I have some idea of the time frame.
-
It's always a good idea to post the backs if you have them as that helps in Dating...the lady and gent look to be dressed in the 1860s fashion but the oval vingnette was a style in the 1870s.
Carol
-
I'll have a go at downloading the back but this may go wrong again!
Oh dear, got it wrong again! Not very clued up on this sort of thing.
-
The back of Girl Guide's photo. (It looks like it's the photo of the lady, going by the damage at the top.)
-
And a couple of clean-ups. Cheers, Peter.
-
Just a couple of thoughts on the people in these photos.
After working on them closely, I think that there is quite an age difference between them, particularly if, as Carol has indicated, the photo of the lady could be up to a decade later than that for the man. (Note that although they were taken in the same position in the same studio, they are sitting on different chairs, the camera angle is different and the tones of the photos are quite different.)
If they were husband and wife, you may be looking at an age difference of up to 20 years or more between them. Alternatively, could they be father and daughter? (They both have unusually pale, piercing eyes, which could be a family trait - or I may be completely wrong!)
Hope this helps. Cheers, Peter.
-
They look similar and like McGroger I feel they could be father and daughter. Their eyes do appear to be a family trait.
:)
-
Hi Peter and Medpat - Thanks for your comments.
Gosh what a difference doing a clean up makes! Really appreciate that Peter.
I did the back of the lady as that was cleaner than the male one but his is just the same.
I'll have to have a look and check if I have a good enough photo of Kate Watson to check out the eyes. Now that the photos have been cleaned up you can get to see more detail.
Such a pity that no names or dates were put on the photos. Would have made life so much easier if that had been done.
Perhaps I had better go through my photos and put names and dates on them. That will take a while!!! ::) ::)
-
I think they were taken in the same studio at the same time which points to 1870s rather than 1860s, the man's beard is called a Newgate Frill. I believe they could be man and wife, just my opinion. The corners are rounded so more likely to be early to mid decade.
Carol
-
Many thanks for your opinion Carol, much appreciated.
-
The woman is early - mid 1860's & as they were both taken in the same studio with the same backdrop the one of him was probably as well.
The cardstock is mid-late 1870's so reprints.
-
Thank you for your input Jim.
I have just discovered from the Fading Images website that Thomas Stearn was made bankrupt in 1864. So he then decided to set up as a photographer and in August 1865 advertised in the local Cambridge newspaper as a photographer.
So the photos that I attempted to attach!, must have been taken any time from 1865 onwards.
-
must have been taken any time from 1865 onwards
No.
The Stearn cardstock is mid-late 1870's & are reprints of earlier photos. This doesn't mean Stearn was the original photographer.
-
Ok Jim, fair enough, I'm willing to accept that. I don't know very much about dating photographs and certainly not early ones.
-
I wonder if 'she' was actually a 'he ::).
-
I did wonder too...she has a very masculine look.... I was thrown by the design on the backs which I knew didn't fit with the fashion of the pair which I thought was 1860s...but was reluctance to suggest a reprint. Thank heavens for Jim and his superior knowledge :D
Carol
-
I'm glad not to be alone Treetotal. Being a life long admirer of the female form, her face' just doesn't look right. I'd love that dress, swish, swish.
-
Another thing has been bugging me. Her dress could well be 1850's. I wonder if both the photographs are of the same person, say ten years or more apart.