RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Lookingbacktofront on Tuesday 14 November 17 19:42 GMT (UK)
-
would love to see this restored and in some colour if possible thanks for all attempts in advance
-
As you've put a question mark next to the date I can tell you that you need to come forward a couple of decades.
-
Hello no I don't need to come forward a couple of decades my great grandmother was born in 1896 and she looks about 4 to me in the picture thanks for your opinion though
-
One from me
Pat
-
A colour version
Pat
-
This is fantastic you really have brought them back to life how fantastic! Can't wait to show the rest of the family thank you!
-
colored one
-
soft effect
-
A quick clean up, colour and with a slight deviation away from the original photo feeling but I wanted to add some light - to give it my style. 8)
And an extra version with more blur but B/W.
I am sure i have seen this photo before ??
-
Some beautiful restoration work there, folks!
Re the dating of this photo to 'circa 1900', I agree with Jim1 - I think it's quite a bit later than that.
I am definitely no expert, but I do have one or two photos of my grandmother, born 1877, when she was in her very early 20s, just before her marriage in 1900. It seemed to be a period of tight bodices, high necklines and long skirts - absolutely nothing like the looser, casual style of dress worn by the woman in this photo. And the way the child is dressed? When did little white sock and black t-bar shoes come into fashion for children?
Sorry, but to me 1900 seems quite a bit too early.
Anne
-
1901 summer in the album it's in
-
Like me Anne doesn't want you to go along believing these are 2 people who they couldn't possibly be because of the clothes & hairstyle. This is 1920's.
-
Thanks for opinions
-
Based on photos I have and the many that I have restored on here and seen dated...I'm inclined to agree with Jim and Anne... is it a postcard photo and if so, can you show us the back please. More likely to be your Great Grandmother b. 1896 and your Grandmother as a child.
Carol
-
I also agree with Jim , the clothing does not fit the era you suggest.
-
.
-
Hi all my grandmother was born 1929 the two in the picture is 100 percent gt and gt gt grans
-
I think it's your great grandmother and grandmother as a toddler. I have photos of my mother with that hairstyle/clothing in late 1920s and early 1930s.
All those who've made comments on the dates have masses of experience in dating old photos.
Gadget
-
The child's clothing is similar to samples sewn by my mother at Domestic Science College in the 1930s, making it likely that the child is your grandmother.
Bear in mind that even although the album is dated 1901, the photos in it might not all be from that date. I have old albums where photos that are clearly older/newer have been inserted; maybe to fill a gap or replace a picture the current owner didn't like, or as a safe place to keep a valued photo. Can you remove it to see the back, or is it pasted in?
-
Unfortunately this time they have got it wrong
-
This is what women wore circa 1900:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~victorianphotographs/date/a1901.htm
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~victorianphotographs/date/a1900.htm
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~victorianphotographs/date/a1904.htm
-
I know that it must be hard for you to accept that the date doesn't match who you think are in the photo but the facts do not support your theory. We are not ganging up on you but want to steer you in the right direction.
I believe your photo is a postcard photo and the "White Border" era covers the years 1915-1930 or so.
Take a look at my photo dated c.1904....look at the shoes and the overall look and tone of the photo is typical of the Edwardian period and very different in style and look to yours.
Carol
-
I have to agree with the majority on here and we realise it is not what you want to hear, but the photo is totally wrong for 1900. That date is in the Victorian era, closely followed by the Edwardian era. If you search Google images putting Victorian and Edwardian fashion into the search places, you will see many examples of the fashion of the period. If you then search for the 1920s period you will see how the hairstyles and fashion have dramatically changed and are more like your photo.
Can I ask how you think this is a photo of your gt gt grandmother and gt grandmother, did somebody tell you? If so I think you will find they are very much mistaken.
My mother was born in 1901 and when she married in 1929 she wore the type of clothes and hairstyle as shown in your photo.
Pat
-
Hi, Luke,
I wonder if the original of the image I’ve reproduced below was the very one your ancestor might have looked at before choosing her outfit. They were called “Garconne” (i.e. “boyish”) and I think the idea must have been for a woman’s silhouette to resemble a test tube instead of an hour glass ;D.
I thought I’d have a go at restoring your lovely picture as well, but after working on it for a couple of hours I found that in addition to the work by restorers this week there were also all the restores done when you originally posted it last year. Here: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=745393.msg5925228#msg5925228
I thought I wouldn't send mine because it couldn't add much to all the great jobs already done. Then I thought, "bugger it, for something different, I'll send it as a painting".
One thing I did notice while working on it (probably a red herring but I thought I’d mention it just in case): My first impression was that the child was a boy, about 2 year-old (believe me, I have 7 grandchildren under 10 ;)). While little boys back then weren’t put into shorts until toilet trained, there were often other clues to their gender, like slightly shorter hair, with no ribbons, and toy trains instead of dolls. One other small thing that some families did was to part boys’ hair on the left and girls' on the right. This isn’t really much of a clue except that in this picture it stands out because the mother’s hair is parted on the right and the child’s on the left.
Anyway, as I said, lovely photo, and I hope it all gets sorted out.
Cheers, Peter.
-
One thing I did notice while working on it (probably a red herring but I thought I’d mention it just in case): My first impression was that the child was a boy, about 2 year-old (believe me, I have 7 grandchildren under 10 ;)). While little boys back then weren’t put into shorts until toilet trained, there were often other clues to their gender, like slightly shorter hair, with no ribbons, and toy trains instead of dolls. One other small thing that some families did was to part boys’ hair on the left and girls' on the right. This isn’t really much of a clue except that in this picture it stands out because the mother’s hair is parted on the right and the child’s on the left.
Cheers, Peter.
Interesting, as this possibility occurred to me too.