RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: xpress4 on Saturday 02 February 19 04:26 GMT (UK)
-
Hi everyone!
I have two questions for you.
1) The photo of the three people...when would you say it was taken?
2) Do you think the woman in both photos is the same person? (The solo photo is after many children so might be?)
My grandmother told me the man standing is my GGrandfather (she has been wrong before!) If that is the case, the woman could be either his sister or wife. The solo photo is definitely my GGrandmother. A lot of this would depend on the year the trio pic was taken. Would appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you!
Brenda
-
You will probably get more luck on the
Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs
part of this board rather than that dealing with Handwriting etc.
Just throwing my view in I think the solo woman looks as though she belongs to the other picture, the shape around the eyebrows looks similar.
-
Thanks Shanreagh. Will do. And I think so too :)
-
I have tried to move the post and attachments to the Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs board but each time I do it says the attachments I try to upload are already attached. Tells me to rename and upload again. I have done so three times and get the same message. Any way to just move the post, as is, to the other board without reposting and getting this error message?
-
Try report to moderator and ask them to move it xpress4 then there will be only the one post. Otherwise you need to rename the photos before reposting.
For my 2 cents worth I think it is the same woman.
-
I'm not an expert but I would think they are either the same person or very closely related. The mouth, nose and eyebrows look the same.
-
Same woman, older and a bit plumper in the second photo.
Is there a photographer's name on the back of the photo? If so you may be able to date it that way by finding the photographer.
-
Thanks for your feedback. Looks like one mystery solved. Any idea on the approximate date of the first photo?
-
Me too with it being the same woman.
First photo looks quite early to me say late 1870's but others will have more expert estimates :)
When was GGrandmother born?
-
Hi Milliedpede,
He was born in 1851. Since my grandmother said it was him in the photo, I'd always assumed the other two in the pic were his siblings. Because of the way she is dressed, I'd assumed the picture was taken late 1860's early 1870's. I previously thought it might have been a last family photo before he married or moved away, etc. which both happened early 1870's.
But once I realized the woman in the group photo might be my GGrandmother, it changed everything about the photo and left me confused. They married in 1872. Their first son was born in 1873. I can't figure out who the boy would be if this is a picture of my GGGrandparents. GGGgrandfather had a younger brother that would line-up as far as age. But why would he be in the picture and holding her hand? Maybe her younger brother, but then again, why would he be in the photo?
Confusing! :(
-
I would say the trio photo was 1860s. It is a big help if you can post the whole image including corners and the backs if possible as they give dating clues.
I don't think the second lady is the same lady as the time difference is too great in my opinion,
Added
I could be wrong, looking at it again, the features are very similar.
Carol
-
Is he holding her hand? I can't see it clearly but the two of them look somewhat alike so maybe they were siblings.
When was GGrandmother born?
-
She doesn't appear to be wearing a wedding ring, so they could be siblings as Millie suggested.
Carol
-
Sorry, it is a bad copy. My mother has the original and now she can't find it. That would have helped for sure. They are either holding hands or his hand is on her dress and hers is on top of his.
How old would you say the two older people in the photo are? That might narrow the options:
Of the likely people: GGGrandfather was born in 1851, his younger brother in 1865, his sister in 1848, GGGrandmother in 1850.
The second photo definitely in the early 1890's because the little girl, my GGgrandmother, was born in 1885.
I agree, it doesn't appear she is wearing a ring. However, the photo quality is so poor, it is hard to tell for sure.
-
How old would you say the two older people in the photo are?
She looks no older than 25 to me. He could be a little older say 27.
-
Unlikely to be the same woman since the first picture dates to the mid 1860s (more specifically from 1863-1867);
Circled in red is a design feature called a 'mancheron' - a high sleeve cap. A style which started in the mid 1840s and gradually fazed out by the mid 1860s.
On the right you can see a very similar extant bodice (a MET museum deaccession) which has been dated to 1865. The trimming on the cuff, mid torso waistband, front button closure, mancheron sleeve cap and crescent sleeve shape are all very similar.
The young boy is also wearing 'mule slippers' - which were an extremely popular part of casual menswear in the early 1860s. The shoes in comparison are an extant example from the early 1860s (the owner took the liberty of modelling them for us). You can see the 'v' shaped vamp and square toe cap are very similar, and I suspect that the pair the boy is wearing would have been decorated with some kind crewel-embroidery (as was fashionable at the time).
Last but not least the hairstyle;
The early 1860s favoured a severe middle parting, with straight well ironed hair which was pulled tightly across the scalp - which was then 'managed' into either a low (emphasis on that) simple bun or (for special occasions) a plait. The fashion plate in comparison is an 1862 hair tutorial from Harpers Bazaar. The later 1860s style began to add more volume to the back of the hair and overall became less 'severe' in appearance.
I would probably predict the woman in the photo to be around 20 years old - putting her birth date c. 1840s. She would have been 50/60 in the early Edwardian period/late 1890s - whether or not the woman in the second picture looks mid 50s is up to you... I'd say not, but saying that, there is an undeniable resemblance (so I could be wrong).
The woman in the second pic is wearing a calico dress. These are often thought of as 'worker' dresses and don't necessarily show off the latest Parisian fashions :P The print is very 1890s. I'm not a print expert (no surprises there), so I can't give you an exact date on the fabric. What I can tell you is that the picture definitely wouldn't be the early 1890s - it would be the mid or late 1890s; and that's all down to the hairstyle.
sleeves, print, fit of the dress and neckline - all of it is very practical in design. I believe that the woman in the photos dress may also have a front closure which has been cleverly hidden by a well placed ribbon!
Lastly - the hairstyle (and the reason why I say late 1890s - if not the early Edwardian period - were talking about a very narrow period between 1900-1903 here).
^ Just to prove my point I made a very scruffy hair timeline from photos with the precise dates.
As you can see the dress and hairstyle point to the late 1890s - and I could even stretch the date to the early Edwardian period; going by how voluminous her hairstyle, it really resembles a Gibson do (the purpose of the Gibson hair was to not only 'look' good but distribute the weight of the growing Edwardian hat - and trust me - I own a massive antique 1912 picture hat and without such a bouffant the brim of the hat really 'digs' into the forehead... not comfortable).
Hope this helps.
EDIT: In fact - on second thoughts, I think the resemblance is too similar for it not to be the same person! I believe it is the same woman :)
-
This is wonderful! Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together. I find it fascinating!
As to the dates, I'm at a loss. The dates you outline for the first photo would add up if they were siblings. Although in 1867 my GGGgrandfather would have been 16 so that might be a push, but it could be his sister as she would have been 22 in '67 and his brother would have been 13 in '67.
It's the other photo that scrambles it for me. My GG grandmother's sister sent this to her from England to the U.S. and across it is written "Mother and You". If that's true, the subjects would have been born in 1885 and 1850. Seems off for late 1890's doesn't it? Ugh.
I may have to write this off to "will never know" which is so frustrating as these are two of the oldest photos I have and the clues are there just can't answer them.
This community is wonderful and I truly appreciate your time :)
-
I keep coming back to the first photograph as there is some thing not quite right about it to me. On the surface this is about the clothes of the younger man/boy.
Oddities
1 Clothes seem very large for a smallish boy
2 His arm seems to be the sleeve only and is not actively being grasped/acknowledged by the sister.
The brother is actively acknowledging his sister by resting his hand on her shoulder. His arm however rests on the back of the chair behind the boy
3 the boy sits across two chairs. The sister seems to sit on one. or perhaps it is one of those twirly couches that have a seat and three separete looking backs.
4 I am trying to see if there are just chair legs showing or if there is a posing stand there as well.
For this reason I am wondering if the photograph is either
1 one that has been added in a a later date, unlikely.....but look at the sleeve on magnification
2 or a post mortem photograph. (OP Google this just for written explanation no need to look at the photographs....it was not unknown to pose)
Points against this are that the boy's eyes look lively.
he may just be wearing big clothes as he may not have any suitable.
Would there have been a member of the sister/brother's family who died in 1860s?
I think we need some guidance on the male with hand on shoulder of female as a social indicator in photographs. I am aware that later than this wedding photographs often showed the bride standing and groom sitting. That family groups had engaged/married couples shown in this way. Other photographs that showed hands resting on books indicated scholarship and often holding a letter meant bad news. Would brother sister have a link like this? Could it be to acknowledge or console the living sibling?
Has anyone got a view? Can anyone 'read' the photograph, especially the hand on shoulder part?
PS Russell12 the pictorial essay is great. Thank you.
-
I am glad you said that about the boys sleeve as I thought it looked kind of empty too but was hesitant to mention any possible disability and why I was unsure about the suggestion the lady was holding his hand.
Hand on shoulder indicates a close family relationship, wasn’t seemly to touch otherwise, but what relationship that is the question :-\
Could we perhaps have some names to look on census for ages etc? Might find a group that would fit these 3 :)
-
Agree with the date of the first, very typical late 1860's.
The 2nd. however looks Edwardian. I've seen 1000's of photos from the 1890's & never seen a woman dressed like this.
-
Agree with you, Jim. I'd say mid to late Edwardian for the second image.
Gadget
-
I also agree with Jim and Gadget and that's why I questioned the time difference between the two photos as the lady in the second photo looked too young to be the same woman...I had doubts when the poster dated the second photo to 1890s. There is a strong likeness between the features of the too women so maybe they are related.
Carol
-
Wow, this was truly a mind blower for me as I had no idea this existed.
I believe them to be:
Fenton Moore, Born Edinburgh, 1851
Catherine Moore, Born Newton Stewart, Scotland, 1848. Although I can't be sure of it.
The boy, if dead, could not have been the brother listed on the 1861 and 1871 census (Richard b. 1856 Scotland) as he lived to a ripe old age. However, there was a son, Patrick Moore, born in Edinburgh two years after Fenton. I could never find record of his death. Assumed he died in England (they moved from Scotland to England sometime between 1865 and 1871). He does not appear on the 1861 census though so I'd think he'd have died before those photo?
As to the points made in the previous posts:
[In the scan I have, the boys fingers appear to be visible but it looks like his hand rests flat on her dress and hers just rests on top as if they are crossing wrists. I think his other hand looks odd though.
I always assumed his clothing was oversized because they didn't have much money and he might have had to use his brother's for this occasion?
What would the older one's hand not placed on the boy indicate? It also appears the older one might be holding a hat and the shape of the hat appears as a second chair and absence of the hand on the younger one.
Curious about the sleeve close-up note. What does it indicate?
I just can't reconcile the 2nd photo being from the Edwardian era. No one fits that period so I'm just not sure who it would be. The comment on the photo is also confusing "mother and you" referring to my GGrandmother. She was the only sister living in the states, of two of them, who would have been young enough to be in that photo. But she was living in the states during the Edwardian era. The photo came from her collection and sent to her by a sister living in England. So confusing.
However, the first photo. Again, if the man and woman in the first photo were my GGG grandparents (making her the same woman as the 2nd), they were married in 1872 so they couldn't have been engaged or married when this was taken and would have been too young.
I am dying to know who that boy is...and if he is dead in the photo! Sorry to be so long winded, but there is a lot going on here ;D
-
Oh my goodness! Kudos to whoever first spotted this :o
(https://i.ibb.co/mSqKY74/arm.jpg)
You can see how the cuff is laid flat against her dress, and her hand is purposefully obscuring the fact that there is no hand/ or arm for matter in that sleeve.
His shoulder is very sloped - which would suggest the absence of the whole arm.
As for him being 'dead' in the photo - definitely not.
The whole postmortem Victorian photos fad has really been blown out of proportion by the media; truth is that the body was far too heavy to be 'sat' up (or stood up) by just a metal stand, and rigor mortis would have made manipulating and posing the body nigh impossible, not only that but the other two would be wearing mourning clothing.
It's very easy to spot a Victorian Post mortem picture since they are nearly always taken with the deceased person actually in the casket!
-
It's very easy to spot a Victorian Post mortem picture since they are nearly always taken with the deceased person actually in the casket!
Have a good look around this Photo board and I think you will see several examples of post mortem (memento mori) photos of children NOT in caskets. ;) (not saying this is one such, just making a point)
Agree with Jim Gadget and Carol - I think the two women are too close in age to be the same person, as I also agree with their dating of the second.
Wiggy
-
It's very easy to spot a Victorian Post mortem picture since they are nearly always taken with the deceased person actually in the casket!
Have a good look around this Photo board and I think you will see several examples of post mortem (memento mori) photos of children NOT in caskets. ;) (not saying this is one such, just making a point)
I've not yet recognised any post-mortem photos of children on this forum (thank god!)
I think I generalised my statement a bit too much for effect here ;) - I was trying to get across that the deceased person is usually pictured lying down; usually disguised so they look asleep (either held or supported by the parent or propped up by pillows) - but the neck and head are never fully 'up' without obvious support.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/143689-posing-stand-often-attributed-to-post-mo
I've been having a long standing debate with my mum over a family photo in which the individual is leaning on a table with 'glazed over' eyes - she thinks the woman is dead. I think it was simply a bad shot (she is sat up right with her eyes wide open). (Sorry for going a bit off topic here)
-
Could you post the whole of the second photo to try to get an accurate date. I wondered if the lady could have been born in 1885 and that the photo could have been taken around 1915 ish making her around 30. Then maybe the woman in the 1st photo could have been her mother. Do you have a birth certificate for 1885
-
Excellent thread, which sadly I have come late to. Your explanation and comparision images are excellent russell.
I agree that the boy is alive and there does not appear to be an arm inside his sleeve. The girl’s dress sits in an odd way (sticking out?) as if to support his ‘hand’.
The three look very young and look similar so could be siblings.
Interesting photos. ;)
Added: we occasionally see post mortem photos on rootschat (often unbeknown to the poster) and I can’t remember ever seeing one in a casket, or lying down. :)
-
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=792932.msg6496221#msg6496221
Russell12 I think you are being too adamant even in your second followup about these things. Post mortem photos existed in all sorts of 'poses' Posing stands were used while the subjects were alive and dead.
I raised it as something to be considered and I was not expecting the whole concept to be questioned.
The child has got something going on with the arm-less sleeve and his right arm is odd (on left of photograph) as well. He may have been paralysed is another thought and being assisted to sit up. He may have been born without an arm.
-
Could you post the whole of the second photo to try to get an accurate date. I wondered if the lady could have been born in 1885 and that the photo could have been taken around 1915 ish making her around 30. Then maybe the woman in the 1st photo could have been her mother. Do you have a birth certificate for 1885
Hi, here is the full photo. Unfortunately no one in the family was born that date except my GGrandmother Lucy, who I thought was the little girl. No other women fit and have a great deal of photos and info on that generation. :(
On the group photo, I also notice the woman's dress appears to be placed instead of falling at the boys upper leg. Is that just the way fell? Maybe my imagination.
Odd still, the two older people seem to be looking a bit to their left. There iris' are to the side. Whereas the boys' are straight on.
-
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=792932.msg6496221#msg6496221
Russell12 I think you are being too adamant even in your second followup about these things. Post mortem photos existed in all sorts of 'poses' Posing stands were used while the subjects were alive and dead.
Oh no - I think you've misinterpreted the tone of my comment! I'm perfectly up to admitting I'm wrong on this :P
With that being said; this has definitely made me reconsider the possibility of my mum being correct on a family photo being postmortem - so thank you for correcting me on my initial preconception of them :)
xpress4; are there no siblings who were born around 1895-1900? Maybe the little girl could be a visiting relative such as a niece or cousin?
-
Hi, here is the full photo. Unfortunately no one in the family was born that date except my GGrandmother Lucy, who I thought was the little girl. No other women fit and have a great deal of photos and info on that generation. :(
Written across the photo is some thing like 'Mollie and Gran' or 'Emollie and Gran'. Or Mother and Gran. As you said. Just have to work out whose mother and whose Gran?
It does not look like Lucy or Mary Ann. Is there a Molly some where?
The little girl's clothes look relatively modern and I can recall seeing pics of my mother born in 1916 wearing this type of outfit. My grandmother wore longish dresses until into the early 1900s
If you brought the dating forward into the 1900s with little girl being about 5-6 years is there anyone who fits. If the pic of Gran was taken in former colonies or US of hardworking rural folk they may have kept their former best to use as house dresses.
-
Have to say looking at the whole picture it could easily be later than Edwardian but I think that's the start date.
I can't see if it says Molly(ie) & You or Gran.
Molly could be a pet name for Mary or Margaret.
As for mother & you they do look like mother & daughter.
-
I think if the great grandmother was born in 1885 then more likely to be the woman beside the tree. I think the young girls clothes could be verging on 1920s
-
Don't get me wrong, I believe you all about the dating of the photo. My grandmother has been wrong before as far as naming people in photos!
There is a faint crossed "t" after the "o" so I truly believe it reads "Mother & You" but another mother no doubt and there are no fits in the tree I have. The woman is definitely not my Ggrandmother. It will have to be filed as a mystery I'm afraid. Just breaks my heart when these clues have no hope! :(
-
:) :) :) Aah . . . but does it inspire you to label/name all your current photos? ;D
I am trying to!
Wiggy
-
I read it as Mother & You...this may suggest that it was maybe written by a sibling of the young girl.
Carol
-
I'm coming down on the side of Mother and Gran but not sure. If she was using the formal 'mother', then maybe she would use the more formal 'grandmother'.
:-\
PS could even be late 1910s into the 20s.
-
:) :) :) Aah . . . but does it inspire you to label/name all your current photos? ;D
I am trying to!
Wiggy
It does indeed! ;D ;D ;D
-
By way of a diversion just looking at the 1871 England census (Rickmansworth) and see that Fenton married the daughter of his landlord, Mary Anne Sandford.
-
By way of a diversion just looking at the 1871 England census (Rickmansworth) and see that Fenton married the daughter of his landlord, Mary Anne Sandford.
Yes, he did. Made me so happy to find that records as both of their father's (as well as Fenton) worked for the Ordnance Survey. Since Fenton lived with the Sandfords, it made me happy the two father's knew each other and were perhaps even friends. :)
-
I read it as Mother & You...this may suggest that it was maybe written by a sibling of the young girl.
Carol
My thought too Carol :)
-
I read it as Mother & You...this may suggest that it was maybe written by a sibling of the young girl.
Carol
My thought too Carol :)
'However', 'but' and all those qualifying words.... the thing to do is to suspend judgement for the moment and see what fits when you try the two options that have been suggested.
Mother and gran written by child of mother and grandchild of gran (potentially three generations being written about
or
Mother and you
Written by sibling of you about their shared mother (potentially two generations)
Then Edwardian is another clue 1901 – 1910
So a child aged 5-6 to my eyes and a mother 30-35 to my eyes.
I would not try to combine yet just keep them as three different sets of clues for a while.
Also on the wee boy in the 1860s apx photo. Perhaps he is paralysed or lost an arm. Have you found any 1860s family events that make sitting for a photograph a noteworthy idea? The move south?
-
This isn't as early as 1901. Late Edwardian is the start point but could easily be later & as has been suggested as late as 1920.
-
Do any censuses your family appears in mention anyone with a disability?
-
None of the census records for the family mention disability.
The only two siblings that young boy could be would be Patrick Moore B. 185, in Scotland (and believe his life fell between the 1851 and 1861). The other was Richard George Moore B. 1856 Kelso, Scotland. He lived a full life and was employed by the Ordnance Survey.So I'd assume he had no disability. I think this must be Patrick. If only I could find a death record for him.
-
I wonder if the young boy might have been sent to live wth another family member when his siblings married and maybe he using other surname. I think the fact that he maybe wearing slippers in photos and clothes look big might indicate that he couldn't walk. Have you looked at later census records for each of the siblings to see if he could be in them as sometimes people appear or you find a record and then everything just clicks
-
Maybe try confirming the Fenton moore as well as if you go onto free census the Fenton moore from ordinance survey seems to be have born in Ireland. There a few Fenton moores and Fenton I think is a varation of fintan which is of Irish extraction.
-
None of the census records for the family mention disability.
The only two siblings that young boy could be would be Patrick Moore B. 185, in Scotland (and believe his life fell between the 1851 and 1861). The other was Richard George Moore B. 1856 Kelso, Scotland. He lived a full life and was employed by the Ordnance Survey.So I'd assume he had no disability. I think this must be Patrick. If only I could find a death record for him.
You may want to consider the possibility that these may not be Family, they could be friends as swapping photos was was quite common in Victorian times.
Here is a poem from a Victorian photo album:
I wish my album to contain
The old familiar faces
Of all my true and valued friends,
They'll here find welcome places.
And hope you'll not intrusive deem
The request that I now make,
A portrait true of each dear friend
I ask for friendship's sake.
Carol
-
I think you're all right. I need to back away and look at these from a completely different perspective and stop fixating on what I think they are.
I have not found anything referring to a family member with a disability. There's only one unaccounted for male in the family (assuming it IS this family) and he is Patrick Moore, born in Edinburgh in 1853. He would definitely fit the timeline for this picture. However, I find no death record for him and he doesn't show up on any future census records.
If the group photo is after 1861, he isn't listed on the family census or the one after so he might have been somewhere else but can't find him on any census record for 1861.
-
Oh dear, 1853. This was before statutory registration in Scotland (introduced 1855) so, if he died before then, he would only be recorded in burials and those are far from complete :-\
Gadget
-
I think he looks to be about 10 years old.
Carol
-
I know I have already taken too much of your time and I really appreciate all the wonderful, educational messages on these topics.
I thought, perhaps to bring this full circle, I'd post a picture of the couple; one I know to be my GGGgrandparents together. I think, at least Fenton Moore the GGGgradfather, looks very much like the man standing in the first photo. If it is, at least all I have to do is figure out the remainder of the puzzle relating to that photo. If not, as you mentioned, I might have to face the fact it isn't them at all. :-\
Thanks again!
-
Yes he does look like the standing man in the first photo but she does not look like the woman in that photo. I get the feeling that it is the, or a selection of the, Moore siblings in the first photo. Clever people might be able to put them both together.
-
The timeline's about right. This one is Edwardian & possibly up to WW1 so someone who would have been a young man mid-late 1860's.
-
It looks like the same couple to me too.
Carol
-
I am probably wrong but these two sets look very similar to the older couple just above....
www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=807732.0
-
Wow Shanreagh, the man does for sure! (how did they eat with those mustaches??) ;D