RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Aussielass on Sunday 07 February 21 06:23 GMT (UK)
-
A clean up of this photo would be very much appreciated, but we would also like help in determining the time frame for when it might have been taken.
I am trying to ascertain which "Duggan" this is, if my guess is correct he was born in 1852. The photographer named on the back of the photo is George Clarke Wilmot (1843-1923) who started his photography business at 31 Malop Street, Geelong, Victoria, Australia in 1865-1886.
Thanks and Kind Regards, Aussielass
-
..
-
One from me
Pat
-
One side
-
I'd say late 1860s - early 1970s. The jacket looks 1860s but the back looks more 1870s.
Gadget
-
Agree with Gadget but more likely 1870's.
-
Back side...
-
I like this one better.
-
A go from me.
Cheers,
Skippy
-
A huge thank you to japeflakes, Pat, John-76 and Skippy for the great clean up of "Thomas's" photo, and the back of the card as well. It is one of the oldest photos in my collection and thanks to both Gaget and Jim, I can place a date on it, and can positively call him Thomas Duggan, born 1852 - died 1926.
In the past when I have tried to identify the person in a photo, I have compared facial features, but this time, I discovered something more unusual. I always thought the unknown person in the photo must've broken his hand at some stage. Then in another photo, taken of Thomas Duggan aged 73, in 1925, I thought, oh, he has bad arthritis in his hand. Then yesterday, I thought, that hand looks familiar. What do you think?
-
Aussielass, definitely something not right about his fingers, but - could you post a snip of the later photo to compare?
Peter
-
A slightly textured one from me.
PS - joints on hand do look arthritic or damaged in some way to me :-\
-
and a slightly warmer tone
-
Aussielass, definitely something not right about his fingers, but - could you post a snip of the later photo to compare?
Peter
Hi Peter, the photo I posted has two separate photos cropped and combined in one. The image on the left was Thomas's hands as shown on the photo c1870's, the photo on the right is Thomas's hands in 1925. I'm sure they are the same hands, photos taken approx. 50 years apart.
-
A slightly textured one from me.
PS - joints on hand do look arthritic or damaged in some way too me :-\
Thank you Gadget, lovely job, it looks great, and yes, I think Thomas would have been in his early twenties in the "unknown c1870's photo", so my thoughts are that his hand was injured rather than arthritic. The later photo taken in 1925 could have been mistaken as arthritic hands, but they look the same as they did when he was in his early twenties. So I think his hand was definitely injured.
Kind Regards, Aussielass :)
-
Whoops! Sorry, Aussielass, I didn't slide it along. Yeah, I'd agree: the same hand.
Peter
-
Another one for the collection. (Gadget, I like the composition of yours, with those borders. I have a slight preference for the second one.)
Peter
-
Another one for the collection. (Gadget, I like the composition of yours, with those borders. I have a slight preference for the second one.)
Peter
Hi Peter, ha ha!! So often I don't slide photos along and think they're half photos and been cut off!! ;D ;D
Thank you for your very nice clean up of Thomas, it looks terrific. ;)
-
720 is the max width before you have to use the slider ;D
-
Thanks again to everyone for the advice and great restorations.
I have one more favour to ask about another "unknown Duggan". Do you think this photo is the same person as the c1870's photo that was originally posted. If it's not o.k. to ask on this post, I will start another one. Unfortunately the facial features on the first photo are not clearly defined, except for his "injured hand" which is distinctive. Perhaps if we removed the beard on this new photo he might look the same as the injured hand "Duggan?"
Any advice or opinions would be appreciated.
-
Yes :)
(but fingers are straight on his left hand! )
Sorry I've posted twice on wrong thread - will remove and put them on Wiggy's!
-
(https://rttemppiclogs.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/5/1/135119465/unknown-duggan-unknown-date-gigapixel-scale-2x_orig.jpg)
-
Do you think this photo is the same person as the c1870's photo that was originally posted.
100%.
-
Thank you Chloe,
Very nice clean up of Thomas Duggan (born 1852), your close up has really defined his features.
It's now much easier to compare to the later photo I posted with the beard, well done.
Kind Regards, Aussielass
-
Hi AL...A clean from me of your second image.
Carol
-
Hi Carol,
How are you, hope all is well in your part of the world. Thanks for the clean up of the 2nd unknown Duggan, he looks great. I'm still not 100% sure if he is the same person as the 1st "unknown Duggan" that I posted, facial features appear to be the same, but the beard makes him look different. ::)
Kind Regards, Aussielass
-
Fine thank you, hope all is well with you too. You are welcome :D I do believe that they could the same person or related.
Take Care.
Carol
-
My only concern is his left hand. It doesn't seem to have the deformities that are seen in the other photo.
Nice one, Carol
-
Thanks G..... yes I agree with you on that one....facially there is a similarity but the hand can't be ignored.
Carol
-
Hi Carol and Gadget,
Thanks for your observations. Yes, I do agree about the broken left hand, not showing up clearly (he fell off a haystack I've just found out) and it was never properly set/fixed :P..... I feel that the photo is a bit of a white out around the hand region. Whilst there doesn't appear to be any deformity, he is holding on to his arm and it may be disguising the obvious deformity that shows when his arm/hand is swinging freely. Would it be possible to remove his beard on the 2nd photo for a clearer comparison?
Just one other question, I'm probably asking to many, and I do appreciate your help. What would the approx. date be on the torso photo? There was nothing printed on the back of it.
I guess I want it to be Thomas, and am looking for reasons for it to be him :P :P
Thanks again, Aussielass
-
Beard removed ... I didn't compare the chin lines though
-
Beard removed ... I didn't compare the chin lines though
Thanks Ian, it helps to compare the two. Very similar, and the photos came from a collection where I believe they could only be one of three males. One born in 1852, (I think the type of photo and clothing indicates the right time frame for the person in the photo) and the other two born in 1883 and 1887, sons of the person in question.
Kind Regards, Aussielass ;)
-
A beardless comparison.
Note the shape of his head, Aussielass - with or without the beard you can see that he has broad cheeks and chin so that the sides of his face are pretty much parallel (rather than v-shaped or rounded like many people). It might be worth looking at his face shape in the old age photo to see if it is the same. Also the hair and hairstyle look the same. To my mind there's little doubt it's the same person.
Peter
-
A beardless comparison.
Note the shape of his head, Aussielass - with or without the beard you can see that he has broad cheeks and chin so that the sides of his face are pretty much parallel (rather than v-shaped or rounded like many people). It might be worth looking at his face shape in the old age photo to see if it is the same. Also the hair and hairstyle look the same. To my mind there's little doubt it's the same person.
Peter
Wow Peter, that's great, I think you have nailed it, both with your visual comparison and constructive notes. His disfigured left hand which is clasping his right arm shows more of the two fingers that weren't disfigured. The middle and pointer finger that are broken are not as clearly displayed. Thank you so much I have checked his old age photo for his face shape. Unfortunately it's not a very good photo, but good enough to see the similarity in face shape, even though his cheeks are a bit sunken. Brilliant detective work Peter, you, together with all the other comments and restorations from the helpful people on this site, have helped me solve and fill a gap that has been missing. I can now positively identify two photos that were previously an "unknown Duggan"
Kind Regards, Aussielass :-*
-
Hello, again, AL.
Just remembered you were after a rough date for the bearded photo. I think it is probably within five years of the other photo, say the mid-1870s when beards and wide lapels were in vogue.
Peter
-
could add the same beard onto the man with no beard as removing the beard is guess work really on the shape of his chin.
-
Nice work Peter...I was going to give him a shave this morning but no need now ;D the more I worked on it, the more convinced I became that they were the same man, only taken a short time between.
Carol
-
Hello, again, AL.
Just remembered you were after a rough date for the bearded photo. I think it is probably within five years of the other photo, say the mid-1870s when beards and wide lapels were in vogue.
Peter
Thanks Peter and Carol, you have certainly helped to clarify the date of the photo.
could add the same beard onto the man with no beard as removing the beard is guess work really on the shape of his chin.
Chloe, if you would like to give him a beard, I'm sure he wouldn't mind. In fact I'm sure he would be impressed with all the fuss and attention he has been given.
Thanks again everyone, extremely pleased with the restos, advice and observations.
Kind Regards, Aussielass ;)
-
Just something to think on - Jim and I dated the first photo as late 1860s- 1870s but came down on 1870s because of the back. If this photo is also 1870s, is it the same person or is the later photo an 1880s one :-\
Gadget
Add - I think the second one is late 1870s - early 1880s. If born 1852, he would be 18- early 20s in first one and late 20s-early 30s in the second.
-
Just something to think on - Jim and I dated the first photo as late 1860s- 1870s but came down on 1870s because of the back. If this photo is also 1870s, is it the same person or is the later photo an 1880s one :-\
Gadget
Add - I think the second one is late 1870s - early 1880s. If born 1852, he would be 18- early 20s in first one and late 20s-early 30s in the second.
Thanks Gadget, yes I agree, he is more youthful in the first photo and has matured in the 2nd, so late 20's - early 30's certainly fits. He didn't marry until 1883, so the 2nd photo may well fit in with a pre-marriage or even marriage portrait. Sadly no wedding photos, I do know a lot were discarded by family at some stage, lucky that we even have the two photos that I posted. ::) Once again, appreciate your help and advice.
Kind Regards, Aussielass