RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: JGDavies on Wednesday 27 October 21 10:47 BST (UK)
-
Hi,
Would appreciate some date estimate for this photo. The lady described below is originally from Radcliffe only a few miles from Bury where the photograper is from though can't be sure its her.
It was in an album on the 1st page next to 3 photos by J. Thomas, Cambrian Gallery, Liverpool and a later one by J. Maclardy, Oswestry. All photos have names/comments apart from this one. One of the Cambrian Gallery photos is annotated "Elizabeth Ann Hughes nee Hayes 1859 to 1885" and the album was put together c.1930 by her (daughter and) grandaughter.
Elizabeth Ann Hayes age 4 appears in the 1861 census in Sion Street Radcliffe Lancashire with her parents Joseph and Sarah Heyes and in the 1871 census age 13 with her Grandfather in Waterfall Street Llanrhaiadr ym Mochnant. She lived in Oswestry before she married a Hughes (my Great Grandfather) in 1881.
Thanks in advance, Jon
-
I can't see if she was wearing an engagement or wedding ring. The pose looks to me as if she was drawing attention to her left hand. Could it have been a photograph for her engagement for her fiance to keep?
-
I can't see if she was wearing an engagement or wedding ring
Hi, I've just zoomed in on the high-resolution scan and can't see any rings.
-
I think it might well be late 1870s-early 1880s.
I'll see if I can bring up the right hand.
-
Not very clear but there might be a ring
-
A portrait of another Bury lady, perhaps same era, by a different photographer, H. Wragg of Bury and Whitefield.
freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/family/dated/1872/wrag.pdf
It's from "Victorian & Edwardian Photographs -Roger Vaughan Personal Collection -List 104 - Victorian Photographs by Year" List is arranged according to estimated date. Dates are a general guide. The Wragg portrait is under 1880. There are several websites for Roger Vaughan Victorian photograph collections.
Bury Photographic Society has existed since 1882.
https://buryps.co.uk
-
I used the backs guide on the Vaughan website and a Jayne Shrimpton book for the estimate I gave in Reply #3
-
I used the backs guide on the Vaughan website and a Jayne Shrimpton book for the estimate I gave in Reply #3
Same here, I've been out so didn't get chance to reply, We used the same dating methods most of the time ;)
Carol
-
Not very clear but there might be a ring
After your observation I tried enhancing my original scan but didn't get any clearer result. If it is a ring it looks a bit near the knuckle.
A portrait of another Bury lady, perhaps same era, by a different photographer, H. Wragg of Bury and Whitefield.
Took me a while to find what I think you meant - missing "f" out of "wragf.jpg"?
https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/family/dated/1872/wragf.jpg (https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/family/dated/1872/wragf.jpg)
I've been looking for a good source for dating these photos most of the evening - though concentrating on a different photo I put up for dating. I'll have another look now you've provided this source. Thanks. For other photographers I've been able to discover when they operated but not for Edmund Eccles so far.
I used the backs guide on the Vaughan website and a Jayne Shrimpton book for the estimate I gave in Reply #3
Also thanks for the souce references, I'll have a look.
I think it might well be late 1870s-early 1880s.
That might just fit with my "Married 21st July 1881: Elizabeth Ann (bn:1856/7)" and could make the above "unknown" and the below "known" taken c. 1885 or before the same person. If not must be a relative. Thanks
-
There is a photograph with a similar back dated to 1881 which supports a date around this time.
http://www.maartjedenie.nl/verzameling%20005%20victorian%20album%20107.html
I tried to look at the photographer Edmund Eccles, but it doesn't add much:
Edmund Eccles is listed with sons in 1899 (and advertises his company was established in 1855)
page 84/11 https://www.bury.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=14990&p=0
Edmund appears to have died October 1908 a "retired photographer for many years of Broad-street", Saturday 31 October 1908, Bury Times. That gives a maximum date range for the photo of 1855-1908!
In 1888 and earlier Edmund appears to be operating solo, but not necessarily from Broad Street
https://www.bury.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10880
This photo shows Edmund wasn't in Broad street in 1863 (and the back of the photo is different)
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/family/dated/ecclb.jpg
Following a fire in 1867, Mr Eccles re-established himself in Agur Street
(20 April 1867 - Bury Times)
By 1871 he appears to be in Broad Street
page 10/5 https://www.bury.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=15027&p=0
page 15/10 https://www.bury.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=15030&p=0
So that suggests a date for the photo of 1867-1899 (moved to Broad Street in/after 1867, joined by sons in/before 1899). By pursuing trade directories/adverts we may at best narrow the dates to 1871-1888 (if Edmund moved to Broad Street in 1871 and the sons became part of the business in 1888). Like I say, not that helpful.
I found other photos by Edmund Eccles on ebay, but unfortunately not dated. Saving an ebay search may provide some dated examples at some point - perhaps.
-
Bury Photographic Collection in Bury Archives
https://www.buryarchivesonline.co.uk
Probably no use as majority of photos in collection are of places. Very few portraits.
-
There is a photograph with a similar back dated to 1881 which supports a date around this time.
http://www.maartjedenie.nl/verzameling%20005%20victorian%20album%20107.html
I think it might well be late 1870s-early 1880s.
-
I see BlueSofa's ref re the back, a photo of a baby 1881 exactly the same artistically, colour may have faded over time or be a different batch.
With Gadget's- estimate late 1870s (thankfully with source references) - early 1880s they obviously overlap.
we may at best narrow the dates to 1871-1888 (if Edmund moved to Broad Street in 1871 and the sons became part of the business in 1888). Like I say, not that helpful.
Given E. A. Hughes nee Heyes passed away in 1885 and we have a photo of her c.84/85 looking older than the subject of the query I'd say it is helpful. E. A. Hughes nee Hayes must have brought the photo from Bury to Wales during a visit there pre 1885 or been sent it by her relatives, again probably pre 1885, near Bury. Which would make it of a relative.
Also I assume E. A. Hughes' nee Hayes' grown up daughter didn't know who the subject was or she and her daughter would have annotated it as the did for the other photos of this era in the album.
-
Just to re-affirm what's been said pic. 1 is definitely 1870's
& her hairstyle suggests mid-late decade.
Posing with a fan was a common prop used for single women,
indicating chastity.
Pic. 2 is 1880's & the short "V" shaped bodice indicates around 1883-8.
-
I'm curious about fur in both portraits. Did it signify anything?
-
A photographer's prop.
Carol
-
I'm curious about fur in both portraits. Did it signify anything?
" ... a shift from the manly fur culture ... emerged cultural association between fur and femininity "
"Photography, Fur and the Empire" from "Women in Fur: Empire, Power and Play in a Victorian Photography Album" article by Sarah Parsons ("British Art Studies, Nov. 2020)
-
I'm curious about fur in both portraits. Did it signify anything?
" ... a shift from the manly fur culture ... emerged cultural association between fur and femininity "
"Photography, Fur and the Empire" from "Women in Fur: Empire, Power and Play in a Victorian Photography Album" article by Sarah Parsons ("British Art Studies, Nov. 2020)
Why not just google it then rather than ask the question? There are both boys and girls who are photographed on fur rugs as many photographers used them as props.
Carol
-
Hi
Just to re-affirm what's been said pic. 1 is definitely 1870's
& her hairstyle suggests mid-late decade. Posing with a fan was a common prop used for single women, indicating chastity.
Didn't spot or know the meaning of the fan.
So say 1877 and assuming the same lady in both pics, the family album date of b.1859 makes her 18 whilst the 1861 census which gives her age as 4 would make her 20 for Pic 1.
Pic. 2 is 1880's & the short "V" shaped bodice indicates around 1883-8
Would have to be between marriage in 1881 and her sad demise in early 1885 so that fits.
Thanks
-
Out of interest, I started this thread with one photo that of the WW1 Soldier who married this lady's daughter in London in 1918 https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=696773.0 (https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=696773.0). I traced this couple's grandson to British Columbia and he sent me the album assembled by his mother in Surrey UK c.1935 back to Wales just a few miles from where the lady in the pictures lived.
Thanks all for the help,
Jon
-
I think it might well be late 1870s-early 1880s.
There is a photograph with a similar back dated to 1881 which supports a date around this time.
http://www.maartjedenie.nl/verzameling%20005%20victorian%20album%20107.html
I intended my comments to follow on and support the earlier contributions. However, I can see I didn't make that clear. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
-
Out of interest, I started this thread with one photo that of the WW1 Soldier who married this lady's daughter in London in 1918 https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=696773.0 (https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=696773.0). I traced this couple's grandson to British Columbia and he sent me the album assembled by his mother in Surrey UK c.1935 back to Wales just a few miles from where the lady in the pictures lived.
Thanks all for the help,
Jon
My Pryce/Tanat line came from the area in your other thread (Llandysilio area) and I was born and grew up 6 miles from Oswestry. I know the area fairly well :D
-
Why not just google it then rather than ask the question? There are both boys and girls who are photographed on fur rugs as many photographers used them as props.
Carol
I did, immediately after I'd asked the question.
What I found was interesting. Symbolism of fur changed through the 19th century. Fur in the 2 portraits of young women symbolised femininity.
I didn't know about fans either.