These pics are also of the same lady,
the first probably around 1928 making her about late 40s early fifties. Sorry forget that not sure on date now just realised something. Im getting myself in a bit of a mess with my pics n dates n people
The second was taken in 1933 so she approx 55 years old. That one is a confirmed date its a postcard with the date printed on it.
So I would still be inclined to think that in the photo with the frame above she around 45ish just looks like she has had a really bad day, & has not aged very well.
She had sisters but looked absolutely nothing like them, my lady was absolutely tiny. I think she may have had some sort of growth defect as her feet are huge & totally out of proportion with her tiny frame. I have a pic of her with her sister as adults & her sister is literally two foot taller than her its a strange image.
How long were people engaged for in the 1880s? trying to pin down that ring
Is there any way some one could do some of your Hocus Pocus jiggy stuff, where you jig the pics around somehow & get the 4 head shots side by side? I have seen this done before on RC. Magic!
