Your views on date and ages please

[kath davis]

I have identified a possible family for this photo from 'the album'.  Please give your opinions on date of photo and ages of children - it is so easy to jump to a conclusion, you people are so good at making me think first!
The reverse is plain.
Kath

[jaybelnz]

I don't have any idea about dating photos, but just had to say what a beautiful photo.
Jeanne

[jim1]

Mid-late 1890's & agree a lovely photo.
I would say their ages go up roughly by 2 years starting from 2 with the oldest 10/11.

jim

[kath davis]

Jeanne and Jim, thanks for your comments.  Unfortunately not yet identified - but there are more children yet to uncover in this branch of the family - something may come up, I will now recognise them when/if they do.

Kath

[mrwilson]

Hi,
I agree with Jim about the time and ages.

You could always 'age' them as an experiment to see if you recognise any.
http://morph.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk//Transformer/

[Treetotal]

At a rough guess...2, 4, 7, 9, 11-ish
Carol

[maidmarion]

Hi
It's a lovely group arrangement but something doesn't seem right about the children's heads, almost as though they have had new ones attached 

Has the photo been restored?

I am no expert though.

maidmarion 

[Plummiegirl]

Must say that I agree with maidmarion - the childrens heads do look like they have been added to the bodies, which I do not think was an easy think to do back then.

But the ages I agree range down from around 11 to about 2.

[Nick29]

In those days film was very slow, so people had to put their heads in a neck brace to hold them still, which may account for the 'detached' look.  Quite often children appear blurred in photos of this period because they moved while the shutter was open - looks like this photographer was taking no chances