Author Topic: Date for family photo  (Read 5438 times)

Offline Cazza59

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,957
    • View Profile
Re: Date for family photo
« Reply #18 on: Saturday 15 November 14 00:09 GMT (UK) »
I'm still convinced that's the same woman.  The eyes, nose, hair and the attached ear lobe, plus it might be shadow but there appears to be a slight double chin in both pics are the features that draw me to this conclusion.  Also the little boy and the baby on the dad's lap (who I think is a boy ) are very similar, and the baby looks to have the same soulful eyes as the little girl in the Edwardian outdoor pic.

Just a few more thoughts probably to confuse the issue further!

Caroline
PLEASE NOTE THE FRAMES THAT I USE ARE MY OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND STYLE.  I WOULD APPRECIATE IF PEOPLE WOULD REFRAIN FROM IMITATING THEM AND/OR BORROWING THEM WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  THANK YOU!

NO MAN WAS EVER GREAT BY IMITATION - SAMUEL JOHNSON

Wilkinson - Shropshire;  Jones - Hereford; Mitchell - Brighton; Emery - Brighton; Hall - Brighton Christopher - Dorset; Bussell - Dorset; <br /><br /><br />This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<br /><]

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online Treetotal

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,096
    • View Profile
Re: Date for family photo
« Reply #19 on: Saturday 15 November 14 10:02 GMT (UK) »
As the little girl in the second photo is only about 7 years old...In order that the Children in photo 2 are the same as the youngest two Children in photo 1....there would have to be only about 6 years between the two photos and that doesn't fit with the dates that Jim has given.
However...I agree with Caz...I too think the lady is the same one in both photos..a more likely scenario could be that the boy in photo 2 is the baby on the Mother's lap in photo one.. who I would guess to be about 9 years old making the photos roughly 10 years apart. Just my take on the subject.
Carol
CAPES Hull. KIRK  Leeds, Hull. JONES  Wales,  Lancashire. CARROLL Ireland, Lancashire, U.S.A. BROUGHTON Leicester, Goole, Hull BORRILL  Lincolnshire, Durham, Hull. GROOM  Wishbech, Hull. ANTHONY St. John's Nfld. BUCKNALL Lincolnshire, Hull. BUTT Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. PARSONS  Western Bay, Newfoundland. MONAGHAN  Ireland, U.S.A. PERRY Cheshire, Liverpool.
 
RESTORERS:PLEASE DO NOT USE MY RESTORES WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION - THANK YOU

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Online philipsearching

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,247
  • I was a beautiful baby, - what went wrong?
    • View Profile
Date for another family photo
« Reply #20 on: Tuesday 25 November 14 02:03 GMT (UK) »
Another unidentified one who fits in somewhere.  Is there any way of dating this photo?

Many thanks
Philip
Please help me to help you by citing sources for information.

Census information is Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<br /><br /><br />

Offline Cazza59

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,957
    • View Profile
Re: Date for family photo
« Reply #21 on: Tuesday 25 November 14 06:21 GMT (UK) »
Philip

Just a suggestion, but you might like to start another thread with this photo as people may not return here, if they have already viewed or commented on the thread.

Cheers
Caroline

PLEASE NOTE THE FRAMES THAT I USE ARE MY OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND STYLE.  I WOULD APPRECIATE IF PEOPLE WOULD REFRAIN FROM IMITATING THEM AND/OR BORROWING THEM WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  THANK YOU!

NO MAN WAS EVER GREAT BY IMITATION - SAMUEL JOHNSON

Wilkinson - Shropshire;  Jones - Hereford; Mitchell - Brighton; Emery - Brighton; Hall - Brighton Christopher - Dorset; Bussell - Dorset; <br /><br /><br />This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<br /><]

Offline Cazza59

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,957
    • View Profile
Re: Date for family photo
« Reply #22 on: Tuesday 25 November 14 06:40 GMT (UK) »
Forgot to say bowlers were popular among the working class during Victorian times.  Also I think he is wearing a gladstone (as in the PM Gladstone) collar which was popular between 1892 to early 1900s.   

One of the dating people will no doubt be along shortly to give their expert opinion.

Caroline



PLEASE NOTE THE FRAMES THAT I USE ARE MY OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND STYLE.  I WOULD APPRECIATE IF PEOPLE WOULD REFRAIN FROM IMITATING THEM AND/OR BORROWING THEM WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  THANK YOU!

NO MAN WAS EVER GREAT BY IMITATION - SAMUEL JOHNSON

Wilkinson - Shropshire;  Jones - Hereford; Mitchell - Brighton; Emery - Brighton; Hall - Brighton Christopher - Dorset; Bussell - Dorset; <br /><br /><br />This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<br /><]

Offline Cazza59

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,957
    • View Profile
Re: Date for family photo
« Reply #23 on: Tuesday 25 November 14 08:29 GMT (UK) »
I was bored.

Caroline
PLEASE NOTE THE FRAMES THAT I USE ARE MY OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND STYLE.  I WOULD APPRECIATE IF PEOPLE WOULD REFRAIN FROM IMITATING THEM AND/OR BORROWING THEM WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  THANK YOU!

NO MAN WAS EVER GREAT BY IMITATION - SAMUEL JOHNSON

Wilkinson - Shropshire;  Jones - Hereford; Mitchell - Brighton; Emery - Brighton; Hall - Brighton Christopher - Dorset; Bussell - Dorset; <br /><br /><br />This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<br /><]

Offline Cazza59

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,957
    • View Profile
Re: Date for family photo
« Reply #24 on: Thursday 27 November 14 04:49 GMT (UK) »
Just bringing this up to the top so Jim or China might see that you've added the last photo for dating. 

Caroline
PLEASE NOTE THE FRAMES THAT I USE ARE MY OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND STYLE.  I WOULD APPRECIATE IF PEOPLE WOULD REFRAIN FROM IMITATING THEM AND/OR BORROWING THEM WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.  THANK YOU!

NO MAN WAS EVER GREAT BY IMITATION - SAMUEL JOHNSON

Wilkinson - Shropshire;  Jones - Hereford; Mitchell - Brighton; Emery - Brighton; Hall - Brighton Christopher - Dorset; Bussell - Dorset; <br /><br /><br />This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<br /><]

Offline chinakay

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,500
  • Our housegoof
    • View Profile
Re: Date for family photo
« Reply #25 on: Thursday 27 November 14 05:58 GMT (UK) »
Philip, could we see the whole thing uncropped, please? Need the corners and the back.

Not being much of an expert on men's clothing, until Jim drops in I'd go along with Cazza's estimate. Nice colour, Caz :)

Cheers,
China
Moore/Paterson~Montreal
Moore/Addison~New Brunswick
Jubb/Kerr~Mirfield~Halifax~Moffatt
Williams~Dolwyddelan

King~Bedfordshire~Hull
Jenkins~Somerset
Sellers~Hull

Online philipsearching

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,247
  • I was a beautiful baby, - what went wrong?
    • View Profile
Re: Date for family photo
« Reply #26 on: Wednesday 10 December 14 16:47 GMT (UK) »
Philip, could we see the whole thing uncropped, please? Need the corners and the back.
Cheers,
China

Hallo, China.  Unfortunately this is all I have.  I have only ever seen a photo of the bowler hatted man cut off at the knees on photographic paper with no markings on the back.  I have no idea if this is an original photo or a copy.

Hallo, Caroline - thank you for the colouring.  I confess that I am not usually a fan of added colour but it does look good.

So, my elusive great grandfather Harry Mount (born 1873) continues to puzzle me.
1) The bowler hatted man (if the photo is c1890s) could be Harry's father - which is the family belief.
2) The mother in the studio photo of parents and children (c1893-8) could be Harry's sister - which is the family belief.
3) The outdoor photo of the woman and two children (Edwardian or into the 1910s) cannot include Harry (as the family believed).  I know it is not Harry's wife and children (the faces don't match other photos).  The woman might possibly be one of the children in the studio photo.  Or she might be the woman in the studio photo (but I think the chins are different).

If only I could confirm Harry Mount's name I would be able to move forward!


All the best
Philip
Please help me to help you by citing sources for information.

Census information is Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<br /><br /><br />