Dating of 2 studio photos of Keir / Kerr family of Whitehaven

[Rob T]

Please could someone help in dating these two photos. The originals are in poor condition, but at least I've managed to scan them.

The first one is from the Bellman studio at Lowther Street, Whitehaven, Cumberland. It is pasted onto a cardboard mount. There is no writing on the back and, unfortunately, the man's head is missing.
One of the medal symbols on the mount shows the date 1897-98, so the photo most likely originated shortly after this date.
My grandparents, David Keir and Amy Louise Kerr, married in Whitehaven in August 1901, so I was wondering if this could have been of them taken about the time of the wedding. The Kerr family were living in Roper Street, Whitehaven at that time, which is in the town centre, and quite close to the Bellman studio.

The second photo is from the Gibson studio in Arrowthwaite, Whitehaven. This was close to where the Keir family lived.
It’s striking how localised the damage is, with just the man’s head missing. I wondered if this might have been intentional, possibly after some disagreement.
The child, possibly a little over a year old, looks dressed for a special occasion, but would it have been a boy or girl? I've read that infants, even boys, used to be dressed in frocks, but at what age would they have been put in trousers and would that still be the case at the time the photo was taken?

Many thanks in anticipation, Rob.

[jim1]

The 1st. I would suggest is around the turn of the century. The 2nd. is a bit later. The Jabot (that's the thing round her neck) made a brief comeback mid decade.

[Rob T]

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Jim.
I was hoping the Gibson photo might be a bit earlier, to fit in with possible identities for the subjects. I will have to look more closely at the family tree to find others that may fit the time-frame.
I'm reasonably confident that the Bellman photo is of my grandparents David Keir (1876-1934) and Amy Louise (nee Kerr) (1878-1953) who married in 1901.
Rob

[Rob T]

Having done some further research, I think I can answer part of my original query. Boys were commonly dressed in frocks up to the age of 3 or 4 years, up to and beyond WW1.

The reason I asked this was that I was wondering if the Gibson photo could be of my grandfather, David Keir, with his parents. He was born in March 1876, so the photo would have to be from about 1877.

Does anyone have a view whether or not this could be feasible?
Kind regards.

[Milliepede]

To me it looks like a little girl just going purely by the face.
Mum doesn't look too happy though 

[Treetotal]

Having done some further research, I think I can answer part of my original query. Boys were commonly dressed in frocks up to the age of 3 or 4 years, up to and beyond WW1.

The reason I asked this was that I was wondering if the Gibson photo could be of my grandfather, David Keir, with his parents. He was born in March 1876, so the photo would have to be from about 1877.

Does anyone have a view whether or not this could be feasible?
Kind regards.

It's not that early as Jim has already suggested a date which I would agree with. I also think the child is most likely to be a boy as they have a more prominent brow than girls at this age.
Carol

[Rob T]

Thanks for all the suggestions. Unfortunately, I don't have any obvious candidates that fit that timescale so, for now at least, it will have to remain a mystery. Kind regards, Rob.