Author Topic: Henry Tomkinson & Familly  (Read 959 times)

Offline Donches

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« on: Thursday 22 November 18 11:18 GMT (UK) »
I'd be very gratefull for restoration and dating of this photo of my grandfather and his familly, from Nantwich, Cheshire, UK.

Don

Offline Trishanne

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,247
    • View Profile
Re: Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« Reply #1 on: Thursday 22 November 18 13:13 GMT (UK) »
Hi Don, I'm very sorry but I can't see a photo.
Pat
Bownass - Lancashire & Westmorland
Hoggarth - Lancashire & Westmorland
Jackson- Lancaster
Waller - Dent, Yorkshire dales
Omerod - Lancashire
Redburn - Lancashire
Evans - Hereford

RESTORERS please do not use my restores without my permission THANK YOU

Offline Donches

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 22 November 18 14:50 GMT (UK) »
I'm sending the photo again - hope it opens.

Don

Offline Trishanne

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,247
    • View Profile
Re: Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« Reply #3 on: Thursday 22 November 18 15:49 GMT (UK) »
It's there now, thank you and here is my try at restoration
Pat
Bownass - Lancashire & Westmorland
Hoggarth - Lancashire & Westmorland
Jackson- Lancaster
Waller - Dent, Yorkshire dales
Omerod - Lancashire
Redburn - Lancashire
Evans - Hereford

RESTORERS please do not use my restores without my permission THANK YOU


Offline hoobaloo

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,370
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« Reply #4 on: Thursday 22 November 18 17:27 GMT (UK) »
I've cleaned your photo a little, but, your photo needs to be scanned at a higher resolution. Your scan was mostly made up of a scan of your scanner lid, there is a tutorial at the top of this page, John.

Offline japeflakes

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,306
    • View Profile
Re: Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« Reply #5 on: Thursday 22 November 18 21:11 GMT (UK) »
..

Offline Creasegirl

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« Reply #6 on: Thursday 22 November 18 21:49 GMT (UK) »
Would the date be 1880s.  I also wonder if the woman might be pregnant from her clothing so maybe that would help date
Ferguson (st fillans, comrie)
Garnock (lothian, fife)
Valet (london, switzerland)
Butcher (ramsgate, glasgow)
Blackbird (durham,  newcastle)
Barr (ayrshire, ireland)
Fleming (paisley)
Crone, croney ,(dumfriesshire, ireland)

Offline Wiggy

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,424
  • coloured by Gadget
    • View Profile
Re: Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« Reply #7 on: Thursday 22 November 18 23:09 GMT (UK) »
Not good but a 'go' at it.  I am with John - needs a better scan.  The others have done better than I have.

Wiggy
Gaunt, Ransom, McNally, Stanfield, Kimberley. (Tasmania)
Brown, Johnstone, Eskdale, Brand  (Dumfriesshire,  Scotland)
Booth, Bruerton, Deakin, Wilkes, Kimberley
(Warwicks, Staffords)
Gaunt (Yorks)
Percy, Dunning, Hyne, Grigg, Farley (Devon, UK)
Duncan (Fife, Devon), Hugh, Blee (Cornwall)
Green, Mansfield, (Herts)
Cavenaugh, Ransom (Middlesex)
 

 Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.

Offline Donches

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Henry Tomkinson & Familly
« Reply #8 on: Friday 23 November 18 16:10 GMT (UK) »
I'm very grateful for the response to my request. I can now see that the wife is my grandfather's first wife who died in 1883. She had a third child which was born in 1882 and only lived a few months, so she probably was pregnant at the time of the photograph. Well spotted. The photograph must have been taken at the end of 1881, so the date of 1880 was good.

Don