Need another set of eyes to date and identify person in photos - Moore/Sandford

[Ruskie]

Excellent thread, which sadly I have come late to. Your explanation and comparision images are excellent russell.

I agree that the boy is alive and there does not appear to be an arm inside his sleeve. The girl’s dress sits in an odd way (sticking out?) as if to support his ‘hand’.

The three look very young and look similar so could be siblings.

Interesting photos. 

Added: we occasionally see post mortem photos on rootschat (often unbeknown to the poster) and I can’t remember ever seeing one in a casket, or lying down. 

[shanreagh]

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=792932.msg6496221#msg6496221

Russell12 I think you are being too adamant even in your second followup about these things.  Post mortem photos existed in all sorts of 'poses'  Posing stands were used while the subjects were alive and dead.
I raised it as something to be considered and I was not expecting the whole concept to be questioned. 

The child has got something going on with the arm-less sleeve and his right arm is odd (on left of photograph) as well.  He may have been paralysed is another thought and being assisted to sit up.  He may have been born without an arm.   

[xpress4]

Could you post the whole of the second photo to try to get an accurate date.  I wondered if the lady could have been born in 1885 and that the photo could have been taken around 1915 ish making her around 30. Then maybe the woman in the 1st photo could have been her mother.  Do you have a birth certificate for 1885

Hi, here is the full photo. Unfortunately no one in the family was born that date except my GGrandmother Lucy, who I thought was the little girl. No other women fit and have a great deal of photos and info on that generation.

On the group photo, I also notice the woman's dress appears to be placed instead of falling at the boys upper leg. Is that just the way fell? Maybe my imagination.

Odd still, the two older people seem to be looking a bit to their left. There iris' are to the side. Whereas the boys' are straight on.

[russell12]

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=792932.msg6496221#msg6496221
Russell12 I think you are being too adamant even in your second followup about these things.  Post mortem photos existed in all sorts of 'poses'  Posing stands were used while the subjects were alive and dead.

Oh no - I think you've misinterpreted the tone of my comment! I'm perfectly up to admitting I'm wrong on this

With that being said; this has definitely made me reconsider the possibility of my mum being correct on a family photo being postmortem - so thank you for correcting me on my initial preconception of them 

xpress4; are there no siblings who were born around 1895-1900? Maybe the little girl could be a visiting relative such as a niece or cousin?

[shanreagh]

Hi, here is the full photo. Unfortunately no one in the family was born that date except my GGrandmother Lucy, who I thought was the little girl. No other women fit and have a great deal of photos and info on that generation.




Written across the photo is some thing like 'Mollie and Gran' or 'Emollie and Gran'.  Or Mother and Gran.  As you said.  Just have to work out whose mother and whose Gran?
It does not look like Lucy or Mary Ann. Is there a Molly some where?
The little girl's clothes look relatively modern and I can recall seeing pics of my mother born in 1916 wearing this type of outfit.  My grandmother wore longish dresses until into the early 1900s

If you brought the dating forward into the 1900s with little girl being about 5-6 years is there anyone who fits.  If the pic of Gran was taken in former colonies or US of hardworking rural folk they may have kept their former best to use as house dresses. 

[jim1]

Have to say looking at the whole picture it could easily be later than Edwardian but I think that's the start date.
I can't see if it says Molly(ie) & You or Gran.
Molly could be a pet name for Mary or Margaret.
As for mother & you they do look like mother & daughter.

[Creasegirl]

I think if the great grandmother was born in 1885 then more likely to be the woman beside the tree.  I think the young girls clothes could be verging on 1920s

[xpress4]

Don't get me wrong, I believe you all about the dating of the photo. My grandmother has been wrong before as far as naming people in photos!

There is a faint crossed "t" after the "o" so I truly believe it reads "Mother & You" but another mother no doubt and there are no fits in the tree I have. The woman is definitely not my Ggrandmother. It will have to be filed as a mystery I'm afraid. Just breaks my heart when these clues have no hope!

[Wiggy]

     Aah . . .  but does it inspire you to label/name all your current photos?   

I am trying to! 

Wiggy