Author Topic: Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family  (Read 194 times)

Offline Dan Culp

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family
« on: Sunday 28 April 19 16:17 BST (UK) »
I believe this is either my great great grandpa Henry Eeftink (1856-1906) or his father, Johannes Eeftink (1822-1891).  The woman does not resemble my great great grandmother, so she would either be Henry's first wife Johanna Scharenborg (1859-1886) or his mother Grada Garstenveld Eeftink (1827-1898).

If the photo was taken in the 1850s by any chance, it would have been from around Evansville, Indiana.  If taken in 1858 or after, it would be from in or around Bollinger County, Missouri.

The Eeftinks are a large Catholic farming family that came to the USA from Gelderland in the early 1850s.

The photo is obviously not in the greatest shape, so any restoration that can be done would be much appreciated in addition to the dating.

The type of photo appears quite different from most of the others I've seen.  Could this be a tintype or daguerrotype? 

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.


Offline McGroger

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Convicts, Commoners and Outlaws
    • View Profile
Re: Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family
« Reply #1 on: Monday 29 April 19 08:51 BST (UK) »
Sorry, can't help with a date but I've had a go at tidying it up.

I've flipped the picture horizontally because the cased photo would have been showing a reversed image (note the buttons on the man's waistcoat in the original are on the wrong side).
 
It's not easy to see, but I think the lady is showing off her wedding ring (so probably recently wed); maybe this will help to narrow it down once a dating expert can give you a ballpark date.

Cheers,
Peter
Convicts: COSIER (1791); LEADBEATER (1791); SINGLETON (& PARKINSON) (1792); STROUD (1793); BARNES (aka SYDNEY) (1800); DAVIS (1804); CLARK (1806); TYLER (1810); COWEN (1818); ADAMS[ON] (1821); SMITH (1827); WHYBURN (1827); HARBORNE (1828).
Commoners: DOUGAN (1844); FORD (1849); JOHNSTON (1850); BEATTIE (& LONG) (1856); BRICKLEY (1883).
Outlaws: MCGREGOR (1883) & ass. clans, Glasgow, Glenquaich, Glenalmond and Glengyle.

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.


Offline Trishanne

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,877
    • View Profile
Re: Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family
« Reply #2 on: Monday 29 April 19 10:20 BST (UK) »
Well done Peter, it's not an easy one is it? What do you think the lady is holding on her knee, I wondered if she has a baby, but it's very blurred and difficult to tell,
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 McGroger

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Convicts, Commoners and Outlaws
    • View Profile
Re: Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family
« Reply #3 on: Monday 29 April 19 10:45 BST (UK) »
Thanks, Pat.

I really couldn't work it out (too damaged/faded/discoloured). I considered a rug, and a baby, or that it was just damage (but it looked more than that). In the end I gave up and decided to leave it ambiguous rather than force something on to it that I didn't really believe in.

I'm now looking forward to seeing yours. ;D

Cheers,
Peter
Convicts: COSIER (1791); LEADBEATER (1791); SINGLETON (& PARKINSON) (1792); STROUD (1793); BARNES (aka SYDNEY) (1800); DAVIS (1804); CLARK (1806); TYLER (1810); COWEN (1818); ADAMS[ON] (1821); SMITH (1827); WHYBURN (1827); HARBORNE (1828).
Commoners: DOUGAN (1844); FORD (1849); JOHNSTON (1850); BEATTIE (& LONG) (1856); BRICKLEY (1883).
Outlaws: MCGREGOR (1883) & ass. clans, Glasgow, Glenquaich, Glenalmond and Glengyle.

Offline Trishanne

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,877
    • View Profile
Re: Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family
« Reply #4 on: Monday 29 April 19 12:11 BST (UK) »
I've decided to go with a baby, The way the lady is holding 'it' looks right for a baby, but I could be wrong.  Could these be your ggg grandparents?
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 McGroger

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,424
  • Convicts, Commoners and Outlaws
    • View Profile
Re: Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family
« Reply #5 on: Monday 29 April 19 22:34 BST (UK) »
Pat, you make out a good argument for a baby ;)

Dan, your pic seems to be drifting down the board without a date estimate. Suggest you amend the title, adding "DATE PLEASE for" to bring in the dating people.

Peter
Convicts: COSIER (1791); LEADBEATER (1791); SINGLETON (& PARKINSON) (1792); STROUD (1793); BARNES (aka SYDNEY) (1800); DAVIS (1804); CLARK (1806); TYLER (1810); COWEN (1818); ADAMS[ON] (1821); SMITH (1827); WHYBURN (1827); HARBORNE (1828).
Commoners: DOUGAN (1844); FORD (1849); JOHNSTON (1850); BEATTIE (& LONG) (1856); BRICKLEY (1883).
Outlaws: MCGREGOR (1883) & ass. clans, Glasgow, Glenquaich, Glenalmond and Glengyle.

Offline Treetotal

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,108
    • View Profile
Re: Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family
« Reply #6 on: Monday 29 April 19 22:39 BST (UK) »
Nice work Peter and Pat....I would say this was late 1850s-early 1860s and I agree with Pat that the lady is most likely to be holding a baby. It does look like a tintype.
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

Offline Dan Culp

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
DATING HELP? Southeast Missouri or Evansville, Indiana photo, Eeftink family
« Reply #7 on: Sunday 12 May 19 01:20 BST (UK) »
I've decided to go with a baby, The way the lady is holding 'it' looks right for a baby, but I could be wrong.  Could these be your ggg grandparents?
Pat
From what I'm hearing, I'm getting pretty close to settling on it being them.  Now that I can see her face a little more clearly, and especially now that the dates matches her closer than her daughter-in-law, I'm starting to appreciate a resemblance between the lady in the picture and a known picture of Grada from shortly before her death in 1898.  I'll add that picture in case any one would like to agree or disagree with that resemblance.  And for what it's worth, my understanding is that she wasn't as heavy a woman as she appears- she was suffering from dropsy/edema at the time (her eventual cause of death).

This is really exciting, and I thank you all.

Assuming it is a baby, do you suppose it follows that it was her only child at the time, or else the others would be included? 

They were married in 1852.  Their oldest son John (1853-1870) was born 11 months later.  Sadly, owing to his early death, I expect if it is him, it would be the only image of him in existence.  But if so, that would date the picture as 1853, which is a little before the only estimate that's been given so far.

I've added "Dating help" to the subject just to see if I can solicit a second opinion/confirmation.  Can we say with relative certainty that it's not from as late as the late 1870s?  That certainty would be enough for me to conclude it is John and Grada rather than their son.