I hope that someone out there can hep me with a conundrum.
I have two photographs old family photographs that were kept paired in a plush leather standing frame.
The card around them says the photograph comes from "James Porter," 80 Alexandra Road, Manchester." I had found that he seemed to begin his activity around 1900, which led me to believe that the couple in the photographs were my great grandfather's cousin and his wife - Thomas Austin Guerin (1853-1904) and Anna Milford (1846-1932) they had married in 1902. Thomas had been born in Manchester, but based in South Africa for the previous 20 years. His last 2 years were in London.
I looked at them more closely recently and saw that there was a blurred imprint of a photographer's details in the bottom right corner of the woman's photograph.
I can't make out the photographer's name, but underneath in all Caps it says "St Annes on the Sea," which is near Blackpool in Lancashire. Can anyone make out the name of the photographer?
I've had a look at the original today, and while it appears to be an imprint in my scan, the original is flat.
I believe these may have been rephotographed at Porter's (he was based a block from my great grandparents), but photographed earlier. MyHeritage's photo date AI says about 1882 for the man, and couldn't figure out the woman's date.
Could these be my Gr x2 grandparents instead?
Thomas Guerin (1833-1904) and Mary Ann Fitzpatrick (c1840-1909).
Their deaths were during the time that Porter was extant at that address, and it feels like it makes more sense that a parent or grandparent's photographs were kept in such a careful display case, as opposed to cousins who lived in London.
Does this seem feasible?
