RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Wooler57 on Friday 11 February 11 16:51 GMT (UK)
-
Amongst the old photos I have inherited is a one that I believe is of my great-grandmother, born in 1857. This is it, showing the front and back of the photo. I have another photo which I think could be of the same person, but taken a number of years later. I'll add that photo separately to this post (as I can't seem to attach more than two images). Both are wearing the same necklace and earrings, and look similar.
I’d be grateful for any help with dating the photos. Do others think they might be the same person? Thanks,
Ian
-
...and this is the second photo.
Is this the same person, but older?? Any help welcome.
Ian
-
Think it's definitely the same lady, ears, eyes, (and jewellery!) match.
The expert daters will be along soon to say whether they think the portraits are 10 years or so apart.
-
Well I've had a looooong look at these & come to the conclusion that these were taken early - mid 1880's.
The cardstock is identical ( but different suppliers) & was used at this time (design changed slightly from this around mid decade).
The long bodice in the 2nd. was popular late 1870's - early 1880's as was this pose against the back of a chair.
This may be 1880 as I believe that's what the date code says but I'm not 100% sure.
So only 5 years between them max. & I don't think they are the same person anyway as they have different eyes,nose & mouth.
Possibly mother & daughter.
jim
-
I agree with Jim, different ladies, perhaps if only 5 years apart could be mother and daughter. A comparison of heads, which I have found useful in the past.
Kath
-
Agree with Jim on the date, early 1880s possibly late 1870s especially with those fussy sleeves on the older lady. And they are definitely different people...I'd also think mother and daughter. The daughter will, I suppose, inherit the jewels. They look very intricate don't they...also very heavy. Pierced ears and heavy gold earrings swinging freely with the slightest motion....your earlobes get very sore very quickly and the skin gets irritated and itchy. I sympathize :D
Cheers,
China
-
What about sisters - one of them borrowed the jewellery off the other?
I think they look very alike. I even wondered if the second one is the same girl a few years later, perhaps pregnant, with a bit more weight and fluid retention?
Her dress doesn't sit very flat at the front? I wonder.
Just throwing ideas out there!
-
I thought the 2nd. was late 1870's but the cardstock's wrong for the date & the MIP has "" which is later than 1879 but not by much.
jim
-
An MIP code prior to 1880 Jim??
-
There isn't an MIP code prior to 1880,1880 was the starting point.
jim
-
Thanks for everyone’s comments and suggestions. It makes this puzzle more interesting!
As background to these photos – I inherited a family bible belonging to my great grandparents, George and Janet Wightman, both born in 1857. They have written a number of family birth, marriages, deaths in it, and included a lot of photographs. Also in the bible was an original of their marriage certificate from 1878 and two portrait paintings which I’ve added below. My assumption was that the portraits were of my great-grandparents (although it’s possible that they were given to them by someone else). The two portraits are not in the best of condition, and I’ve been told that this is because they were painted directly onto photographs. The chemicals in the photos and in the paint are now reacting, and deteriorating.
As they were painted on photographs, I was able to look through all of the photographs I had to see if any matched the two portraits. Only two were similar. The first one in the original post above, which I assume is Janet, and the one below, which I assume is George (it’s not a great match, but no other photograph in the set is even close to the portrait image). The back of George’s photo is similar to the other photos with an MIP “” code.
So the 1879-1880 dates for the photos suggest that these two photos (and the portraits) were taken shortly after their marriage, and they are both around 22 to 23 years old. I think that fits the photos.
I had wondered if the older woman was also Janet, mainly due to the same jewellery and somewhat similar looks. But if this photo was taken around the same time as the others, then I agree with the comments above, it’s probably a relative.
Janet’s mother was born in 1824 which would make her 55 in 1879. I think the older woman in the photo is therefore unlikely to be her. Janet had an older sister, Lydia, born in 1852. So she would be 27 in 1879, and a possible candidate.
I've got a family portrait which might show Janet and George at a later time with 4 of their children, which I'll post later.
Ian
-
Hello Ian
Lucky you having that little lot.
The painting of Janet is a copy but for some reason the copy is reversed as you can see from the way
her bodice is fastened.It may be so that they are looking towards each other in the album.If the photo of George has the speech marks then it was taken after the one of Janet.
Can we see the back of George's.
Here's Janet the right way round.
jim
-
Hi Jim,
I think the portrait of Janet was probably reversed so that the two portraits faced each other. Judging by the discolouration round the edges of the portraits, they were both in frames with oval borders.
This is the back of George's photo - another A&G Taylor print.
Ian
-
The portrait of George isn't a copy of the photo but is probably a copy of another photo of him taken at the same time as Janet.
The photo of George was taken the same year as the 2nd. female photo but not necessarily at the same time...if you can understand that.
In my 1st. reply I said I'd had a long look at these,the reason being there were anomilies with the 2nd. photo.
anomoly 1:the first year I have seen the Crown & Fleur - de - Lis logo is 1884 which fits with the date that's been given by China & me,however anomoly 2; the speech marks with no date code is something I've not seen before.
I've since spoken to Roger Vaughan & he tells me he believes this was taken in 1884 & the earliest these addresses appear is 1882 not 1880 which I gave & he should know.
So George & female 2 taken in 1884 & Janet taken 1884-6 when the logo changed.
The portraits are enlargements of the originals with Janet being reversed.
jim
-
This is certainly helping to narrow down the possible options here. I’ve got one more photo which I think is linked with the same people as these photos. I was going to add it in a different post, but think it probably fits better alongside these photos, if they are linked.
The picture below shows a family group. I’m pretty convinced the man here is the same as in the photos above, just a few years older. If so, then this is also Janet a few years older, but looking rounder in the face. Any thoughts on the date? I’m interested to see if it fits with the ages of George & Janet’s children.
Thanks for all of your help,
Ian
-
In the general vicinity of 1900....maybe about 1898 to 1904, I think 1904 is about the latest for the balloon sleeves the lady is wearing.
Cheers,
China
-
if it's cherubs it's 1890's.
the ladys gigot sleeve dominated most of the decade,however as time progressed we see more variations
& this is one of them,so I believe this belongs in the 2nd. half of the decade at around 1895-9.
jim
-
hello China,I see our posts crossed & we seem to disagree....gulp.
jim
-
Well Jim...
Point #1. Your post "crossed" mine about 15 hours late. You really should be a little more on the ball.
Point #2. I have seen cherubs on 1900s cardstock.
Point #3. If the start of my date range is 1898, and the end of yours is 1899, I fail to see how you could possibly be disagreeable disagree with my estimate.
Point #4. Happy Valentine's Day :-* :-* :-* ;D ;D ;D
-
I don't think this bodice is early 1900's & she's still relatively young so I would expect to see her in something a bit more up to date,also the girl is wearing a variation from around 1896 & I can't see a girl of this age wearing this early 1900's either...oh the embarrassment.So I wouldn't put it any later than your starting date either.
& happy Valentine's Day to you.
jim
-
Jim, China. Thanks for all of your really valuable discussions and conclusions. I’ve been doing a bit of detective work based on my family tree and the dates you have recommended for these photos.
Looking at the ages of the children, and the dates of the photos, it would be a real stretch to try to get them to fit my great-grandparents, George & Janet. The family photo in particular, doesn’t fit with the ages of the children.
However, George’s older brother, William Wightman and his family fit the dates perfectly. They had 5 children, with the youngest being born in 1897. If the family photo is 1896, the other 4 children would be aged 13, 11 (girl), 7 and 5. The parents would be 42 (William) and 38 (Jemima).
In the 1891 & 1901 census, they are living just around the corner from the Brighton Grove studio where the photo was taken.
William and my great-grandfather set up their own bootmakers shop, so must have been fairly close. I imagine that William and his wife had portraits made when they married in 1882 and probably gave a set to my great-grandparents – which is how I’ve got the paintings now.
It’s disappointing to realise that the portraits are not my great-grandparents, but it’s good to be able to put some names to the photos with a certain degree of confidence. Thanks once again for your great input,
Ian