RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Coolbreeze on Thursday 03 November 11 16:25 GMT (UK)
-
On the back the name of the photographer was Albert Sachs in Bradford
-
;D Hi Richard :o
Just had a google for Albert Sachs and it would seem that he and his brother, Gustave, were German and Albert was in Manningham Lane, Bradford in 1881.
Apparently Albert died in 1886.
Will have a look at the censuses in case they help further
He was born 1842/1843 in Germany and is a Photographer in 1871 but is visiting
-
Late 1870s. Doesn't the girl look uncomfortable? :)
Cheers,
China
-
Thank You!!! China Kay and Rachel 2...
You mentioned 1871... Where was he visiting in 1871...
-
and at a guess what age would you have them all at?
-
That's odd
1881 his household address is 11 Brearton or Breastow Street Bradford and he has another Photographer brother, Oscar aged 28.
1871 ~ he's visiting Timothy Robinson (Photographer) and family in Thornton, Yorkshire
4 Hilltop Road
I'm no good at ages so over to China for that ;)
Rachel
-
Ummm the young lady certainly looks to be in a lot of dicomfort. I suspect that she either has a hunchback or the onset of Osteoporosis. This posture is also a indication of possible Rickets in early childhood.
-
Ummm the young lady certainly looks to be in a lot of dicomfort. I suspect that she either has a hunchback or the onset of Osteoporosis.
Maybe the arms of the chair are a little too high and ? grandpa's sticking his elbow in her back
Oh yes it looks as if she has a cushion on the arm of the chair too
-
Is there any reference on the censuses to suggest any disabilities?
-
I wonder why the basket was placed just so in the photograph? Seems to have been used to disguise or hide something as you'd expect the side or top view to be shown with flowers in it rather than the underside of the basket being so prominent. [Edited to add: Maybe it's just to distract attention from the extra cushion under her arm?]
Do you have the young lady's death certificate? That might give some clues to her condition.
Heather
-
Just changed my mind....the corners of the photo seem to be square so earlier, pre 1875 or so.
Unless the corners have been cropped off....always show us the entire photo as everything can be a dating clue. Especially, as in this case, the corners of an 1870s photo :)
-
No... I have no information on who they are... I have been trying to find clues as to who they could be... I have a "Hunch" But. no real facts... I have been looking around the family to see if anyone has a photo with the same looking face on it... The picture was found in a distant cousin's father's old family scrapbook... Although, he never put any details of whom they are on anywhere... He was the youngest son to a mother who was born illagitamate. The rest of the scrap book each family member is marked and the picture is placed in the scrapbook on the next page, next to her mother... Like I said her mother was born Illegitimate... She was born in 1848... I have been trying to get people to guess/date the year of the photo.. Some people have said the 1870's... If this is the case then it is not who I think it could be... In the picture she looks about teenage possibly younger to me, Although, I may well be wrong!!!... I know that she never lived with her mother and she lived with her grandparents in 1861 and just her grandfather as her grandmother died in 1863 aged 69... Her grandfather died in 1873 aged 84... If the photo was taken in the early 1860's the the dates would tally up!!!... Although, the family were from Suffolk and the picture mentions Bradford on the back - another thing that suggests to me that the people in the photo are not of whom I am thinking... This could be a tough one to crack... Will keep trying, you never know...
-
Do you think that the girl in the photo looks like this lady in anyway?
-
Can't quite figure out if she's wearing a watch
-
Richard
Have you looked on the censuses to see if any of the possible candidates had a disability ?
Are you able to show us the back of the photo in case there might be a clue someone can pick up on ?
Rachel
-
Definitely not 1860s, early or otherwise....dress styles, hair, and pose are way wrong for the 1860s.
There's a similarity between the girl and the single portrait you posted, but it's not the same woman. Her ears, which do not change over a lifetime except for the length of the lobes, do not match the girl's. This portrait is mid-late 1890s by the way.
Cheers,
China
-
No... I do not have any Census infomation that lists a disabilty... I do not have the back of the original photo... I will contact my distant cousin and try and see if she can send me a scan of it... Thank You all for the above thoughts...
Richard
-
Watch more likely pinned to the bodice.
Wristwatches date from about 1850 (I think) so it's a possibility...and they were mostly consigned to women until WWI. They became a practical reality to coordinate movements during that era.
Cheers,
China
-
Watch more likely pinned to the bodice.
Wristwatches date from about 1850 (I think) so it's a possibility...and they were mostly consigned to women until WWI. They became a practical reality to coordinate movements during that era.
Cheers,
China
Yes that could be a watch dangling
I think wristwatches would normally have been later .... unless, of course, her family was stinking rich and of a 'showy' nature :D
I did see an early wristwatch on here a year or two ago and it was huge and unattractive.
Shame the photo's not a little sharper.
It looks as if she might be wearing a ring on her right hand (3rd finger) and a bangle/bracelet and that's an earring on her left ear and probably a rose at her neck.
Wonder if it was a special occasion ?
The gentleman's boot/shoe is very stylish.
Every time I look at the whole pic I think it's a wristwatch ... isn't she showing it to us ? :)
-
I noticed the earring, and it looks very heavy. The kind that will make your ears sore, and elongate the earlobe eventually. That's another reason I didn't think the girl and the grown woman are the same person.
The girl's posture just doesn't look right...that hunched look reminds me of a spina bifida person I met several years ago. I'm also wondering about the footstool, kind of unusual. Well, just ruminating :)
-
Good evening all,
I don't think the girl has any sort of disability, she's just sitting in a chair that is too big for her height. Look lower and you will see the footstall under her feet so her legs wern't dangling. Had she taken her arms off of the chair arms her shoulders would have dropped, she would look perfectly normal. Because of the position the basket has caught under the chair arm and hey presto, you see the bottom of it. Not a very professional photographer to let things like that happen, he should have adjusted her position.
John915
-
a bit of help
sylvia
-
Agree with China,those ears are different.
-
My waking thoughts ...
She's wearing her hair up and I've forgotten at what age they did this ::) but that would make her a teenager at least, as Richard thinks.
Actually, to be more precise, her hair is not down and I'm assuming it's in a bun or pleat and is not just cut short at the back for some reason (illness or fashion).
Is that the rose the white rose of York ?
Hi George ;D
-
Have a look at these two
I know they're not at the same angle and that makes it difficult
Don't think the ears are an exact match but they appear to be of a similar size
We need a hairstyle expert.
Hair parted in the middle and pulled back behind the ears indicates ? which era ? Where's O.R. ?
-
Well done Rachel! I reckon those two must be the same woman - or very closely related if not.
Heather
-
Well done Rachel! I reckon those two must be the same woman - or very closely related if not.
Heather
;D I'm going with 'closely related' because of the ear'oles not being exactly the same but we need a sleeve and hairdo expert to offer precise dates
-
Richard
Is the group pic for restoration ?
If yes, then do you want it in colour ?
Rachel ;)
-
Thank You all for your comments... If ya think of anything please keep ya thoughts and experience coming!!!!... I feel like I am learning so much from you all... Thank You!!!
-
Hair up usually indicates marriageable age.
Hair parted in the middle and behind the ears could be anything from about 1865 onwards. But the clothing and backing are very indicative of early-mid 1870s in the group photo, and the single portrait sleeves are quite unique to the late 1890s.
Cheers,
China
-
It was mentioned in a previous post that the lady on the left could be the same as the picture I added of the lady I know of... She being Maria Louisa Alecock (Maria Louisa Nunn - Married John Frederick Nunn 21st Jul 1867) She was born 01 Jun 1848 and died in 14 Oct 1927... So, if this is her in the photo and it was taken around 1865/75 then this would make her between 17 and 27 years of age... Which tally's up... So, the young girl with the footstall/watch etc would be her daughter - from the census her first daughter was born on 13 Jan 1868 also illegitimate... So, If the picture was taken during the 1870's this too tally's up!!!.. I cannot see anything regarding disability etc in any of the census returns for this line... I have attached one more photo of the lady we know of Marria louisa even later in life which may help more!!!... Another thing that makes no sense to me is that the picture was marked on the back naming Bradford... The whole family scrapbook is full of family member born in the villages of Euston, Barnham, Suffolk and Thetford, Norfolk... All three places are within a mile or two of each other... Was is possible to have a photo done from a studio mentioned miles away (like Bradford) in them days???...
-
Emil Vieler served his apprenticeship as a photographer in a Bradford studio run by a German-born photographer named Albert Sachs (born c1842, Berlin).
http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/BexhillVieler.htm
-
This last photo is early 1890s...1892 or 3...before the huge leg-o-mutton sleeving came into fashion in 1893.
If the lady is up-to-date, and no lady would be caught dead having her photo taken in anything but the latest style if she could help it, this photo falls into a very narrow date range. The "kickup" on the shoulder seams is too large to be any earlier, but the sleeves are not puffy enough farther down to be any later.
However, keep in mind that Victorian families exchanged photos with friends as well as relatives, so any photo in a collection may not be family at all.
Cheers,
China
-
It was mentioned in a previous post that the lady on the left could be the same as the picture I added of the lady I know of... She being Maria Louisa Alecock (Maria Louisa Nunn - Married John Frederick Nunn 21st Jul 1867) She was born 01 Jun 1848 and died in 14 Oct 1927... So, if this is her in the photo and it was taken around 1865/75 then this would make her between 17 and 27 years of age... Which tally's up... So, the young girl with the footstall/watch etc would be her daughter - from the census her first daughter was born on 13 Jan 1868 also illegitimate... So, If the picture was taken during the 1870's this too tally's up!!!.. I cannot see anything regarding disability etc in any of the census returns for this line... I have attached one more photo of the lady we know of Marria louisa even later in life which may help more!!!... Another thing that makes no sense to me is that the picture was marked on the back naming Bradford... The whole family scrapbook is full of family member born in the villages of Euston, Barnham, Suffolk and Thetford, Norfolk... All three places are within a mile or two of each other... Was is possible to have a photo done from a studio mentioned miles away (like Bradford) in them days???...
Your 2nd photo of Maria /Louisa reminds me of one I have of a gt gran which was taken in abt 1893
At the moment we don't think the woman in the group pic is Maria/Louisa.
;D China I was typing as you posted !
A quick observation which may or may not be significant is that in neither of your pics of Maria/Louisa is she wearing earrings.
The woman in the group pic has an earring dangling from her right earlobe
-
And I was adding to my post as you posted, Rach :D
-
Hi George ;D
Hi Rachel.not ignoring,just busy busy today ;D
-
Cleaned (yes I did ask if Richard wanted a restore) ;D
Colour later
Rachel
*tuts* were those upholstery tacks on the arm of her chair ?
will replace them when I colourise
-
Wow... That look great!... I really like this.. The colour version should blow us away!!! Thank You x
-
Wow... That look great!... I really like this.. The colour version should blow us away!!! Thank You x
;D ;D ;D
Any colours you particularly fancy ?
-
emmmmm..... No not really.... Just work you magic!!!... I do so wish I could narrow down as to who is in the picture... Seems such a shame that we all have one or two photos like that!...
-
colour
will look at it again tomorrow
-
Wow Rachel! That's beautiful ;D
-
Wow Rachel! That's beautiful ;D
Thank you
I've tried every colour combination I can think of and am not particularly happy with the result :-\
-
Now that is amazing!!... What a excellent job done... You should be really proud of yourself... Thank You!!! x
-
I have quite a bit of information on Albert Sachs and his brothers who were all photographers. What design if any is on the back of this photo?
Steve
-
If the address on the back of the photo is 151e Westgate then the photo dates between 1873-1877. If its 20 Manningham Lane then the date is between 1877-1881. I dont think it will be later than this.
See https://sites.google.com/site/leedsandbradfordstudios/albert-sachs for further info I have put together on Albert Sachs
Steve