RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: JudithS on Monday 26 March 12 07:48 BST (UK)
-
Hi
Carolyn restored a photo for us beautifully a little while ago ;D ;D ;D We just found another photo of the couple in the same studio!! ;D ....to please date and restore. Date is crucial as Maria, the bride m. twice. 1903 and 1912. We need to prove if this is William (1903 - 1910) or James (1912)
Thanking you so much :) :) :)
Jud
-
Here is the restored photo of a later photo taken of the couple in the same studio. Hope it helps.
Jud
-
Can we see the original?
jim
-
Thank you Jim, here it is.
-
Is it a postcard or CdeV?
jim
-
Jim apogies for the 'break in transmission,' I have been unable to reply to you due to being unable to post my reply. >:(
What is a CdeV please?
Photo sent to a cousin as a scanned photocopy with the sticky tape repair showing, as it. Cant find that lady now.......and havent seen the original.
Sorry :'(
-
Hi Jud........Your wish granted.
Carolyn :)
revised to fix the brides veil.
-
Oh Carolyn :D :D :D
Lovely, thank you so much!
Jud
-
certainly beautiful work..helen
-
Hi mate ;) :D ;D
Since you have a copy, please tell Jim if this was an actual photo sent..........
I believe this was a photograph copied from a restored photograph. Yes? :-\ Not a postcard..........
Cheers Jud
-
I think on balance the 1st. one is 1900-05 & the 2nd. a bit later at 1905-10.On this occasion the man offers the better dating clue.His dress style looks early Edwardian.If it was a 1912 wedding I'd expect to see him dressed differently to this.
In the 2nd. she's wearing hip-padding popular from the 1890's & into the 1900's but I wouldn't expect to see this after 1912 when this would have to be if it was the 2nd. marriage.In addition her skirt would be shorter post 1912 & the "look" was a high waistline which practically all young women had & she doesn't have that.
So both photo's look pre 1910 to me.
jim
-
Ouch, I am in shock, have been proved wrong with what I thought :o :o :o
I need to process and please come back tomorrow at this time.............West Aust time night time for me, an oldie..............
Actually.......I can see it making sense........but have a photo of Maria's 'first' wedding, which I and RC thought beliveed to be 1903ish. Please bear with me. Its important for our family to recognise the people in the photo............
I will post the alternative marriage of Maria for your comparison. Wow! :)
-
I'd steer clear of using the word "proof" here.
I'm not doubting the opinions about the clothing, but if you previously had good reason
to believe that this was the second husband, but now it looks like the first husband,
well you would need to think carefully before you consider that as definitively "proved".
-
Thank you for your comment. The jury is still out.
One trusts due consideration of their lot in life is given, of pioneer farmers in mid West Aust., that fashion (or funds for it) would not have been a high priority.
However, this is why we post here, to clear our preconcieved notions. Since we have never actually seen these people alive... have images and at times fragments only of possible names to go with them, we are happy to request unemotive reasons for the dates.
The proof will be in the pudding....... :D
Cheers
-
Jim. Second photo, probably second wedding 1910. The clothing put me off. More 1899- 1903. It is also hard to see. Photocopy.
BUT... Maria is younger perhaps in Fremantle photo (18) In 1906, studio photo was possibly a 21st birthday. Makes sense.
1912 photo, perhaps this one - means that is not the bride's mother Margaret (Left) ( reason for the emotion - our great gran).
Possibly her twin sister Elizabeth standing in, as Margaret died in 1910 and Thomas, the father of the bride was not remarried. Mother of the groom, possibly. Photo etiquette?
A quiet country wedding, of a family still in mourning, Elizabeth mother of 10 by this time may have just pulled out some 'old thing' to wear.
Think you nailed it Jim. Love to hear what you see here in this photo.
Thank you
-
I wouldn't agree that the older lady has thrown on any old thing for a wedding,she would be in her best day clothes.
The hats look a late decade style,earlier hats were large & sat on top of the head.
I suppose the ages of the husbands would be a good indication as in the 1st. photo the groom looks older than this chap.
jim
-
First husband was 30, the 2nd 39 at the marriages. 1st husband worked outdoors, 2nd husband lived most of his life with TB. Not a lot in it, Jim.
-
Well...against all odds, a picture pulled out of a box of family ‘don’t know’ photo copies has been unearthed.
This looks to be the same man in the Fremantle Studio photo, which must have been the second marriage in 1912. (That hairline, eyebrows...)
The younger darker man must be the first husband (30). He was killed 5 days after his third child was born in 1910, this can’t be him in this pic. Maria is also too old here. (doesn't even look like her, but she was very ill here)
So this is the second husband James with their three children. The baby was born 1922. Maria died 1925 and James 1926.
I think this sounds reasonable?
-
This is from the same period as the others,certainly not 1920's.
jim
-
OH, Jim, this is so confusing........could that baby in the last pic be a few days old? Thought I had it sorted. :-\
I understand what you are saying. It is obviously the same people as one of the photos but not the one I think. Appreciate your skills and patience. :D :D
Ok the facts of the first husband. Marriage 1903. Children: Norman Thomas 1904: Elizabeth Kathleen 1908: Maria Jo 11 May 1910.
Father William killed 15 May 1910 ( Have Inquest )
Maria's 2nd Marriage 1912. James: Children: John James 1913: Daisy Sophia 1915: Mary Ellen 1922.
Those arent the clothes of children of the later date, are they? Even in non fashionable mid WA in hard times.
We are here to learn.
Cheers
Jud
-
Could her husband have been married before?
jim
-
Jim, not that we have found. Will re check the records. Have a tree on ancesty.com, and interested family on other sites.......but can see already something isnt right here...
This is like a family film saga, ( Days of our Lives...) only better.............
Dont go anywhere..... :)
PLEASE...............
-
Hi Jud, :)
Best regards George
-
Must have missed this one,
-
George, :) these are wonderful. Very clear and truthful.
Love them! Thank you so much. ;D ;D ;D
Jud
-
1909 or 1895
Jim, no previous marriages, but Ah Ha! ...between 1904 and 1908 there was a female child born in May 1906 of the first marriage; records of which had escaped me until today. :-[ Thanks for that. :D
Photo 1909: Children Male 1904 (5), Female 1906 (3), Female 1908 (1).
Problem: Another researcher says the 3 x children photo is possibly another female member a generation back. The males are unrelated husbands.
Photo: 1895: Parents born 1863. Children: Male 1889 (6), Female 1891 (4), Female 1894 (1).
Sorry the picture is so bad to pick up detail, but the boy’s suit might help. Or a hand me down....
Enclosed outdoor snap of Maria (with Aussie sun tan) 1916 to compare age wise with lady in children photo. Very similar...
Thank you Jim - do appreciate your help ;) ;) ;)
Jud
-
If the family photo was 1895 would mean the wedding photo would have to be mid-late 1880's which it isnt,not dressed like this & not on this cardstock.Unfortunately it's impossible to tell whether the youngest 2 are boys or girls,however the oldest is a boy aged 5/6 I would say & is dressed in a typical Edwardian style as demonstrated by the large lace mantle.The man has a 1 1/2" starched collar most popular from the 2nd. of the period.1908 looks about right in my view.
jim
-
Jim, Edwardian period 1901 - 1911, 2nd period..extended 1912 - 1919. ???
You did say, the children photo wasnt 1920's...
Possibly the two photos, the wedding and the three children dont match. Different generations.
If you are still saying the children photo is abt 1908, then we concur.
Thanks Jim :-*
Do you have an opinion about the mans personal similarieties, so we can decide if he isnt one of Maria's husbands. ( Wish I had forensic face recognition )
-
First look at the women.Do they all look like the same person to you? To me they don't.
The woman in pic.1 looks like someone completely different.
jim
-
Yes she does Jim, woman in pic 1 she was born 1863.
-
So..that isnt Maria's husband in the children photo...........
-
I'm afraid you've got me confused.Are you saying Maria was born in 1863 & these are her marriage photos?
jim
-
Jim, Edwardian period 1901 - 1911, 2nd period..extended 1912 - 1919. ???
You did say, the children photo wasnt 1920's...
Possibly the two photos, the wedding and the three children dont match. Different generations.
If you are still saying the children photo is abt 1908, then we concur.
Thanks Jim :-*
Do you have an opinion about the mans personal similarieties, so we can decide if he isnt one of Maria's husbands. ( Wish I had forensic face recognition )
This may help.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6795661/4N6site/improc/digiplugin/main.htm
I've used it on Rootschat photos for a few folk, although it was developed primarily for handwriting. You have to use it selectively as the face/subject can face the camera at varying angles.
It works by converting points selected on an image to numerical values, which can be compared to other images.
George
-
Yes, I’m sorry Jim; I am getting a little confused with the abstract myself. Both wedding photos and the matching studio photo is Maria (b.1884). Question was which husband was which.
The family photo with three children was doubtful, although the man so alike as to be one of the grooms in the wedding photos; I had to show it to you. As you demonstrated, that does not look like Maria in that photo, but it is the same era. It could also have been another family, according to another researcher.
After a sleepless night, the penny dropped. You are absolutely correct with your dates. Wow and Wow! 8)
The groom in the Fremantle wedding photo by CM Nixon is the first husband William Gilblett 1903, the matching studio photo 1906, and now the family photo 1908 is also him.
I realised that if the family photo was William and his first three children, then the boy (5) is Norman Thomas. It has been quite a journey through these, until now, unnamed photos. You have helped us identify four mystery photos. Badly copied images, which meant very little to anybody.
I had been sent a copy just last week of Maria, where all had been identified, her father, 2 brothers and 6 of her 7 children. The baby born 1915. The boy 2nd from the left (back) is Norman Thomas (12) and also the boy in the family photo (5). Didn’t connect the dots between photos until now.
I want to thank you Jim. I will leave it at this now; all done...you have done wonders for our family research. Thank you for your perseverance. Once again you have wowed us with your photo dating knowledge.
Thanks too George for the link. That looks interesting; you have loads of good ideas, don’t you!
Appreciate you all. :D :D :D
Jud