RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: blamking on Tuesday 24 July 12 00:52 BST (UK)
-
I'm looking for a date for these two CDV's, which evidently were taken together. I do not have a scan of the backs, but if I recall correctly, they were fairly plain, indicating they were taken at Aldrich's in Barnet, VT. Picasa suggested that the woman is my great great great grandmother. I would like to know what everyone else thinks, so I will post the photo I have that I know to be her.
Thanks in advance.
-
Here is the CDV that I know to be my ggggrandmother, evidently taken in 1886.
-
Interesting that she is wearing what appears to be a plain 'wedding band' on her middle finger!
Is it just dating you want for these photo??
If restoring is required, add that fact to the original title! ;)
At a guess I'd say the same woman, and I'm guessing late 1860s - but wait for those who know more than I!
Wiggy
-
I think the photographs are fine the way they are - I usually prefer them as close to the original as possible, unless there is serious damage. If anybody wants to use them for practice, feel free though.
The more I look at them, the more I think they are the same person as well. Certain asymmetries in the face stand out, especially the mouth and philtrum (I had to look that one up - it's the dip under the nose)
Thanks for the date. I will see what others think too. Do you think it is safe to assume that these are husband and wife?
-
Can't hazard a guess about that - You would presume so :-\ - - - - or brother and sister??
I wonder why the ring is on the 'wrong' finger though. - Or is this a custom in - - Vermont? I wonder if anyone can give a different explanation - e.g. was married but now widowed - interesting
Good photos aren't they! ( I have been playing - great to work on! I like photos close to the original as well! ;) )
Wiggy
-
My best guess would be that her fingers shrunk a little and instead of getting the ring resized, moved it to the slightly larger finger. With the seasonal extreme's in temperature in Vermont, this could easily be the case. I've never heard of this being a custom in Vermont, but I'm no expert on this stuff either. Her husband died in 1882, so if you are even somewhat correct about the date, she would not have been widowed yet. I hope I can identify the man as my great great great grandfather, since I do not know of any other photos of him yet.
-
I'm no expert but I would say they aren't the same woman. The top photos eyes are more closer to the nose and the head shape and jaw/ chin are different.
Gary
-
The eyes don't look the same.
Just a thought but the bottom photo looks like a drawing, a very realistic drawing. A sort of mini portrait.
Gary
-
I would suggest for the first photo mid-late 1860s. Maybe earlier because of the hairstyle, but the pose is a later 1860s one. It would be good if we could see the whole thing including the outer corners, a dating tool.
The second photo looks to be a different person, because as Gary mentioned, the eyes are quite different. Also, the two women appear to be about the same age...at least the second photo doesn't seem to be of a woman at least 20 years older than the first. A daughter, perhaps.
I'm also thinking the first photo is a later reprint, as the red line around the edge is I think an 1870s style, but the dress and hairstyle are earlier.
Cheers,
China
-
That's interesting because the hairstyle of the second woman is quite different with the ears showing isn't it! Glad I got the time about right for the first two!! ;)
To me the second woman looks older - - slightly more tired looking - to me. But i see what you mean about the eyes!
What struck me was the plain, unadorned dress of #2 woman - what we can see of it!
I wonder if they belonged to a sect which went in for plain dressing - Amish for example??
-
#2 lady looks like a photograph of a heavily-retouched photo - this could explain the very plain appearance of the dress (not all details were painted in).
-
Thanks Prue - - - - - - - that explains things!
Wiggy
-
Ooh - lot's of responses. Thanks everyone!
As far as the eye spacing is concerned, I still think it may be the same woman, and they just look closer together due to parallax. I did some measurements on the photographs, and if they are the same person, for the eyes to look that close, the head would have to rotated about 30 degrees with respect to the straight-on photograph. I think this could be true for the unknown photo.
This rotation could also account for the slightly different jaw line and cheek shape, since it's fairly difficult to get an impression of the 3-dimensional facial structure from only the straight-on photo. I also measured the ratio of the vertical distance between the eyes and nose and eyes and mouth, and it was essentially identical for the two photos - 0.6, though I'm not sure how much this varies between different people.
The woman actually died in September, 1886, the same year the photo was taken, at the age of 51. She was not Amish as far as I know. Being farmers in rural Vermont, I doubt they had much need or means to own very fancy clothes.
If the photo was cropped by the scanner, it only cut off a few pixels. I think the photo itself might have been cut to fit in the album. I do have another photo that would appear to be contemporary which was not cut down as much, which I'll post here. I actually was curious about whether this is the same woman as another photo I have too. I can post it here, or start another thread for it.
-
Here are the three ladies together. My feeling is that lady 1 and lady 2 (on the left and right below) are very similar but not the same person, but as lady 2 looks like her photo has been well and truly retouched, the little differences could be down to that.
Lady 3 (in the middle) looks different again, to both the others.
-
Sorry, I wasn't making the claim that the last photo I posted was the same person as the others, just that the photo looked like it was taken around the same time as the first photo, probably by the same photographer. I do have another photo that I think is the same woman as the last one, but I have not posted it yet.
-
Agree the 1st. one is 1860's & early-mid decade.
The 2nd. as has already been said is an over-painted enlargement of an earlier photo probably from the late 1860's.
The 3rd. is late 1860's also.
It's possible the first 2 are the same woman a few years apart.
jim