RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: steensb on Friday 22 February 13 05:11 GMT (UK)
-
The first photo I believe is of Margaret Glassford who lived from 1844 to 1886. I believe the photo I scanned was a reproduction. It was displayed with a photo of her husband which appeared to be taken at the same time. She married him in 1861 and he died in 1875.
The second photo may be of one of her relatives. The eyes look similar, but the earlobes, nose and forehead look different. The person who shared it with me said it had nothing written on the back. It does show a rather distinctive hairstyle. A date estimate might help us figure out who this is.
Thanks for any help,
Christine
-
She's a very good looking girl that first one isn't she.
I can't date it, but she's quite young isn't she. :-\ :-\
The second one is - - well - what a hair do!! ;D
China and Jim will know I expect. :D :D
Wiggy
Wiggy
-
Wow, what a hairdo! :o Never seen anything like it, quite incredible really.
Not sure on the date at all for her. We would probably need to see the whole object (not just the picture) to be certain. Is that possible?
The first beautiful lady I would put in the 1870s, but it's just a guess.
-
do you reckon it is a wig?? Or a theatre costume??
-
Don't think it's theatrical, or I'd expect more of a "pose", if you know what I mean...it could be a wig, or a hairpiece on top, but I think it is actually her hair. The more you look at it the more you can see it's actually fairly simple (in construction, if not in execution!).
-
all those plaits !!
- and I wonder what they would have held the hair down with - looks pretty laquered doesn't it.
-
Agree with Prue & probably mid-late decade.
The 2nd. is also 1870's & what looks like a tintype.
I think this is posed to show the wig.May be sat in a wigmakers window.
jim
-
I'm pretty sure it's an albumen print, Jim, not that it makes any difference to the date ;) Probably on a self-toning paper, which is why it's not yellow like the other one.
That's two votes for a wig - the jury's still out in my brain, though...I'm not sure what it is :o ;D
-
You can actually see a shadow on the forehead under the hair in a few places! :-\ ;D
Odd isn't it!
-
None here that go to the extremes of the second lady :
http://bartoscollection.com/vehairstylesbyera.html
Although a couple seem to be similar with the same sort of crimping style. Looks like an elaborate hair extension fitted on top of her own hair, designed to give the effect of multiple waves.
Does that sound knowledgeable ?? Because obviously it's not - and I did try ! ;D ;D
Pels.
-
It impressed me but I still think it's a syrup.
jim
-
I don't think it's wig...it's too close to her head.
Carol
-
I don't think it's wig...it's too close to her head.
I thought that's where they went.
jim
-
;D ;D ;D...Very funny.
Carol
-
Thanks for the input so far. I'll try to get more info about the 2nd photo.
Pels, I checked the link you posted. Her hair looks a bit like the pic of the woman with pin-curl bangs. Maybe she was trying to get that look without cutting her hair.
It certainly is an amazing style, but I can see why it never caught on.
-
Does anyone think that this could be the same woman in photos taken many years apart?
Christine
-
Both of these were taken in the 1870's (see previous post) so not that far apart.
Not the same person as one looks a fair bit older than the other & their noses are different.
jim
-
Does anyone think that this could be the same woman in photos taken many years apart?
Christine
I agree with Jim about their noses, plus I don't think they are the same person for the reasons you gave in your first post, Christine. But, it's easy to see why you asked the question, at first glance their eyes are very similar.
As a matter of interest, when you asked the above - were you looking at them on a tablet, or a full screen ??
Pels.
-
I think that they look like different but related people. My friend that shared the pic with me thought that they might be the same, so I asked. Since I can be mistaken as often as anyone, I welcome other opinions.
I've been looking at the photos on full screen. I'm afraid I use my tablet mainly for games.
Christine
-
Just come to this one, what an amazing hairdo.
I can't see it as simple in construction as Prue does, the white "stripes" effect on the head don't look like partings (as you'd get with the cornrow style hairdos you can have now), and the hair in between doesn't look plaited. It is the scalp you can see, is it? I can't understand how it's done at all.
Wig over bare scalp?
-
I think they really are plaits :)
- but how the change in colour has been achieved - :-\ :-\
Not a parting as sometimes there seem to be two rows - also on enlargement I reckon I can see the twists - or are my eyes deceiving me??
plaited ribbons maybe??
Whatever, it is one amazing creation!
Wiggy
-
I would say the first photo dates from about 1876 -1880 based on the hair style and the neckline. The second photo is very hard to date without anything else to see such as the paper etc. The neckline is not typical of 1870s necessarily and the hairstyle could stylistically relate to the early 1880s.
In the 1870s it was very common and fashionable for women to wear false hair to pad out their own to create large, elaborate styles which tended to be more grandiose than what we have here which although unusual is not large in terms of hair required.
The false hair was often imported from the Balkans where girls entering nunneries would have their hair shaved off before taking the veil
-
Even though they are pixellated, in Wiggy's blowup the strands look like yarn.
-
Oh, thanks for the blow up, Wiggy, that makes it a little clearer......goodness gracious me. :o
-
OK, I concede - it's a more complicated 'do than I thought ;D