RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: cazza59 on Thursday 29 August 13 05:32 BST (UK)
-
Hi All
Could someone please hazard a guess as to a date of this pic for me please. I hope I haven't posted it before, but I cannot find any notes on it so I'm hoping I haven't.
Anyone willing to stick their neck out and give an age for the children?
Thanks for looking!
Caroline
-
Here's some information about the photographer.
http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/BTN-MannBros.htm
regards
em
-
Hiya Caz!
Those lacy collars on the boys were popular in the early 1900s and fit with the photographer's information, although the back is a bit more 1890s with the elements showing in the drawing (notably the camera and the painting equipment). But of course it could be old cardstock.
What really gets it for me is the fact that the children are smiling! So very not-Victorian :) Pinning down a date would be hard, but maybe around 1905 or so.
Cheers,
China
-
Neck sticking out.....
5 yr old girl, 3 yr old twin boys & 18 month old girl, all delightful.
There, that was brave!
Josey
-
Hiya China! ;D
Just been looking at the link Em posted (thank you so much :-* ) and if I'm reading it correctly, he was a photographer before 1900 which could explains the old stock I guess. For this to be the family of four I think it is, then I need it to be around 1901-1902 as the ages I need the children to be based on DOB are:
Girl 12 years; Boy at back 10 years; Baby 18 mths - 2 years; boy 8 years.
1905 throws me through a loop completely unfortunately. :(
Yes, happy little bunch aren't they, but if they are who I hope they are, then their world crumbles as they are split up, when the parents (not married BTW) no longer live together. The two at the back having a different mother (dec'd) and they stay with their father and the two in the front, go with their mother.
Caz
-
Hi Josey
Thanks for sticking your neck out! ;D I like your age for the baby, but the others as you can see from my posting, makes me way off the mark! :-\
It's so annoying because I have a perfect fit for a family of four, in Brighton, living near St Peter's church where the photographer was located!
Have another look and see if you can't stick your neck out again... :P :P :P
Caz
-
My neck's a bit sore after all the twisting ;D but will dare to stick it out again.
The girl does seem to have her adult front teeth, so yes I've changed my mind & think she is older than 8. If the girl & boy at back are standing - he is considerably taller than her as well as the other boy. How did I think they were twins ??? Hard to make them quite as old as 12, 10 & 8; shame you can't see the boys' teeth.
How sad they were split up.
-
Thanks Josey! ;D
Short girls and tall boys (as in real boys and not the furniture :P ::) ) are quite the norm in my family on that side so that could be a good thing that you've pointed out (grasping at straws here! ;D ).
I need China to come back and say the photo could be 1901 then we can shave a year of each age which may not be too much of a stretch, i.e. 11, 9, 7 and 12 months. ::)
Caz
-
The only date this can be is 1904-5 as according to his bio he took over the North St. studio in 1904 & sold it in 1905.
jim
-
Forgot to say, I would love to go back in time and find out why the parents split. I suspect that it was because the baby, although the father's name was put on the birth certificate, may have not been his and the truth came out, as 1911 has the baby/child listed with the mother's maiden name and later on so does her marriage certificate. The baby, her husband and son were all killed in the blitz of London when their house in Fulham was bombed. :(
As mentioned, the parents of the four children were also not married in the first place and the younger boy may also be from a different father!
What a carry on!
Caz
-
Aw Jim, you've just broken my heart! :( :'(
Why didn't I pick up on the dates myself when I read the bio. ::)
Back to the drawing board!
Many thanks to Em, China, Josey and Jim for your time! As always, very much appreciated!
Caz
-
One last grasp at straws, could this have been a reprint obtained in 1905 but photo originally taken in 1901ish?
You have to give me an "A" for effort! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Definitely A* for lateral thinking :)
It does say 'negatives kept'.....
-
Exactly my point! ;D ;D Although would the penciled negative number on the back indicate it was an original which would again torpedo my theory!
-
No I'm sure the negative number would have used for reference for first prints or reprints.
-
Sorry Josey, I'm confused (doesn't take much! :P) Are you saying that it's possible my photo is a reprint?
-
Reprints were usually on plain back cards.
-
Noooooo...Jim you're crushing me! :'( :'( ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Okay, I know when to throw in the towel! ;D ;D ;D
Once again, thanks everyone! :-* :-*
Caz
-
What a fantastic picture and nice to see a smiling bunch from that time!!!
-
Thanks for your nice comment Coolbreeze. It is a lovely photo isn't it and it is sweet to see them all smiling. Gives you a sense that they were happy and well cared for doesn't it. :)
Caroline
-
I know it wasnt asked but I've tidied it up a tad in the hope that it'll help resolve some ages etc
-
Thank you Salmynka! Your thoughtfulness is very much appreciated. :) :)
Kind regards
Caroline