RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: wurding on Tuesday 07 March 17 22:56 GMT (UK)
-
The image is kept by an elderly woman in Zimbabwe who is a descendant of the couple she believes are depicted. If correct this would mean the image was made in the West Indies as the man who was married in 1811 in guadeloupe, was by 1916 promoted to rank of Captain of the 8th West India Reg. The date scrawled on the back of the image is 1817. It has been passed down the generations as an heirloom. Can the authenticity by verified?
-
Edit:........... sorry I misread.....My first guess would be a print behind glass or a pastel, that has been kept in a damp atmosphere, judging by the water marks.
-
I think it would be necessary to see the original before offering an opinion on authenticity. Fashions may indicate the date of 1817 is about right. But when was that date written? It may have been years later and may be someone's best guess, or it may have been written by the person who drew it at the time. :-\
The figures are oddly proportioned - the man's bottom half and the chair in particular are tiny in comparision with the rest of him. (Unless this is due to the angle the photograph of the artwork was taken) . It looks like it was executed by an amateur.
-
It could well be c1817. Pity, it's faded. He's wearing a long tailed coat which should be scarlet. The ladies dress and hairstyle are fine for 1817. He has lace on his collar, the design of which, would suggest a staff officer. Also, the detail on his facings and arms suggest something a lot more than a captain.
-
I think it would be necessary to see the original before offering an opinion on authenticity. Fashions may indicate the date of 1817 is about right. But when was that date written? It may have been years later and may be someone's best guess, or it may have been written by the person who drew it at the time. :-\
The figures are oddly proportioned - the man's bottom half and the chair in particular are tiny in comparision with the rest of him. (Unless this is due to the angle the photograph of the artwork was taken) . It looks like it was executed by an amateur.
Yes I suspect an amateur painter was all that was available in the west indies. the date was not written until probably the late 19th or early 20th century, perhaps as many as 100 years later. It was written by a descendant based on what they remembered being told. It was also accompanied by erroneous information about the man, saying he was in a different regiment than he ever served in.
It could well be c1817. Pity, it's faded. He's wearing a long tailed coat which should be scarlet. The ladies dress and hairstyle are fine for 1817. He has lace on his collar, the design of which, would suggest a staff officer. Also, the detail on his facings and arms suggest something a lot more than a captain.
If it was who it is supposed to be, then that makes sense, since he was deputy assistant quartermaster general of barbados until 1822
more information here https://rowsellfamilyhistory.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/danish-aristocracy-in-the-caribbean/ (https://rowsellfamilyhistory.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/danish-aristocracy-in-the-caribbean/) if you are interested.
-
The 8th. were disbanded in 1817 so may be a picture done before leaving the islands.
The blue coat is the only problem I have as has already been mentioned.
I can't find any reference to their uniform except the snippet below.
The 8th. did have a history in the Leeward Islands so much of it stacks up.
-
Well, there you are, DAQG, that will be the uniform.
-
Several things point to its authenticity. Not only the detail of the costume, but the interiors...everything is correct for the period from the carpet to the wall panelling to the furniture. Look at the small marble topped side table. Delightful. I think this is so charming. Oh, please try and get it restored. It is somewhat amateurish but surprisingly good nonetheless. Look at the baby--it looks like an actual child instead of an adult's face on a little body. The detail of the clothing is there, the jewelry, chair leg shadows, everything. I love it. Without knowing the date on the back, I'd say it was 1815 or so, so there you go. If you can locate the birth record of the child you could add one or two years and arrive at the exact date, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was 1817.
-
Following e_m's gushing remarks but bearing in mind the original is artwork, I didn't resist the temptation and tried to give this image a sensitive touch.
-
Let's hope the poster comes back & sees it.
-
Also...he's in the navy, not the army. Hence the blue coat.
http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/researchers/research-guides/research-guide-u1-uniforms-national-maritime-museum-collection
-
No, he's army. If you read all the correspondence, he was originally an officer of the 8th WIR. He was a military knight and died in Windsor in 1842 if I remember correctly. The uniform is not faded blue, or faded scarlet as I first thought. Several WIR's had grey jackets. Jim 1 drew our attention to that.
With his staff position, ie not regimental, I would have expected him to wear scarlet. He was not well off and perhaps authorised to wear his grey jacket with appropriate rank badges.
As an aside, some regiments like light dragoons, normally dark blue dolmans, when posted to hot weather climates, had a light bluey grey dolman.
-
This type of portrait was not official, so he would have worn whatever he liked. The couple pictured are slightly prosperous, if painted accurately. The marble topped table, coupled with the lace and intricacies of the woman's clothing & her jewelry, all indicate so.
-
I wouldn't call them Mildy Prosperous compared to my lines ;D
He was a lieutenant of the 8th West India regiment.
The painting is also shown here:
https://rowsellfamilyhistory.wordpress.com/tag/de-bretton/
Carol
-
Several things point to its authenticity. Not only the detail of the costume, but the interiors...everything is correct for the period from the carpet to the wall panelling to the furniture. Look at the small marble topped side table. Delightful. I think this is so charming. Oh, please try and get it restored. It is somewhat amateurish but surprisingly good nonetheless. Look at the baby--it looks like an actual child instead of an adult's face on a little body. The detail of the clothing is there, the jewelry, chair leg shadows, everything. I love it. Without knowing the date on the back, I'd say it was 1815 or so, so there you go. If you can locate the birth record of the child you could add one or two years and arrive at the exact date, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was 1817.
Wow so glad to hear all this and thanks very much to handypandy for the beautiful restoration.
Hard to date it or even identify the child since the couple had a daughter 24 FEB 1815 • St LUCIA, WEST INDIES and then another 13 DEC 1816. Strange then that only one child is depicted. It makes me suspect that the date is 1816? Not sure.
-
Hi Wurding,
I found on ancestry an old forum you posted on. Another poster uploaded pictures of Cummings' military record that he completed. Not sure where the mix-up occurred, but he enlisted in 1805 as an "Ensign," which is, to the best of my knowledge, a naval title.
In any event, I want to clarify that my opinion speaks only to the depiction. That is, I am assuming it is on period paper and so forth, and not a photocopy. And, my analysis of the people are also based on the depiction. That is, if you believe Cummings was living in poverty, then that portrait is not of him.
It is possible that one of the children you mentioned died, which is why there is only one in the painting. Do you have the provenance of the portrait? IE, can you connect the woman to whom it belongs to Cummings & his wife?
-
Wurding said in their opening post that the owner is a descendant of the Cummings'.
The Army also had the junior officer rank of Ensign.
-
There is a difference in knowing the exact line of descent and being a descendant of the original owners.
-
I think this is a charming and very well executed piece of artwork...the perspective is very good and I think the gent's jacket is giving him a larger than life, upper body look and he was probably quite tall...the artist draws and paints what they see which often doesn't conform to rules. It looks like a pastel drawing most likely using Ingres paper as the support. I have done a version of what I think it may have looked like minus the water damage.
If I were the owner of this piece backed up with oral history that has passed down through the generations ...then I would claim this pair as my Ancestors and enjoy it :D
Carol
-
I think that surprisingly the faces are well drawn (surprising because faces are often something that amateurs struggle with), but the proportions of the bodies, particularly the man's legs, are not so good. :) It's as though the artist was running out of paper and had to foreshorten the bottom half of the figures as s/he drew to squeeze them onto the page. :)
It seems an unusual pose with the couple facing each other.
(Nice clean up and colour Carol :))