RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: cristeen on Saturday 08 April 17 12:00 BST (UK)
-
Painted in 1918 by an ancestor who lived in Durham North Yorks area, but travelled fairly extensively, so could be anywhere really.
I was hoping the bridge and church spire in the distance may help with location :)
-
Some googling of key words hasn't found anything like this (so far).
I am likely to be off the mark here, but the colours in the landscape and the red roofs, the (head)dress of the woman and the three "pine type' trees give me the impression of somewhere on the continent.
-
Ruskie, abroad is a possibility, they were a relatively wealthy family. I agree those trees are reminiscent of cypresses
-
Is that a soldier walking with a woman and child in local dress (France perhaps)?
-
After a similar where is it back at Christmas I confidently predict the bridge will be the key to the puzzle ;D Though where this particular bridge is isn't obvious to me... other than it looks post-Roman and pre-1800.
Are the trees you are thinking are 'pine-type' the ones (e.g. the group of 3) towards the left-hand end of the bridge? If so, I'd say Poplars are more of a possibility perhaps?
Given the date of the painting (1918) I do wonder if what the man is wearing is army uniform, the hat possibly being a British Army style helmet? Although it could equally be a civilian who is wearing a hat that looks helmet shaped.
Edit: I see aghadowey just beat me to to soldier guess!
-
I thought they were just poplars - common enough in the UK. Besides, where might he have been able to travel abroad in the summer of 1918? Or was he on active service somewhere, and managed to paint this while off duty?
Because of the shadows, it seems to me that the river is flowing roughly between eastwards and southwards. We're also looking for a small town or large village on the south/west bank of the river, in a hilly area where roofs are predominantly of tile rather than slate or stone.
I hope we can get this for you - it's a lovely picture.
-
Yes, I was wondering about the group of three trees, but it was not just those which made me think "not UK". I don't know that m/any UK villages have red/orange/terracotta roof tiles? :-\
We have to consider artistic licence with any observations, but I thought the chap was wearing a three piece suit - unsure if colour and hat and jaunty pose are right for a soldier, although the date suggests he may be. The woman's head covering and apron also speaks "Europe" to me. :)
I agree that the bridge might be the key to identifying this location. The triangular pillars/piers are unusual).
Added: Arthur's point about not holidaying abroad in 1918 is a good one. :) It may be that the painting was done at home in the UK from an earlier sketch (you know how some artists rework and revisit certain scenes and subjects).
-
The woman's bonnet does give a bit of a european feel, but then it doesn't look that much different to what someone in Victorian era UK would wear - perhaps for a rural dweller in 1918 (with wartime shortages) something which looks a bit out of fashion to us was actually considered acceptable wear?
-
Fair points Nick. :)
-
Thanks Ruskie, sorry, I don't mean to demolish your arguments, my initial thoughts were somewhere in Europe too, it was only when I started looking closer, especially at the 'army uniform' that I thought UK was perhaps more likely.
I think by 1918, except where slate was the predominant roofing material, clay tiles would have displaced thatch in many places where clay was either available, or tiles could be imported easily. The East coast (especially Norfolk and Suffolk) were early importers of tiles from Holland.
But looking at the riverbanks in the painting I think they had a very good supply of rich red clay on hand for making their own roof tiles :)
-
My first impression was of France...the dress has a Breton feel...but don't be swayed...There maybe a mix of elements in the painting not necessarily from the same scene...just my thoughts...it's a really charming study...I too thought the man was a soldier...he looks to be carrying something on his back.
Carol
-
cristeen, did the painter have any military service themselves?
If the soldier theory is correct it is an interesting composition to put them in uniform in an otherwise civilian setting... I wonder if it is a self-portrait of the painter with his wife and child? Possibly not in 1918 itself, but painted in that year based on memories from an earlier period of leave?
Obviously not the case if the painter was female, unless she is the woman pictured?
-
If I have the right chap, the 1911 census has Charles Herbert Steavenson as a mining engineer aged 44, living with his family in Gateshead. Towards the very end of WW1 men as old as 50 were being enlisted, so he might just have been serving abroad. Cristeen, if you're there, do you know anything about that? (Like Nick_Ips has just said.)
-
...and mining engineers were very much in demand in the trenches, tunelling to construct shelters and explosive 'mines' such as those around Ovillers-la-Boisselle. Not impossible for somone older to have 'volunteered' for their technical skills rather than for hand-to-hand fighting.
-
Just did a levels adjustment to see the detail better. Hope it helps.
Carol
-
Hello everyone, wow, so many responses. Thank you all for your interest
arthurk, you have the right man. As far as I am aware he was not on active service, he was a mining engineer/ manager. He was also an amateur photographer so could have painted this from either a photo or sketches. We have several old glass plate negatives of his but none similar to the painting. Charles Herbert was my father in law's grandfather. F-in-L has recently acquired several paintings & sketches from a distant relative and was told this painting was Silverdale. There are family connections to that area but the scenery doesn't seem right to me for Silverdale, a predominantly limestone area.
We haven't taken the painting out of it's modern frame, only got it last night, there may be something on the back to help, he has written on some of the sketches
Carol, thanks, a poor photo of mine, trying to reduce glare from the glass!
-
Thanks Ruskie, sorry, I don't mean to demolish your arguments, my initial thoughts were somewhere in Europe too, it was only when I started looking closer, especially at the 'army uniform' that I thought UK was perhaps more likely.
No that's all fine Nick. :) It's interesting to hear about everyone else's observations.
-
With Carol's adjustment the hat now does look more like a helmet, and I'm now more confident that is a gun behind the right shoulder of the man.
-
I'm afraid I would be gently easing that painting from it's frame Cristeen in the hope that there is something on the back or behind the mount. ;)
I's a nice one - very well executed. You're lucky to have it.
-
Yes that what I see Nick...there appears to be an imprint of possibly writing from the back...but then it could be dirt on or under the glass. It's a water colour on textured paper.
Carol
-
cristeen, do you know which Silverdale it is supposed to be? I've found a couple on google but neither seem to have a river nearby anything like as wide as the one in the painting.
The bridge looks like it is probably constructed from limestone, but that doesn't add much to the search as people were willing to bring in limestone from great distances to build bridges if nothing else was near to hand. So it could be in a limestone area, but maybe not... about the only thing we could say is it is unlikely to be an area where granite or other hard rocks were readily available.
-
My hubbie is off fishing for the day, I daresay it will come out of the frame at some point this evening! I will let you all know any discoveries.
I also really like the painting, one of his paintings sold on ebay which I prefer, but this one belongs to us :)
Nick_Ips, it is Silverdale in Lancashire, River Bela would be the most likely candidate if that was the case
-
The triangular pillars/piers are unusual.
Not really.
Common on upstream side of bridges (cutwaters)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--ThRFaeWXaY/UGyUt7iC1VI/AAAAAAAAJsU/OvDHdqIeEco/s1600/Eckington+Bridge+2.jpg
-
I'm not sure Ruskie's comment about the piers is altogether wrong.
Whilst triangular cutwaters are relatively common, where economy of material was important they rarely extend in height above peak flood level, sometimes no more than just above normal river level.
In this case the triangular shape extends all the way to parapet level, far beyond the point where they are likely to have any water cutting benefit. The function, if any, at that point becomes butressing the spandrel wall (the inverted triangular shaped wall between the arches), or simply as an ornamental feature.
The really unusual bit for me is the abutment on the far bank which has a similar full-height triangular shape cutwater/buttress. You typically only see cutwaters within the river channel where water and debris has to be guided either side of the pier. Abutments would normally be on dry land, and even if subject to flooding, the water only has one side to go.
If the painting accurately reflects the structure of the bridge then it looks like the builder(s) did not need to economise on materials and therefore possibly were not short of money. However, with no disrespect intended towards cristeen's ancestor, painters often tend to capture the likeness of structures how they see it, or how they think it should be, rather than in technical detail, so I wouldn't want to draw too many conclusions just based on the painting. I'd also add that the technical details are what would make me a terrible artist ;)
The Eckington bridge photo demonstrates the above very well. Starting on the left at the bank is a wingwall, not a cutwater, the height of which is sufficient to support the road and not much more. Between the first and second arch is a cutwater pier which tapers into the spandrel wall no higher than the level of the top of the adjacent arches. The remaining piers all carry the cutwater profile full-height to the parapet level. It's a subtle difference - I wonder how many artists would have painted Eckington bridge with all piers looking the same?
-
I've been assuming that we're looking at the downstream side of the bridge, because of the way the water looks, but Nick's comments about cutwaters suggest they would be on the upstream side.
Or is it, as you said, Nick:
If the painting accurately reflects the structure of the bridge then it looks like the builder(s) did not need to economise on materials and therefore possibly were not short of money.
In other words, did they build cutwaters on both sides? The Old Bridge in Ilkley (not the one in the painting, but one that comes to mind) was evidently built like that: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4702510
-
It doesn't look much like Silverdale (Lancs) to me at all. The river Bela would run through neighbouring Milnthorpe before entering the Kent estuary and doesn't run through Silverdale. Also both Silverdale and Milnthorpe parish churches have square towers, not spires.
Don't you think the woman in the picture looks as though she is wearing a nurse's uniform and cap of the type worn around WW2? This would maybe fit with the soldier idea.
-
It doesn't look much like Silverdale (Lancs) to me at all. The river Bela would run through neighbouring Milnthorpe before entering the Kent estuary and doesn't run through Silverdale. Also both Silverdale and Milnthorpe parish churches have square towers, not spires.
Don't you think the woman in the picture looks as though she is wearing a nurse's uniform and cap of the type worn around WW2? This would maybe fit with the soldier idea.
I thought that until I saw it in Photoshop and realised the little girl's bonnet appears to be the same shape as the woman's. The photo dates to WW1
Carol
-
I was going to add a paragraph about which side of the bridge, but decided that was getting too technical! ;D
Something that looks like a cutwater could be on either or both sides of a bridge, they aren't just used upstream.
Without going in to all the details, on the upstream side the issue is the pressure of water and debris impact. The cutwater ensures the water and debris passes by the pier with minimum sideways force on the bridge and a lower risk of debris damaging the structure or forming a dam.
On the downstream side, the greater risk is the hidden danger of scour. This is the one which is more likely to keep a bridge engineer awake at night because it can cause a bridge to collapse without warning. Turbulence and faster flow caused by the bridge piers leads to the river bed being removed, undermining the foundations. To overcome this, the downstream side of a bridge pier may be constructed in the same plan shape as a cutwater to help reduce turbulence - i.e. the separate streams of water coming through the different arches are returned to a single stream as smoothly as possible. It's a similar reason to why time-trial cyclists have odd-shaped helmets.
Another factor might be the bearing capacity of the ground making up the river bed being low, so the size of the foundation has to be larger in plan than the bridge pier itself (the load is then spread over a greater area) - so what look like cutwaters may actually be designed tapering between a large foundation and smaller pier.
The final factor might just be the designer wants the bridge to be symmetrical, so even if there is no technical need for the cutwater shape on the downstream side, the engineer might put them in to make it look pretty.
My own feeling is the same, I think we are probably looking at the downstream side based on the appearance of the water. I also did wonder if the darker patches under the bridge may be a weir, rather than just shadow, which would strengthen the downstream position theory, but unfortunately the level of detail isn't enough to be sure about it.
I just hope there is a clue on the back of the mount ;D
-
Whilst triangular cutwaters are relatively common, where economy of material was important they rarely extend in height above peak flood level, sometimes no more than just above normal river level.
In this case the triangular shape extends all the way to parapet level, far beyond the point where they are likely to have any water cutting benefit. The function, if any, at that point becomes butressing the spandrel wall (the inverted triangular shaped wall between the arches), or simply as an ornamental feature.
The bridge at Geddington, Northamptonshire has cutwaters on the upstream side that extent to parapet level where they form a refuge for pedestrians from vehicles on the narrow roadway. http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2438011 (http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2438011)
-
Yes, I'm not suggesting the bridge in the painting is unique in having parapet level 'cutwater' features, just that it isn't a universal feature of stone bridges, especially where economy of material was a consideration.
Although the space created at road level makes a handy refuge for pedestrians today, bear in mind that providing refuge for pedestrians from vehicular traffic (even the horse and cart) may not have been a consideration when the bridge was originally built... the purpose of extending the parapet wall outwards on top of the 'cutwater' may just be to give the wall lateral stability.
It is useful to compare the plan shape of the parapet wall of Geddington bridge for example to the 'crinkle crankle' walls found in Norfolk and Suffolk - it is an efficient (and light) method of constructing a wall without needing to give it extra support. A plain straight wall without butressing would need to be thicker and heavier to withstand lateral force, and a heavier wall requires a stronger bridge.
Improved pedestrian safety in modern times is likely to be a by-product of structural design, rather than an objective in itself.
Should this thread now be renamed "Design features of ancient bridges" ;D
-
We need to remember is that this painting is an artistic interpretation of the scene and may not be architecturally accurate.
Carol
-
We need to remember is that this painting is an artistic interpretation of the scene and may not be architecturally accurate.
Indeed...
If the painting accurately reflects the structure of the bridge then it looks like the builder(s) did not need to economise on materials and therefore possibly were not short of money. However, with no disrespect intended towards cristeen's ancestor, painters often tend to capture the likeness of structures how they see it, or how they think it should be, rather than in technical detail, so I wouldn't want to draw too many conclusions just based on the painting.
...and in the extreme the whole scene might be made up, or an amalgamation of places the artist knew. But lets hope not, I would love to find out where it is!
-
Looks a bit like Framwellgate Bridge Durham - the church looks like st nicholas church in market place?
-
The picture looks very much like Crickhowell in Powys, seen from the southern side of the River Usk.... except that the bridge is totally different!
-
Have removed picture from the frame, sadly no annotations 😔 It looks like it has been painted on a sort of conti-board as opposed to paper
-
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louise_Rayner_Durham_Cathedral_from_Framwellgate_Bridge.jpg
Do you think the woman in this picture is dressed liked the one in your painting?
-
How do you know when it was painted and was the location of the other painting identified and was it also a pastoral scene? Are any of them signed?
Carol
-
Some interesting bridge facts Nick. (You learn something new every day) :) My reason for the observation that the triangular pillars was unusual were based solely on looking at several pages of google images where I couldn't find any images of other bridges with similar triangular pillars. Your explanation about the reason for this is something I had no idea about, but it all makes perfect sense. :)
I think there are some similarities in the women's dress in both pictures durhamgirl.
It is disappointing that there is nothing to help identify this location on the back of the watercolour. :(
Carol, I think the painting has a date on the front by the signature - bottom right corner.
-
Oh yes Ruskie....I see it now....I was taking in the detail and overlooked it ::)
Carol
-
The ladys hat and dress, also the child's could be a Dutch Style.
-
Good morning,
He started painting around Saltburn, the nearest river is the Tees. You need to go inland a bit to find narrower waters. He was chief mining engineer at Brotten colliery amongst other places. Only on tablet as laptop out of action so can't give links. If you google him you get several hits but don't get mixed up withthe American artist of the same name.
John915
-
My reason for the observation that the triangular pillars were unusual were based solely on looking at several pages of google images where I couldn't find any images of other bridges with similar triangular pillars.
Yes, that was the point I was trying to convey in my response to Geoff-E. Although it isn't unusual to see triangular shaped cutwaters at water level, and on low-height bridges like Geddington it isn't unusual to see them extend to parapet height. But the subject of the painting is a high-level bridge which means considerable extra material and effort went in to building these structures to full-height, which is not something you see that often.
The closest I've found in design terms is the Loyn Bridge over the River Lune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyn_Bridge
However the backdrop of the Loyn Bridge is completely wrong for the bridge in the picture. In addition the area the 'family' are walking in is heavily wooded in the Loyn Bridge location. Although the far river bank does look a bit similar and there is even a tree (possibly Ash?) standing on its own like the one in the painting. (This would be on the basis of viewing the bridge from the south).
One thing I wasn't sure about the painting bridge is whether it has two spans, or if a third is hidden from view by the trees/bushes on the right-hand side of the picture. The third span possibly being shorter than the other two based on the line of the riverbank.
That was one of the things which made me take a good look at the Loyn Bridge - it to has two roughly equal spans with a third shorter span on the eastern side of the river.
If no other location for painting turns up then my guess would be the artist has taken the Loyn Bridge (not a million miles from Silverdale) as inspiration and planted it in a more interesting backdrop.
-
I may be way off but thought the bridge shape/formation looked similar to this;
https://www.wikiart.org/en/thomas-girtin/durham-cathedral-and-bridge-1799
Annie
-
This definitely isn't the Lancashire Silverdale which I live near. The Bela doesn't flow near the village and is a smaller river than depicted here. The Kent is bigger but is not road-bridged downstream of Levens Bridge, which this is not. Roofs hereabouts were of slate until very recently - the same would apply to the Staffs Silverdale I think.
-
That's what the painting looked like when i saw it Rosinish - Framwellgate Bridge next to Durham Cathedral - there is a church in that general direction but doesn't look like the one in the painting
-
Thank you all for your interest and input.
In answer to some of the queries
Charles Herbert started painting as a boy, I have a couple of early watercolours, maybe 1880s. His obituary states he mainly painted landscapes. I have attached an earlier one, painted some time in the 1890s, he was living in Brotton at that time.
In terms of his army career, by 1895 he was lieutenant in 1st North Riding of Yorkshire (Western Division, Royal Artillery) which I believe was a volunteer force.
I have looked at images of bridges in all the areas I know he lived, worked or holidayed and also suggestions made by all you RCers. I know very little about bridge construction etc but the bridge in the painting I would say is definitely of medieval construction. Charles Herbert's glass plate negatives are mostly of old churches and other buildings so I guess architecture was a particular interest of his.
I have to agree with many of you that in all likelihood this is a composite, or a true likeness of a bridge with a more interesting backdrop
-
It is a real shame we've not been able to solve this one so far, maybe someone else will come along and help us out! He certainly was a very talented artist and you are so lucky to have some of his works.
I know very little about bridge construction etc but the bridge in the painting I would say is definitely of medieval construction.
It is a small point of clarification, but one that may help others if they take up the search. Although the design features of the bridge are medieval style, the actual construction date of the bridge may be much later. Searching for pictures on the internet using the term "medieval" might miss it.
The limiting factor in masonry bridge design is the shape of the arch - the ratio between span and the height of the arch. The limit had been pretty much reached in medieval times and anything constructed after that time will look generally the same, apart from in the detailing. Brunel's Maidenhead Railway bridge (1838, in brick) was considered a very daring experiment in pushing the boundaries of span/height ratio, but to modern eyes looks little different to late medieval proportions. It wasn't until the introduction of cast iron, and then steel (e.g. after late 1700's) that bridge design started to take on radical new forms, albeit slowly as the engineers worked out how to use these new-fangled materials. ;D
So something that looks like a medieval stone bridge could easily date from Victorian times, or even later if the designer/client was willing to pay the higher costs of masonry compared to iron/steel.
-
Hello everyone, it's been ages since i posted here but i was thinking i have seen many images of the Old Dee Bridge Chester on my hunts around the internet and this looks very similar in a lot of ways right down to the spire church on the left. And the box like brick work along the top, there is an photo taken in 2014 that gives a nice comparison. Also some painting by various artists that maybe useful.
Of course i am most likely barking up the wrong tree but you never know. Regards to everyone.
-
Funny you should mention that FGL. It was one of my first thoughts - I think it was the fast flowing water plus the bridge which made me think of the Old Dee Bridge. I think there are too many differences though, but perhaps artistic licence was used and the painting may have been a composite of several places, or changes may have been made to a real scene to suit the artist.
-
Good morning,
I would say no, the old Dee bridge has 6 arches. The cutwaters don't go to the top, they are sloped inwards below road level.
There is also a weir on the side we would be looking at towards the church.
Lastly, no hills in the background as in painting. Painters, even amateurs, paint what they see not what they would like to see. So I think this is an actual scene not an innacurate invented one.
John915
-
There is one thing about the artist ,his work is rare,
will be worth quite a sum ,when he becomes famous😀 All the best. :)
-
Just a thought that nobody has mentioned yet. The river looks to me like it is bending round to the right. So the pillar on the far right could be hiding a second archway over the water behind that little bush. The river could actually be twice as wide as we are believing it to be?
sorry for my lack of technical terms haha
-
looks like the Old Elvet Bridge in Durham.
The one of Brotton Woods is Great, Im from Brotton and now live in county Durham
-
That's a really interesting suggestion julieriddiough. I would say it's a strong candidate as Charles and family were living at 13 Old Elvet in the 1871 census. :)
-
Sur le pont d'Avignon
l'on y danse
Been there, seen it, picked up wee broken bits of stones from the bridge, still got them somewhere
If you look at modern images you should know that bits have fallen off it since the picture was painted
of course, it doesn't reach the opposite bank .. and it's too far to jump
-
Mais, non, pas Avignon.
Unless there is a lot of artistic licence, there are no arch shaped openings in the stonework and the buttresses at Avignon do not reach to the top of the bridge. No chapel in the middle either... and the river bank is much flatter at Avignon.
So I think the hunt is still on.... ;)
Nell