RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: ladytodd on Sunday 14 July 19 15:15 BST (UK)
-
Could someone give me an approximate year this photo was taken and also roughly the age of
the elegant lady who I think (I'm hoping) will be my GGGGrandmother. Thank you, Ladyt
-
My guess at the time would be late 1800s early 1900s, leaning towards 1900-1910 or so, but then I'm not a fashion expert!
-
Yes, I agree possibly 1895 to 1905 very roughly. (Easier if she had a hat.)
I'm guessing the lady is not married or engaged as the ring hand is not prominent.
Perhaps she is in her 20's?
-
I don't think that this is one of the 1890s style blouses. I'd say 1900-1907-ish
Gadget
Add - Alternatively it could be circa 1889 with the pinched up sleeve tops.
-
I don't think that this is one of the 1890s style blouses. I'd say 1900-1907-ish
Gadget
Quite an unusual embellishment. Haven't seen anything like it before, can't quite work it out.
-
Lots of books and online resources show various embellishments.
-
Lots of books and online resources show various embellishments.
Yes, but mainly symmetrical.
-
Found a photo in one of my books with the sleeker line that is shown in this image that has been dated 1900.
I recall Jim giving some info on this style at one stage.
Add - just noticed that OP was asking about age as well - maybe late 20s-early 30s.
-
IF she is about 20-30, and the fashion is early 1900s, it seems a stretch for her to be the OP's GGGgrandmother. :-\ :-\ :-\.
Wiggy
-
I'm in two minds about it and thinking it could be the earlier date:
Add - Alternatively it could be circa 1889 with the pinched up sleeve tops.
Mind you - my 3 x greats were born 1812 -ish and 4x in the mid-late 1700s
-
IF she is about 20-30, and the fashion is early 1900s, it seems a stretch for her to be the OP's GGGgrandmother. :-\ :-\ :-\.
Wiggy
Just looked through the OPs previous posts and see that one of her 2x greats was born circa 1866 so I don't think that this is likely to be her 4xgreat.
-
Thanks All for your input. It should be 3timesGrandmother. Going by the years put forward its not who I think it is, which is a shame. My GGGGrandmother was born 1784 and the only reason I thought it was her is that it has 'Jennie' in the bottom right corner. Her name is actually Jane but she was called Jenny and her marriage record also says Jenny. Are there any other names that could possibly be shortened - if that's the right word - to Jenny? I have lots of Mary Janes which I suppose could be Jenny at a push. ??? Ladyt
-
Then it definitely isn't that one . . . . . Too young to be photographed at that age if born 1784. - if you see what I mean.
Possibly not even a family member - or could be a more distant rellie maybe. :)
-
It might even be a friend of the family and not related at all :)
-
Might indeed! ;)
-
Agree with Gadget. Edwardian & probably the first half, so around 1900-05 I would suggest.
-
The thing is there is a family resemblance there I don’t think it’s a family friend though it is possible. Do you think she was born 1870-1880? I can then start going through the females in the family around that time. Thanks, Ladyt
-
Agree with Gadget. Edwardian & probably the first half, so around 1900-05 I would suggest.
Thank goodness for confirmation, Jim :)
Look for circa 1870s-1880s births first, Ladyt.
-
She looks mid 20's to me.
-
Thank you Gadget and Jim1
-
Hi again, Thought you may be interested Gadget. I have found her already. Its taken me all day but worth it. The lady in question is my Grandmother's elder Sister, Mary Jane Read born October 1882.
She married in 1908 so I'm guessing it was taken just before her marriage. Then I found her in the 1911 census with her husband and she was down as Jennie. Unfortunately, she died at 31 in 1914.
Anyway, thought I would let you know. Ladyt
-
That's really good news, Ladyt, but sad that she died so young.
It's great when a mystery is solved :)
Gadget
-
Well done Ladyt - good to solve the mystery.
Wiggy
-
Ooops I put this on the wrong post. Sorry.
-
Jim1 how did you see that?! I never spotted it. At least I know now that she was over 26 years old when photo taken. Thank you, Ladyt
-
Ooops I put this on the wrong post. Sorry.
I was just about to say that I couldn't see any rings.
;D
-
I was wondering what sort of Xray vision Jim had to see a ring on a fourth finger behind a chair back.
I have great faith in his judgements, so I thought it must just be me ;)
-
Jim1 I won’t hold it against you 😆😆 Ladyt
-
It's only my theory and I haven't got a lot to support it, but I always think that if you have photographs of close family you don't bother writing on the back who the subject is. You'd only write names and places if it was a more casual acquaintance. You don't have to disagree with my theory but feel free.
Martin
-
You’re probably right! I have a wad of old photos that my Grandfather gave to my Mother and said these are my family. My Mother doesn’t know who many of them are and they all lived at the opposite end of the country to where my Grandfather settled. He was 99 when he died and he had 12 brothers and sisters. There are no names on the back bar one. Yet his photos of war pals had names on. I wish that I had asked him more. Ladyt
-
Yes, I agree possibly 1895 to 1905 very roughly. (Easier if she had a hat.)
I'm guessing the lady is not married or engaged as the ring hand is not prominent.
Perhaps she is in her 20's?
3rd post on this thread.........
-
Mowsehowse I think she is in her 20s and taken before she got married in 1908
-
Yes.
-
mowsehouse - we dated it as Edwardian ages ago. ie - after 1901
-
mowsehouse - we dated it as Edwardian ages ago. ie - after 1901
Yes we did, posts 2, 3 and 4.
Where I also mentioned probable lack of rings.