RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Turtle Dove on Monday 07 October 19 14:48 BST (UK)
-
William Taylor was born in 1853 and died in 1928. I would appreciate any help in dating this photograph and also if anyone has any suggestions as to how it might have been taken, as it was not in a studio, but looks like it was outside his house. He was not a wealthy man and worked in the brickfields, so perhaps a photographer may have called at the houses to take and sell photographs? I know this happened in the 1930s, but did it happen earlier? There seems to be a woman behind him in a doorway and a bicycle. Thank you for your help.
-
I would say about 1920.
Carol
-
Bear in mind that the Box Brownie - a very cheap camera - had been in mass production since 1900.
-
I have photos of my 'poor, mining families' having similar outdoor photos taken from early 1900s. Travelling photographers were around from the 1860-70s.
Re the date - guessing 1918-1925
Gadget
-
Thank you for your replies. 1920 would make him 67 and living in Brown's Yard, Uxbridge. I do wonder if he might be a little younger than that, but I'm very bad at guessing ages :-)
-
I've just had a thought. If the photo was 1910 and the woman behind him is in a wedding dress, then the photo could have been taken to mark his daughter's wedding day. Does anyone think there is enough information in the shadows to see more of what is in the background? I just see a lady in white, and possibly another man beside her!
-
The woman looks as if she's wearing an apron.
I'm going to look at my books as the man is wearing a soft collar. I think that they were nearer our dates.
-
I've looked through my books and I can't see any collars and ties like this until the dates that Carol and I have mentioned.
Added - are you sure this is your GGGF?
-
A clip of the background figure, enlarged and very fuzzy!
-
The original is with my 2nd cousin once removed - he is her great-grandfather, my 2nd great-grandfather. I will check with her that there isn't any confusion about who the man in the photo actually is. The family was close though, so I imagine it is correct. That's really interesting about the collars. It would make more sense if the man was one generation later, so I'll look to see if there are other possibilities for his identity.
-
I've looked through my own family photos and found one in 1904 that has some of the sons in softer collars but they are larger than yours and the ties are much bigger. The older man (my ggf) is wearing a wing collar and others are wearing stiff ones.
:-\
-
I don't know if it helps, but I think this photo was taken in the early 20s of William Taylor's son. He was born in 1888 and his son in 1911. There were older brothers, with the oldest born in 1876. Now I'm wondering if the man I think is William is young enough to be in his 30/40s in the photo!
-
Gadget and I were talking about the first man's age 'off air' and I must say my initial thought was that he was younger than someone born in 1853.
We differed in our opinion! ;)
Wiggy
-
I don't know if it helps, but I think this photo was taken in the early 20s of William Taylor's son. He was born in 1888 and his son in 1911. There were older brothers, with the oldest born in 1876. Now I'm wondering if the man I think is William is young enough to be in his 30/40s in the photo!
He could be of that age.
Did your family grey late?
-
A snip of my grandfather and his brothers in 1904. They were born in the 1870s-early 1880s.
-
Ooh so there were collars and ties in the early 1900s :-) There's something about the photo of William which does make him look a generation older than his son in the photo which was taken in the 20s. Maybe it's the chain! I wonder if he wasn't used to dressing up in collar and tie at all and made a clumsy attempt at it!
-
This is from the same photo. It is of their father, my ggf, who was born in 1856. Note he has a winged collar.
(Just checked again and the pic could be either 1902 or 1904, depending on which daughter's marriage was being celebrated! )
-
William worked in the brickfields. I wonder if he borrowed the collar and tie especially for the photograph...maybe from one of his sons!
-
I've just done a couple of snips for comparison.
Look very similar.
-
Yes, I thought that too - (and the younger man is the photo-owner's grandfather), but the son was born in 88 and the photo we have is from the 1920s, so for him to look as old as the older man I guess the photo would have had to have been taken about 1940. It looks too 'old fashioned' for that I think.
-
Just to say that I'm now totally confused now. The man looks to be, say, 55-65. The photo style could be up to 1940 (have photo of my parents and elder sister in 1940, taken with an ordinary box brownie style camera).
-
Sorry if I've confused you. I'm very grateful for all your help. I think the two photos show father and son, but I have asked my relative to let me know how sure she is that they couldn't be the same person. Thanks again for helping. I wouldn't have thought about any of these things without help.
-
I've just had a thought. If the photo was 1910 and the woman behind him is in a wedding dress, then the photo could have been taken to mark his daughter's wedding day. Does anyone think there is enough information in the shadows to see more of what is in the background? I just see a lady in white, and possibly another man beside her!
I've ran your image through some of my toys.
Within photoshop - first photo magic to alter the focus.
second - genuine fractals to enlarge it.
third used photoshop's exposure layer.
So - deffo a female in white and a male beside her. :)
As an aside, the bike has an acetylene lamp on the handlebars. ;D
-
That's great - really quite ghost-like! Google tells me those lamps were superseded by more modern ones in 1911 - but I guess not for the working man of Botwell. Thank you for your help.
-
That's great - really quite ghost-like! Google tells me those lamps were superseded by more modern ones in 1911 - but I guess not for the working man of Botwell. Thank you for your help.
1910 (ish) with Ever ready (in a wooden box)
Carbide lamps (acetylene) still used in late 40's for some.
I am in conversation with Gadget and have revised my estimation to be circa 1910.
What date was the wedding?
The slow shutter speeds on (cheap) cameras would produce "motion blur" on subjects that were not still.
George
-
His daughter married in July 1910. His sons in 1898, October 1910 and 1919. It's such a lovely photograph, and tantalising in what is hidden in the background. It does look like the woman came through the door and noticed what was happening!
-
Could you get your relative to scan the back of the photo, if there's anything on it, please.
-
Hi, yes I'll ask her. I think she said there was nothing on it - we were discussing the photo recently as she had never noticed the lady in the background and I asked her straightaway who she was! I'll get on to her now :-)
-
Our emails overlapped - but whilst I wait and hope for a scan of the back of the photo, I can at least confirm that it's definitely William, who died in 1928. My cousin's grandfather used to show her the photo of his Dad :-)
-
Using his date of birth of 1853 and the possible age on the photo - say between 50 and 65 - we have a possible date range of 1903 to 1918.
:-\
-
Using his date of birth of 1853 and the possible age on the photo - say between 50 and 65 - we have a possible date range of 1903 to 1918.
:-\
I would agree with that, men are not easy to date from clothing as they didn't change their style very often and the only other clue is the lady in the background which is faded out. I wouldn't be surprised if the first photo was a copy. The two men do like like they could be related and most likely Father and Son.
Carol
-
Turtle Dove, I don't wish to cast doubt on your wedding day theory, but wouldn't he be wearing a buttonhole if he was father of the bride :-\
-
That had occurred to me too Jools and the fact that the ladies are faded out could suggest they may just be background figures unrelated to the gent.
Carol
-
Yes I agree, it was a long shot! I was actually hoping it was taken in 1901 when my great-grandmother was staying with him. There are no photos of her in existence. But at least it's him, and I've leaned lots of interesting things about photography and bicycle lights along the way. It all brings my family tree to life and I'm really grateful to everyone who has helped :-)