RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: BrianClaydon on Wednesday 12 July 23 09:54 BST (UK)
-
Hello everyone,
I have a photograph of a little girl who is I believe is either my nan, or my great-grandmother. Neither of whom are living today.
The photograph was most likely taken in Southeast London where they were both born, probably in Southwark.
Looking at the photograph, could anyone tell me whether they think it is:
Victoria Julia Westrop (Nee Sullivan) 1897-1973 (She was also known as Jubilee Victoria as a child).
OR
Adelaide Mary Claydon (nee Westrop) 1919-2007.
Please advise how you have come to your decision. Thank you for any help you may be able to provide.
Kind regards,
Brian
-
I think it is Adelaide by her clothing, if it was Victoria I would expect her coat to be down to her feet.
Also the style and pose of the photo would have been more formal in 1900..
Carol
-
I think it is Adelaide by her clothing, if it was Victoria I would expect her coat to be down to her feet.
Also the style and pose of the photo would have been more formal in 1900..
Carol
Thank you Carol. I appreciate your opinion based on her clothing and a more informal pose.
-
Adelaide.
-
Adelaide.
Hi Keybob. Thank you for your appraisal, and thank you so much for cleaning up the image. That's two for Adelaide. Are there any dissenters or any more votes for Addie?
B
-
Hello Brian, I just put Adelaide going on what Carol had noted, as I am no expert on dating pictures. :)
-
Hello Brian, I just put Adelaide going on what Carol had noted, as I am no expert on dating pictures. :)
Thank you for your honesty!
-
Do you have this photo?
If so can we see all of it.
At present my view is this is 1900's.
-
Do you have this photo?
If so can we see all of it.
At present my view is this is 1900's.
Hi Jim1,
I'm afraid I don't have the photo, it is still in my fathers possession. However I can affirm that what is presented is the entirety of the photograph.
Thank you for your appraisal based on what is presented.
B
-
What type of photo it is will dictate when it was taken.
Is it a cabinet card type or postcard type.
-
What type of photo it is will dictate when it was taken.
Is it a cabinet card type or postcard type.
Hi Jim1,
I'm not really sure what the difference is but the photo is quite small - not postcard size. From memory I would say it was about 10cm in height and about 6cm in width. Sorry I can't be more accurate.
B
-
Sounds about the size of a cabinet card so more
likely the earlier date.
-
Sounds about the size of a cabinet card so more
likely the earlier date.
Thank you Jim1 for your appraisal.
B
-
Hello again,
as it is difficult to establish whether it is Victoria of Adelaide, I thought I would post one which is definitely Adelaide. The photo however is of a similar size to the first one.
Does this help any?
B
-
Not sure if this helps. They are very similar but??
Gadget
PS - identical mouths?
-
I'm not convinced the 2nd. photo is 1920's either.
-
I'm not convinced the 2nd. photo is 1920's either.
Hi Jim1,
I am 99% certain that the second photo is Adelaide. It has her named on the back, and I have later photos in which you can see the resemblance. Is the size of the photo, cabinet sized, which gives you pause? Or other factors as well?
Regards,
B
-
Not sure if this helps. They are very similar but??
Gadget
PS - identical mouths?
Hi Gadget,
yes, that really does help. Thank you. The mouths and chins are very similar. Also you can see how the hair might grow thicker as she grew older. Addie had absolutely stunning light auburn hair.
I'm coming to think now they may be the same child. What ages do people think they may be? I thought they were roughly the same age which made me think they were different, but the first pic maybe 3ish and the second 4ish?
I would point out that this branch of the family were not very affluent at the time which may have bearing on the original photo size.
Regards,
B
-
When I first saw the first image, I thought maybe early 1910s.
Gadget
-
I agree with your age estimates.
PS - the reason I went for the early 1910s is that I have a photo of my mother in 1913 which is so like your photos.
-
I've been looking for examples on line - this dated 1924
https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/history/list151/holm3f.jpg
-
I agree with your age estimates.
PS - the reason I went for the early 1910s is that I have a photo of my mother in 1913 which is so like your photos.
Thanks again Gadget for your appraisal.
This is an open question. When it comes to dating photographs, would it be safe to assume that there are many factors which can help date them? Such as clothing, composition, location, development technique, size and colouration to name a few.
Would it also be safe to assume that dating photographs by clothing would be much more accurate the more affluent (or fashionable) the subject is? Would our poorer ancestors be less likely to be wearing similar clothing styles to their richer contemporaries? Or perhaps stay in certain clothing styles for longer, or perhaps even wearing newer styles only when they were old, tired and discarded by their richer peers? Bought second-hand or passed over through charity?
Regards,
B
-
I've been looking for examples on line - this dated 1924
https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/history/list151/holm3f.jpg
Thanks gadget. The one you have found, if typical to the era, has been developed in a much lighter fashion and in my opinion looks more modern than my two. I guess part of it may depend on the camera the photographer was using too, how long they had been in the trade and how exposed they had been to newer working practises.
I think in the photo which is almost certainly Addie, the photographer couldn't resist capturing her chubby knees in the composition.
B
-
All those features that you mention, Brian. I've got many dating books and online refs that I've acquired over the years - as do Jim and Carol.
I can't find any really similar pics but I'm leaning towards Adelaide.
Gadget
-
All those features that you mention, Brian. I've got many dating books and online refs that I've acquired over the years - as do Jim and Carol.
I can't find any really similar pics but I'm leaning towards Adelaide.
Gadget
Thank you and others for your much more well informed opinion than mine.
That's you, Carol and Keybob (with caveat) for Adelaide, and Jim1 for Victoria. I'll leave the post open a few more days in case anyone else would like to weigh in with their thoughts.
Thanks all,
B
-
In case this helps with dating, here is a photo of my grandmother born in 1894. Does a comparison of clothes and style of photo help?
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=846242.msg7133245#msg7133245
-
In case this helps with dating, here is a photo of my grandmother born in 1894. Does a comparison of clothes and style of photo help?
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=846242.msg7133245#msg7133245
Hi Neale1961,
that's a beautiful photo of a very bonny baby. Thank you. Again it looks very modern compared to my two photographs even though they must have been taken after. The difference in possible social strata again I feel may contribute to the difficulty in dating these photographs easily. Thank you for your contribution.
Regards,
Brian
-
Adelaide P2 :) Left a bit of blue so updated.
-
Smaller V2.
-
I think they are both of Adelaide and I believe the second photo is 1920s.
Carol