RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: David Boulding on Thursday 24 October 24 18:14 BST (UK)
-
This is Richard Foord of Aldington (1812-1892). I think this is his mother - who died in 1864. Is this possible? I have a photo of his wife but not sure she is the woman in the photo.
Date of photo?
-
Hard to tell their ages. To me he looks 45-50. She looks older but it isn't clear from the photo. Certainly their pose suggests it's his wife or mother. The clothing looks about right for 1860s.
Could you post the picture of his wife for comparison purposes please?
And my moving it up the board should get a bit of attention from more expert people.
Peter
-
I would say that it is mid - late 1850s. There is a photograph in my copy of Jayne Shrimpton's Family Photographs, that is very similar.
Gadget
Add - the lady looks older than the man so I suggest that it could be his mother.
-
To me there is something similar in the set of the mouth between the two.
I also see a resemblance in the facial structure around the eyes and brow.
Might be just me!..
Sue
-
Hi,
I think I would agree that she looks older, old enough to be his mother. But personally I don’t think I would put his age above about 30.
It is interesting they both seem to be wearing fairly heavy gloves, a bit unusual?
-
I don’t often drift over to this forum so please forgive what are possibly silly questions but I don’t see a seat back, could she be sitting on a stool or bench? Her left shoulder/arm/hand doesn’t look quite right - was it common to have the more distant side of the body (in this case, shoulder area) so different than the other side or possibly that area blended into the wallpaper? Just curious. ;)
-
This is known to be Catherine Goland (nee Easton) Foord (1819 -1895), Richard's wife to compare her face with my initially supplied image.
I have pondered whether this is the same woman as appears in the first image. I suspect the first image is Richard's mother rather than wife in which case his mother was Priscilla (nee Tolhurst) Foord (1786 - 1864)
Priscilla was widowed when her husband Richard Foord senior died in 1856 hence no photo existing of her with her husband
-
The second photograph is taken in the same broad time frame* as the first so could not be the same woman as in the first. The first photo is most likely his mother, as I said in my earlier post #2
Gadget
* maybe up to mid 60s
-
The second photo which features Richard's wife Catherine Goland (Easton) Foord was quite a bit later (I think). No? As this picture is always found in my albums opposite her husband (Richard Foord junior) by then shown as an old man I assumed the photos were contemporary. Or maybe like many people the ladies prefered photo's of themselves when much younger. [Seeing the census I have noted that fibbing about ages was a national sport]
-
Certainly not the same woman. To me the photo of Richard's wife looks to have been taken a little later than the first photo. She looks about the same age as Richard does in the first photo; I'd go for half a decade difference, perhaps after the mother had died?
Anyway, I'm envious of your having such remarkable old photos.
Peter
-
When my father died my mother managed to junk vast numbers of old photos & letters before I caught her in the act. My father had made a great effort in writing names on the photos (consulting ancient relatives to do so) so yes, I am lucky to have what I have.
I have set about trying to identify the unknowns and I soon realised that the 2 different albums I have always show family groups (of course they would - perfectly logical). So when ONE member of a family group was known the link with the others became apparent.
For example in a previous photo on this Forum was a photo of my great grandmother Agnes Ann Foord with an old lady. It looked to me like her a grandmother (or maybe gt aunt) but granny Foord was dead by then. When I saw the same old lady opposite her (unknown) husband and the identified son was next to them it was pretty obvious she was her other granny.
Obviously these are guesses but well educated guesses
-
Just a quick note of thanks for your great efforts. Slotting gt gt granny's head next to this unknown woman does appear to confirm it's not her.
Who else would sit with a hand on Richard's shoulder? I'd suggest if not his wife it almost HAS TO BE his mother. Maybe a great aunt possibly but far more likely his mother post Richard's father's death in 1856.
I have so many loose photos of people who can never be named, alas. Stored in albums shows family groups and gives half a chance (for good guesses at least).
Towards the end of the two albums are a few friends (some known) but family was first
Many thanks again
Certainly not the same woman. To me the photo of Richard's wife looks to have been taken a little later than the first photo. She looks about the same age as Richard does in the first photo; I'd go for half a decade difference, perhaps after the mother had died?
Anyway, I'm envious of your having such remarkable old photos.
Peter
-
Hi, I am sure you have checked, but is it possible it is a young Richard Junior?
-
Hello David
Yes, this is indeed the young Richard Foord junior (1814 - 1892). The photo we know is him. His father was also a Richard Foord (1786 - 1856) and probably died too early for a photo to exist.
I am starting to feel confident that this woman is Richard Foord junuor's mother Priscilla (nee Tolhurst) Foord (1786 - 1864)
-
I'm just wondering that, if she was Richard's mother and her husband died in 1856, might she have been wearing darker clothes? Not necessarily full mourning but more sombre than usual wear.
Was there any other close female member that it could be. I still think the first photo was late 1850s or very early 1860s.
Gadget
-
David,
Hi, I misinterpreted your family relationship, I meant Richard, Juniors son. I think he looks too young to be born in 1816, unless it is an early 1850’s phot0, no one has asked, are there any photographer details on any of the photographs?
David
-
Ps, never say never. My mother came across family in Australia who had photographs of her grandmother and great grandmother.
I am also able to play snap with Canadian cousins -MRCA - 1770’s, they liked to share there photos across continents!
-
I'd not noticed that birth date!
He looks no more that late 20s/very early 30s at the most. This pic is mid-1850s - early 1860s. If born in 1816, he would be 44-ish in 1860.
-
From out of left field…
I see a strong resemblance between the younger and the older woman, which makes me wonder if the latter could be his mother-in-law.
That could account for the wife appearing to be older in what seems to be a later period, second photo!
-
@Gadget,
Thanks, glad I am not the only one who thinks he is in his 20’s.
@David, one question has it been digitally enhanced? His suit looks very shiny, I’m sure that must tell us something.
Also one interesting thing, he may have been left handed, his fob watch appears to be in his left pocket.
Whoever she is I think she must be his mother, the pose would be very strange otherwise. 21st birthday or engagement?
-
Ah - could it be a reverse image?
The early images were usually Daguerreotypes - See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype
https://www.loc.gov/collections/daguerreotypes/articles-and-essays/the-daguerreotype-medium/
Gadget
-
Looking at it again, after you mentioning his suit, I see it as a combined photo. One pic is the lady and the other is Richard. This could then be put together and printed as a new image. I've seen quite a few of these 19 c prints.
I used to use this technique either as a collage technique with partial negatives or by exposing multiple different negs, etc.
Gadget
-
As I look more closely, I think that there is something very strange/wrong about this photograph
For example, the head, hair and beard in this snip
I'll draw Jim's attention to this thread.
-
I'll sort out a photo of Richard as an old man. He looks the same with the same beard etc
-
I should add I squeezed the old photo through AI to sharpen it. So, yes, it's been enhanced
-
David,
Hi, well that’s not the same man. Nose is completely different.
Might be son, similar face, nose more like Richard’s wife?
Do you have the original, it may be easier to pick up some important details.
David
-
There are similarities but something strange has been done to the younger's face. Has it been stretched to fit over another face or what has happened?
I don't think they are the same man.
-
I also thought there was something not quite right about the younger man's face, it looked too wide. If you look at his hair on the right side (as we look at it) his curls seem to have been chopped off in a very straight line as if his head was cropped from another image.
I can see similarities with the older man but his nose looks different. Do noses droop with age?
-
This is the original photo.
The Foords had very "powerful" faces. One of the daughters has a really strong face.
Pretty sure this is Richard Foord (partly due to the position in the album). But potentially it could be:-
Richard Foord 1814-1892 - m1842 Sarah Goland Easton [DRBB direct line]
Peter William Foord 1816 - married Ann Collins and was publican of Folkestone
Philip Foord 1817- 1891 Woolwich (unmarried)
Or do people think that this photo would be taken 1850ish or later and that this is not a photo of a person born circa 1814-1817?
To me it looks like Richard Foord
The nose different? The truth is that “Yes”, as we age, our nose and our ears do get bigger, but not because they are growing. The real reason is a common scientific force known as GRAVITY. You see, our nose and our ears are made of cartilage and while many people mistakenly believe that cartilage never stops growing, the fact is cartilage does stop growing. However, cartilage is made of collagen and other fibers that begin to break down as we age.
The result is drooping. So what appears to be growth is just gravity doing its job. Our noses and our earlobes sag and become larger.
-
A bit late to the party but I've been asked to stick in my two pennuth.
Photo date I believe early to mid 1860's.
Albumin prints like this arrived in 1858 but were not really in use until the 60's.
There was a certain amount getting used to the new process so you can see some
oddities in photos around this time.
I don't believe these are 2 photos brought together as one.
There's overlapping & underlapping of the 2 subjects which would be extremely difficult
to achieve in the 1860's.
You'll notice the lower part of her skirt is behind his right leg, a photographer wouldn't
bother with that.
I believe there been some oversketching done on her around the bodice.
I think you've arrived at the conclusion that these are not 2 people born 1786 & 1814.
She looks 50's/60's & he looks around 30 so a lady born around the turn of the century
& a man born around 1830.
This is just my take on this & others may not agree.
-
I'd agree that the photo looks early 1860s (relative to the other photos in the albums this looks earlier). IF this is Priscilla Foord (his mother or his brothers's mother) then 1864 was the year she died. She'd have to be between 72 and 78 yrs of age. Maybe? Not sure. Not so likely.
I look at the man and wonder his age... It's so hard to judge. IF it's Richard (or one of his brothers) then he'd be between 44 and 50. Is this possible? Maybe? I think maybe.
As these are Foord family albums I can't quite see who else these could be (looking at dates of available cousins etc). The man has the same lidded eyebrows as the old Richard. Same beard. Potentially one of his 2 brothers but there weren't many years between them.
I suppose we'll never know for sure. But that he's a Foord I am pretty certain. He has the look as well as being in their albums
I appreciate all the time and effort people have put into this
-
David,
No problem, we enjoy puzzles like this.
Did Richard Foord 1814 have any sons?
Born around 1840, this would make more sense to me, and would explain the family resemblance.
I just don’t think his age fits with the generation before.
His nose has not just drooped, I think it is very different, I think his face looks funny because we can’t see his ears because of his hairstyle and we are not used to that.
David.
-
Richard Foord b1814 Aldington - d1892 Aldington (son of Richard & Priscilla Foord, farmer)
Catherine Goland Easton b1819 Newington Sitt - d1895 Aldington (dau of David & Sarah Easton farrier)
Married Aldington 1842
1843 Jun 4 Sarah Goland d of Richard & Katherine Foord lbr - m1861 Charles Masters
1845 Feb 23 Elizabeth Priscilla d of Richard & Catherine Foord lbr - unmarried
1847 Dec 25 Hezekiah son of Richard & Catherine Foord lbr - m1870 Elizabeth Gates
1850 Jul 28 Ephraim son of Richard & Catherine Foord lbrm - d1855 child
1852 Aug 8 Olive Grace d of Richard & Catherine Foord lbr - m1882 David Boulden
1855 Dec 31 Wyndham Arron son of Richard & Catherine Foord lbr - m1880 Mahala Collett
1857 May 31 Agnes Ann d of Richard & Catherine Foord lbr - m1852 Jesse Boulding
1859 Oct 13 Arthur Ernest son of Richard & Catherine Foord lbr - d1862 child
1862 Jun 22 Albert Henshaw son of Richard & Catherine Foord lbr - m1886 Florence Finn - m1897 Rosa Wood
1892 Jan 21 Richard Foord aged 77 Hayter House Aldington
1895 Mar 23 Catherine Foord aged 76 of Bonnington
Most of Richard's children are very well documented photographically. I have numerous photos of all of them. The mystery people in the photograph in question are in a photo much older than the offspring.
-
I have LOTS of well documented photos of ALL the offspring (except Ephraim who died a child in 1855). The old man and his mother is DEFINITELY a generation back from their photos.
Whether it's Richard Foord (1814-1892) or not is still open for debate.
-
David,
Hum, I see your conundrum. In the original I can perhaps see a very young looking older man, but struggle to see anyone as old as 40-45, unless his name is Dorian Gray!
I also have a large number of Cartes de Visite, but am fortunate in that my great grandfather labelled a lot of them. There are ones with mothers cousin and the like so without that it may be very difficult.
I think the only certain thing I would say is it is not the same face as the older man.
Certainly similar hair, so perhaps family.
Happy Hunting
David
-
Just some thoughts here.
The pose of the two people is quite intimate and in those times probably reserved for people of very close relationship such as mother and son. Not like modern times at all.
I dont know if it has been mentioned but the 1861 census shows Priscilla FOORD, a widow is living with her son Richard, his wife Catherine and their 6 children whose ages range from 16 to 1 year.
Richard's birth year is given as 1816, so he is 45. He is an agricultural labourer.
To me this is somewhat supportive of the notion they are mother and son in the photo
He is obviously "taking care" of her and supporting her in her old age and this warm relationship is to be acknowledged by having the photograph together done.
I woner if others of the family had theirs doneon the same day?
Sue
-
I think Gadget may well have been right in suggesting it could a combined photo. The lady looks faded compared to the man, and is all to the side, when you'd expect a respected older relative to have been given equal prominence. It's as if his clearly defined image has been superimposed on an older photo of her, with the gloves added to cover hands that were not in the right position. The hand on his shoulder looks awkward, and seems slightly at odds with the angle of her shoulder and upper arm. What might be taken for the edge of her dress behind his right leg looks to me like the leg of his chair. I'd suggest the lady is his mother and this photograph has been cleverly created after her death as a memento of the two of them together.