RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: DavidTaylor on Wednesday 23 April 25 21:57 BST (UK)
-
Hello all: ???
I have a guess who this may be in my family but was curious as to others thoughts on the time frame, economic status, relationship of the 2 in the photo (married, mother/son etc) or anything else you can opine on. Thank you in advance!
-
Judging by the style of clothing and the sepia tone of the photograph, this image likely dates to the late 19th or early 20th century—roughly between 1880 and 1910. The man’s three-piece suit and bow tie, paired with the pocket watch chain visible, align with formal men’s fashion of that era. The woman’s dress features puffed sleeves and intricate lace detailing, both characteristic of this period.
Both individuals appear well-dressed in tailored clothing, which was often an indicator of middle to upper-class status during this time. The man’s pocket watch, a sign of personal wealth and refinement, strengthens this impression. The quality and detailing of the woman’s attire, especially the lace work, suggest access to resources and perhaps skilled craftsmanship.probably they are Married couple: The man standing while the woman is seated was a popular pose for formal marital portraits during this era.
-
Both the man's outfit and the woman's sleeves, suggest a date of circa 1895-97.
Gadget
See ,for example, various books by Jayne Shrimpton.
-
Their facial characteristics are strikingly similar. They could indeed be mother and son.
Martin
-
The man’s pocket watch, a sign of personal wealth and refinement, strengthens this impression
Sorry, but I have to disagree that a pocket watch was a sign of ‘personal wealth’.
Here is one of my family photos https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=827914.msg6920327#msg6920327
At the back are my grandfather and great- grandfather. They are both wearing pocket watches. Neither of them were well-off at all. My grandfather worked on the roads and my great grandfather was a colliery horse keeper. They both struggled financially.
As to ‘refinement’, I have heard that this was in fairly short supply as far as great- grandfather was concerned ;D
-
The man’s pocket watch, a sign of personal wealth and refinement, strengthens this impression
Sorry, but I have to disagree that a pocket watch was a sign of ‘personal wealth’.
Seconded: my maternal great grandfather, a miner, had two pocket watches: one for everyday and one for ‘best’. I inherited the everyday one, together with the chain and ‘Albert’.
-
The thing about pocket watches is just the same as wrist watches today. there were pocket watches from base metal to 18ct gold and as we can't see the watch we have no idea about this one. You could say a wrist watch is a sign of wealth but is it a Timex or a Gold Rolex?
-
It looks like this one c. 1880.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-elderly-victorian-couple-husband-and-wife-pose-in-a-photographers-31851749.html
-
Just noticed the back of his hands, they look like an older man’s hands, so would go with husband and wife or brother and sister, not mother and son.
-
Is it possible for you to show us the back?
-
I would agree with Gadget on dates, However, It looks more like a medallion Than a pocket watch and I can't see a winder,
though I could be wrong.
Carol
-
It looks like this one c. 1880.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-elderly-victorian-couple-husband-and-wife-pose-in-a-photographers-31851749.html
Yes but to me in my photo the woman looks much older. Maybe she had a harder life ;D
-
See my early reply and Treetotal's comment - we have dated it as mid to late 1890s. The ref made by Patluc is wrong. Women's clothing was very different in the 1880s.
See - https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/history/date/main.htm
Add - and various refs from Jayne Shrimpton
-
Yiu might have missed this request - backs can give lots of information
Is it possible for you to show us the back?
Also, this looks like a crop from a larger image. Can you scan the full photo with edges, please.
-
I would agree with Gadget on dates, However, It looks more like a medallion Than a pocket watch and I can't see a winder,
though I could be wrong.
Carol
The pocket watch is in his pocket. The medallion that you see is part of the ‘Albert’.
from https://www.timewornwatches.co.uk/guides/albert-watch-chains/ (https://www.timewornwatches.co.uk/guides/albert-watch-chains/)
Although the watch chains had been worn since the 16th Century, the Albert watch chain was introduced much later. Albert watch chains are named after Prince Albert (1819-1861), who was consort to Queen Victoria (1837-1901). The chain would traditionally comprise of a T-bar on one end used to affix the chain to a vest buttonhole. The opposite end of the chain would be fitted with a swivel or a large spring-loaded bolt ring to attach a pocket watch. The watch would then be placed in a vest pocket with the chain exposed and often adorned with a decorative fob.
-
It looks like this one c. 1880.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-elderly-victorian-couple-husband-and-wife-pose-in-a-photographers-31851749.html
Yes but to me in my photo the woman looks much older. Maybe she had a harder life ;D
I was referring to the photo style, ie woman sitting with a book, man standing... ::)
-
What about the cap/hat she's wearing? What would you call it? An indoor cap?
-
So I BELIEVED this to be my Great grandfather George McQuire/MacQuire Born cir 1845 in High Halden, Kent and his mother, Caroline MacQuire, nee Sayer born Warehorn Kent, Cir 1819- Feb 3, 1885. She would have been a widow since 1866 and I thought her outfit appeared to be something a widow would wear. I base this on the slimmest of evidence. Almost nothing. Who I acquired the photo from, the fact that the man has a very strong resemblance to a modern day relative. I also believe this other woman to be the man's wife (below) and her name was Susannah Henrietta McQuire, nee Weatherhead. Unless you think this could be the same woman but she looks very frail in the photo sitting down. If none of this works out, I'm at square one. ??? ;D ;D
-
Is it possible for you to show us the back?
I wish. Only had a copy and no idea who has the original
-
So, if she is who you think she is this photo couldn't have been taken after 1883, right?
Here's another photo c. 1880 and the woman is wearing a dress with puff sleeves.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-elderly-victorian-couple-circa-1880-outdoor-formal-portrait-in-a-rural-32174511.html?imageid=05872628-A33B-48A5-82A5-0B7AE6CC8CD2&p=164363&pn=1&searchId=96518880c47d54fca5c7377a22e45ed9&searchtype=0
-
It could, she died Feb 3, 1885. but again, this is all guesswork on my part.
-
Of course. Do you think the hat/cap she's wearing is a sort of widow's cap?
-
Of course. Do you think the hat/cap she's wearing is a sort of widow's cap?
really not sure but I can’t imagine they are the same age. I think she looks much older than him personally
-
I agree and they look very similar so mother and son is my vote. Although his wife also looks similar!
Maybe you could post the photo and ask for the resident photo experts to restore it so we could have a better idea of the hat/cap?
-
I'm far from being as knowledgeable on dating of clothing as are Gadget and Treetotal.
However the shape of the sleeves on the woman's dress are characteristic of the mid to late 1890's, not the 1880's. In the 1880's sleeves were usually fairly tight. The rather elaborate bodice with lacy insert and collar was also characteristic, according to my book on dating of costume by Jayne Shrimpton (also referred to by Gadget in reply #12) https://jayneshrimpton.co.uk/
Please refer to the photographs in the link which Gadget gave to confirm this. https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/history/date/main.htm
-
I was just about to suggest that, Jennifer.
As David is only surmising who the people are and doesn't have the original, they could be anyone.
Gadget
Add - the cap is most likely a small 'day cap'
+ the man's outfit could possibly be from either decade
-
What about the man's whiskers - another possible dating clue. They seem to be a somewhat earlier style than mid 1890s to me - but I am no expert. Just putting that out there as so one else has commented.
-
Of course. Do you think the hat/cap she's wearing is a sort of widow's cap?
The cap she is wearing is very similar to this one from 1899 (from the link given by Gadget and JenB
https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/history/date/a1899.htm
-
Its interesting seeing all the comments. I think it could be mother and son as they both have slightly hooded eyes. It is dated around 1890s but photographers did give out clothes to wear so it doesnt automatically mean they were wealthy. The other comments about the mans facial hair and rough hands means that maybe he could have been a farmer or other occupation in maybe a village setting so not exactly up to date in styles.
-
It is dated around 1890s but photographers did give out clothes to wear so it doesnt automatically mean they were wealthy
No they didn't.
The date isn't around the 1890's it's as Gadget said mid - late 1890's.
-
Sorry i didnt know you were admin for the post!!
How rude!
Jim, Carol and I have been dating photos on this board for many years. All of us have spent much time learning aspects of fashion, etc. to fairly accurately date photos. We all have various books etc to back up our estimates.
I'm wondering why this thread has popped up again. All the information had already been discussed.
Gadget
-
I am not denying that but it is an open forum and i am allowed to post my opinion as much as the rest of you.
-
Hi,
I notice the man is not wearing a wedding ring suggesting he was not married and so, presumably, they were not husband and wife.
ATB
Simon
-
I am not denying that but it is an open forum and i am allowed to post my opinion as much as the rest of you.
Oh you are. It was your prrvious post that I was remarking on:
Sorry i didnt know you were admin for the post!!
-
Yes because i said around 1890s and the i was told mid to late 1890s. It doesnt really matter but I was only giving my opinion to the post not looking to be told off.
-
Of course. Do you think the hat/cap she's wearing is a sort of widow's cap?
The cap she is wearing is very similar to this one from 1899 (from the link given by Gadget and JenB
https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~victorianphotographs/history/date/a1899.htm
Thanks, Maddy. Your posts are always very helpful.
-
Hi,
I notice the man is not wearing a wedding ring suggesting he was not married and so, presumably, they were not husband and wife.
ATB
Simon
Spot on, Simon. I thought they were mother and son hence my question about the 'widow's cap'.
-
Not all that many men wore wedding rings in those days.
-
The lack of a wedding ring could indicate unmarried.
Equally it could indicate a married man who didn't wear a wedding ring.
I have several photos of ancestors who were most definitely married but weren't wearing wedding rings.
I don't think you can read anything into it.
-
Yes because i said around 1890s and the i was told mid to late 1890s. It doesnt really matter but I was only giving my opinion to the post not looking to be told off.
Keep posting, this is a Chat Forum after all, we're here to help and learn.
-
Double post
-
The lack of a wedding ring could indicate unmarried.
Equally it could indicate a married man who didn't wear a wedding ring.
I have several photos of ancestors who were most definitely married but weren't wearing wedding rings.
I don't think you can read anything into it.
I'm not reading into anything, I'm just saying Simon spotted something we all missed, not that he has found the answer to the OP's question. :)
-
The lack of a wedding ring could indicate unmarried.
Equally it could indicate a married man who didn't wear a wedding ring.
I have several photos of ancestors who were most definitely married but weren't wearing wedding rings.
I don't think you can read anything into it.
I'm not reading into anything, I'm just saying Simon spotted something we all missed, not that he has found the answer to the OP's question. :)
I didn't for a moment intend to suggest that Simon thought he'd found the answer to the question.
Just that he said I notice the man is not wearing a wedding ring suggesting he was not married
which I felt was not a correct conclusion to draw.
-
But his wording 'suggesting' is correct, is it not?
-
So I BELIEVED this to be my Great grandfather George McQuire/MacQuire Born cir 1845 in High Halden, Kent and his mother, Caroline MacQuire, nee Sayer born Warehorn Kent, Cir 1819- Feb 3, 1885. She would have been a widow since 1866 and I thought her outfit appeared to be something a widow would wear. I base this on the slimmest of evidence. Almost nothing. Who I acquired the photo from, the fact that the man has a very strong resemblance to a modern day relative. I also believe this other woman to be the man's wife (below) and her name was Susannah Henrietta McQuire, nee Weatherhead. Unless you think this could be the same woman but she looks very frail in the photo sitting down. If none of this works out, I'm at square one. ??? ;D ;D
I think both photographs could be of Susannah Henrietta. If the couple's photo was late 1890s or early 1900s and her solo photo is c. 1890 the difference between the photos could be around 10 years and the man in the photo could be her son Arthur George McQuire and her husband George would have already died.