Can someone please date this lady and baby for me? COMPLETED - THANKS EVERYBODY

[Maggie.]

Regarding the 'splicing' issue.........I don't think it has been doctored but I can accept that there has been damage to the original in the area of the baby's 'foot' - possibly home-rectified with sellotape?  As my copy is a photograph of a photograph in an album it is difficult to know, as this damage is not on my copy.

And talking of 'the foot'.......... and this is surreal and probably a result of too much staring, so don't think I am going crazy - but rather than a booted foot, I can see a face of an animal - a ferret like face.  I am not suggesting that is what it is, but it would be silly for me not to throw this observation into the pot     

Maggie

[Rabbit B]

Morning all,

I have just enlarged this picture together with the one of the mother and baby to show my OH. 

He says that it is a wet plate, with a prolonged exposure and that Mum has blinked, hence the eyes looking swollen and that the baby has moved slightly, during the exposure of the plate!  He also says that the baby's feet are under the Mother's hands, look carefully to see the bump on the left.  Black spots are also the result of the age of the picture he says.

What looks like a foot is something on the skirting board, it has an eye!  But I will tell you later what it looks like to me.

He has also confirmed the wedding ring that I suggested last night.  We are both of the opinion that the baby is wearing a christening gown.

Now with regard to the other picture that you have put up Paula,  I agree that the hair is pulled tight which would make the parting seem wider, but have you considered that some people go grey along the parting?  While the rest of their hair stays the same!  That would make it look wider.

My own hair has started to do that, otherwise it is the same colour it has always been!


Rabbit B 

[0rinoco]

Well, it certainly looks like a foot to me. There appears to be a clearly-defined buckle on the 'shoe'. Any comments? 

[Maggie.]

Isn't it a big foot?

Re: black spots being result of age - my photo is not the original but a photograph of a picture in an album, so my image is recording the appearance and condition of the original at the time it was in the album, which could have been many years ago (I myself have had this copy photograph for over 40 years).

I have always thought the child's left leg was bent up under mum's left hand.

[oldtimer]

I know this is a bit off topic, but I dreamt about this picture last night!!! 

(And the dream was a bit scary!!) 

[Rabbit B]

Hi Oldtimer,

Careful, remember that 'Friday nights dream etc,' good job it is not Friday night if it was scary!

Hi Maggie,

If you take a photo of a photograph, it will still show the marks that are on the original, which is confirmation of OH remarks the spots. 

Now the black marks could have been either on the negative which shows up on the print, or the paper which could have had a blemished in the chemical they were using at that time.

Rabbit B 

[PaulaToo]

No way of knowing if this will work, but I'll give it a shot to let you see the bits I am unhappy about...

Did all this, and then I thought....
What if they turned up, plain baby gown, no hair piece and asked the photograper to make them look a little better.
That hairpiece looks terrible to me, and the cut of lacey bit of the dress is just driving me crackers!

See what you mean about the leg being under Mum's hand, it jolly well could be, but where's the foot, long leg like the otherone it would show a foot....unless that went when the lace was added....

[Maggie.]

My poor ?perhaps? ancestor 

Hi Maggie,

If you take a photo of a photograph, it will still show the marks that are on the original, which is confirmation of OH remarks the spots. 

Now the black marks could have been either on the negative which shows up on the print, or the paper which could have had a blemished in the chemical they were using at that time.

Rabbit B 

Isn't it difficult to convey what you mean sometimes in just words     

My point is that whilst appreciating that the marks reflect the marks that were on the original picture in the album, at the time my picture was taken of this album photo, the original would not have been as old, therefore less time for deterioration.  In fact, given that I think the pic. came via my grandmother, who had a vague idea the baby might have been her husband, and her husband died in 1934 so we couldn't ask, my very rough estimate is that my pic could have been taken as early as 1910. 

I can see the likely deterioration spots and accept that a lot of the markings on the pic. are caused by this ...... but the marks I am talking about are what look to be ingrained black stuff in her cuticles....... and I am looking at a magnification of my original scanned image, not what is posted on here.  It also looks like the areas between her fingers on this left hand have been darkened intentionally - but these markings look to me to be rather different from her cuticle markings.  Could her left hand also have been puffy like the right one, and the marks between the fingers of her left hand added to try to reduced the swollen look?  Also.... if these cuticle markings are deterioration marks ..... wouldn't they be random around the finger ends and not clearly following the line of the cuticle like they are? 

I still cannot see a wedding ring either 

I know this is a bit off topic, but I dreamt about this picture last night!!!

(And the dream was a bit scary!!)

I know what you mean, Judy, - I 'saw' that 'ferret' just before I went to bed last night and couldn't sleep for thinking of it 

It's great to get all these opinions and I really appreciate it.  Everybody sees something slightly different and I am starting to view my old photograph in many different lights.  But why oh why didn't they annotate it  uuummmmm perhaps writing was a bit of a challenge 

[Maggie.]

Paula - thanks for the annotation - certainly helps to explain your thoughts on the lace, legs etc.

I am getting that I don't know what to think anymore     
To me - I can go with there being a repaired tear in the pic below the ferret  which extends to below mum's left hand, and I would agree that the lace area below mum's hands looks too pronounced and in-focus when compared with the lace on the rest of the gown.  But what's the point of all this doctoring-up? - unless the child was seriously deformed and they wanted him 'normalising'..... although he looks far from normal in this pic. 

Incidentally, my grandfather, who may or may not be the baby (and I personally no longer think it is him), and who died before I was born, I am told was perfectly normal, with the correct number of legs and indeed in his youth was a very handsome man as proved in photos I have