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

[eastend]

Is it possible that the big hair and bushy eyebrows on the baby are due to it moving about whilst the photo was being taken?  Then the blurring on the final photo makes the baby look a bit strange.  Just a thought.

[JJbeech]

I don't think these two woman are the same. The second (and i know first looks ill) seems much wealthier and healthier than the first!

I also don't see much resemblance, although depending on how ill our lady is we might not!!!

I think second lady never experienced the hardship our lady did! (just an opinion based on her dress and expression - she looks to content!!)

JJ

[Maggie.]

Hi Eastend,
Interesting point and thank you for contributing.  Not sure about the 'movement' theory - you would expect a bit of movement in a small child in that situation but I am not sure it can account for that hollow-eyed look.

Hi JJ
I agree that the hatted lady looks wealthier.  I know they cannot be 2 photos of the same woman but I have wondered whether they were related to each other - hence me asking if anyone could see any similarities (sorry - I should have been clearer).  These 2 photos I think were together when I was given them by my paternal grandmother 40 years ago, so I have assumed there is a connection - but of course there may be no connection at all.  There is a persuasively strong possibility that the hatted lady is an older relative of my gt. grandfather's SECOND wife and about whom I know a great deal.  If the photo is of this older relative, then she was a milliner, so that could account for the splendid hat.  However, I am still inclined to think that the lady with the baby is my gt. grandfather' FIRST wife, therefore she has no connection with the hatted lady. 

I am probably being very confusing and beginning to wonder whether I'm wandering off the Photograph Restoration & Dating topic and should be put somewhere else 

Maggie

[monkeymagik]

Another little thing that made me think of Thyroid related problems re mum, was the hair at the front has a fairly wide parting, her own hair looks thin, a problem suffered by some people with Thyroid related illness.
So what if the hair piece was worn out of necessity, rather than fashion, this combined with the lack of money, could that explain why the hair would indicate a slightly different period to the one expected, if you catch my drift 

Also she has probably had to take her wedding ring off because her hands are swollen & sore.

When I first looked at the photo with my uneducated naive eyes (that is before I learned about PMs) I thought the baby was disabled, possibly blind.

"Untreated" Thyroid problems in pregnancy can impair full & normal development of the baby to some degree sometimes resulting in fetal abnormalities etc.

[Maggie.]

Yes - she HAS a wide parting has'nt she?  Never noticed before.  And the hair on top of her head is definitely false - well spotted monkeymagik 
Good point about the effects of thyroid disorders on foetal development also.

Also - as JJ has pointed out to me in a PM - does this pic. look to have been taken in someone's front parlour rather than a photographic studio?

Maggie

[PaulaToo]

I think it looks like a painted backdrop.

[Rabbit B]

Evening all,

Now I have just had a look at the original picture, no improvements etc!

I see no abnormalities in the hands at all and if you look very carefully [remember that I can't see as well as you all do] she is wearing a ring on her left hand!

The problem with the baby from the original picture is that he is sitting sideways and probably has both legs over his/her Mum's knee.  Having said that are you sure that is the baby's foot?  That would make it a very long baby!  Either that or the poor child has a very big head.

I think that that the black spots on the picture are caused by the age of the picture not a disease.

Rabbit B 

[PaulaToo]

Thats one of the reasons why I think the photo is doctored, Rabbit. The length of the leg that we can see, yes, I think the foot has a boot on it, and the length of the left arm...the right arm is folded, but doesn't look as long.
I shortened both in my rejigged picture.

[PaulaToo]

Talking about the hair...I've found this one on a photograph site, dated 1871-72...which could help to bring us back onto the restore and DATE theme.
The lady looks quite well of, but the hair piece is nowhere near as big.
Also the centre parting looks quite wide. I think it was because the hair was pulled down so tight.
That really is a 'heap' our lady is wearing.