Dating a photo and some detective work

[JDJames89]

This is one of a series of very confusing and frustrating photos of a family in my history and I’d love some objective opinions to digest. If you like to play detective, I’d love to hear your input about this photo.

I know that the woman holding the young child in the front row is Eva Heim Reed. The woman on the far left is her daughter Esther Reed Dolby. These women are identified in handwriting on the back of the photograph and I have another photo of them both later in life to compare them to. The man in the back on the right is supposed to be Esther’s brother John Reed, as identified by his daughter who also identified the youngest girl in the photo as Lulu, John’s youngest sister.

According to the writing on the back of the photo, one of the men is Esther’s husband Charles Dolby and at least three two more are brothers Burton and Norm Reed. There were seven children in all.

1. Robert James “Jim” Reed – 1864 (never married)
2. Daniel Reed – 1866 (married 1887, had daughters Zora Reed 1889, Cary Reed 1892)
3. ***Norman “Norm” Edgar Reed – 1868 (married 1898, Hettie Reed 1901)
4. ***John Franklin Reed – 1871 (married 1895, Lucy Reed 1896)
5. ***Esther Reed – 1874 (married 1890, Lydia Dolby 1891)
6. ***Al Burton Reed – 1877 (married about 1905)
7. ***Lulu Inez Reed - 1881 

(*** indicates people who are supposed to be in the photograph)

In addition to the possible siblings:
Benjamin Vanleer Reed (born 1831)
***Eva Heims Reed (born 1841)
 ***Charles Dolby (born 1871)

Eva’s husband and the father of her children, Benjamin Vanleer Reed, died in 1896 at the age of 65. He doesn't appear to be in this photo.

Esther and Charles Dolby were married around 1890 and had a child by the following year - I cannot tell if Esther is wearing a wedding ring. As a matter of fact, I see no wedding ring on any of the men either.  I don’t believe brother Daniel to be in the photograph as he was already married and had two daughters by 1890). I’m unsure if brother Jim is present, but I do have two positively identified photos him for comparison as well as two other photos of brother Burton for the same thing. I’ll make a separate thread for them.

In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone has opinions on the following. The more, the merrier:
 1. When was this photo taken? (I’m guessing 1890s)
2. How old does young girl sitting in Eva’s lap appear to be? What age are her clothes appropriate for?
2. How old does Esther appear to be? In relation to the youngest girl?
3. How old is the man in the front row on the left?
3. Any guesses as to the relationships between these people? Particularly the man on the left in the front row – he looks different from the rest of the folks and is the only one with dark eyes. I notice that some of the people are touching one another, which I’ve read sometimes means a blood relation, while others are not.

[JDJames89]

Here are the reference photos for the brother Jim Reed that I mentioned. I'm unsure if Jim is in the first photo or not.

[jim1]

You're correct about the date,1893-7.

jim

[millymcb]

Hi - just my thoughts on your intersting picture..


I think man on left at front (I presume you mean left as we look at it - it between the two women)... looks quite like the mother.   Same mouth, similar eyes and eyebrows - and same odd hairline.  The mothers has a receding side as does the man behind her (second in from right). He's possibly in his mid/ late 20s? If he is one of the brothers, could he be the eldest as he has taken the important seat next to the mother?

On the other hand... all the others look like brothers too - and if one is supposed to be Charles Dolby then he is a likely candidate!

Are the women in mourning black? Could this be 1896/7 soon after death of the father?

Child looks no more than two years old to me

Hard to tell Esther's age - she looks very young but is wearing adult dress.

Man behind mother (2nd from right) has quite unusual dress sense!

Milly

[janan]

Hi

If Lulu was born in 1881 then she can't be the child sitting on Eva's lap can she Could she be Esther and Charles' first child?

Jan

[jim1]

...also the child may not be a girl.

jim

[missbee]

Am I right in thinking that some of them have cleft chins? Anyone know if that is significant?

[millymcb]

Ooh well spotted...

Some of them do have the same chins... intriguing!  Now if only we had a genetics expert

Milly

[JDJames89]

Thanks for the input, guys! This photo still leaves me scratching my head, so I very much appreciate everything you’ve had to say.

I’m glad to hear I was dating this photo correctly. That said, it throws a kink in things. As Lulu was born in 1881, I agree that the child in this photo appears to be too young to be Lulu – which is disappointing and confusing. It might be one of the sibling’s child. Daniel Reed was married in 1887 and had three or four children by the time this photograph was taken. I don’t believe he or his family is in it at all. 

The next to be married was Esther, who is in the photograph as is her husband, allegedly. The problem is that she had a son first in 1891 then a daughter in 1892. I know young children were dressed the same regardless of gender, but the child in the photo seems to have long hair that’s maybe pulled back or braided somehow? I could be wrong. And, of course, the woman who identified Lulu in the photograph might have been wrong, though she did identify Esther and her father John in the top right.

I’d never considered if the women were in mourning clothes, but that is a relevant question as this photo was taken around the time that the father Benjamin Vanleer Reed died. I don’t really know much about the topic. That would be interesting if they were.

I did notice the cleft chins. While it isn’t completely predictable, cleft chins are indeed a dominant genetic trait passed through families. Additionally, very apparent light blue eyes ran through the Reed family according to photographs.

I agree that the man in the front on the left side seems the likely candidate as odd man out. He doesn’t have the strong cleft chin and he doesn’t have the light colored eyes. I’m not completely sure if he is Charles Dolby, however, as he very clearly does not have a wedding ring on. This might be before they were married (maybe their first children were born out of wedlock, you never know). Esther’s hand is in the wrong position to see if she is wearing a ring either. Actually, the only two men who I can’t positively identify as NOT wearing wedding rings are the two men on the left in the back. And I believe that the man on the far left is Burton Reed.

I'm including a photo of Eva (right), Esther (left), Esther's daughter Lydia (back, who would be the likely candidate for the child in the original group photo) and Lydia's son Charles, for reference.