These are some interesting photographs…
Firstly, Prue is right in saying that these actual physical prints do not date from the 1840s. It was not until about the 1860s that portraits were taken on paper and even then it was not until about the late 1890s to early 1900s that paper prints were not pasted and mounted onto some sort of card stock backing. Your photographs appear to be copies made in the latter part of the 19th century of older photographs. Back then, when you wanted to make a copy of a photograph and didn’t own the negatives, you had to take it to a photographer who would literally take a photograph of your original photograph and develop a new one. This often lead to a loss of detail and clarity but was the best that could be done at the time.
I do not believe these are both wedding portraits because if it were a wedding portrait, the couple would have most likely been photographed together (not only was that customary, but it would have been cheaper than buying two portraits). Also, these portraits don’t appear to have been taken at the same time (I’ll explain below) nor during the right timeframe.
The Woman:
I’m not an expert on women’s fashion during the 1840s, but after a bit of research and comparing photographs and painted portraits from the 1840s, it appears that the neckline of women’s dresses during this time frame were a bit more revealing than dresses in the latter half of the century. Most often in young women, the clavicle was exposed and oftentimes some of the shoulders as well. I personally cannot say that the dress from your photograph is not from the 1840s, but I can say that I have seen many, many nearly identical dresses from portraits taken in the 1860s. Also, your woman’s hairstyle is one common to the 1850s and 1860s. There was something similar towards the end of the 1840s, but hairstyles during that decade often incorporates long curls at the front or back of the head. Towards the 1850s and 1860s, it was parted and tucked away neatly to the back of the head into a bun of sorts.
I can safely say that neither this dress nor this hairstyle would have been fashionable in the 1870s. I will be interested in hearing what some of the other more experienced daters on here will say about the clothing.
Also, I would be interested in hearing the exact birth date for this woman. There is no exact science to guessing age in a photograph, particularly one where some of the features are obscured, but I would guess that this woman is closer to thirty than twenty looking at her jaw line, but that’s just a guess. There’s no positive way to tell.
The Man:
Unlike the woman, I can firmly say this gentleman is not in his twenties. Even though it’s impossible to see if there are any wrinkles or stray gray hairs, it is clear that he has jowls, that his cheeks have hollowed out, that his eyes have drooped and that his hairline has receded – all things that come with age – though he doesn’t appear to have gone very gray yet. Again, there’s no exact science to a subject’s age in photography as every person’s face is different and every person ages differently (some better than others) but I would say that this man around 50, give or take a few years.
I also know a bit more about men’s clothing during the 1840s and I don’t believe that this man’s clothes are from that time. The man’s collar is obscured by his beard, but the man’s vest, hat and the cut of his coat (particularly the lapels) suggest to me something from around the late 1860s at the earliest. The cut seems wrong for the 1850s and during the earlier 1860s, fashionable lapels were very small, generally ending around the middle of the chest when buttoned up.
Furthermore, it is important to notice that if the man’s vest were to be unbuttoned, that the buttons would still be on the left side of the photograph, meaning that the image has not been reversed. This rules out the original image being a dageurrotype as the process to make them reversed that the final product was a mirrored image of the original subject. Generally speaking, most ambrotypes (popular from about 1855-1865) and tintypes (popular from about 1860 all the way to 1945) were also reversed because the photo was projected directly onto the final product (as opposed to being first made into a glass or film negative and then developed). There were ambrotype and tintype cameras with a special lens built into the camera itself to reverse images before they were projected onto the final product, but as I understand it, these were rare. Regardless of this fact, however, if the original image were a tintype or ambrotype, it would have been framed in a protective case that would have shown up in the copy. It might just be me, but I do not see a clear sign that the original image was in a case.
That means this print most likely a copy of a Carte de Visite (patented in 1854, but did not popular until 1860) or a Cabinet Card (portraits of people were introduced in 1866, but surprisingly cabinet cards before 1873 are fairly uncommon).
I know you weren’t looking for a date, can I ask a few more questions: What are the respective birth years for these folks? When did they die? What are the measurements of these photos? Do they feel just like a paper photograph or are they on a heavy card stock/cardboard backing?
