Author Topic: Dating and comparison of girls  (Read 3131 times)

Offline squiggle

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Dating and comparison of girls
« Reply #9 on: Monday 05 December 11 15:30 GMT (UK) »
Thank you for your comprehensive response JDJames.

I am sure now (with the side by side and comparison lines) that they are the same girl.

I "was" thinking that the headshot was the earlier of the pairs. I thought that she looked less mature in the face, but I certainly take your point about her having her hair up, and about how faces mature.
I also thought that the style of dress in the 3/4 length one looked like a young teacher.

I have just looked at the back of the other photo of the two girls, and, so feint that I couldn't even see it yesterday- it says "age 17"
I wish I could pin the date down a bit tighter!

Thanks again for your interest!
Becky

Offline Redroger

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Dad and Fireman at Kings Cross 13.7.1951
    • View Profile
Re: Dating and comparison of girls
« Reply #10 on: Monday 05 December 11 20:41 GMT (UK) »
That sort of information is why the restorers and daters prefer for the card back to be posted too, unless it is completely blank.
Ayres Brignell Cornwell Harvey Shipp  Stimpson Stubbings (all Cambs) Baumber Baxter Burton Ethards Proctor Stanton (all Lincs) Luffman (all counties)

Offline JDJames89

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 280
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Dating and comparison of girls
« Reply #11 on: Monday 05 December 11 22:47 GMT (UK) »
Hmm…since the girl is labeled concretely as 17 in the younger photos, that might help narrow down a PROBABLE time frame a little bit. Keep in mind, this is just guesswork and not to be taken as anything but guesswork.

The very large mutton sleeves  seen in all four of these photographs cropped up in about 1894/1895 and fell very quickly out of fashion after 1900. Now, let’s say about three years have passed between the two sets of photos (I’m saying this because I’d guess your girl is about 20 in the second set of photos, feel free to adjust the following numbers as you see fit if you believe she is older or younger to find your own results). With an approximate three year gap within the original seven year timeframe, that leaves only about an approximate three year buffer on either end of the original timeframe for each photos if we assume she is 20 in the headshots. The earlier photos would have been taken most likely between 1894 and 1896 to comply with the assumptions above. In that case: 1894-17 is 1877 and 1896-17 is 1879. Similarly, the hypothetical buffer for the headshots would be something like 1897 to 1900. If we assume she’s about twenty: 1900-20 is 1880 and 1897-20 is 1877. So, in short, I would say she was most likely born around 1877-1880.

Again, this is a lot of assuming – too much for me  to be comfortably in narrow down my original estimate of 1877-1885 any more than that for sure - but it’s food for thought.

Any yes, as Redroger mentioned, if you happen to have the opportunity to scan the back of these CDVs, sometimes there are clues there as well that can help narrow down a time frame more positively in the design, logo, or photographer's name.

Offline squiggle

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Dating and comparison of girls
« Reply #12 on: Tuesday 06 December 11 21:18 GMT (UK) »
I'm having terrible trouble with my internet connection so I hope I mange to get this posted.....

Thank you for doing the Maths JD!

For completeness here are the two backs... tonight I can't see the writing on the back of the plain one,
I think I need specs and daylight...... The stamp on the back of the head and shoulders one is very basic.

Thanks for looking in again JD and Redroger

Becky


Offline Redroger

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Dad and Fireman at Kings Cross 13.7.1951
    • View Profile
Re: Dating and comparison of girls
« Reply #13 on: Wednesday 07 December 11 18:51 GMT (UK) »
To the right of and slightly lower than the written "Age 17" there is an imprint which seems to contain the figures "97" and an oval insignia, can anyone read this?
Ayres Brignell Cornwell Harvey Shipp  Stimpson Stubbings (all Cambs) Baumber Baxter Burton Ethards Proctor Stanton (all Lincs) Luffman (all counties)

Offline squiggle

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Dating and comparison of girls
« Reply #14 on: Wednesday 07 December 11 19:22 GMT (UK) »
WOW- Redroger, how sharp eyed you are!

I can now see the 97, I can't make out anything further.

 I can't believe I've gone from thinking there was nothing on the back, to having two crucial pieces of information.
(It surely can't mean anything other than 1897)

Thank you so much for giving it such close examination :-*

Becky



Offline Redroger

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,680
  • Dad and Fireman at Kings Cross 13.7.1951
    • View Profile
Re: Dating and comparison of girls
« Reply #15 on: Wednesday 07 December 11 19:33 GMT (UK) »
Now I have given it an examination under magnification, the previous was naked eye, and I am almost 72 and have cataracts  :) So you were lucky. Under 160% magnification in Irfanview I can see that the oval badge is written on in Old English style script, but I can't read it. It seems to be blurred, and I wonder if it is an impression that has formed through the photo being at the bottom of a pile or under a heavy weight so the impression has been forced through from above?
Ayres Brignell Cornwell Harvey Shipp  Stimpson Stubbings (all Cambs) Baumber Baxter Burton Ethards Proctor Stanton (all Lincs) Luffman (all counties)