What could my g-g-g-g-grandfather have been?? Photo attached

[smeghead]

Perhaps he could have been a M. P.  [politician)looks like one from that era.very smartly dressed inteligent looking pos with money.

                             Jim                 

[smeghead]

Perhaps he could have been a M. P.  [politician)looks like one from that era.very smartly dressed inteligent looking pos with money.

                             Jim                  

[PrueM]

Thanks all for taking an interest in this thread, I'm loving all the suggestions, the more the merrier!!

Unfortunately we know very little about this fellow.  All we have is this photo of an engraving, and his name on his son's marriage certificate.  We believe he would have been born probably 1780-1790.  One son was born in 1811 in Woodlands, Dorset, and another in 1819 in Bath, Somerset.  We don't know why they moved around like this.

Prue

[jinks]

Thought I would mention that CLERK as
a profession can mean a member of the CLERGY

I wonder if the book is a bible.

Jinks

[KeithS]

Prue

Believe this might be first time you have mentioned you got his name from his son's marriage certificate. Surely that would have had fathers occupation on it?

Keith

[Nessie]

The marriage certificate had the occupation of  Clerk as Prue has already daid. But she has also stated that both the sons were of the catholic religion which wouldn't tie in with their father being a clergyman.
How do you know the photo is of their father Prue?

Maybe he was a member of some society such as the Forresters, Masons etc and that is why his photo was in a book of some sort.

[eribus_holler]

Widower's tend to move their wedding rings in such away, to show they where once married, yet still faithfull to the memory of a late wife.
He could have been an industrialist?, or lay preacher, but it was common for for self-employed men to dress such a way, Inn Keepers, Bailiffs,etc
Regards
eribus

[percy]

Hello Prue,

Its PERCY again.      I'm going to be dogmatic about this subject.

(1)  Your engraving was done Circa 1860-1865  --- compare the portrait of President Lincoln of the same      period.   That means, as I said before, this chap cannot have been born before 1815-1820.

(2)  He is not 'just any old person'.   Even poor quality engravings of the kind seen in publications of the time were expensive.  Your engraving is an excellent, high quality, COSTLY, portrait of a well dressed man with a gold (?) watch and chain, wedding(?) ring, and (possibly) a signet(?) ring.   A man decidedly of the relatively leisured, learned, and relatively affluent classes.

(3)  Unlike photographs, when objects (eg.the book) were shown in engraved or oil portraits, they were put there to indicate the occupation, interest, or 'claim to fame' of the individual concerned : NOT mere literacy.

(4)  Your man, therefore,  CANNOT  be the man you thought he was, but MAY be one of the two sons ?  He is the right age for that.

       Whoever he is, he was probably a scholar, an author or a poet.   Extremely unlikely to have been a
        lawyer -- because they were invariably shown as such ---- nor likely to have been engaged in industry.
        He could, just possibly have been engaged in some way in politics --- possibly in one of the reform
        movements of the time.

PERCY
                             

[PrueM]

Hi Percy,
YOu can be as dogmatic and pedantic as you like!!!  It all helps! 
In answer to your questions:
1)  I believe your date MAY be possible, but until I see a better scan of the photograph I'm not willing to say.  It looks like a combination print to me, with line engraving for the majority but some kind of aquatint or mezzotint for the face.  I'm also trying to date his clothes and hairstyle but being a bit older it's going to be difficult...he may not have been up with the latest fashions but at least I can probably find a date that he can't be BEFORE.
2)  I had always thought that having an engraving of oneself was not usual, and particularly one that seems to have come out of a book.  Perhaps there was money in the family back then (where is it now??  )
3)  V interested to read this, I hadn't considered it before but I think you are right
4)  It is certainly possible that this is NOT the father of Joseph and Samuel, but a brother.  There is the anomaly of the name - we have "George" on Samuel's wedding cert, but "Sidney George" on the back of this photo.

There is a striking similarity between this fellow and the photo I have of Joseph Henry INGRAM (his son or brother) taken in about 1865.  They have very similar faces.  The fact that this photo of Joseph, plus one of his wife and daughter taken the same day, is correctly identified on the back, makes me hopeful that the identification of the mystery occupation photo is also spot on.  I've attached both photos again so you can see the similarity.  One thing that strikes me when comparing the two though, is the different styles of the coats they are wearing - the collars are very different, aren't they?

Thank you so much for your input and ideas.  It is all food for thought!

Prue