Lydia Symonds Possible Daguerreo type - help with date please

[Regorian]

Presumably this is the family in 1841.

Rockland St Peter Norfolk.

John 40-44
Hannah 39-43
Jane 12
Lydia 11

Married Charles Draper, Labourer Rockland St Peter.

First child Charles Draper born 27Jan1851, bapt 29thJan1851.

Extraordinary, in your pic. Lydia is dressed as a lady, looks like a lady, is a lady. I don't know if you have an explanation.

[Lesley.Lynch]

Hi Regorian

Yes this is the family. This is what I couldn't understand. However, a light bulb moment has just happened and this is what is so useful coming on a forum like this.  She was a dressmaker, so could well have made her outfit.  Perhaps she made dresses for well to do ladies.  Maybe it was one of these that paid for the photograph?? I don't think her father would have used any of his hard earned (likely very low) wages on a photograph.

My cousin has a sampler that she stitched when a child.

[Regorian]

A magnificent photograph, what a treasure to have in the family. 

[Lesley.Lynch]

Thank you, yes an absolute treasure.  My cousin has the original.  She has no children so I'm hoping it might find its way to me in years to come as she knows of my great love of family history and actually most things historic.

[jim1]

Just to clarify daguerreotypes were on copper so a magnet won't work.
The hair up hair down thing was a later style. In the 50's girls were miniature versions of their mothers the only difference was skirt length. Great thing to have.
She looked about 14 to me but I notice a wedding ring.

[DrDude45]

Gosh, thank you so much for helping with the photograph.  The enhancements are just great and I will be sending the photo through to my cousins who I'm sure will be as pleased as I am. 
As Lydia married in November 1850 it does look like this photo was taken before her marriage.  She was baptised in March 1830 but potentially could have been born a bit before that.  However, she does look very young in the photograph so with your help I'm leaning towards her being around 18 at the most. 
My feelings are that if the photograph was taken at the time of her marriage then both her and her husband would be in the photo. 
Incidentally, she had her first child in January 1851 and as she would have been quite heavily pregnant on marriage in 1850 I doubt a photograph would have been taken then.
Thank you again for your help.  I shall dig out a couple more photos in the coming days.
 

Glad you like the final result. Hope I've been some help and can help again soon.

Dr Dude

[Lesley.Lynch]

Thank you Jim1 and Dr Dude, all help and suggestions are very much appreciated.

[JillMD]

She looks 14 - 16 at the very oldest.

[Treetotal]

She looks 14 - 16 at the very oldest.

I would agree with that....she has a very immature build.
Carol