Need another set of eyes to date and identify person in photos - Moore/Sandford

[Milliepede]

I am glad you said that about the boys sleeve as I thought it looked kind of empty too but was hesitant to mention any possible disability and why I was unsure about the suggestion the lady was holding his hand.

Hand on shoulder indicates a close family relationship, wasn’t seemly to touch otherwise, but what relationship that is the question 

Could we perhaps have some names to look on census for ages etc?  Might find a group that would fit these 3 

[jim1]

Agree with the date of the first, very typical late 1860's.
The 2nd. however looks Edwardian. I've seen 1000's of photos from the 1890's & never seen a woman dressed like this.

[Gadget]

Agree with you,  Jim. I'd say mid to late Edwardian for the second image.

Gadget

[Treetotal]

I also agree with Jim and Gadget and that's why I questioned the time difference between the two photos as the lady in the second photo looked too young to be the same woman...I had doubts when the poster dated the second photo to 1890s. There is a strong likeness between the features of the too women so maybe they are related.
Carol

[xpress4]

Wow, this was truly a mind blower for me as I had no idea this existed.

I believe them to be:

Fenton Moore, Born Edinburgh, 1851
Catherine Moore, Born Newton Stewart, Scotland, 1848. Although I can't be sure of it.

The boy, if dead, could not have been the brother listed on the 1861 and 1871 census (Richard b. 1856 Scotland) as he lived to a ripe old age. However, there was a son, Patrick Moore, born in Edinburgh two years after Fenton. I could never find record of his death. Assumed he died in England (they moved from Scotland to England sometime between 1865 and 1871). He does not appear on the 1861 census though so I'd think he'd have died before those photo?

As to the points made in the previous posts:

[In the scan I have, the boys fingers appear to be visible but it looks like his hand rests flat on her dress and hers just rests on top as if they are crossing wrists. I think his other hand looks odd though.

I always assumed his clothing was oversized because they didn't have much money and he might have had to use his brother's for this occasion?

What would the older one's hand not placed on the boy indicate? It also appears the older one might be holding a hat and the shape of the hat appears as a second chair and absence of the hand on the younger one.

Curious about the sleeve close-up note. What does it indicate?

I just can't reconcile the 2nd photo being from the Edwardian era. No one fits that period so I'm just not sure who it would be. The comment on the photo is also confusing "mother and you" referring to my GGrandmother. She was the only sister living in the states, of two of them, who would have been young enough to be in that photo. But she was living in the states during the Edwardian era. The photo came from her collection and sent to her by a sister living in England. So confusing.

However, the first photo. Again, if the man and woman in the first photo were my GGG grandparents (making her the same woman as the 2nd), they were married in 1872 so they couldn't have been engaged or married when this was taken and would have been too young.

I am dying to know who that boy is...and if he is dead in the photo! Sorry to be so long winded, but there is a lot going on here 

[russell12]

Oh my goodness! Kudos to whoever first spotted this 



You can see how the cuff is laid flat against her dress, and her hand is purposefully obscuring the fact that there is no hand/ or arm for matter in that sleeve.

His shoulder is very sloped - which would suggest the absence of the whole arm.

As for him being 'dead' in the photo - definitely not.

The whole postmortem Victorian photos fad has really been blown out of proportion by the media; truth is that the body was far too heavy to be 'sat' up (or stood up) by just a metal stand, and rigor mortis would have made manipulating and posing the body nigh impossible, not only that but the other two would be wearing mourning clothing.

It's very easy to spot a Victorian Post mortem picture since they are nearly always taken with the deceased person actually in the casket!

[Wiggy]

It's very easy to spot a Victorian Post mortem picture since they are nearly always taken with the deceased person actually in the casket!

Have a good look around this Photo board and I think you will see several examples of post mortem (memento mori) photos of children NOT in caskets.      (not saying this is one such, just making a point)


Agree with Jim Gadget and Carol - I think the two women are too close in age to be the same person, as I also agree with their dating of the second.

Wiggy

[russell12]

It's very easy to spot a Victorian Post mortem picture since they are nearly always taken with the deceased person actually in the casket!

Have a good look around this Photo board and I think you will see several examples of post mortem (memento mori) photos of children NOT in caskets.      (not saying this is one such, just making a point)

I've not yet recognised any post-mortem photos of children on this forum (thank god!)

I think I generalised my statement a bit too much for effect here  - I was trying to get across that the deceased person is usually pictured lying down; usually disguised so they look asleep (either held or supported by the parent or propped up by pillows) - but the neck and head are never fully 'up' without obvious support.

https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/143689-posing-stand-often-attributed-to-post-mo

I've been having a long standing debate with my mum over a family photo in which the individual is leaning on a table with 'glazed over' eyes - she thinks the woman is dead. I think it was simply a bad shot (she is sat up right with her eyes wide open). (Sorry for going a bit off topic here)

[Creasegirl]

Could you post the whole of the second photo to try to get an accurate date.  I wondered if the lady could have been born in 1885 and that the photo could have been taken around 1915 ish making her around 30. Then maybe the woman in the 1st photo could have been her mother.  Do you have a birth certificate for 1885