photo date and opinions of if this is macabre - Sara Smith nee Trow

[Ruskie]

That photoshop fiddling has helped a lot Carol. She certainly looks more alive. Agree that age wise she looks around 50s/60s.

[jim1]

Agree 1860's & the boys look in their 20's.
Not sure why anyone would think she's dead.
I know if you surf the net you will see posed pictures like this which might give the impression is was common practice, it wasn't.
Most pm's have the subject in bed as if asleep.
photographic equipment was quite basic & there are often oddities particularly people with light coloured eyes who can look like zombies also the primitive lenses caused fuzziness around the edges which can give some distortion add to that the ravages of time & you end up with a picture like this.

[gemmanoon]

Carol that photo manipulation certainly made her eyes look less creepy! And a date of the 1860s would make more sense if it is indeed the two youngest sons.

My apologies on the death date - it was April 1885 not 1888. Apparently, there is still a gravestone at St Gwynog's (I haven't seen it in person, and have only a transcription not a photograph, annoyingly) that says:

In affectionate memory of/Sarah Smith/of Bellan in this Parish/died April 9th, 1885,/aged 78 years./He is the Friend in Jordan's river,/Me from sinking He will keep/Seeing Him is past rejoincing/Though the waters are so deep.

This also tracks with the civil death index record, so I'm as certain as I can be that this is the correct Sarah.

Thanks everyone for your help and opinions. I still think the picture is rather creepy even if she's alive and well - I don't think I'd want to cross her in a dark alley, is all I'm saying.

[gemmanoon]

"I'd probably date the photo to be mid 1860s; judging by the middle woman's clothing; a front darted bodice with bishop sleeves, peregrine shawl and lace 'house cap'. Both boys look to be in their 20s."

Thanks for this, Russell. That would track with the fact the boys look only to be in their twenties, suggesting it's not a post-mortem photo but rather that Sarah's eyes might have faded / lost some detail when it was copied.

Much appreciate your expertise!

[Maiden Stone]

It does seem very weird to me, but it was a reasonably common occurrence in the second half of the 1800s.

15:02 update.  Holding a book with your thumbs on the inside of the book and just the next two fingers behind it is a very uncomfortable way to hold a book.

Martin

Not as common as we are led to believe.
I held the book as she seemed to hold it. I think she supported it underneath with other 2 fingers of each hand. It was comfortable enough. It was a prop, she wasn't reading it.
Re. Jim reply #19. There was a RC thread maybe last year or 2017 about post mortem photos with a link to an online collection of supposed pm pics. The subjects were alive when they posed.

[CelticAnnie]

Yes, the position of her hands on the book does not seem so odd when borne in mind that she was holding it down in her lap and not in a position you would have it if you were actually reading it at the time.  Also, is it known: was she even literate?  If she could not or in practice did not read, then holding an open book might not have come naturally to her.  Just my ten cents worth, anyway, on an interesting thread!


CELTICANNIE