date of this photo and anything on the purpose of the gathering

[Mhillbilly]

wow thank you all for your thoughts and apologies for not being careful with my words

I should not have used definitely in my date statement, what I was trying to convey was that it was earlier rather than later. I think compared to other pictures of him that I have that are easier to date that the picture is no later than 1909 ish. as Rowland does appear younger looking.

Fact - he was orphaned after 1881, (census ref quoted is correct) he arrived in London after 1891 with his mother who had remarried.  In the 1891 census he is listed under his mothers married name still in Lancashire.  By 1901 census he is married and his mother is in SW London with her new husband.  My assumption is they moved south sometime after 1891 and before 1899 when he married. 

His mothers new husband was of the gentleman/merchant/professional class and evidence to suggest a reasonable relationship is that Rowland is listed under the new surname of Oliphant in the 1891 census and his  first born child is given his step fathers name as a second name.

Fact he married in 1899 in St George Hanover Sq to Boots family that later moved to Fulham.

Fact in 1901 census he is down as butcher at meat market, is that Smithfield?

Now we move on to assumptions
The Butchers Charitable Institute was one of my assumptions, the coincidence of location, thanks for the link but I cannot seem to find a record only catalogue entries.  Can anyone help?

The suggestion about the back yard location and straps on shoulders reminded me that my grandfather Roland Jnr was into pigeon racing so an assumption could be that is what the gathering is about.

Probably enough for now and thanks again for all the thoughts.

 

[despair]

Late,I know,but it looks to me that the "sign" is a printing error.The shadow on the jacket appears to be continuous across the boundary.In the opening post does it not say "....it does not appear in the original...."?

Roger

[arthurk]

Late,I know,but it looks to me that the "sign" is a printing error.The shadow on the jacket appears to be continuous across the boundary.In the opening post does it not say "....it does not appear in the original...."?

That's an interesting observation. I'd taken the phrase "....it does not appear in the original...." to mean it was equally illegible there, so maybe Mhillbilly can clarify that.

Meanwhile, you've inspired me to investigate further....

The image in my browser window (shrink to fit, and excluding the white margins) is about 227mm x 157mm. This is almost exactly the same proportion as a roll film negative image of 3.25" x 2.25" (approx 1.44:1); according to Wikipedia, this format was introduced in 1897. Other negative and plate sizes have different proportions - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format#Still_photography_film_formats

So, if the white 'sign' was not just a printing error, but an unexposed part of the paper caused by a piece of paper stuck on the negative, I calculate that the paper would have been about 0.84" x 0.27". And the two darker spots on the right of it - could they be holes made by a staple, or stitching? They seem to be about 0.31" apart.

Could this mean anything, or is it a bit fanciful? And why might it have happened? Was it a label that had been stuck on to identify the roll of film, but they had to use that image because it was the only one? Did the chap have his flies undone? Had a pigeon pooped on him?

As so often, more questions than answers...

[Gadget]

Not sure about your piece of paper theory, Arthur. If you look closely there looks as if there's a shadow to the lower right of the column. It looks as if the sun was quite high in the sky.  Also, the paper would look more obviously stuck on if it was a printing mistake.

I used to do such collages when I studied photography in the olden days 

Gadget

[alpinecottage]

The chap on the back row 3rd from right looks to be holding something small in his hands and the chap on the front row far right looks to have something on his lap with maybe a fanned tail towards the right.
I think the board/sign is real as it's resting on the flagstone and there's a small dark shadow where it doesn't quite meet the uneven flag.
Perhaps Mhillbilly could post the original unenhanced photo in case anyone can spot anything on that?

Edited to put in bit I missed out!

[IgorStrav]

The chap on the back row 3rd from right looks to be holding something small in his hands and the chap on the front row looks to have something on his lap with maybe a fanned tail towards the right.
I think the board/sign is real as it's resting on the flagstone and there's a small dark shadow where it doesn't quite meet the uneven flag.
Perhaps Mhillbilly could post the original unenhanced photo in case anyone can spot anything on that?

I thought the man in the back row has his left hand resting on the back of the chair in front of him.
Not sure which man in the front row is holding anything, which one are you looking at Alpinecottage?

Added:  do you mean the man on the front right of the front row, whose right hand appears to have been unenhanced wrongly - too many fingers!  Can't see that he's holding something.

[alpinecottage]

Added:  do you mean the man on the front right of the front row, whose right hand appears to have been unenhanced wrongly - too many fingers!  Can't see that he's holding something.

Yes - our edits keep crossing each other!  Are there feathers fanned out across his left leg?

On second thoughts, perhaps it's just the creases on his trouser leg up to the seam.  Still think a look at the original pic would be useful!

[despair]

The "white"area simply doesn't look "natural" to me,the edges are too sharp,the shape too uniform,as if it has been cut.

Roger

[mazi]

Is it a sign with no writing, a piece of paper stuck to the negative, a cover for his wooden leg, or is it that essential part of pigeon racing, the landing board from the loft which the bird recognises as his or her loft.

If and when the bird returns you grab it off the board and rush off to the timekeeper.

Mike