View Full Version : Photo
Can anyone tell me anything about this photo? Rough date for example?
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n313/terrilast/uknown_zpsqjqinq82.jpg[/URL]
I'm no expert but I'd say it was early - 1860s (as seen in Gone with the Wind). I believe you can narrow it down by whether the hair is over the ears (as in this photo) or not, but I'm afraid I don't know the details!
Lovely piccie. Do you know who it is?
Thanks Lindsay. Unfortunately, identity is unknown at the moment.
I agree about 1860s.
Have a look at the outfits and hair on this thread:
http://www.genealogistsforum.co.uk/Forum/showthread.php?t=8689
Also, the rather uninspiring background in your photo seemed to be the norm in early photos. Later they went in for decorative backdrops which were often just painted like stage scenery, so you might be sitting in front of a fake window with rolling hills in the background whilst in a basement in the high street!
The knitting (or lacemaking or whatever that is?) may have been used to calm her nerves and dissuade her from moving whist the photo was taken.
Thanks very much Merry.
Errr...... would anyone like to make a guess at the age of the woman???
This is our thread of 1870s photos and you will see the style of clothing etc is very different:
http://www.genealogistsforum.co.uk/Forum/showthread.php?t=8690
Thanks very much Merry.
Errr...... would anyone like to make a guess at the age of the woman???
That's difficult - maybe 40-60? I'm going mostly by her general body language.
I was thinking around that too, but maybe at the lower end of the scale? Her hair doesn't look grey - presumably they wouldn't have touched up photos? The white bit by her parting is a smudge on the photo - not white roots
I wondered if there was any significance in the handicrafts? It looks like some pretty fine knitting on three needles, but the needles look too long for the work and she seems to be holding it rather awkwardly, so I'm not sure if it is telling us anything about her! The table on the left looks like a needlework table.
I was thinking around that too, but maybe at the lower end of the scale? Her hair doesn't look grey - presumably they wouldn't have touched up photos? The white bit by her parting is a smudge on the photo - not white roots
Yes, maybe 40-50. I feel she has most of her own teeth! (I know they had dentures then, but most sensible people wouldn't have gone for those, I don't think!)
I cant see if she had a wedding ring?
Oooh that was a good idea, and no, (having enlarged it to a near-blur) I don't think there is a ring.
On second thoughts, maybe there is a ring. This is so hard ..........!! lol lol Is there a ring? Not worked, bear with me
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n313/terrilast/uknown%20-%20Copy%202_zpsliybazul.jpg (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/terrilast/media/uknown%20-%20Copy%202_zpsliybazul.jpg.html)
I don't know what style of ring was popular then, but I would imagine a curtain ring type which would probably be pretty thin. :rolleyes: Unhelpful! :cool:
anne fraser
10-06-17, 19:16
How big is the photo? All my early ones are pretty small. I would have thought 1860's going by the dress.
I only have an emailed copy, so no idea how big it is.
I bet the original would be clear enough to determine if she has a ring. In most cases with these studio photos, if they are scanned at the right resolution, you can zoom and get a massive amount of detail.
Oh, I've just seen your enlarged image. I think she does have a ring, so that will make her more difficult to identify, as more women married than didn't!! lol
Lol! It has helped, so thank you ladies. Narrowed it down to 3 possibles now.
I presume the person who gave you the copy has looked to see if there were any photographers details on their image?
Yes! Got that last night and now we are really stumped.
"Lombardi and Co", Artists and Photographers, 113 Kings Road, Brighton.
Other than we have no ancestors in Brighton at that time, not that its very relevant - they had trains - these seem to be a very upmarket photographer, whereas the family we are looking at would barely have had 2 halfpennies to rub together.
So, next question........... why did people have their photo taken? If they weren't rich, presumably for an "occasion". Birthday? Presumably not an anniversary as husband wasn't present. Secondly, how much would a photo such as that have cost?
Got distracted by the second image in the second row here:
http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/LombardiGallery.htm
as it's the same chair and table (which I now see isn't a needlework storage table at all!)
If only it was as easy to identify the subject!
A long shot, but does the owner of the photos have any others from the same photographer or another Brighton photographer?
I don't know if any of the info here about the changing name of the studio as business partners came and went would help to date the photo any further? Perhaps the style of the back of the photo too?
http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/BTN-Lombardi.htm
I haven't had much of a chance to look into it closely yet, I only got the mail at 11 pm yesterday! (It's my newfound French cousins Merry - working through our family photos of which they have dozens, but not all with names).
I got the feeling (from a quick look) that my photo was slightly different to the others on the photographers page - less "posed", more casual. My girl seems to lack the stiff back and snooty expression of the others. And knitting .........??!! I noticed the table was the same though. If the lady hadn't been married, I might have thought she was their housekeeper, having a quick photo done as a gift, or them testing out their equipment! :d
I wondered if your photo was from the earliest year the studio was set up? ie before he went into partnership with anyone? The later pictures have a more professional feel to them.
So, next question........... why did people have their photo taken? If they weren't rich, presumably for an "occasion". Birthday? Presumably not an anniversary as husband wasn't present. Secondly, how much would a photo such as that have cost?
The only photo I have from the 1860s (actually the original was an ambrotype on glass) is of a mariner, so probably taken because he'd be away for long spells.
I asked on another forum how much it would have cost, and the experts there suggested about 1s 6d. According to the price comparison website that's £5.29 (RPI) or £49.10 (average earnings).
This website seems to suggest ears were uncovered from the mid-late 1860s which suggests your lady was early 1860s. Unless she was a little behind the times, of course.
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/costume/nunn10.html
Yes, We think it was early 1960's. Have to go out for a few hours now, will have a thorough look at the photographer's pages later.
I have some photos taken in the early 1860s and one I believe earlier taken here in Australia.
I think perhaps a few were taken in England and given to people coming out here as they realised they'd probably never see them again in person. My great grandfather brought out photos of his parents and none of his siblings' families knew the pictures existed.
Played with her a bit in iPhoto but not the least convinced it gets anybody anywhere. Need more pixels!
http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u533/pix4janet/Terri%20GF%20uknown_zpsqjqinq82-1%20-%20Version%202_zpsiihf8ice.jpg~original
http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u533/pix4janet/Terri%20GF%20uknown_zpsqjqinq82-1%20-%20Version%203_zpsv7xmmsfr.jpg~original
Thanks Janet! Sadly, she doesn't look like anyone, ancestor-wise I mean. Luckily, my main maternal lines all have a a distinctive "look". But as she is married, she may just be an in-law.
She looks younger now - her face seems quite "tight". The beady eyes are off-putting!
I suspect her eyes are inked in. I have several where regretably someone has used their fountain pen!!
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.