PDA

View Full Version : Mystery photo


lozaras
07-11-10, 16:14
I have just been going through a big box of photos that I borrowed from Mum & Dad in the summer and have been meticulously scanning and annotating the images with what was written on the back etc.
This one has me stumped. Mum wrote something on the back but I don't think it fits.
Any ideas (of era or anything else) would be gratefully received :D
I only know that it was by a professional photographer in Barnstaple, North Devon:
177

lozaras
07-11-10, 16:20
if mum is right then this is the same lady:


"A voluntary part time nurse in WWI" (Born in 1870)

photos removed because it's NOT the same lady

Langley Vale Sue
07-11-10, 16:55
Do you know the name and/or address of the photographer in Barnstaple? Maybe we can narrow the timeframe down this way.

lozaras
07-11-10, 18:47
Thanks Sue, I hadn't thought of that.

Britton
(Late Britton & Sons)
40 High Street
Barnstaple


They existed in 1870: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~valhender/dirtrans/mor1870/brnstple.htm#trade1

but not in 1893: httphttp://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Barnstaple/BarnstapleCommercial1893.html://

1844 - No photographers but a William Britton - Optician http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Barnstaple/Barnstaple1844.html

1881 census - William Britton - Optician/Photographer http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~brutton/CENSUS/UK1881.html

He's on the 1891 census as a photographer

His wife was a widow on 1901

So we have a 49 year window 1844-1893

Merry
07-11-10, 19:01
I would say the first photo you posted is quite early. It's mainly the drop shoulders, full crinoline skirt and ringlets in her hair that give me that idea.

I have a photo I have a date for, to compare.......Please hold the line......

Merry
07-11-10, 19:09
I forgot to say, also that the waistline of her dress is at the waist and not below that, as would usually be the case after the crinoline went out of fashion.

Anyway, this is Emma Maynard b 1841 in a photo taken before 1868 and probably about 1865.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m13/merry_monty_montgomery/EmmaMaynard.jpg

Merry
07-11-10, 19:20
I forgot to say, also that the waistline of her dress is at the waist and not below that

That's not well expressed! lol

I mean the bodice of her dress (your lady's and Emma Maynard's) finishes at the natural waist, whilst most dresses made after the demise of the crinoline have the bodice fitted into the waist but then continue down to the hip level before the skirt (not so full and with a bustle later on) comes into play.

lozaras
07-11-10, 19:25
Thanks Merry,

That would rule out great-grandma then, who was born in 1870 - this lady is older

It could be her mum

lozaras
07-11-10, 19:27
cross-posted

lol! I understood what you meant with the waist thing.

How do you know that Emma Maynard's photo was before 1868?


And why is my photo so tiddley compared with yours???

lozaras
07-11-10, 19:30
The photos have the same hairstyle too

Merry
07-11-10, 19:43
How do you know that Emma Maynard's photo was before 1868?


And why is my photo so tiddley compared with yours???

The photos have the same hairstyle too.



Emma Maynard married in 1868 and the photo says on the back (written by her first cousin - my g-grandfather- who was very pedantic) "Before her marriage to Daniel Gurteen".

Your photo is tiddly because?? Erm, I use photobucket and copy the bottom of the various links for the image into my post.

Yes, they do have the same hairstyle! I don't have many female photos where you can see the full outfit (lots of head and shoulder ones) but I don't have any with the ringlets that date after 1870 or around then.

lozaras
07-11-10, 19:53
Thanks Merry - lucky you having a pedantic great grandfather! My mum wrote her granny's name on the back without really having a clue!!

I guess I'll never know who it is - but I know who it isn't now!

Thanks for your help

I don't use photobucket - I just uploaded from the pc :(

lozaras
07-11-10, 19:54
There is more writing on the back that I now think says "My Mother"

Langley Vale Sue
07-11-10, 19:57
Sarah
You have the address as 40 High Street, Barnstaple, but in 1871 & 1881 William Britton was at 23 High Street. According to the link you posted for Morris & Co's Commercial Directory for 1870 William Britton was at number 40.
In 1881 there was a Venetian blind maker by the nmae of Joshua Rice at number 40, but I can't find a listing for 40 High Street in 1871.

Maybe that narrows it down a bit more.

In 1861 they were at 40 High Street and William Britton snr had 2 sons, William & John who were both listed as photographers (Britton & sons).

lozaras
07-11-10, 20:08
Thanks Sue,

I didn't look too closely at the addresses :(
They could have had the shop at N°40 but lived at N°23 I guess.....

I'll take another look tomorrow, going to bed now. It's been a loooong weekend.

Thanks for your help :)

Merry
07-11-10, 21:48
Don't forget it is always possible you are looking at a copy of the original. I have the same photo on different cards from the same photographer one showing some award won years after the original picture was taken (after the subject had died!).

Uncle John
07-11-10, 22:01
I thought "Britton" and "Barnstaple" rang a bell. I bet my Brittons from Landkey near Barnstaple link to the family of photographers somehow. But mine went off to Bristol and London. One was a piano teacher and another was a tailor and one of their sisters married a Methodist minister.

Rachel
07-11-10, 23:37
Sarah's person has her ears showing, Merry's doesn't ~ ear'oles showing probably give it an exact date

Merry
08-11-10, 05:55
Hmmmm, yes I agree ears are important and my 1850-early 1860s ladies have theirs covered, but I tend not to include them in my evidence as they were all Quakers and perhaps didn't always follow fashion.

Also Emma's skirt is fuller and I believe crinolines got bigger and bigger until they went out of fashion (first lots of petticoats and then hoops instead). However that might be relative as Emma's father had set all his social climbing hopes on this daughter, so her dress may perhaps have been fuller than her sisters and of other women without her perceived potential prospects! lol

Olde Crone
08-11-10, 07:32
I have a very similar photo to both of yours, mine can be dated to 1856-1864.

The only difference is that my lady is wearing a lace cap. She is a married woman though.

OC