Portrait of a relative - but which generation ?

[Simon]

I wonder if anyone would like to hazzard a guess at when this painting was done. We think it was of a relative born about 1795 but it might be the generation before or the one after. Any clues in the picture ?

How old do you think he is ?

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd169/pondfield/Churches/fa582c6a-1.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd169/pondfield/Churches/64ac971b.jpg

[Richard]

I'd say it fits late 1820's maybe 1830's.

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

I misread your post and thought you were saying you thought the picture was painted about 1795. I thought to myself that it was more likely to be around 1830ish. Now I realise that's what you were thinking too!! I would put the man at about 40 years, but he could be younger. Of course he could be older but the painter flattered him!!

[Simon]

Yes, it's really a question of whether this was the relative born in 1795 or one from the previous generation who I haven't yet traced - born say 1775.

If the painting is of a man about 40 years old and he is dressed in clothes consistent with the 1830 - 1840 period then it is almost certainly the relative born in 1795. However, if he is 50 years old and wearing a costume from the 1820 - 1830 period, it could be my known relatives father.

I obviously want it to be the one born in 1795, as I can put a name to him, but I thought I would post it here to see if I was totally wrong about the clothing by asking my fellow detectives.

[Joan of Archives]

Hi Simon

I think Richard is spot on, take a look at this portrait from 1825 ;

Image:Francesco Hayez 043.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Francesco_Hayez_043.jpg)

I would say he would be in his late 30's maybe early 40's as his hair is still very full & shows no sign of receding.

If the picture was painted circa 1815 then that would make it more likely to be the chap born in 1775.

:)

[Merry Monty Montgomery]

The trouble is, just because a painiting is in your family doesn't make it a direct line relative, neither does it make it a relative at all necessarily!

I have a portrait of a young woman circa 1800. I'm as sure as I can be it was purchesed because my 3xg-grandmother or her OH liked it rather than them owning it because it was one of their relations. :(

[Dubonnet lady]

Simon -Just to add fuel to Merry's fire :)

Until recently I had a gallery and consulted on interior decor - mainly for businesses - one very smart restaurater opened in an old country house asked us to find (any old) portrait paintings (his words) - to make it look like they were the ancestors/original owners - which we did.

[Simon]

The trouble is, just because a painiting is in your family doesn't make it a direct line relative, neither does it make it a relative at all necessarily!:(

Yes. the thought had crossed my mind but this painting has passed through the family to my fathers brother and he is pretty certain it is a THOMAS COLE born 1795.

However I have a doubt over this as on his daughters marriage certificate in 1841 he is described as a "carrier" - which I understand is a driver of horse-drawn vehicles for transporting goods. The person in the painting looks like a land owner to me with a few bob rather than a worker. This leads me to think it might be his father although I haven't found any details about him yet. This would mean a birth around 1775 and a painting of around 1820 at the earliest .... trouble is he looks younger than 45.

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

[Cherry Tradewell]

Do you know who had the painting cleaned, restored and reframed Simon? I tend to agree with Merry and Dorothy that it's been bought in. Passed down through the generations the painting would eventually have had a film of wood/coal smoke on the canvas. The gilding on the frame would, over years of polishing by servants, have been burnished away on the high spots revealing the gesso underneath which would've been coated with a terracotta wash before the gilding was applied.

[Joan of Archives]

Actually Simon I would say the painting is more like 1820 at the LATEST so it would more likely be the chap born c 1775, & I agree he looks more like a landowner, someone of wealth.

:)

[Pipemma]

Joan beat me to it - from the fashion I'd say much nearer 1820 than 1830. the high shirt collar was a Regency fashion (1811 to 1820) and some of the younger gentlemen too it to extremes. I would imagine a more mature gentleman such as this may well follow the fashion but not to idiocy. Also the sideburns are very reminiscent of a young Prinny or Wellington around the time of Waterloo, so I would actually guestimate this as somewhere between 1815 and 1820. Given the gentleman's age, then a birth date of around 1775-80 sounds more plausible to me