View Full Version : What date is this photo?

Joan of Archives
26-01-08, 23:18

I am not sure, but the dress looks to me as if it could have been taken in the 1870's ?

How old do you think the woman is too?


27-01-08, 00:44
what a great early photograph to have. I would place a date line of between 1860 and 1870 on this study.


Rachel Scand
27-01-08, 01:13
Do please look at the name of the photographer (which has a few letters missing)

" ...... ? ..... SAKER & SON"

and see if you can find him/her on any census

also .... is there anything on the back ?

(another way of dating photographs)

Paul Barton, Special Agent
27-01-08, 09:15
I would have said 1860's from the mother's styling. however, what fascinates me is the child's hairstyle. It looks quite modern. I have a photo of my great grandmother c1885 and she has what looks like a neat bob. I always thought Victorian girls had long hair which they brushed for hours. Obviously not.

Paul Barton, Special Agent
27-01-08, 09:18
" ...... ? ..... SAKER & SON"


Little Nell
27-01-08, 10:17
My immediate instinct (based on I have no idea what) was 1860s but then I thought the girl's dress was a bit short for that?

Any idea who the ladies are or where it was taken?

Joan of Archives
27-01-08, 11:41
Hi everyone, thanks for the comments!

This is the first time I have been able to successfully scan a photo in lol !

Nell, I thought that, too!

On the back it says Baker & Son, 30, Bute Street, Luton.

I have another picture of a lady with a bustle that I am trying to get scanned in without success, lol! (Seems I have lost the knack immediately lmho)

On the second picture on the back it says King Brothers 30 Bute Street Luton. I never thought of checking the census for them, will have a look later on.


27-01-08, 11:42
i,d say women 35/40.dress i also think 1840,s,is the lady scotish or irish children seem to dress like that and the hairstyle of the child brenda xxx

Just Barbara
27-01-08, 11:42
The little girl is wearing pantaloons!

Rachel Scand
27-01-08, 11:43
Hello 'cousin ' Paul ;) It doesn't look like a 'B' ... oh yes it does ! (had another look)

The girl is strange isn't she Nell ..... shortish dress, socks and those 'flick ups' (hair) :confused:

ooops ... typing as you all posted

Rachel Scand
27-01-08, 12:11
Here's the girl enlarged ... I bet that hat was pretty


Just Barbara
27-01-08, 12:46
jumps up and down...........she's wearing pantaloons!!!!!!

Olde Crone Holden
27-01-08, 19:26
Are we sure it's her hair and not the hat that looks like flickups?

If her hair IS short, it could be because she had been ill, or was a sickly child - it was "well known" that long hair sapped your strength and it was usualy to cut it off if fever was present.

Just Barbara

Yes, dear, we noticed the pantaloons, lol!!!

Oh yes, I'd say 1860s-70s - they both look very Queen Victoria-ish and the Scottish dress was popular then for little girls.


Paul Barton, Special Agent
27-01-08, 19:38
Are we sure it's her hair and not the hat that looks like flickups?


She's holding her hat in her hand - a tam-o-shanter to match the dress.

Rachel Scand
27-01-08, 19:44
She's holding her hat in her hand - a tam-o-shanter to match the dress.
and I can't see any pantaloons

Joan of Archives
27-01-08, 20:40
Sorry peeps, have been locked out of the site all day :(

Never mind, thanks, some really interesting comments ! They definitely weren't Scottish though. She would have been a farmer's wife.

Rachel, thanks for that, I never noticed the hat before !!

I don't know if it helps, but I wonder if the lady seems to be holding onto the child's right arm, as if to support her?

Could the child have been born in 1866 approx? Or 1863 ?

The reason why I ask is that it could be my 2 x great grandmother, she had a daughter called Louisa that is recorded as "feeble minded" on the 1901 census, & died when she was 33.


Olde Crone Holden
27-01-08, 21:12

I was too polite to say it, lol, but yes, the child looks not quite right.


Joan of Archives
27-01-08, 21:27
Thanks OC, thought it was just maybe she was a bit bored, lol!

Do you think she was about 7 or 8 when the picture was taken? That would put the date around 1873-5. Would the mother's dress fit in with the fashions then, bearing in mind she was a farmer's wife so maybe the dress would be a little outdated, lol!


Joan of Archives
27-01-08, 21:35
That's ok Tom.

If it is Louisa then I am not surprised she probably had a genetic fault, because Louisa was the daughter of my 2 x great grandfather & his niece!! The lady in the picture would have been around 35 when the photo was taken. After her parents died Louisa went to live with her older married sister but sadly by 1901 her sister was widowed. After that she disappears, apart from a possible death for her when she was 33.

How tempted am I to send off for the poor thing's death certificate. I expect she died of pneumonia or something though. How sad, but exciting I have narrowed it down to her, & my 2 x great grandmother who would also be my 3 or 4 x great aunt, lmho !!

Did anyone manage to find the photographers on the census at all?


Merry Monty Montgomery
28-01-08, 11:48
1861: Joseph Baker aged 30 with wife and children living at Burr St Luton. Occ Photographic artist (both children, 5 and 3 born in Luton)

RG9; Piece: 1014; Folio: 102; Page: 29;

1871: Same family at 30 Bute St, Luton. (photographer)

RG10; Piece: 1571; Folio: 43; Page: 36

1881: definitely the same family....Joseph is not a photographer any more, but a tobacconist and they have moved to Hitchin in Herts.

RG11; Piece: 1418; Folio: 67; Page: 4

Historic Directories site:

1876 Joseph Baker, music seller, Bute St, Luton

(only one I could find for him)

So, he wasn't in Bute St in 1861 and he wasn't a photographer by 1876.

I think we are closing in on him!

28-01-08, 12:28
Could have alook here...

http://www.familytreeforum.com/wiki/index.php/Directories_of_Victorian_and_Edwardian_Photographe rs