Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Date of Picture please

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Date of Picture please

    Hello you wonderful picture experts

    I have just been given this picture and was wondering if you could date it.

    Last edited by vikki brace; 03-09-08, 16:25.
    Vikki -
    Researching Titchmarsh and Tushingham

  • #2
    1880 she has the same hair style as young queen victoria,beutifull women vikki brenda xxx

    Comment


    • #3
      Vikki
      The photographer's address seems very familiar ... did you have other photos by the same people ?

      Unfortunately, the list of photographers is no longer on the internet

      There is another list but it does not have W Edward Wright
      ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Rachel, Yes I do, I wasn't sure I had posted it before (the other picture) but if you remember the address I am sure you are right.



        This photographer had several studios from the 1860's through to the 1900's.

        I am hoping that this lady became this mans first wife
        Last edited by Pippa Doll; 14-11-08, 21:54.
        Vikki -
        Researching Titchmarsh and Tushingham

        Comment


        • #5
          Ok, Rachel you have a very good memory, just looking back through the posts and in October 2007, I posted the picture of the man and you said that there was a William Wright (age 38) at 1-3 Sebert Road in 1891.

          I am now wondering if William Wright and W. Edward Wright are the same - kinda hoping not as the woman I was hoping this was died in 1864
          Vikki -
          Researching Titchmarsh and Tushingham

          Comment


          • #6
            Well I've been looking and I think she could well date from about 1860, her hair and what I can see of her dress would fit then..

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by vikki brace View Post
              Ok, Rachel you have a very good memory, just looking back through the posts and in October 2007, I posted the picture of the man and you said that there was a William Wright (age 38) at 1-3 Sebert Road in 1891.

              I am now wondering if William Wright and W. Edward Wright are the same - kinda hoping not as the woman I was hoping this was died in 1864
              In case anyone else is wondering what we're talking about .. here's the October 2007 info re the photographer



              " I've found the photographer listed but it hasn't got his dates at the various addresses .. will keep looking ... the addresses are in this order :-

              W. Edward Wright

              2 Linden Villas, Field Rd, Forest Gate.

              65 Woodgrange Rd, Forest Gate.

              223 Hoe St, Walthamstow.

              1 Sebert Rd, Forest Gate.

              254 High Rd, Leyton.

              Pembroke Rd, Seven Kings. "



              ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

              Comment


              • #8
                Def way before 1880, my first thoughts were 1860's so could well be your lady who died.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Richard View Post
                  Def way before 1880, my first thoughts were 1860's so could well be your lady who died.
                  Hi Richard 1860s immediately popped into my head but I've no idea why

                  Her ears are not showing and she has 'wingy thingies' over her sleeves


                  Barbara and Don are the experts but the address of the photographer certainly confuses the issue
                  ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just to confuse the issue even further, it was not uncommon to have "modern" copies made of earlier photos.......

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Barbara that's interesting and would settle it nicely

                      BUT, is that a ring on the third finger of her right hand ?




                      If it is, then might it have been reversed when it was copied ?

                      Last edited by Rachel Scand; 04-09-08, 13:32.
                      ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I got side tracked and forgot to post an answer to this earlier, but I would suggest that this was a photograph that was taken sometime in the 1860's (if not the very very late 1850's even) and would appear to be a print that has been copied off by the photographer at a later date going by the mount. Is there any chance that there may be anything on the reverse and if there is can you post it so that we can see if there are clues that may give us a better idea?

                        The sitter has her hair set in a centre parting with the hair brushed and smoothed down towards the side of the head and the ears. The ears are covered in ringlets and during the period that this study was taken ringlets varied in size and could be bought "ready made up" so that they could be attached to ones own hair. There is no evidence of any jewellery save a band on her third finger of the right hand, however if this is an earlier photograph (as I believe it is) and was reprinted then it is quite possible that the image was flipped at the original printing process and that it was carried on as a true copy. Which would then make it to be her wedding band.

                        Her bodice looks like a jacket bodice which would be fastened at the front, and in this case with a flap to hide the fastenings. The strips/layers of material that adorn the front of the bodice draw the eye down to the waist where one can see that it finshes off in a deep V point whereas the neck line has a shallow V line. The "wingy-thingies" that Rachel refers too would be epaulettes which would normally be stitched over the shoulder/sleeve seam and in a fashion sense these disappeared in 1870/71. However the way the front of the bodice is tailored I do not think that these "wingy-thingies" can be termed as being epaulettes in the true sense of the word and put me in mind of a filled in Bertha but I think that it is more of the design of the bodice than anything else.

                        The shawl that she has wrapped around her would be drapped around her shoulders or could be worn/carried in the fashion as shown here. These were also in vogue during the period of betwen 1850 and 1860.

                        don

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thank you everyone for your comments, I did wonder if they did re-prints back then, I have scanned the back of the card and it only has the photographers details, the same info is on the back of the card for her (suspected) husband.

                          The blue writing was done by someone in the 1970's, and this is why I was asking for a date. They believe it to be Emily.



                          Here is the picture of James Haines, same details on the card but fashion looks earlier

                          Vikki -
                          Researching Titchmarsh and Tushingham

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by don.t View Post
                            The sitter has her hair set in a centre parting with the hair brushed and smoothed down towards the side of the head and the ears. The ears are covered in ringlets and during the period that this study was taken ringlets varied in size and could be bought "ready made up" so that they could be attached to ones own hair.
                            The strips/layers of material that adorn the front of the bodice draw the eye down to the waist where one can see that it finshes off in a deep V point whereas the neck line has a shallow V line. The "wingy-thingies" that Rachel refers too would be epaulettes which would normally be stitched over the shoulder/sleeve seam and in a fashion sense these disappeared in 1870/71.


                            don
                            Great .... mystery solved then

                            It reminded me of this one

                            Lizzie Grayson Family History Local History


                            ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X