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
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 :-
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.
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
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.
Comment