View Full Version : H E L P ~ d a t e these photographs +

banksia boy
11-09-08, 06:29
Hi :-)

This is my very first posting on 'Family Tree Forum' and am still learning to steer myself around it. So if there are any mistakes within it's aesthetic look apologies on the outset :-)

These two lovely ladies [below] in the respective photographs have for a while been considered the one and the same person within my family and is of my Great Grandmother Emily Oliver b:1872-d:1956 who is the lady in the first Photograph. But of late there has been a question mark raised as to whether perhaps they are of Mother & Daughter taken in different years. The 2nd Photograph under Emily could very well be of her Mother - Sarah Bray b:1845-d:1920.

It would be wonderful to date [giving or taking a few years from whence they were actually taken].

On the back of the first photograph it has the following details->

1:Cartolina Postale - carte postale.

On the back of the second photograph is the following details->

2:W. A. Brown & Son. Photographers - 60 Oldham Street. Manchester.

Are they of the same person? What years were the photographs taken?

Any help very much appreciated :-)

EDIT NOTE: Thank you to Anne - Barbara & James for help in correcting the images below :-)

Cheers ~ Steve.


EMILY OLIVER b:1872-d:1956.




SARAH BRAY b:1845-d:1920 [UNSURE?].



Anne in Carlisle
11-09-08, 10:20
Well, for a starter, I don't think they are the same person. Look at the ear lobes - clearly visible in both photo - they are completely different. Also the eybrow arches are different. They do look quite alike though, and I would think they may well be related.


Just Barbara
11-09-08, 11:39
Hi Steve, would it be possible to enlarge the photos as that would mean we could get a better look?......:)

Just Barbara
11-09-08, 11:40
ps.......I'm sure they are of different ladies...

banksia boy
11-09-08, 12:14
Hi :-)

Thank you Anne for your thoughts - the earlobes were the first things that brought the photographs into question.

Barbara - I am very computer illiterate and am not sure as to how to download the photographs enlarged...whereas on other postings I can see the photographs - mine are not visible unless the links are clicked and when I click on the link they are both very small. Not the desired effect I was after. I am at a loss as to how to rectify the problem?

Cheers ~ Steve.

Just Barbara
11-09-08, 13:46
erm...........if anyone is passing who knows how to enlarge Steves photos we'd both be grateful......pleez,,,( Steve so am I :o)...

Anne in Carlisle
11-09-08, 14:07
Steve, if you look at the help thread about using Photobucket here

you will be able to get the photos showing on your thread. You can choose what size to have them. Most FTF members use Photobucket to get the photos on here. Don't worry - it looks complicated but its really not :)


banksia boy
12-09-08, 00:12
Hi :-)

Thank you Barbara & Anne. Thanks for the link Anne. I will pursue this in a few hours time...need to catch up on a few other things this morning. Hopefully I will have it all sorted later this afternoon - till then :-)

Cheers ~ Steve.

Just Barbara
12-09-08, 11:02
Super photos, congratulations that man!....:D

Just Barbara
12-09-08, 11:10
Werl.........Because the photos are only head and shoulders there's not a lot to go on but from what I can see I would say that Emily looks about 1917is, but are you sure that's Sarah? only she looks very early 20th century and I think Sarah would be too old.

banksia boy
12-09-08, 12:06
Hi :-)

Ta ~ Thank you Barbara - they came up pretty good eh ;-)

With the help of my friend James I/he [mores to the point] was able to get the photographs to show as I intended them to. He was able to go through the link C/O Anne [Thanks Anne :-) ].

Question ~ How old do you think the lady that I believe to be of Sarah Bray is? I have asked several people and there guesses vary all over the place. Am interested to hear what others think as this may help pinpointing who she may be.

The photograph of Emily Oliver would make her about about 45 years of age if taken circa 1917 - this was also my guess.

As they are upper body head shots I thought this may make dating them a little harder. I know the ladies were not rolling in the money so there clothing isn't fancy. Whilst the clothing they are wearing is plain [but I am sure is there Sunday best] give any further clues? Emily is wearing a pendant around her neck with chain. Sarah [?] has a clasp which looks like a long pin. As current and past fashion is so out my league...do these items help any more with dating the photographs - any thoughts - anyone??

Cheers ~ Steve.

Jill on the A272
12-09-08, 14:09
I agree with your date of c1917,open collars were being worn by this time (high necks were going out of fashion).

banksia boy
12-09-08, 14:35
Hi :-)

Thank you Jill. As with the open collar for Emily, it looks to me that the other photograph of Sarah [?] may also be similar in the fashion stakes of the day? Could this photograph also have been taken about the same period in time say circa 1910-1920 perhaps?

Cheers ~ Steve.

Anne in Carlisle
12-09-08, 15:49
Glad to have helped, Steve! ;)

My feeling is that the photos are not very far apart in the date they were taken. I think the lady you have labelled Sarah could be about 55 to 60. Maybe a bit older if she has worn well, or a bit younger if she has had a hard life. She is very difficult to put an age to - she looks very kind and gentle. Whereas the younger lady looks a bit more formidable!


12-09-08, 16:59

I think they are two different ladies. The shape of the nose is different.

I also think neither of them is that old. Neither has wrinkles, especially around the eyes.
In fact l think they both look between 30 and 40 years old. Sarah Brays hairstyle makes her look older,

Canadian Cousin
12-09-08, 20:07
I'm not sure how useful my uneducated opinion is, but since you asked:

two different women (for reasons already given by others)
Emily looks to be between 35 and 40
Sarah looks to be between 40 and 45

Besides the lack of wrinkles, neither woman seems to have grey hair, nor does either have an 'old lady's neck' if you know what I mean.



Just Barbara
12-09-08, 20:20
"Sarah" isn't the person you think of that I'm sure. Though her blouse isn't as easy to date as her rellie, the style of the photo is early 20th century, but she has no wrinkles and very little grey hair, I suspect the photo was taken betwixt 1910 and 20.

banksia boy
13-09-08, 02:21
Hi :-)

Thank you Barbara-Anne-Pam & C.C.

I think the photograph for Emily Oliver definitely was taken in the period of 1917 this would make her 44-46 when taken. Perhaps for a loved one during WW1 as postcards were produced greatly during this horrific time in history. She does come across as domineering. My Mother remembers her well in her advanced years. Sadly in her final 10 years she was bed ridden with dropsy & gout. Mum can remember visiting her during the height of WW2 saying that Emily's house was always dark and dingy - of course her windows were boarded up in case of bombings in Manchester.

Now the photograph of Sarah [?] is another kettle of fish altogether. Taken perhaps during the same period as Emily's?. Making it circa 1910-1920ish - 1915 mayhap? Sarah's age possibilities vary ~ consensus being anywhere between 40-60 years or older . I agree with all thoughts - her hair isn't very gray - her neck line isn't what you would call [cough] stringy - she has the most soulful eyes ~ very glassy-dare I say sad even. Depending on whether she has had a hard life I guess would be showing - if it is Sarah Bray her family background were Ag Labs & Weavers [gasps with shock I hear you all breath LOL]...she would have had it tough I would say. Does the information on the back of the photo give a clue as to when it was taken? W.A Brown Photographers - 60 Oldham Street. Manchester - more thoughts? - Ta ;-)

Cheers ~ Steve.

13-09-08, 21:42
mother and daughter got same lips and eyes brenda xxx

banksia boy
14-09-08, 05:41
Hi :-)

Thank you Brenda. I am pleased you also think this. There are certain familial characteristics with them - Eyes - Mouth. If the photograph of Sarah [?] was taken during the period of circa 1910-1920 this would put her age at btw 65 & 75. Age consensus is anywhere from 40-60 + years - A thought ~ could the quality of the photograph be a little deceiving...whilst seemingly void of heavy wrinkling there are noticeable ones at a very closer look - her not very gray hair is what throws me the most. Still in the hard basket for this one - more thoughts?

Cheers ~Steve [gnawing at a bone ;-) won't let it go just yet].