View Full Version : Date of this?

09-11-08, 18:33
I have been sent this photo by a contact and we wondered about the date it would have been taken. We were told that it was c1905+, but we think that it was probably earlier than that.

The person owning the photo thought that the boy standing on the left with the older girl with her hand on his shoulder is about 4, dating the pic at 1905 We think the boy is a tad older, and possibly the group isnt who the owner of the photo thinks it is.

If the photo was taken about 1890ish then my contact has an idea who the group may be.


Just Barbara
09-11-08, 18:43
Hi, it's the earlier date, might even be 1885 I think......:)

Jill on the A272
09-11-08, 19:28
I'm going for late 1880s due to the tight bodices and the overskirts - had a look here:
Late Bustle (http://dpbirch.com/late_bustle.htm)

Joan of Archives
09-11-08, 20:11
I agree late 1880's. By 1895 the leg of mutton sleeve was in, they were much larger than those in the photo, so bearing in mind they may not have been able to afford the latest fashions, it be be anytime up to about 1895.

The little boy looks about 9 or 10 to me.


09-11-08, 20:19
If they are the people we think, then they were not short of a few quid, so would be reasonably up to date fashionwise.

I think the boy looks that sort of age as well Joan, the little one sitting looks more like a 4 year old to me.

Is the one on mother's knee a girl or a boy?

Joan of Archives
09-11-08, 20:39
I think it's a girl, I don't think little boys wore sleeveless dresses, but I am probably wrong!

Where is don.t when we need him? lol


Tom Tom
09-11-08, 22:29
I think it is late 1880s as other have said.

I don't think the boy is as old as 10 but he is certainly older than 4 :eek: I think he is probably about 7.

I think the child on the mother's knee is probably a girl.

Tom Tom
09-11-08, 22:32
I think the girl stood to the right of the father (as we look at it) is probably about 14 or 15 because she has not yet gone into the full length dress and it appears the other two older sisters have. They are both dressed in very similar clothes which makes me think they are both under the 16 sort of age.

The girl far right I think is probably about 10 or 11.

I've just realised there are two boys and the sister has a hand on each shoulder. I think the boy sat down on the floor is about 4 or 5.

10-11-08, 08:35
We think we may have worked out who they are, and it is not the family the photo owner thinks because to be them it would need to have been taken after 1905, which clearly it is not.

However we have also considered that it may be of the neighbours, who gave out family photos for Christmas that year.:p

*Note to self, write names on the back of all photos* :D

13-11-08, 18:56
1880,s early part brenda xxx

14-11-08, 11:16
someone call my name :D

The main clue to the dating of this photograph is the kick up's that can be seen on the sleeving on the bodice tops at the point that it is attached to the shoulder. Kick up's were the precurser to the Gigot sleeve that came into fashion in 1893 and lasted until 1897. The kick up, mainly a "lift" of the sleeve material made prior to it being sewn to the shoulder, was introduced in 1889 and lasted til 1893. The woman on the left of the picture at the back of the group would have been the one to have been totally up to date with the fashion of the time even down to the style of hair that she has. The father figure is more comfortable with the clothing that he has on and probably not that concerned by trends in fashion as can be seen by his wearing of his Albert high on the waist coat rather than across from pocket to pocket which, although had been worn earlier in this fashion by some, had started to become common place from 1888 with the introduction of a seperate watch chain hole which was placed between two button holes.


14-11-08, 18:47
Thanks for that Don, much appreciated.

14-11-08, 19:25
anytime Chris, now I wonder what was under the covers behind the group (to the left leaning up against the wall) one of those new fangled bicycles I wonder?