Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another to date please....

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

  • Another to date please....

    Found this on Ancestry & OH thinks it could be his 3x gt grandfather



    IF its who we think, he was born about 1808 & his wife possibly about 10 years later.

    Any clues as to how wealthy (or not) they might have been? Does this look like the sort of family where the eldest daughter would marry a coal miner?
    Last edited by Vicky the Viking; 23-02-09, 18:40.
    Vicky

  • #2
    Hi
    I'm guessing it was taken in the mid 1870's and I don't think they look particularly well off.
    Moggie

    Comment


    • #3
      We have him in 1841 as a silk weaver & then a gardener until his death in 1877.

      We think he married twice - this one would be the second - though as yet we haven't found a certificate for this second.

      It was a bit of a surprise to find a family we thought of as fairly poor (11 surviving kids) would have had a studio portrait taken. They had a nice headstone too, confirming the dates & some of the children.

      We wondered if the person who posted it on ancestry had mixed up 2 families... the details they have put are "our" tree, but they are based in the States & there's no knowing how accurate is the info that links them to the correct family back here.
      Vicky

      Comment


      • #4
        The male has a hairstyle reminiscent of the 1850's -1860's whereby the hair is brushed forwards from the back and has a side parting, at the front of the head the side hair has a slight upward sweep to it. However the cut of the waistcoat is more in keeping with the next decade of between 1860 and the 1870's. The woman is dressed in a crinoline dress with a decoration on the upper sleeving situated below the shoulder seam by about three to four inches. This decoration gives the impression of a deep epaulette to the sleeve and as this style went out of fashion in 1870 I would suggest that this photograph was taken somewhere between 1865 and 1871.

        don

        Comment


        • #5
          Thank you don & moggie, I thought perhaps about 1870 would fit in with their apparent ages.

          The poster on Ancestry has it dated as 1847 but I felt it was more recent than that, especially if the chap really was born about 1808; would he have been balding quite that much if he was only just 40? And she looks much older than 30 (though I know its difficult to tell sometimes, given the clothes they wore!)

          perhaps her family was quite well off & she'd just come into an inheritance? Must check that...
          Vicky

          Comment


          • #6
            Certainly not 1847.

            I'm not great with the fashions, but with the history of photography, the photo would not be of that quality. It looks like an original by the edges.

            I very much doubt it would have been taken anytime before the early 1860s.

            Photos before the 1850s were extremely expensive. There were a lot more of the early ones in France, Australia and America, as a lot of photographers saw a chance to make money by taking photos that could be sent back to family.

            Hardly worth spending money in an English village if all your family already lived there. they knew what you looked like.

            Comment


            • #7
              Libby, I said to my OH that the photo must be later than 1847 just because of the quality of it.

              I am now wondering if the date was actually when they married, as its obviously not the date the photo was taken?

              A couple of their children emigrated to the USA (not sure when yet) & I am wondering whether the photo might have been taken so they had something to remember their parents by.

              Anyway, armed with your opinions I am going to contact the poster on Ancestry & see what other info I can get.
              Vicky

              Comment


              • #8
                1870,s and middle class,he has a pocket watch and the coat has piping all round the edge,i love her dress brenda xxx

                Comment


                • #9
                  Vicky I bet granpa is in a borrowed jacket, and look at his trousers, seen better days, bless him..

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'd say 1860s - his hair is more fashionable than her's as her's looks a bit like the bandolined hair of the 1840s. His hair reminds me of pics I've seen of Dickens and Disraeli, later in life.

                    Charlotte Bronte writing in the 1840s, in a letter I think, mentions the methodist women with hats/head dresses covered in flowers and this reminded me of that. It's kind of eccentric even for that date! I'd say they are in their 'Sunday best' and yes, no reason why a coal miner wouldn't be in the family!

                    I would say they were more 'respectable working class' than middle or upper. The pocket watch doesn't mean a automatically middle class, as there were cheap tin watches no doubt then as now - it would only be a status symbol (rather than a working man's 'Sunday best') if it was gold and we can't tell that!

                    Ditto the dress - Dickens writes in 'Sketches by Boz' of the huge number of secondhand clothes shops. It's estimated that throughout history right into the 19thC, there was a bigger market for secondhand clothing than new - so someone poorer may be wearing an apparently higher status outfit (with braids, trimmings, whatever!) and in a way that's what makes dating these hard as we can't know how out of date the clothes most people wore, were!

                    Studio portraits around the mid 19thC became a very popular - and not necessarily high status - thing, as the 'cartes de visite' were trendy. Photographic studios in big towns and cities proliferated and having a studio portrait taken honestly wasn't a massive outlay. If family emigrated, that would be an obvious reason to have your photo done - as the chances were they'd never see you again. Maybe a copy remained 'back home' - and this is it?

                    Hope it does turn out to be your husband's - must be marvellous having such an early pic!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Cleaned up for you



                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X