Free Updates
Navigation
Categories
| February, 2012 (1) |
| January, 2012 (5) |
| December, 2011 (5) |
| November, 2011 (4) |
| October, 2011 (5) |
| September, 2011 (4) |
| August, 2011 (5) |
| July, 2011 (5) |
| June, 2011 (6) |
| May, 2011 (7) |
| April, 2011 (4) |
| March, 2011 (5) |
| February, 2011 (3) |
| January, 2011 (5) |
| December, 2010 (4) |
| November, 2010 (5) |
| October, 2010 (4) |
| September, 2010 (4) |
| August, 2010 (5) |
| July, 2010 (4) |
| June, 2010 (5) |
| May, 2010 (4) |
| April, 2010 (4) |
| March, 2010 (5) |
| February, 2010 (4) |
| January, 2010 (4) |
| December, 2009 (3) |
| November, 2009 (5) |
| October, 2009 (4) |
| September, 2009 (4) |
| August, 2009 (5) |
| July, 2009 (4) |
| June, 2009 (5) |
| May, 2009 (4) |
| April, 2009 (5) |
| March, 2009 (6) |
| February, 2009 (5) |
| January, 2009 (5) |
| December, 2008 (4) |
| November, 2008 (4) |
| October, 2008 (6) |
| September, 2008 (5) |
| August, 2008 (5) |
| July, 2008 (4) |
| June, 2008 (6) |
| May, 2008 (5) |
| April, 2008 (5) |
| March, 2008 (4) |
| February, 2008 (4) |
| January, 2008 (5) |
| December, 2007 (4) |
| November, 2007 (4) |
| October, 2007 (6) |
| September, 2007 (4) |
| August, 2007 (4) |
| July, 2007 (5) |
| June, 2007 (4) |
| May, 2007 (3) |
| April, 2007 (2) |
| March, 2007 (1) |
Search
Archives
| | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|
| 29 | 30 | 31 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 1 | 2 | 3 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
by Maureen A. Taylor
More Links
|
 Monday, January 16, 2012
Scottish Photographers
Posted by Maureen
Last week, I discussed Winston Cochrane's family photo taken in Dumfries, Scotland.
Late in the week he emailed me to say he had new information.
The image of Mary Jane Rae was taken at a photo studio in the Jubilee Buildings at the Queen's Photo Co. According to Richard Torrance's Scottish Studio Photographers to 1914 (Scottish Record Societies, 2011), Thomas A. Moryson operated the Queen's Photo Co. in the Jubilee Buildings from 1893 to 1900. The building opened in 1887.
Now Winston thinks the photo was taken to commemorate an engagement. Mary married on Aug. 7, 1894.
The clothing clues are the epitome of the late 1880s. Clothing from the early 1890s usually features fuller upper sleeves, so I have questions regarding this image being taken in the early 1890s.
Not everyone kept up with the current fashion. When I look in my own closet, I see clothing I wore several seasons ago. Perhaps Mary didn't have the means to buy a new dress or this one was her favorite.
I'm not sure of the source used to establish the work dates for Thomas Moryson. He bought his photo business from a James Rae, who might be a relative of Mary Jane's. It's possible that Rae also called his business the Queen's Photo Co. and that Moryson bought the name and the equipment.
This photo remains a little bit of a mystery.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | 1890s photos | women
Monday, January 16, 2012 4:36:09 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00) 
|
|
Monday, January 09, 2012
Mother or Daughter?
Posted by Maureen
Winston Cochrane sent in this lovely portrait of a young woman. Her hairstyle and dress date from the mid to late 1880s. He wanted to know if the item on the studio prop to our left is a hat. It is! It's a tiny topper that would rest on the top of her head. I love that's covered with spring flowers.
On her left wrist is a ribbon bracelet.
His big question was about her identity Could this be Elizabeth (Gourlay) Rae (1840-1921) or her daughter Mary Jane (Rae) Bell (1869-1934)? The woman depicted here is probably only in her 20s, so it's likely the daughter. Mary Jane's brother James immigrated from Scotland to the United States in 1886.
It's the back of the image that made me think about who and where.
This imprint reinforces my belief that being quick to judge can lead to mistakes. When I first glanced at it, the "N.B." stood out. Could it stand for New Brunswick? Many immigrants to the United States first stopped in Canada, but Dumfries, New Brunswick is a rural community even today and it's not near the coast. So what does the N.B. represent?
I called Fred Farrell, the photo archivist at the New Brunswick Provincial Archives for a little clarification. He confirmed that it was unlikely taken in Dumfries, New Brunswick. Turns out that Scotland was often referred to as North Britain even into the 20th century.
This photo was definitely taken in Scotland.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | Immigrant Photos | women
Monday, January 09, 2012 4:36:04 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, September 12, 2011
Friendship, Love and Truth in the Family Album
Posted by Maureen
Pam Rolland is working her way through family albums in the possession of her aunt. She reports that she's been able to date and identify many of the pictures in them, but still has a few mysteries.
This is one of them. It was in an album with members of the Roberts family.
That particular branch of the family moved from North Carolina to Virginia then to Missouri, Arkansas and finally to Oregon.
Look closely at the man's accessory. The clasp holding it on is three interconnecting rings.
That is a symbol of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, a group I've written about in previous columns. You can see these rings in Fraternal Membership Clues and in Fraternal Insignia. They stand for Friendship, Love and Truth.
The Odd Fellows are a fraternal organization that believes in charitable pursuits. You can read more about the history of the group and their mission on Wikipedia.
Photos of men in fraternal symbolism can be difficult to decipher. There is no comprehensive guide to these symbols. Unless the accessories are easy to identify, tracking down what your ancestor is wearing requires extensive research into their lives.
- Obituaries often reveal membership in these "secret" groups.
- In the 19th century, a majority of men belonged to a fraternal organization. They were professional networks and offered support for members in need.
- City directories are a great resource when trying to determine which groups had chapters in the area in which your ancestor lived. There is usually a list of local organizations in directories.
- Many of these nineteenth century groups still exist so a quick Google search can provide you with contact information.
Complicating Rolland's search for this man's identity is the number of places the family lived. In order to narrow down the possibilities she'll have to identify where this man might have lived in the 1880s (based on his attire and the card stock) and who in the family tree might be the right age to be him.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | beards | organizations | unusual clothing
Monday, September 12, 2011 3:03:21 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, August 01, 2011
A Possible Identity for the Lady
Posted by Maureen
Last week I wrote about Jay Kruizenga's photo of a woman with long hair.
He read the column and quickly wrote back to say thank you. It appears that the lovely woman with the long locks has a name!
He believe that this picture was taken 1883-85 because the cardstock and other details match another photo in his family collection. The other image depicts Jacob Derk Kruizenga's only living son, Derek Jacobs, who was born in 1879.
Jay then wondered "who was living with Jacob Derk Kruizenga (1830-1906) and his wife Jennie (1837-1905) in the same time frame?"
According to the 1880 federal census, the couple had two daughters living at home—Nettie (born 1861) and Frances (born in 1866). Jay doesn't think Nettie is the woman in this photo because she married and moved away from home around the time of the census.
Could this photo be Frances? Perhaps. She was the only living daughter of Jacob and his second wife Gezina Rotmans VanBraak. She didn't marry until 1885, so she would still be single in this photo.
Now all Jay has to do is find another photo of Frances for comparison. She was well known in Michigan. Frances was elected President of the Michigan Chapter for the Independent Order of Foresters, a fraternal organization, and gave speeches at conventions.
Jay wrote to the Foresters but the person who replied said that all their historical information is boxed and unorganized, thus making it difficult to find anything.
I'm hopeful that someone has a photo of Frances in her capacity of president of that organization.
Thank you to the person who commented on last week's story. If you've ever wondered why all these young women posed with their long hair down, there is a simple answer: They wanted to look like the famous Barnum and Bailey Circus act, the Seven Sutherland sisters. The sisters concluded their musical performance by letting down their hair for the audience. It was sensational!
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | hairstyles | photo-research tips
Monday, August 01, 2011 2:57:09 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, July 25, 2011
Mysterious Woman with Wavy Hair
Posted by Maureen
Jay Kruizenga of DutchBlood.com sent in this photo of his family's mystery woman. Her long, flowing hair definitely makes an impression. She has really long full hair that must have created an enormous braid when pinned up.
The photo was given to Jay by the daughter of his grandfather's brother. Now the family wants to know who's in the picture. Is she Jacob Derk Kruizenga's third wife, Jennie? Jennie was born Dec. 1, 1836 and married Jacob in 1876. This was her third wedding.
There are several problems with that identification.
- The studio arrangement of rug, chair and drapery dates from the 1880s.
- The long pleats in her skirt, accessorized by what appears to be a very full overskirt in the same fabric as the rest of the dress, and the high collar and large buttons are characteristic of the 1880s.
- This woman is much younger than Jennie would be in the mid-1880s. Born in 1836, Jennie would be 50 by 1886. I estimate that this young woman is only in her late teens or her 20s.
She has a very young face, plus it's rare to see an older woman posed
with her hair down.
Tracking down the identity of this woman starts with the ownership of the image. It once belonged to Jay's grandfather's brother. Jay has a family history website. It's lovely with lots of information, stories and pictures.
So the question is: Who's the right age to be the young woman in this picture? If she's 20 here and the picture was taken circa 1886 then she was born in the 1860s. While she's not Jacob's third wife, might she be one of his children, or a friend of the family?
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | hairstyles | Immigrant Photos
Monday, July 25, 2011 7:05:52 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, June 20, 2011
Men's Neckwear in Old Photos (From My Mailbag)
Posted by Maureen
In this era of digital imaging, it seems like everyone has a scanner. That's not entirely true, which is why the submission guidelines for this column, "How to Submit Your Photo" includes a mailing address. You can send me a letter and a copy of a photograph (NO originals, please) and possibly see your photo featured in this space.
Barbie Clements sent in this picture.
She found it in her great-grandmother's photos. There's no caption on the back. Her question: "Can you tell me the approximate time period and if he is wearing a preacher's collar?"
In the 1880s, men wore their ties under their shirt collars. Tight fitting jackets were the style for men in that decade. While this man's neckwear has the appearance of a clerical collar, you can see part of his tie right above the top button of his jacket.
Next week, I'll be back with another photo from my mailbag.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | men
Monday, June 20, 2011 6:54:17 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Thursday, June 09, 2011
The Family Home as Backdrop in Old Pictures
Posted by Diane
Before flash photography, candles and lamplight couldn't provide sufficient illumination to take a photograph of a large group indoors. Families often chose to be photographed outdoors, with the family home as a backdrop.
Photo Detective Maureen A. Taylor analyzes two such images on FamilyTreeMagazine.com.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | group photos | photo backgrounds
Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:47:21 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
And the Winner Is? And a Runner-up
Posted by Maureen
Thank you to everyone that contributed pictures to the Family Tree Magazine Photo Contest. So many great pictures....it was a tough decision. I'll be featuring many of your pictures in future columns.
The winner is (drum roll please):
Congratulations to J. Hansen! I'll write more about this picture as soon as I have more details. Here's what I know. It was found covered in dust in a storage area in her father's company that dates back to 1886. Can't wait to unravel this one!
In the meantime, here's another photo submitted for the contest.
Patricia Manwell thinks that this lovely girl depicts someone in her Gawne family. They immigrated from the Isle of Man to Australia. A date for this picture would help Patricia figure out who she is.
- Reddish brown card stock was extremely popular in the 1880s.
- The design of her dress is a clue. All those vertical pleats were common in the late 1880s.
- In the mid-late 1880s, studios invested in props to make settings mimic the outdoors. In this case, fake greenery and a "rock" chair.
- This little girl sports short hair. Perhaps it's a clue to a recent illness. Families often cut off long hair when children were very ill. Long hair was thought to be physically draining.
There are family history details that I don't have such as when the family moved to Australia. This could be very helpful. I wonder if the photographer Vanheems was related to William Henry Vanheems, who taught optics in Australia. Optics is related to photographic lens.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | children | hairstyles | Immigrant Photos
Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:17:08 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Clothing Clues in Photos of Male Ancestors
Posted by Diane
Women's fashion changes seem dramatic when compared to the subtle differences in men's clothing over time. That's one of the challenges when assigning a date to a man's portrait.
In this FamilyTreeMagazine.com article, Maureen A. Taylor points out costume clues to look for in photographs of your male ancestors.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | men
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 7:56:21 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, April 11, 2011 Monday, April 04, 2011 Monday, March 14, 2011
Mom, Dad and Baby
Posted by Maureen
Marla Hathhorn sent in this picture with a simple question. On the back someone wrote, "Ann Hicks." Is Ann Hicks the baby or the mother?
Marla knows that her ancestor Anna Foley Hicks was born in Canada in 1844 and died in Oklahoma in 1914.
A lot of people ask me, "What do I look at first in a photo?" The answer depends on the image. In this case, I read Marla's e-mail and quickly glanced at the photographer's imprint at the bottom of the card to see where the picture was taken. Then I examined their clothing.
The woman's dress is from the circa 1880 period. The bodice extends over the hips, extra fabric drapes over her upper legs and there are two layers of pleats. Her choice of jewelry is also typical for the time -- a thick chain with a charm was very popular. In the early 1880s, women wore their hair pulled back with short bangs. This young mother is very stylish in an understated way. Dad's clothing agrees with this time frame.
The baby is very cute in it's long dress, thick tights and buttoned boots. Around it's neck is a lovely bib.
Could the mother be Anna? In 1880 she'd be 36 years of age, a likely fit.
T.R. Colpitts took this photo. The Rock Lake Herald of 1881 featured a short bit of news about him. It stated that he was taking a trip into southern Manitoba to take scenic views for resale. It appears from this photograph that he also found employment with the Hudsons Bay Parlors, a photographic establishment possibly connected with the Hudson Bay Company. I'm looking for that link.
1880s photos | men | women
Monday, March 14, 2011 2:08:38 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, February 14, 2011
Back to the Double Mystery
Posted by Maureen
Two weeks ago, in my Double Mystery post, I began dissecting the evidence in a photo owned by Sandy Forest. A couple of readers asked about the hat worn by the man on the right. It's a big clue.
It's difficult to read the hat, but it says "Asst. Engineer" with letters beneath it. The first letter is "H," followed by what I think is an "E" and maybe a "D." Initially, I thought the second letter was an R, but there seems to be a bottom line to the letter. So what does it stand for? That's the big question.
He's holding a spike and is an engineer. That suggests a railway connection. But I'm not sure it's a locomotive railway line. It could be a street railway. Perhaps they are celebrating the inauguration of the first tracks being placed where Felix lived.
Railroad spikes come in different shapes, but the ones used to lay the rails have an off-set head. I've spent time researching spikes and so has Sandy. Something doesn't seem to quite add up.
I'm looking for an expert on railroads and think I've found one. Hopefully, I'll be back next week with an answer.
1880s photos
Monday, February 14, 2011 4:59:56 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Home Sweet Homestead
Posted by Diane
I just love this picture! It's got a lot of family history layers.
Terry Sargent sent in this photo asking if it was a Civil War-era picture. On the back is written, "Mrs. and Mrs. E.H. Sargent Strawberry." The "Strawberry" refers to Strawberry Point, Iowa, where the family had a farm.
Terry is hoping the photo depicts Emery Holden Sargent, his wife Louisa (Turner) Sargent, and their two children: Harriet (born 1857) and Emery Harford (born 1860). Emery was Terry's grandfather. Let's look at a few things first.
Provenance
This refers to the history of ownership of the photo. In this case, this photo was originally owned by Terry's aunt Lavera Fink, and then by one of Fink's nieces. That niece gave Terry a copy of the photo.
Costume
I examined the photo and enlarged it to view the details of what the folks were wearing. One detail stood out: the woman's hat. I know it's blurry, but you can see the small brim and the high crown of the hat. In the 1860s, women wore bonnets or very small hats, nothing with a crown of this height. This style hat was worn in the 1880s. Would the other details in the photo and family history support this theory?
Photographer
C. H. Hunt of Strawberry Point, Iowa, has his imprint on this cabinet card. According to Biographies of Western Photographers by Carl Mautz (Carl Mautz Publishing, 1997), Hunt was active in 1885. That puts the photo well outside the Civil War period. The decorative elements of the imprint reinforce the 1880s period.
Family History
There were two E.H. Sargents, father and son. So who is depicted in this photo? In the 1880 census, Emery Holden, his wife Louisa, son Emery as well as son Ora and his wife are living on the farm (US Census, Clayton County, Iowa, Caso Township, p. 289).
There are no children listed with the family. Since there is no 1890 census for Iowa, I checked the family again in the 1900 census. This time, the farm is occupied by the younger Emery, his wife and all of their children, several of whom were born in the 1880s ( US Census, Clayton County, Iowa, Caso Township, sheet 18).
There is another bit of family history: Terry told me that according to Emery Holden Sargent's obituary in the Strawberry Point Press Journal (1905), Emery left the farm in 1886.
It's likely that this picture was taken around the time when the younger Emery took ownership of the family farm.
There is one odd thing about this picture: its appearance. It is a cabinet card, but the image of the farm is either a copy of another picture (notice the wide black border around it) or the photographer took a different-size negative to shoot the scene. The image itself is blurry when enlarged, while the photographer's imprint is clear. This could mean it's a copy. It's a square image, while most cabinet card-size photos are rectangular. I'd love to see other outdoor shots by this photographer. In either case, the final date for the picture doesn't change. It's from the 1880s.
Have you inherited mystery photos from relatives? Demystify them them with help from Maureen A. Taylor's book Uncovering Your Ancestry Through Family Photographs.
1880s photos | hats | house/building photos
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 2:40:40 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, July 19, 2010
Mourning Clothes
Posted by Maureen
Ten years ago, I analyzed a photo sent to me from a woman in New Zealand. In the New Zealand Mystery, I discussed the family information, but also described her clothing and how it indicated she was in mourning.
Queen Victoria set the standard for both wedding attire and for mourning. After the death of Prince Albert in 1861, she wore black mourning clothes for the rest of her life. In the Victorian era, men would wear a black armband when someone died, but women wore full black crape (the 19th century spelling for crepe) dresses for a year and a day. Then they wore just crape-trimmed black dresses for another 21 months. (Tortora and Eubank, Survey of Historic Costume, 348).
But what if your family didn't have the resources of the woman depicted above? A wardrobe of mourning clothes probably wasn't economically feasible. Instead, clothes could be rented or borrowed for the funeral. According to the 1877 article by Henry R Hatherly, "Mourning Clothes as a Source of Infection" (Sanitary Record: A Journal of Public Health, Google Books), less-fortunate folks were spreading disease by wearing clothing worn by others—in particular, skin and parasitic diseases.
Not just Queen Victoria's subjects followed mourning customs. This week I looked at a tintype from Dresden. The dark clothing and the large hat with long, heavy fabric at the back suggests this 1880s woman is in mourning. The style of the hat is a bit unusual. I think the browband helps keep the hat on her head.
If you have any 19th-century photos of family wearing crape, I'd love to see them. You can e-mail them to me.
Need help researching, preserving and displaying your family photos? Visit ShopFamilyTree.com for how-to books and CDs.
1850s photos | 1880s photos | mourning photos | unusual photos | women
Monday, July 19, 2010 3:47:35 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, June 21, 2010
Spotting a Wedding Photo
Posted by Maureen
Irene Powell sent me this lovely wedding photo of her great-grandfather Joseph Kapler and his wife, Theresa. They were married in December, 1888.
Their clothing is perfect for the late 1880s. Theresa's dress features a fitted bodice and her sleeves have vertical puffs at the shoulder seam. Her skirt has knife pleats at the side. Joseph wears a fitted 1880s jacket, a shirt with an upturned collar, vest and tie. He has short hair and a trimmed mustache.
This photo is a perfect example of how a bride would often wear a very nice dress, rather than the Victorian ideal of a white ensemble. In this case, Theresa has accessorized her attire with wedding white in the bow at her neckline and a tiny headpiece. She doesn't carry a bouquet, but Joseph wears a large corsage pinned to his jacket. These tiny clues identify this as a wedding photo, even though neither one wears a wedding ring.
You might have wedding images in your collection and not recognize them. Watch for accessories that suggest a wedding—headpieces, corsages, flowers, bows and even sashes. Match up the family history information with a date for a photo, and you might be surprised that you have a wedding image or two. Getting married was a significant family milestone, and one that couples often commemorated with photos.
I've never seen the item that stands between them. It appears to be a small table, but it has unusual filigree legs and a support under the drum. Can anyone identify it?
Need help researching, preserving and displaying your family photos? Visit ShopFamilyTree.com for how-to books and CDs.
1880s photos | wedding | women
Monday, June 21, 2010 4:48:49 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, April 12, 2010
Final Words on the Triplets
Posted by Diane
For the last two weeks I've written about a photo owned by Judy Linnebach. It depicts a couple and their three triplets. In the first installment, Motherhood Times Three, I discussed multiple births in the 19th century. They were a lot more common than I thought!
In last week's installment, Mother Hubbard, I provided information on the family and their attire. I forgot to mention that in the 19th century it was common practice to obtain photos of deceased children. In this instance, the family asked an experienced photographer to take a photo of their babies even though one of them was deceased.
Additional research on the family added a mystery. There were two surviving infants, but only one lived to be an adult. I wondered what happened to George Boll. Judy was able to send me a funeral card for him.
I don't read German, so if a reader could translate the text and enter it in the comments, I'd really appreciate it.
If you want to know more about funeral cards, genealogist Elizabeth Kelley Kerstens has an online article on the topic. Geneablogger Dee Welborn has a great blog on these cards, Funeral Cards and Genealogy. Fascinating stuff! If you thought they were just death announcements, check out Dee's site. You can learn a lot about your family from these seemingly simple cards.
Judy Linnebach also sent me a photo of an unidentified dead ancestor and a picture of a child who died from hydroencephalitis. If you want to see them, leave me a comment and I'll post them.
In the meantime, please e-mail me photos of multiple births before 1900.
1880s photos | children | unusual photos
Monday, April 12, 2010 4:42:14 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, April 05, 2010
Mother Hubbard
Posted by Maureen
Last week I featured Judy Linnebach's picture of a 19th-century couple and their triplets. If you have a photo of a pre-1900 set of triplets, I'd love to post it in this space. Just about everyone who commented mentioned a multiple birth in their family. I can't wait to see the photos—you can e-mail them to me.
Here's the rest of the story about Judy's photo.
When she wrote to me, she asked if this could be John Basilius Boll, his wife Barbara Platzer Boll and their children. According to her research, the couple married in 1879 and had two children before they had a set of twins in 1883. Is it possible that one of the triplets died and the death went unrecorded? Let's examine the evidence.
The picture is a card photograph measuring 2.5x4 inches. It's the size of a carte de visite. These small card photos were first introduced into the United States in 1859 and remained popular for decades. The thin red line border was first common in the late 1860s.
Tobias and Co. took this photo. On the back of the image is the name of the company and key details about their location and practice.
What I find interesting is the first sentence of the second paragraph: "To Mothers and heads of Families, we wish to call their attention to the frequent trouble of obtaining good and permanent Pictures of Babies." Tobias & Co. had a patented process to guarantee success.
To locate more information on Tobias, I contacted the St. Louis Public Library and spoke with librarians in both the local history collection and in fine arts. The company appeared in 1878 and later city directories, but by the mid-1880s Henry Tobias was a printer. It was unclear from census data if this was the same man who ran the photo studio.
This photo was found in a Bible once owned by Judy's father's maternal grandmother, Lena Wilhelms. Given that it wasn't directly connected to the Boll family, I asked Judy to research all the branches of the family to see if there was another multiple birth. Last week, we learned that multiple births were hereditary, so it's quite possible that this could depict someone else in her family. No luck!
There was another possibility though: Lena's daughter Emma was a genealogist and collected information on the Boll family. It's likely that she placed the pictures in the Bible for safe-keeping.
The clothing clues in this picture are fascinating. The husband wears a simple work shirt (the Bolls were farmers). The wife's dress is barely visible except for a plain neckline and lace-trimmed cuffs. My grandmother always wore a "house dress" when she was home, and I wondered if the same wasn't true in the 1880s. While this woman's dress isn't the current 1880s dress that you see if fashion encyclopedias, there was a wide variety of dresses for women.
In the 1880s, a new style of dress became popular for pregnant women. It was called a Mother Hubbard. Loose-fitting and comfortable, these cotton dresses could be made with a pattern available from a catalog. The mother in this photo had likely just given birth—these are very small infants. With three babies to breast-feed, a comfortable dress like a Mother Hubbard would be perfect attire. They often featured trim at the cuffs, just like you see here.
They were so comfy that many other women wore them belted in summer to stay cool. It was a controversial choice. In the Oct. 26, 1884, New York Times, an article titled, "The Mother Hubbard in Chicago" talked about variations of the dress being worn by women in one neighborhood and how one particular woman had been arrested for it. It ended on a reassuring note: "Ladies who wear Mother Hubbard dresses on the street need not be alarmed. There is no ordinance in Chicago against the wearing of them, although such an ordinance is in vogue in the town of Morris, Ill."
According to Joan Severa in Dressed for the Photographer: Ordinary Americans & Fashion, 1840-1900 (Kent State University Press), these dresses were meant for indoor use. They were house dresses, not to be worn outdoors.
So could this picture depict the Bolls and their children in 1883? The evidence is conflicting.
- In late December 1883, the Bolls had twin boys baptized—Charles and George.
- In the 1900 census, the family is listed except for George. I have to double-check with Judy on his whereabouts. When asked, Barbara said she'd given birth to six children but that only five were still living. Could this refer to a deceased George? There were five children currently living with the parents. Why not mention another child if one of the triplets died?
- Could another multiple birth in the family have gone unrecorded? It's possible.
Right now it appears that this photo documents the Boll family.
- The mother's dress dates from the 1880s.
- The photographer could still be taking images in his printing business (if, of course, it's the same man)
- There are no other documented multiple births in the family.
- Judy has one documented multiple birth—the twin boys.
If this is the Bolls and their babies, then one of these triplets is likely deceased. This was a complicated case.
It's a haunting image. Next week I'll be back with some other unusual pictures from Judy's family!
1880s photos | children | unusual photos | women
Monday, April 05, 2010 5:40:39 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, November 23, 2009
It's a Family Tree Magazine Reunion!
Posted by Maureen
In July, I wrote a column, Which Immigrant Is It, on a photo submitted by Jeannette Bias.
Last week, another woman contacted me to say that she's related to Jeanette and is the great-great-granddaughter of Simon (1843-1892) and Mary (1850-1932) Dulas, the couple possibly depicted in this portrait.
Except that this "new" relative doesn't think the man is Simon. She thinks he could be their son Joseph with whom Mary lived after the death of her husband. Oh boy! The facts in this case make my head hurt.
Here's the line-up of details. I didn't originally assign a date to this image because I was hoping for a little more photographic evidence.
- Simon Dulas dies in 1892 when Mary is only 42. This couple looks a lot older than their early to late 40s.
- There is another picture of Mary for comparison.
 
The image on the left was taken in the early 20th century, probably not long before her death. It is definitely Mary.
On the right is a close-up of the photo from above. Both of these photos appear to be of the same woman, but I wonder. There's a slight difference around the eyes.
There is yet another positively identified photo of Mary, only this time, she's posed with her children behind her.
That's certainly Mary in the front row. Standing directly behind her is her son Joseph (b. 1880). This picture of him confirms that it's not Joseph in the very first photo in this column. The baby on Mary's lap is her first grandchild.
So the mystery remains. If the woman in that first photo is Mary then who's the man standing next to her?
- It's not a brother. All of her brother's were still-born infants.
- Could it be Simon's nephew John (1856-1918)? There are no known pictures of him.
- Could it be Mary's parents? Johan Glowik (1822-1896) and Elizabeth Staloch (1823-1884) Her father immigrates after his wife's death.
- Or is it a very old looking Simon?
If only Jeanette had the original of the first photo. Unfortunately, she doesn't. She obtained a copy from a relative who had gotten a copy from a now unknown other relative. The location of the original cabinet card is now completely a mystery. That's unfortunate. A photographer's imprint on the back could tell us where the picture was taken and help date the photo, perhaps clearing up the identity of the folks in it.
At this point I'm leaning towards the couple in the first column and in the first photo in this column being Mary's parents. That would account for the strong resemblance of the women in all the photos. If that's the case then the couple posed for a picture around the time of Mary's mother Elizabeth's death in 1884. Photos in this time frame could certainly be on white card stock and often featured elaborate painted backdrops of interior scenes.
I'm not completely certain and neither is Jeanette, but it does clear up the age issue. If this couple were Mary's parents and they posed for a portrait in 1884 then Johan would be 62 and Elizabeth 61. Seems likely.
Any one have any aspirin? This case gave me a headache <smile>.
1880s photos | 1900-1910 photos | Immigrant Photos
Monday, November 23, 2009 5:46:03 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, August 31, 2009
Funny Ancestral Pictures
Posted by Maureen
Roxanne Turpin sent me a photo that made me think about the transition in photo poses. In most of the images from the 1840s, 1850s and even 1860s technology and our ancestors' discomfort with being photographed combine to make folks look like they're in pain. Then suddenly, people started to relax in front of the camera. They had fun with photography. Photo studio props and poses caught sitters in action.
I own a picture of a man with a curious expression on his face. It's a little odd:
Turning over the image gave me the answer. The photographer's imprint says the following: "Caricatures, (patented) Ask to see those Funny Pictures taken only at... Theo. F. Chase, Photographer." The pose was intentional! It was taken about 1880.
Now let's look at Turpin's image taken around 1900 (I'm still refining the date) in Fergus Falls, Minn.
It depicts five men playing poker. Their cards and money are on the table. It's a friendly group of men all smoking cigars. The man in the middle moved a bit and blurred—I wish he hadn't moved so I could see his odd hat.
In the July 1909 issue of Photographic Topics (published by the Obrig Camera Company) is a brief news item about how amateur photographers could take funny images of their friends:
Freako-Shutter for Funny Photographs. Fits any camera. The Freako-Shutter is a simple, amusing attachment, and everyone who used a camera should have one. It can be fitted to any camera in a few seconds, after the first adjustment. It will cause no end of amusement in making funny pictures of friends, etc. ...
Basically, the Freako-Shutter allowed the user to shoot two exposures on the same negative. It first became available in 1903. Users could also shoot stereo images with the attachment.
Taking "funny pictures" is still going strong today. Think about the
times you put rabbit ears behind someone's head. <grin> If you have a funny ancestral photo in your family album, send it to me. I'll feature in an upcoming post.
1880s photos | 1900-1910 photos | men | Photo fun
Monday, August 31, 2009 5:16:32 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Pets in the Family on YouTube
Posted by Maureen
It's not hard to believe that the three installments of this blog on ancestors' adorable pets were among the most read. After all, it's family history from a different perspective—pets in the family. Since this week is the Westminster Dog Show, I thought I'd try a different presentation method for the photos. I've received a few more pictures for this album, but instead of posting them individually, I incorporated them into a video.
I'm going to tweak it some more and see if I can boost the quality. I produced it in high definition but uploading it to YouTube compressed the files resulting in some blurring.
Just in case you missed the series:
Pets in Pictures
An Album of Ancestors' Family Pets
Pet Photos: Our Ancestors Loved Their Dogs, Too!
I'd like to thank everyone who sent in pictures!
(For more genealogy videos, see the Family Tree Magazine YouTube channel.) BTW—I have a new e-newsletter that lists my speaking schedule,and contains a link to the Photo Detective video podcast. It's absolutely free. Sign up is on my Web site.
1870s photos | 1880s photos | 1890s photos | 1900-1910 photos | 1910s photos | 1920s photos | candid photos | children | men | Pets | Videos | women
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:13:17 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Friday, August 01, 2008
Medical Conditions and Family History
Posted by Maureen
Two weeks ago I put out a call for photos showing medical conditions. There are three images and one blog link in this post so be sure to read all the way to the end. The inspiration for that request was a photo that Elizabeth Vollrath emailed me in May.   It's a lovely 1880s photograph showing an unusual feature in her right ear. While not a medical condition, it made me think about details in photos. Vollrath's dad inherited the split in the earlobe, showing a relationship to this unknown woman. I wondered whether she was his grandmother. I was close. A cousin later positively identified this woman as Ida Sophia Hass (b. 1866). Ida's sister Pauline Hass was Vollrath's great-great-grandmother, and her dad's great grandmother. Diedra March sent me this photo of her great-grandfather's family.   She thinks her dad has inherited macular degeneration from this man, his mother's father. Anders Norberg appears to have something wrong with his eyes. According to March, Macular Degeneration causes blindness in your center vision, and people with the condition often look out of the corners of their eyes. Rachel McPherson shared a photo of a school group that shows her grandmother in a leg brace (front row, fourth from right) due to polio.   She was born in 1933, before a vaccine was available. Bloggers like to share through their online postings. The Footnote Maven posted a medically related photo on her blog, Shades of the Departed, on " Health Issues and Women Wearing Glasses." Thank you to everyone who sent images in response to my request!
1880s photos | group photos | men | photo-research tips | women
Friday, August 01, 2008 4:23:52 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, March 10, 2008
Multi-generational Portraits
Posted by Maureen
There's something special about seeing a grandmother and grandchild posed together in a photograph. This little tyke is the spitting image of her grandma.  Emma Dempster-Greenbaum owns this picture. It's labeled "Grandmother & Sarah Ann." The photographer was J.C. Cone and Sons of Farmington. Emma dated this photo based on family information. At 11 months old, Sarah Ann Jackson immigrated to the United States with her parents in November, 1886. The clothing details support this time frame. Sarah wears a typical baby dress while her grandmother's conservative pleated skirt and fitted bodice are from the 1880s. Her dress lacks the bustle typically worn by younger women. Her eye-catching hat accessorizes her outfit—it's tied with a wide ribbon at the chin, and the high crown features what looks like leaves and small berries. She holds a handkerchief, ready for a drooling baby. The photographer also fits the time frame. Emma researched J.C. Cone and found he lived in Farmington, Ill. I double-checked and found Joseph C. Cone in both the 1900 census for Farmington and in a biographical encylopedia, Portrait Biographical Album of Fulton County, Illinois (1890). There's a bit of bragging in his business name. Cone was 58 in 1900, and his son, 27. When he printed the photographic card bearing this photo, his son was still a teenager just learning his father's business. It's the grandmother's presence that confuses the picture evidence. While Emma found an immigration record for Sarah Ann and her parents, she's unable to verify that grandmother Catherine Dempster came with them. Catherine was the baby's only living grandmother in the 1880s. Emma wonders if this picture is a copy of one taken in England. That's possible, but it's also likely his is an original. So, how old is Sarah Ann in this picture? She's still a baby, based on her short hair and long dress. The length of the dress indicates she's not walking yet—otherwise, the dress would be shorter to accomodate her steps. Since most children's first steps occurring around a year to 15 months of age, Sarah Ann is probably less than a year old here. Unfortunately, this data doesn't help determine whether the photo was taken in Illinois shortly after arrival, or in England before she left. I'll be back next week with a follow-up.
1880s photos | children | photographers imprints | women
Monday, March 10, 2008 9:56:31 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Crayon-Enhanced Portrait of a Child
Posted by Maureen
Last week I wrote about Carolanne’s portraits of her relatives Laura Gilman and her husband James Wyatt Weed. Here’s a third, unidentified, picture. Behind each picture is a story, and Caroleann's three portraits are no different. Photo identification techniques can tell you when a person sat for a picture, but it’s the historical and genealogical research that fills in the details of their lives. In this case, Carolanne knows the birth dates of Laura, James and their four children, Flora (b. 1874), Alvah (b. 1879), Wyatt James (b. 1881) and Addie (1883). The family folklore and her research reveal a tragic tale you’d never guess by looking at their lovely pictures.  First, let’s identify the baby in this crayon portrait. I’d estimate this child is around 2 years old. The child is wearing a dress, but the outfit and short hair confirm the sex and dates. During the 1880s, little boys wore “masculine” dresses like this one, featuring less trim than by girls’ dresses. Wide lace collars were in vogue, too. The short hair could be due the toddler’s age or because his mother cut it short to mimic men’s styles. Notice the ball in his right hand. It’s either a photographer’s trick to help him sit still, or a treasured possession. The artist or photographer who enhanced the image with charcoal did a good job around the face but didn’t accurately draw the hands and feet. Since the artistic style is similar to that of his parent’s pictures, the work was probably done by the same studio. Therefore, if this portrait depicts Alvah, it was created around 1881, and if it’s his brother, it dates from about 1883. Either identification is possible. There is also an emotional story to this image. Around 1910, Wyatt moved to California with a friend to “hook up electricity.” The next year, his mother received a telegram that “Wyatt J Weed accidentally killed eighty dollars in bank wire instructions." In a second missive from Wyatt’s friend, his mother learned he died when he “took hold of a drop light in a dark cellar” and that the embalmer wanted seventy-five dollars for a metal-lined box and casket. The friend offered to arrange transportation home. His sister Addie remembered it cost $172 to bring Wyatt back to Maine and that the loss of her son changed Laura forever. Carolanne thinks that's why the grief-stricken mother would’ve kept this portrait of Wyatt, rather than another son, but the clothing clues suggest it could be either boy. A picture is sometimes just an icon for the greater tale of your family. Take time to research the life of each person to fit their photograph into their life story. Carolanne has.
1880s photos | children | enhanced images
Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:37:51 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, August 13, 2007
Clues Your Old Photo Was Taken in Summer
Posted by Maureen
Here in New England where winters are long, we embrace summer and often carry cameras to capture moments in the sunshine. When you think about picture-taking patterns in your family, don’t disregard the seasons. This week I’m revisiting some of my older columns to show you how to spot scenes of summer in your family photo collection. Last year, Judy Miller sent this photo of a family in front of a seashore backdrop, a clue that perhaps the group lived near the shore or visited on holidays. The children's lightweight white dresses indicate warm weather. The mother’s hat actually suggested a season, too—a similar hat appeared in the August 1885 Peterson’s Magazine.  Clothes also indicate a summer get-together in this photo—the women’s dresses look like lawn, a light fabric, while the men shed their jackets and rolled up their sleeves. Counting stars in the flag provided a time frame of 1908 to 1912. ( Find out how the stars helped.) Patriotic decorations could show up for events at various times of year, but combined with the summer attire, they suggest this is an Independence Day celebration.  The dresses on the four girls sitting near the railroad tracks in this candid snapshot date it to about 1900. The lush foliage on the trees across the tracks narrows the time of year to summer.  This similar group portrait, also taken by an amateur photographer, is clearly another summer snapshot—you can tell from the white dresses and leaves on the young trees in the background.  Go through your photos to find women and children in white, men and boys in straw boaters (a popular summer accessory) and trees and gardens in full bloom. Add them to the Photo Detective Forum and I'll put together an online album to celebrate the end of the season.
1880s photos | 1900-1910 photos | 1910s photos | photo backgrounds
Monday, August 13, 2007 7:47:32 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, June 04, 2007
Porcelain Complexion (Literally!)
Posted by Maureen
I own a pillow case with a photograph of my grandmother taken in about 1910. You’re probably thinking it’s an unusual picture format, but it’s actually not. In the early days of photography, daguerreotype buttons and jewelry were common. Once paper prints and light-sensitive chemicals became readily available, photographers could develop pictures on anything you could apply the chemicals to: leather, wood, paper, cloth and like this week’s photo submission, a piece of porcelain.  This photo’s size, 3 x 4 inches, and hand coloring give it the appearance of an 18th century painted portrait miniature. It’s really a photo enhanced with color to make it look like a painting. When Diana Truxell showed this picture to a friend who likes old photographs, the friends didn’t recognize it either, and suggested Truxell send it to me. Thank you! I’m always on the lookout for photographs on items other than cardboard. Truxell is also trying to figure out who’s in the picture. This is one of those queries that make me feel like I’m playing a game show with a choice of answers. Is it her husband’s grandmother Mary Ditner (Martin) Truxell (born 1891)? Or Mary’s mother (born 1863)? The woman’s high-necked dress, prominent buttons and contrasting trim date the picture to about 1883 to 1888. This is likely Mary’s mother, who would be between 20 and 25 years old in this picture. Oral traditions and provenance (the chain of ownership) can confirm the ID. Truxell had one final question: Does the unique surface indicate this woman lived anywhere in particular? No, photographers across the country, even in rural areas, had access to materials that allowed them to creatively present family pictures. The careful coloring of this photo wasn’t done by an amateur though. Professional photographers often employed artists to handle such intricate jobs. Case solved!
unusual surfaces | women | 1880s photos
Monday, June 04, 2007 7:26:52 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
|