Photo Detective with Maureen A. Taylor

Holiday Photos from Your Family Albums
Posted by Maureen

Thank you to Kim Dawson, Carol Norwood and Fran Jensen for sending in holiday photos from their family albums.

Kim Dawson sent me this lovely photo of a family with their Christmas tree. The child is Elsie Marion Quakenbush (born 1908). She's posed with her mother Ella Baird Quakenbush and her father, Alfred Garfield Quakenbush. On the back it says "To Grandma with love from us all don't fail to see Elsie's baby doll it looks just like a baby." I enlarged the picture to look at the doll.

It is pretty life-like. It looks like Elsie also received a book "Sing a Song of Sixpence" and a tea set. Her parent's are proudly posed with a new Victrola so perhaps that was their Christmas present. Elsie looks about 6 or 7.

Kim thinks that Alfred's brother George Willis Quackenbush took the photo. He was a photographer in Oxford, New York.

Carol Norwood submitted an image of her parent's Bill and Cita Jacobs. They are sitting under the tree at Cita's parents home in Hartford, Connecticut. The Jacobs were still newlyweds. They were married three months prior to Christmas.

Fran Jensen emailed me this charming studio shot of four children. Her grandfather, John Roy Tolve Johansen is on the right. His sister Alma sits next to him. She's hugging a china faced doll. The other boy and girl are the Bough's who were the photographer's children. It was taken in Ringsted, Iowa.

Here's one more picture. This is one from my non-family collection.

I don't know the identify of these two boys, but on the back it says "Christmas 1898." Don't you just love their modified Little Lord Fauntleroy suits.

Happy Holidays! If you want to see more Christmas trees, I have a short video on my Vimeo channel.

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

Monday, December 19, 2011 2:32:18 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, December 12, 2011

Painted Woods Update
Posted by Maureen

Richard Levine has taken on this mystery photo, which he originally thought was taken in Painted Woods, ND. We've emailed back and forth about his progress and I thought it was time to update all of you about what he's been up to. This is the photo featured in two of the November columns of this blog; check out Part 2.

After this installment appeared online, Richard wrote to say that he now thought the photo was a wedding. He thinks that it could be his grandmother Rose Confeld (b. 1885) and her husband Samuel Levine (b.1883). They were married Aug. 15, 1905, at Kistler's Hall in Minneapolis, Minn. The hall appears in city directories and in newspapers. His next step was to try to locate a photo of it from the Minnesota Historical Society.

He's also compiled a list of second and third cousins to mail them a letter and a copy of this picture. He's determined to figure out the significance of this photo!

I suggested trying to find a Sanborn Insurance atlas of the area around Kistler's. These maps have construction details which would verify that the building was wood and also tell you something about the neighborhood. This photo appears to have been taken in a rural area.

Richard found a picture of Kistler's from 1914. It shows how rural the area was. He also located a hand-drawn map from the 1920s that identifies a four-story Kistler building on the same street as the Kistler's Hall. The hall is no longer at the junction of 6th Avenue N. and Lyndale Ave.; the area now has a freeway intersection.

He retraced his steps and went back to his family history. Now he's investigating land his great-grandfather Joseph Confeld owned in Anoka County, Minn.

I'll be back with the next update. Every week Richard gets closer to solving this 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

1900-1910 photos | Jewish

Monday, December 12, 2011 3:05:49 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [1]

Monday, November 21, 2011

Census Diving: Browsing for Facts
Posted by Maureen

As genealogists, we mine census records for our ancestors and the details of their lives. For the last two weeks I've written about Richard Levine's puzzling pic in Is this Painted Woods North Dakota? and Painted Woods Mystery: Part Two.

One of the tools I used to research the photo was the 1900 US census. I routinely use online census records to learn more about when photographers were in business and to fill in background information.

For the Levine mystery, I wanted to see just how many folks lived in Painted Woods, ND, and whether that information could help identify who's in the picture.

I browsed the census pages. While I might hesitate to read the census page by page for major metropolitan areas, it's a great way to learn more about small communities. Here's how to do it:

On HeritageQuest Online, a ProQuest database available through many libraries, click the link for Census. There are two options at the census tab: Search or Browse (some records aren't indexed, so they're available only by browsing). Click browse. Select the census year, state, county and location.

In Levine's case my selections were 1900, North Dakota, Burleigh and Painted Woods. There were only a couple of pages for the families there.

On Ancestry.com it is also possible to browse census pages. On the right hand side of the census search box for each year of the census is a Browse box. You'll need to narrow the search by year, state, county and location to see the pages.

By reading the pages for Painted Woods, I learned that most of Jewish settlers had left the area by 1900. The area was then home to many Scandinavian immigrants.

In an unidentified family group portrait, a census record can help you determine who's in the picture: List the genders and estimated ages of the people in the photograph, then check census records for your relatives who were alive at the time the photo was taken. Look for a household whose members match the genders and estimated ages of those in the photo.

When I use the census to research photographers, I fill in the years between the decennial enumerations with city directories, state censuses and any other pertinent records.

I'd like to know if you've ever used the census to solve a picture mystery. If you have, please use the comment box below this column. I look forward to reading them.

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

1900-1910 photos | photo-research tips

Monday, November 21, 2011 2:42:09 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [3]

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Painted Woods Mystery: Part Two
Posted by Maureen

Yesterday morning, I called Richard Levine to discuss his photograph of a family group possibly posed at Painted Woods, ND.

I featured the photo and the mystery in last week’s column.

Levine has known about this photo for only a few months. His cousin Sally showed it to him and told him that her mother said it was taken at Painted Woods. There are a few inconsistencies in this identification, though.

Richard’s ancestors, Joseph and Anna Confeld, immigrated from Kishinev, Bessarabia in 1885, and settled in Painted Woods.

Another set of Richard’s ancestors, Barouk and Hannah Dorfman, also lived in Painted Woods. The Dorfmans were among the first settlers to the area in 1882.

Both families lived there only for a few years and then moved to Minnesota.

Richard and Sally thought that since family said the picture was taken in Painted Woods, it must date from the 1880s. Last week, I looked at the clothing details and determined the original image dates to circa 1900. This generates some questions.

The photo might not be of the Painted Woods community. In fact, by 1900, most of the Jewish settlers had moved elsewhere. The 1900 federal census for the community enumerates a number of Scandinavian families living in the area.

If this picture was taken in Painted Woods, Richard needs to determine why the family would return to the area. Could it be a family reunion, a wedding, or a funeral?

One of the big problems is a lack of comparison photographs. I suggested comparing the faces in the group portrait with other photographs in the family. Unfortunately, Richard lacks images of family members. He’s hoping that someone will read this column and either have photographs of Painted Woods or of the Confelds or Dorfmans.

Richard’s research turned up a first-person account of life in the community. Joseph Steinman (related to the Dorfmans) wrote about the hardships of life on the North Dakota frontier. It’s at the Jewish Historical Society of the Upper Midwest.

Another resource worth investigating is William Sherman’s Jewish Settlement in North Dakota Collection at the Institute for Regional Studies & University Archives at the North Dakota State University Libraries. (Click here to download a PDF finding aid for the collection.)

If anyone is interested in reading about daily life on the northern frontier, I suggest Rachel Calof’s Story: Jewish Homesteader on the Northern Plains (Indiana State University, 1995). It’s an amazing true story.

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

1900-1910 photos | group photos | Jewish

Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:03:21 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, June 27, 2011

Photo Wishes Really Do Come True
Posted by Maureen

There are two success stories this week: an answer for the contest winner and a current connection for a 20th century mystery!

First, there is a solution to the picture of the men dressed like Indians that I covered in Contest Winner Mystery and Contest Winner Revisted. A few people wrote to me and suggested that the men might be members of the Improved Order of Red Men (IORM).

A year or so ago, I enlisted the help of David Lintz of the IORM for another photo. He confirmed my suspicions (and those of readers) that this group of men dressed in loin cloths could in fact be members of the IORM. He sent me a list of the tribes active in Cincinnati from 1851 to 1905. From 1896 to 1902, there was only one tribe in the city: Wyandot Tribe No. 5. There were two earlier tribes that worked in German and Lintz thought that perhaps Charles Schmidt was once a member of one of them. However, the only tribe that fits the time frame of the picture is the Delaware Tribe No. 20, which was founded in 1866 and remained active until 1896.

If Juliann Hansen's ancestor was a member of the IORM, he would have been eligible for membership at age 21. It's time to take a closer look at those painted faces for her great-grandfather.

contest winneredit.jpg

Lintz thinks that this photo depicts the Degree Team. He told me that there were usually 16 to 19 members, if the tribe had that many, trained in ceremonies. These men held the initiation ceremony for new members and raided members through the three degrees of the order.

Way back in March, I featured a page from Carol Norwood's mother's shipboard scrapbook in Around the World with Family. Last week she wrote to me to say she'd made a connection.

Her mother's scrapbook included autographs from fellow travelers, poems and drawings. One of the signatures was from Babeta Hofmeyr, who was on the ship Poelau Tello with Norwood's mother and aunt. Hofmeyr's son is still living and wrote to Carol.

I'm so happy for Juliann Hansen and Carol Norwood!

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

1900-1910 photos | Photos from abroad

Monday, June 27, 2011 8:14:44 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [0]

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Contest Winner Revisited
Posted by Maureen

Last week I wrote about Juliann Hansen's photo of men dressed like Native Americans. It's definitely a mystery. No real breakthroughs this week.

Genealogy Insider Diane Haddad found another collection of Cincinnati Butcher Supply Company material at the University of California at Davis. A small group of material was donated by the Schmidt family in 2001. Alas...the photos in the collection date from the 1920s to 1950s, too late to be related to the men in the original image.

contest winneredit.jpg

Juliann's cousin Peggy is also curious about this photo. She owns a copy of an 1890 portrait of the men who worked at the Cincinnati Butcher Supply.

cbs01 002.jpg

I studied the two photos and didn't see any faces that jumped out at me as being the same men. A Nov. 17, 1939, article in the Cincinnati Times contained this image with a caption identifying a few of the men. The problem is, the caption was wrong. The middle boy is definitely Oscar Schmidt, Juliann's grandfather.

So right now there are no answers. I'm back to considering fraternal organizations. The degree of undress in the first image suggests that women weren't present. Too scandalous for their delicate temperaments <smile>.

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

1900-1910 photos | men | organizations | props in photos

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:46:37 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [2]

Monday, May 23, 2011

Scenic Assistance
Posted by Maureen

Thank you to everyone that attended last week's Photo Detective Live! webinar. Don't worry if you missed it. You can still watch and listen to it online. There's even a free PDF download to go with it.

This week's photo was submitted as part of our call for images for the contest that accompanies the webinar. (The Photo Mysteries contest concludes this Friday, May 27—here's how to enter.) I'll be featuring these photos and questions in the next few weeks.

Sharon Woodsum sent in a great set of images. Her family called this photo "Roberts on the Cliff" and believed that it was taken in Wales, home to her husband's grandfather of that surname.

That's until Sharon spotted this postcard of the exact location.

Notice the similarities in the background. You can see the lighthouse and the other buildings on the cliff. Now Sharon thinks the family is actually the Emersons of Portland, Maine. It's possible that her grandfather Anthony E. Roberts is in the picture. I'll fill you in on that comparison next week.

So why did the family go to Nubble Light? It's a beautiful lighthouse and has been in that location since 1879. If this is the Emerson family, they could be on a day-trip to York, Maine, but since it's more than 40 miles from Portland to York and the lighthouse, perhaps the family is on vacation in the area. The date for the photo of this group on the rocks is circa 1900.

Sharon was lucky to find a postcard view that confirmed the location of the first photo. It yielded a clue that is helping her sort out the evidence in the group portrait.

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

1900-1910 photos | group photos | photo backgrounds | unusual surfaces

Monday, May 23, 2011 6:56:22 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [1]

Monday, April 25, 2011

A Picture Pile-up
Posted by Maureen

I love unusual surnames. It's probably because my last name and many of my ancestral surnames often end up on those top 10 lists of popular names.

Laurie Clement has a great chance to identify the folks in her unidentified image. She thinks this large family group shares the surname of Burkepile.

All she needs is a date and she's on her way.

I think this could be an impromptu itinerant photo studio shot. The whole family is standing in front of a white backdrop that looks suspiciously like a sheet. Mom, Dad and seven children stare directly at the camera. There's a single boy in the back row. Finding this family in the census should be possible.

The tight dress sleeves and hairstyles suggest a date of circa 1900. It's a great picture of a family caught on the cusp of a new century.

A quick look at the 1900 federal census using HeritageQuest Online (available through many libraries) found families of Burkepiles living in Kansas, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania. I didn't find any obvious matches, but Laurie and her distant cousins are working on a solution.

My fingers are crossed!

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

1900-1910 photos | children | group photos

Monday, April 25, 2011 8:39:36 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, February 07, 2011

Baby Picture Week
Posted by Maureen

Last week, Genealogy Insider blogger Diane Haddad, gave birth to a beautiful baby. In honor of this, I'm featuring your ancestral baby photos. Thank you for all the submissions.

estelle baby2.jpg

Kim Dolce sent in this picture of her grandmother Estelle Miller Moore, who was born May 12, 1911, in Riverside, N.J. Estelle looks like she's about to topple over.

Ben Adolph babies2.jpg

Linday Bly Holub emailed me this charming picture of her grandfather Benjamin Bly (on the left), born November 1890, in Moberly, Mo., and his baby brother Adolph Bly, born January 1893, in the same town.

Carol Norwood submitted several photos of three generations of baby pictures. Here are two.

This is her maternal grandmother, Agnes Catherine Caroline Simon, born in 1896 in Erlangen, Germany. Don't you love her bare feet!

This is Carol's maternal grandfather, Helmuth Dromer, born in Potsdam, Germany in 1900. Small children of both sexes wore dresses. Carol actually owns pictures of his two older sisters, who as toddlers also posed in this dress sitting in this basket.

I've seen many different techniques and devices to photograph babies and small children, but one has to wonder about this basket. Cute, but if you look closely you'll notice the basket is on a pedestal. One false move the this tot is on the floor.

1890s photos | 1900-1910 photos | children

Monday, February 07, 2011 2:50:32 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, January 17, 2011

In Honor of Martin Luther King Day
Posted by Maureen

I realized today that I don't spend enough time on Flickr. If you're not familiar with it, try it today. It's a wonderful free resource. You can upload picture files, invite comments and share your pictorial heritage. If you want unlimited uploads and storage, user statistics and more then upload to a Pro account. It's only $24.95 a year.

So who's on Flickr? Lots of folks including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian. Smaller public libraries and archives also use Flickr to showcase the images in their collection.

In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Day, I searched for image collections appropriate to the occasion.

Black History Album
A lovely group of images including one of Martin Luther King and his wife.

Black History Group
Members of this group share photos and videos and join in discussions

African American Baseball Team courtesy of the Library of Congress
Here's one of the images in the Library of Congress.

Medal of Honor Staff Sgt. Edward A. Carter, Jr. courtesy of the U.S. Army
Even the U.S. Army has a Flickr page!

Next week: Preservation Pointers.

Get ideas for taking, preserving, sharing and analyzing family photos from our Family Photo Essentials CD (now on sale at ShopFamilyTree.com).

1900-1910 photos | african american | men | Military photos | Photo-sharing sites

Monday, January 17, 2011 4:04:10 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, December 13, 2010

Immigrant Clues and Family Stories
Posted by Maureen

Poorescan0002 edit.jpg

Terri Poore and her cousin have a lot of questions about this photo. Who, what, when and where is just the beginning.

Unfortunately, the original owner of the picture is currently unknown. Terri's cousin received a copy of it years ago and can't remember who gave him the print.

Terri and her cousin believe the folks in the picture are Felix Horvat (1884-1952), his first wife Sophie (1890-1918) and their daughter Anna 1909-1997). I agree with this identification.

There is a long complicated story about this couple. It's very important to write down the oral history of your family because you never know when all the pieces will link up. This photo is a perfect example of how stories and pictures are a natural match.

First the facts: Sophie's hat in this picture and her coat date the picture. She is very well-dressed in a heavy wool coat, fur collar and an oversize hat known as a toque. Her hat and clothing combined with the birth date of their daughter date this picture to circa 1910. Toques were all the rage at the end of the first decade of the 20th century.

Her husband wears ethnic dress that identifies him as a resident of Croatia. The family lived in Ljubljujana, Croatia.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Family stories relate how this couple met. He was a country boy who worked as a coach driver for a wealthy family—the Bahuneks. Their daughter ran away with the coachman! Sophie, her husband Felix and their daughter Anna immigrated to the United States in 1911 and lived in West Virginia for a time. The Bahuneks followed their daughter and also immigrated.

There is a sad twist to this tale. According to family lore, when Sophie gave birth to Terri's grandfather Nicholas in 1912, Sophie's mother was present for the birth. Her mother and the midwife decided she shouldn't have any more children with that "awful man" so they tried to perform a gynecological procedure to prevent more children.

The Horvat family moved to Michigan, but Sophie was so ill after the childbirth procedure that Felix allowed her family to move her back to West Virginia so they could care for her. He retained the children. In 1918, Sophie likely died from complications related to that botched procedure.

Family stories also relate how immediately following her death, her husband Felix and her father had a knife fight to determine the custody of the children. Felix won. He took the children back to Michigan and eventually married the children's caretaker, also named Sophie.

This photo is the gateway to an amazing family tale. Present in the image is pictorial evidence of the economic difference between the husband and wife. She's very fashionably dressed while he still wears his native dress. She's the city dweller and he's from the country.

Now Terri is trying to piece together the family history and try to locate living relatives.

1900-1910 photos | children | hats | Immigrant Photos

Monday, December 13, 2010 4:47:53 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [2]

Monday, November 15, 2010

Lookalikes in the Family Album
Posted by Maureen

I'll blame it on the holiday season. I'm feeling a little silly today. I laughed out loud when I saw Karen Thornhill's picture submission. Thank you Karen!

It's not the subject matter of the photo that made be chuckle, it's how she started the e-mail. First, though...who do you think the woman on the left looks like? Karen wrote me with the following opening line "Glenn Close, Abraham Lincoln and a baby."

It started me thinking: Do you have any celebrity lookalikes in your family album? Go ahead. Send them in to me in an email.

Just for comparison purposes, here's a picture of a young Abraham Lincoln from the Library of Congress. It was taken Oct. 1, 1858.

And here's a Wikipedia link to images of Glenn Close.

The actual subjects depicted in this family photo are Karen's grandparents and her aunt—Rosetta (Seeley) Eldred and Emmet Ernest Eldred with baby Emma (Eldred) Johnson.

Share your family photo stories with future generations in the book Family Tree Legacies: Preserving Memories Throughout Time.

1900-1910 photos | men

Monday, November 15, 2010 2:42:41 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [4]

Monday, September 27, 2010

It's Fall and Back to School
Posted by Maureen

This week, I've created a short video of photos from school days in the past. You can watch "School Days" and other video shorts on my Vimeo page.

While the majority of images in "School Days" are from the nation's picture library, aka The Library of Congress, some of the pictures are from my collection of photographs I've purchased.

One of my favorites is this little girl and a woman in a dotted shirt that dates from around 1900. Without the caption, you'd immediately think this is a mom and her daughter. Not in this case. It's a little girl and her teacher.

It's evidence that this little girl attended some sort of school (of course this could be her piano teacher). When you're researching your family it's easy to overlook records relating to ancestral childhoods. School records are a great way to find out just where you got your talent in math or in my case, my poor handwriting <smile>. You can learn more about school records here and don't forget to use the search box at the top right of the Family Tree Magazine site to search our archive of articles.

Got a mystery photo? Demystify it with help from Maureen A. Taylor's book Uncovering Your Ancestry Through Family Photographs.

1900-1910 photos | children | women

Monday, September 27, 2010 9:15:04 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [1]

Monday, July 26, 2010

Prize Catch
Posted by Maureen

No doubt about it, I've looked at a lot of family photos. Every so often there's an image that not only depicts an ancestor, but also documents a bit of local history. Take this photo, for instance:

Otis Shepardson family cougar edit.jpg

Pamela Fisher sent me this photo owned by her cousin Lorrie Glover. The women thinks the man on the right (with the dog) is their great-grandfather Otis Shepardson.

Otis Shepardson family cougargrandfather.jpg

Otis Shepardson family cougargrandfather.jpg

Not everyone in the family agrees. Shepardson was born in 1880 in Home Valley (Cowlitz County), Wash.

This picture is mounted to a gray piece of card stock. It can be difficult to date a group photo where no one is wearing very fashionable clothes. Men's clothing is particularly challenging because the fashion changes are subtle. The style of men's hats suggests that it was taken circa 1900. If that's true then it could be Otis.

There is one woman in the picture. She wears a frontier-style bonnet that protects her face from the sun. Perhaps one of the boys is her son.

Otis Shepardson family cougar bonnet.jpg

Otis Shepardson family cougar bonnet.jpg

Also in the photo is a man in the background who looks like he just stepped off his horse. He wears a cowboy hat and a kerchief around his neck.

Otis Shepardson family cougarman.jpg

This photo just begs the viewer to fill in the details and answer these questions.

Who shot the mountain lion?
Why are the men gathered around? (It could be the day the lion was placed there.)

I think I know why a taxidermied mountain lion is on display in the town. It's quite possible that this animal threatened the town. Once it was shot, the town mounted it on tree stump (notice the wooden post to keep its head up). Whoever shot it must have been the town hero.

My husband's ancestral hometown of Peru, Vt., once had a bear on display in the town center. I have photographic proof in an early 20th century postcard.

You'll find help identifying the mystery photos in your family albums in Maureen A. Taylor's book Uncovering Your Ancestry Through Family Photographs.

1900-1910 photos | group photos | unusual photos

Monday, July 26, 2010 6:37:36 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [5]

Monday, April 26, 2010

Head-to-Toe Fashion Sense
Posted by Maureen

Pamela Fisher sent in this gorgeous photo of a confident and determined young woman. Her direct gaze shows she's comfortable in front of the camera. The question is, of course, who is she?

Pamela owns an old book that had a small collection of photos stuck in the pages. The book and the photos belonged to the Fisher family. Since the provenance (history of ownership) of the items suggested young woman was a member of the Fisher family, Pamela thought this would be an easy ID. She thought it must be Rilla Cooper (b. 1860)who married into the Fisher family and that the photo was taken in Spokane, Wash., circa 1880. Rilla is a mysterious ancestor her family doesn't know much about.

Unfortunately, this identification is incorrect. As soon as I saw the image, I knew it wasn't taken in the 1880s, when women's dresses had fitted bodices and large buttons. From head to toe, this young woman is the epitome of early-20th century fashion.

When I called Pamela to discuss the picture she wondered, "If not Rilla, then who?" That's the exactly the problem. Let's stack up the clues and see if it's possible to narrow the time frame.

Hair: In the first decade of the 20th century, women wore their hair full. Creating this hairstyle required a "rat," a device made from your own hair harvested from a hair brush and formed into a sausage roll or (artificial versions existed). Women's magazines such as Ladies Home Journal ridiculed the extreme hairstyles of this period by showing examples of good and bad hair.

Hat: It's difficult to see, but it appears that this young woman wears a hat. Large hats were the style in the decade from 1900 to 1910. In this case, it looks like a collection of ribbons.

Dress: In the early years of the 1900- to-1910 period, dresses featured high necklines and lace insets in the yoke; in the latter part of the decade, large buttons added detail to the yoke. Corsets, which women wore beginning in their teens, created narrow waistlines.

Late-19th century dress reform advocates changed the way women dressed. In the 20th century many women worked in offices and needed functional, easy-care clothing. The two-piece outfit—blouse and skirt—was a necessity.

A quick glance at the 1909 Sears catalog shows blouses, skirts and hairstyles just like the one worn by this girl. You can view them in Joanne Olian's book, Everyday Fashions 1909-1920 as Pictured in the Sears Catalog (Dover Publications). Shirts with buttons and tucks were commonplace from about 1905 on.

Shoes: Pamela wondered why this girl crossed her legs. It's not uncommon to see women in this time frame posing this way, but most women of the time believed crossing one's legs was not in good taste.

Perhaps this girl wanted to show off her boots. They're highly polished leather walking boots laced up the front. It looks like they have a bishop heel that tapers from the heel to the bottom. If that's true, this detail helps date the image. According to Nancy Rexford's Women's Shoes in America, 1795-1930 (Kent State University Press), this type of heel was popular through 1905, then it was replaced by other shapes.

So who is this stylish young woman? If the photo was taken about 1905, Pamela wonders if she could be Rilla (Cooper) Fisher's daughter Elizabeth who was born between 1883 and 1885. In 1905, Lizzie would be 20 to 22 years of age.

1900-1910 photos | hairstyles | women

Monday, April 26, 2010 3:49:57 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [2]

Monday, April 19, 2010

Birth and Death in the Family Album: Readers Respond
Posted by Maureen

Joy and sadness often go hand in hand in family photo collections. This week I'll show off some photos that readers sent me. Be warned....the last two pictures depict disturbing images.

Susan Roose thinks the photo above depicts William (died November 22, 1877) and Daniel Hunt (died November 30, 1877). They were both just a few months older than one year. Notice the woman under the cloth. She's holding them still. These two babies look very healthy here.

twinsC07 Alston girls (3).jpg

Elizabeth Handler emailed this ambrotype of Marion Helen Alston (1850-1885) and her twin sister Christina. The back of the image states that it was framed by J.J. Gillespie Co. Fine Arts. Gillespie was a famous frame shop in Pittsburgh.

Violet Olive Victoria Victor Clements (2).jpg

Violet Olive Victoria Victor Clements (2).jpg

Bonnie Bileski of Winnipeg, Manitoba sent this snapshot of Violet Clements, her grandmother Olive Clements (back, right) and the twins, Victor and Victoria (born July 1, 1899).

Last week I told you I had some sad pictures from Judy Linnebach's family collection. Since so many folks e-mailed me to see them, I'll share them here.

deformed baby (4).jpg

Judy thinks that this picture depicts Freida Kohler (Nov. 7, 1907 -July 6, 1924). The cause of death was congenital hydrocephalus.

dead guy (3).jpg

Judi has no idea who this man is. All that's certain is that he's deceased and that he was photographed in St. Louis. Jay Ruby's book, Secure the Shadow: Death and Photography in America (out of print, but available used) is the best guide to this topic.

Jackie McGuire sent in this picture with a heartbreaking story. A family story relates the tragedy of Elsietta Burns: "She was a much-beloved little girl, they say, but one day she was outside playing under the cherry tree and eating lots of cherries. She didn't know to spit out the pits and they killed her before the family could do anything for her."

1900-1910 photos | 1910s photos | children | men | unusual photos

Monday, April 19, 2010 3:55:59 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [1]

Monday, December 07, 2009

Finding the Story, Part Two
Posted by Maureen

Last week, I examined a lovely portrait of a young couple and their son. Although family in Canada identified the husband and wife as Fred and Marie Klingbeil, the facts of Fred's life and the date of the photo don't add up.

I asked Joan Lee if she had any other positively identified images of Fred to use for comparison. She did:

Klingbeil Frededit .jpg

In this one, Fred is a young man. This image looks like a high school graduation picture, which would place it in the c. 1900 time frame. His clothing and hair are appropriate for this period.

If you compare this image to the one featured last week, you'll see how the two men have strong jaws, but their other features aren't a match. They have different ears, eyes and even hair.

There's an even bigger question in Joan's research than who's who in the first image: She's been thorough and careful, but could she be looking at the wrong family tree. She started with a simple question about her father-in-law, Melvin Lee. "Who was his father?" Lee didn't know. He's alternated used Lee as a surname with that of his step-father, Martinson. Joan aimed to find out.

Joan found Melvin's birth record in a microfilm of the St. Petrie American Lutheran Church (Nome, North Dakota) 1904/05 register she'd obtained from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. His parent's were listed as Fred Cleigbol and Josie Lee. Josie Lee wasn't married to Cleigbol.

Tracking down additional information on the Lee family didn't turn up any new leads on Melvin's father, but Joan did find a name change. The Lees were Norwegian immigrants originally named Olson. The family legally changed their surname in 1876.

I'm impressed with Joan's follow-through. She researched 28 surname variations and left messages on multiple message boards. No luck!

A breakthrough came when a Lee cousin planned a family reunion and arranged a service at the St. Petrie Church. Joan's job was to write down the family history so that it could be handed out to attendees. As she was working, she began to think, "Could the C in Cleigbol be a K?" Her husband studied the record and agreed with her that it could represent a K when pronounced. She suddenly started finding information on Fred Klingbiel and connected with two other relatives.

Finally she felt the missing pieces fall into place. The Canadian branch of the Klingbeil family told her that Fred's father Julius had immigrated to join his brother Louis in Canada before moving to the United States. The documentation seemed to prove the relationship between her husband and his Canadian cousin.

Being a thorough researcher, Joan thought, "why not confirm it through DNA?" Oh boy, there was yet another twist in this tale. Stay tuned for next week. Joan and I need another week to sift through this part of the story.

1900-1910 photos

Monday, December 07, 2009 9:18:57 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [1]

Monday, November 30, 2009

Finding the Story: Picture Clues and Family Facts
Posted by Maureen

There's nothing like a photo riddle when the picture and the facts don't add up. In my experience solving that particular problem relies on more than the pictorial evidence. You have to dive into family history in detail.

Let's take Joan Lee's photo of a young couple and their child as an example. It's a symbol of a long complicated family story that has so many twists and turns it's like a maze. A good way to gain freedom from the intricacies of this tangled web is to sort out the facts and list a series of questions.

Klingbeil Fred baby and wifeedit.jpg

This photo was given to Joan by a descendant of her husband's great grandfather's brother. He's identified as Fred Klingbeil, his wife and their son. It came with a sad story: The little boy supposedly drowned in Three Mile Lake in Ontario. If this is true, Joan can't find the proof. There's no death record, no cemetery record and no headstone where the family lived in Ontario.

But Joan has an even bigger problem. Does this photo even depict Fred Klingbeil? A timeline of his life compared to the photographic details conflict. He was a man on the move. (If anyone wants the exact citations for this article, please send me an email to mtaylor@taylorandstrong.com. Joan will be happy to supply them.)

Here are the facts of his life:

1882: Fred is born in Detroit, Mich., to Julius and Amelia Klingbeil, recent immigrants from Germany. According to family letters, Amelia was pregnant with Fred during their passage to America.

1891: Fred appears on the Canadian census for Windermere, Ont.

1902/03: A newspaper in Enderlin, ND, mentions that he's in town to build an addition onto his widowed mother's house.

1910: According to the U.S. Federal Census, Fred lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota working as a wallpaper hanger.

In October of 1910 he marries for the first time in Idaho. His bride, Marie Evans, states on the marriage record she's from Aberdeen, Wash.

Here's where it gets tricky. For this to be a photo of Fred and Marie with a son, it would have to be taken after 1910. But this woman's dress, with the belted waist and tight-fitting bodice, dates from about 1900.

Her hairstyle confirms the date. In my new book, Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles, I examine photos and discuss men's and women's hairstyles. The topknot on the crown of her head was common from the late 1890s to the turn of the century. By 1910, women wear their hair full around the face with a bun on the top. It's a different look from what's seen here. The father's upturned collar, suit style and silk tie are consistent with c. 1900 as well.

So is it a different Fred, or does it depict a different family?

You won't believe where this family history mystery goes! I'll be back next week with part 2. Stay tuned.

1900-1910 photos | photo-research tips

Monday, November 30, 2009 9:48:24 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [1]

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.

Bias Unknown Dulas.jpg

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.

Dulas Simon 1901 .jpg

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)

Comments [3]

Monday, November 02, 2009

Family Stories: A Photo at a Time
Posted by Maureen

Sharon Pike wrote to me with a question about the clothing on the children in this photo, "Do you think the photographer brought clothing as props for the children?"

It's a really common query. In her e-mail, along with her question, was the story of this family. Since I believe every photo tells a story. I couldn't resist sharing this lovely bit of family history.

Thomas "Tom" Schuler and his wife Matilda "Tilly" Mueller (Miller) sit on the stoop of their Louisville, Ky., house with their first four children. The two children flanking the parents are Leo Thomas Schuler on the left and his twin sister Verena Marie Schuler on the far right. The little boy on Dad's lap is Edward Joseph Schuler, and the baby is Louise Matilda Schuler. The presence of Louise dates the picture to the summer of 1899; she was born May 19 of that year.

To answer Sharon's question, I don't think the photographer brought their clothes with him. Photographers often carried props and some accessories, but not a wagon full of clothes.

The kids and their parents are dressed in typical fashion for the turn of the century. Leo's wide-collared shirt and tie were worn by boys across the United States. None of the children is dressed for play; they're all wearing clothes for a special occasion—the family photo. Dad's the informal one: In this time frame, men wore coats in all types of weather, so it's a bit unusual that he's not wearing a jacket for this formal portrait. It was probably taken on a really hot summer day.

Each photo also tells the "backstory" of the folks depicted. A picture becomes a symbol to remember these family members. According to Sharon, Tom Schuler was born in Switzerland and immigrated with his family in 1870. As a young man, Tom and all the men in the family went back to Switzerland for a visit. It was a timely event. On the return trip to the United States, a young woman named Tilly Mueller was also en route to America with a work contract for a job as a maid.

This shipboard romance has a happy ending. Sharon told me that Tom went to the house where Tilly worked and helped her climb out the window so they could elope. They eventually had seven children.

Telling the story of a picture and a family requires digging for names and dates, but family history and oral tradition fit together with the visual elements of a picture to tell the tale. Next week I'll be back with some tips on how to write your own photo story.

Thank you, Sharon, for sharing!

1890s photos | 1900-1910 photos | children | group photos

Monday, November 02, 2009 4:06:57 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [2]

Monday, October 19, 2009

Which Generation is it?
Posted by Maureen

There are photos that just drive you CRAZY. Ronald E. Wade is a very dedicated genealogist, but this image has him confused. His relative Mary Beulah Petty gave him all her pictures and that's great. Ronald has a fantastic picture history of his family thanks to her, but there's one problem—this picture:

StinsonsSmaller (2).JPG

It's a lovely picture of a couple in their later years posed with canes in hand. He's rumpled but she's neat and tidy. It's just a gorgeous photo. The question is, who is it??

Let's start with the provenance, ie., the history of ownership of the pictures. This is actually where it gets confusing:

Mary Beulah Petty inherited her photographs from her mother, Texie Ann Busby (1861-1918).
Texie received the photos from her mother, Matilda Stinson Busby (1831-1903).
Matilda got them from her mother, Mary Polly Robertson Stinson (1789-1833), or so the story goes.

Do you see the problem?

First, photography isn't available until 1839, years after Mary Polly dies, and paper photographs aren't widely available until at least 1859.

Here's the other issue: This photograph dates from circa 1900. This estimate is based on the style of the picture, the photographer's imprint and the clothing. Yet, family members dated this picture to the 1850s.

If these folks were in their 70s in this photo, then they were born about 1830. Seems like a neat solution—it's Matilda Stinson Busby and her second husband, John Busby (1822-1907), right? Possibly wrong. Ronald Wade has pictures of Matilda and John, and these folks don't resemble them.

While Mary Beulah called these folks Grandma and Grandpa Stinson, she claimed that they were Mary Polly Stinson and her husband, Alexander, the couple who died years before photographs were available. Mary claimed her mother, Texie, also thought this image depicted Mary Polly and Alexander. Ronald can't imagine Texie's mom misidentifying her own parents.

On the back, someone wrote Matilda Stinson—why not Busby? It's a real tangled mess of family history, family folklore and photographic facts.

Ronald knows that only a few of the Stinsons moved to Arkansas, which should narrow the field of possibilities. He's been collecting family pictures for decades and even wrote a genealogy. I told him I'd present his case here and see what turns up. Now's he's considering that maybe this photo comes from the Robertson side of the family.

The facts are clear:

The picture was taken about 1900
It's not Mary Polly and Alexander
The couple is at least 70, which suggest birth dates in the 1830s period.

I love their expressions. It's a family history treasure!

1900-1910 photos | men | women

Monday, October 19, 2009 6:40:46 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [5]

Monday, September 07, 2009

An Album of Funny Pictures
Posted by Maureen

Last week I asked readers to submit funny pictures. Thank you to everyone who sent images. I've been laughing all week. So here they are...fun images that leave you wondering, "What were they thinking?"

EdminsterWill Samels Robt Shane and others.jpg

EdminsterWill Samels Robt Shane and others.jpg

Sue Edminster sent in this photo (above) of men with numbers on the soles of their shoes. Why? Who knows! The men are, bottom to top, Will Samels, Bob Shane (Edminster's grandfather) and Will Young. The photo was taken circa 1890.

mcclenahan2kirk brothers.jpg

Here's a card-playing group courtesy of Merna McClenathen. With her grandfather, Milton "Tom" Kirk (2nd from right), are his brothers, William McCready "Crede" Kirk (3rd from right) and Alfred "Alf" Kirk (far right). The man holding all the cards on the far left is unknown. McClenathen thinks this photo was taken circa 1890 in the Black Hills of South Dakota near Lead, SD,when the Kirk brothers were working as carpenters at the Homestake Mine.

McClenathenGeo Alford.jpg

Merna sent in two images. Above, you can see what a double exposure looked like taken with either the real Freako-Shutter mentioned last week, or a similar device. Your eyes aren't playing tricks. It's the same man, George P. Alford.

The earliest funny picture I received came from Rachel Peirce. This one (sbove) dates between Aug. 1, 1864 and Aug. 1, 1866. I know this because on the back is a tax revenue stamp. One can only wonder why this man posed feeding a doll. The doll probably has a china head and cloth body, and could be an imported model. The man is "feeding" it from the dish on the table. The photographer hand-colored the doll's dress a light pink.

PikePoker girls.jpg

Sharon Pike sent the most recent image in this set. It dates from c. 1900. I've seen other images from this time frame of women dressed like men in funny pictures. Here, it's Belle and Fanny Curtis. Belle was born in 1882. Their father, Asaph Curtis, owned the Hotel Rockford on Long Lake in Washburn Co., Wis.

Come back next week, when I reveal an unusual coincidence in a reader's picture.

Monday, September 07, 2009 8:59:22 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [1]

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)

Comments [1]

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Two-Sided Photo Mystery
Posted by Maureen

This photo will have to be covered in several installments. It's a complex mystery that involves dating the picture, figuring out where it was taken and deciding who's in it. What's on the back of the image is a whole other story.

Let's tackle the simple part this week—assigning a date.

The 15 people in the photo wear everyday clothing. Only one man (on the far right) wears a jacket; the rest are attired in work shirts and pants with wide-brimmed hats to shield their faces from the sun. The little boys wear short pants and wide-collared shirts.

The outfits on two of the women suggest an initial time frame for this group portrait. The smiling woman on the far left wears a dress with full sleeves, a pouched bodice and a wide double collar. Her skirt has fitted tucks at the hips.

The woman on the right in the back row wears a loose tie around her neck with a pouched front blouse and full sleeves.

Their topknot hairstyles clinch the time frame: The group probably posed for this portrait circa 1900 to 1906.

Next week I'll be back to discuss how the rest of the facts add up.

BTW, the creases on the image suggest that this image was folded and unfolded multiple times. The paper has actually worn away at the center. The staining you see is due to the glue used to adhere it to the paper.

1900-1910 photos | group photos | hairstyles

Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:16:12 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [1]

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.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 2:13:17 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, December 15, 2008

Capturing the News
Posted by Maureen

Joan Enders sent this photo of a man she believes is her great-grandfather William Riley Keeth, of Iberia, Miller County, Mo. She wanted to know more about the backdrop and to verify it's him.

William Riley Keeth.jpg

In the late 19th century, photographic props and backdrops were very elaborate. Some even included bales of hay and faux stone walls. A photographer posed this man with a backdrop that looks like the interior of a Victorian mansion, complete with a multi-paned window and what resembles wallpaper. Of course, it's all just paint and canvas.

I wish there were a directory of photo backdrops! It would be so useful to know which photographers were using which backgrounds. It might even help pinpoint where a picture was taken.

For example, Joan could contact a historical society in the area where her ancestor lived. The Miller County Museum might have a collection of local images. Then she could compare backdrops in those images to her own to see if they were shot by same photographer or studio. A city directory could tell her when the photographer was in business, helping to date the image.

One of the largest online databases of pictures is Dead Fred. While it's primarily a photo-reunion site, I searched for Missouri photographers to see if I could find anyone near Miller County. No luck! But it's a good tip to try: Use the search feature to look for surnames or place names.

The best part of this image isn't what's behind the man, but what he's holding— a letter. Notice how the envelope (in his left hand) is ripped open. Despite being a posed image, this picture has captured a spontaneous moment. The man looks at the camera with a surprised expression.

He's wearing work clothes and appears to have rushed into the photo studio to document the receipt of this written news. So what was in the letter? There might be a family story associated with some sort of important information.

Based on his clothing, the background and the plain brown cardboard backing, it appears this photo dates from about 1900.

Does the photo really show William Riley Keeth? Keeth was born in 1865 and married in 1888. Here's a known photo of Keeth with his bride Mary Ella Thomas, taken in the year they married:

William R and Mary E Keeth.JPG

While the man in the first photo shares many of the facial characteristics of the man in this image, their ears are different. Notice how small this man's ears are. There's something odd about this tintype, too—it almost looks like a tintype of a painting. The edges of the couple's features are blurred.

Before deciding if these two men are the same person, I'll ask Joan for a better scan or picture of this image, and ask some additional questions about her family. I also still have a question about the backdrop: The window looks like backgrounds I've seen in English photographs, not like an American home. I'm still looking for an image with a similar backdrop. If you have one in your family collection, send it in and let's help Joan solve this.

1900-1910 photos | photo backgrounds | props in photos

Monday, December 15, 2008 10:38:24 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [3]

Monday, September 15, 2008

Photos Handed Down in the Family
Posted by Maureen

Raise your hand if you've discovered a cache of family photos you didn't know about after the death of a relative.

I'm sure if I asked an audience of hundreds, few hands would remain down. You'd think there wouldn't be any surprise photos in my family, but no ... Even my Dad squirreled away a few I didn't know about. I think he forgot he had them. Now I'm trying to figure out the significance of those long-lost pictures.

Bobbi Borbas is in a similar situation. She found these three images in a box of photos that once belonged to her mother.

In the first (below), a family sits for a group portrait. Look closely—only the father gazes at the lens, the rest of the family's eyes aren't on the camera, but on the person who stands to our left, near the photographer. It makes you wonder what's happening on the other side of the camera. Was the assistant trying to distract the children or making last-minute suggestions?

The clothing (note the mother's full upper sleeves) and the decorative embossing on the mat date the picture between the late 1890s to about 1905. That gives Bobbi a starting point.

When she wrote, she thought the picture might depict her great-grandfather.I called her today and asked her to send me a family chart. She's looking for a family that fits the following details around the turn of the century:

Six children (three girls and two boys, plus a baby less than a year old)
The oldest boy and girl (behind their parents) close to their early teen years.
A boy (standing between his parents) around school age.

Borbas' second image (below) is a tintype of a young girl. This is a gorgeous image without any of the darkening varnish so often seen in early tintypes.

The photographer added gold leaf to the girl's jewelry to make it stand out. She's probably an older toddler, not yet school age, and sits with a hand in a pocket of her cotton dress.

The dress style dates the image to the early 1860s; Wide necklines like this for young girls are seen in photos of the 1850s and 1860s. The identification clue is clearly her ears—Bobbi needs to watch for similarly shaped ears in other family pictures.

The third image is very interesting. It's set in a tiny piece of photo jewelry, only 3/8 inch wide by 1/2 inch high. The photo itself is only a quarter inch. You'll have to wait until next week to see it—I'm still working on a couple of the details. With any luck, I'll be able to report success in identifying the individuals in these two images. Stay posted!

1860s photos | 1890s photos | 1900-1910 photos | group photos | women

Monday, September 15, 2008 8:55:39 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [1]

Friday, May 09, 2008

Fraternal Membership Clue
Posted by Maureen

David Farmer wrote asking about a photo of his paternal grandfather. It's on metal and depicts Charles Birchfield Farmer in his work clothes.

Charlie Birchfield Farmer was a farmer. He stands in front of a barn and an old wheel. Tucked into his overalls is a pistol, and slung across his chest is a canteen for when he got thirsty working in the fields.

Farmer was born in 1885 in northeast Tennessee and lived in southwest Virginia. This image depicts him in the early part of the 20th century. as a young man, so I'd estimate this was taken before 1910. Any gun experts out there want to take a look at his pistol? That could narrow the time frame even further.

Photographs could appear on any type of surface that could be coated with light-sensitive chemicals, such as metal, leather, fabric and porcelain. In this case, it's a metal frame.

The most unusual part of the image wasn't its setting, but the letters and symbols surrounding Farmer's portrait. David wants to know what the letters FLT mean.

The interlocking three rings at the top of the frame indicate Farmer was a member of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, and the FLT—that stands for the group's slogan, "Friendship, Love, Truth."

If you have an image of an ancestor in a fraternal costume, send it in. I'll feature it in an upcoming column.

1900-1910 photos | men | unusual surfaces

Friday, May 09, 2008 3:30:57 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [0]

Locks and Lace
Posted by Maureen

I couldn't resist posting this photo submitted by Cyndi Fraser. This little boy is Charles E. Lamson, born November 20, 1899 in Minnesota. Sears Roebuck's sold similar blouses for 50 cents.

Thank you Cyndi!

1900-1910 photos

Friday, May 09, 2008 2:58:00 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [1]

Monday, May 05, 2008

Curly Locks: A Trend Revealed
Posted by Maureen

I asked for it. I posted a request for images of curly-headed tots and now I've got several. Thank you!!

They confirm my hypothesis about boys and hair. It appears that in the early 20th century, there was a trend—little boys with long hair and hair bows. They look just like their sisters. What's a genealogist to do to tell them apart?

Family traditions, oral histories and good old-fashioned genealogical research are the only ways to tell the boys from the girls in these cases. Don't jump to conclusions when you see a bow in this period—you might be wrong. Add up the kids in the family, ask older relatives if they know who's who, and try to match up their ages to kids in the photo using census returns and other documents.

Here's an image Esther Thompson sent me:

Her emails says it all "This is a picture of my great-grandparents William and Ida Johnson, and the boy in the front with the curls (and bow in his hair) is my grandfather Andrew Clyde Johnson, born in 1897. I got this picture from my Dad's sister and when I asked her who the little girl was, she said, 'that little girl is your grandfather.' I couldn't believe it."

Here's a close-up. Enjoy!

1900-1910 photos | children | group photos

Monday, May 05, 2008 4:26:17 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, December 10, 2007

Dress Details Reveal Photo Dates
Posted by Maureen

This week’s mystery photo comes all the way from New Zealand. Don’t you just love the way the Internet brings us all closer together!

Janet Drinnan wrote of the picture below “We think it may be our great-great-grandmother, who was born in Buchanan, Stirlingshire, Scotland, in 1810. Her daughter Elizabeth, who emigrated to New Zealand in 1862, had it. It is not Elizabeth, as we have several photos of her in New Zealand—she was born in 1840 when her mother was 30 years old. Elizabeth’s mother, who was born in 1810, died of cancer in 1865 at 55 years old.”

Unfortunately, I have bad news for Janet: This woman isn't her great-great- grandmother (born 1810).

The woman in this photo lived long after 1865. The design of her dress dates the picture to circa 1900 to 1905. Notice her scalloped collar with jet beaded trim, and the pleated inset in the bodice. She has three-quarter-length sleeves. Lower sleeves extend to the wrist, with pleats and a beaded wristband. It’s a gorgeous dress, probably made from black silk. The woman wears a chiffon rose pinned to her bodice and a similar hair bow. (Hair bows were worn by younger women in this period, while older women usually chose plain hairstyles.) The bow, dress and setting provide elegance to this portrait.

Clothing styles were different in the 1860s. Women then wore wide skirts and full sleeves with small collars. Jet beaded trim was also commonly used in the 1880s, but the other clothing details point to the 1900 to 1905 time frame.

Now that I’ve destroyed a family oral tradition of who’s depicted, let’s see if I can help determine who this really is:

Where was the photo taken? Janet didn’t mention a photographer’s name and address, but that would make a difference. Is this woman a relative who stayed in Scotland, or a friend in New Zealand?

Who was important enough in Elizabeth’s life that she’d keep the picture? Elizabeth had it, but it didn’t come with her on the long trip from Scotland in 1862. The image was taken too late for that. This woman could be a friend, sister (if she had any) or aunt.

Who’s old enough? While musing over these questions, Janet has to keep in mind that this woman is in her middle years. She should examine her research for a woman born likely after 1840 but definitely before 1860. Signs of aging vary with genetics and illness so this woman with white hair could be a bit younger or older than this time frame allows.

What else does the photo show? This woman doesn’t wear a wedding ring, but tshe still may have been married. Not everyone in the 19th century wore a wedding band. Or, this woman could’ve been widowed or removed the ring due to weight gain.

Once Janet considers these questions she should be able to list a few suspects.

1900-1910 photos | women

Monday, December 10, 2007 4:55:17 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Monday, November 26, 2007

Mourning Photograph?
Posted by Maureen

This week's picture comes from the Photo Detective Forum. This is used by folks who want their pictures analyzed for this column, but you can also post a photo-related question.

Alissa Booth wrote that someone crossed out the original caption, C.C. Smock's wife and wrote Mother. A little girl stands next to an elderly relative, and Alissa wants to know which is the wife and who's the mother? Is it the older woman or the little girl? Alissa thinks her father changed the label when he was identifying photos to give to his children and now she's confused.

From researching census records, Alissa knows C.C. Smock's wife, Mary Amalong, was born Oct. 10, 1855, and his mother, Sarah, was born about 1831.

The key to identifying the women in this photo is the date. The girl's dress with it's ruffled yoke suggests this picture was taken circa 1900. Her grandmother's dress is simply styled without the full sleeves of the late 1890s, and further confirms the time frame.

If this were C.C. Smock's wife, Mary (born in 1855), the older woman would be approximately 50. If it's Smock's mother, she'd be approximately 70. The latter is a more likely fit for the identity of the woman. She looks much older than 50, with a full head of white hair and knarled hands. Notice her handkerchief tucked into the waistband of her dress.

She's dressed in black as a sign of respect for a deceased family member. It could be her husband or another close relative.

The little girl could be her granddaughter, but given the fact that this little girl was born in the 1890s, it's probably her great-grandmother or even great-great grandmother. It all depends on when her parent's birth years and their relationship to the family matriarch.

Alissa's Dad wrote Mother probably referring to the little girl, but that still leaves her with another mystery—who wrote the original caption?

P.S. Don't forget to look at the comments for Ancestral Vacations. I've added some new details.

1900-1910 photos | children | women

Monday, November 26, 2007 2:39:14 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)

Comments [0]

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Clues from Hats and Backgrounds
Posted by Maureen

These four are dressed for an evening out. Everyday male attire in this period didn’t include silk top hats and shawl-collared vests, unless you were quite affluent.

Sandra Guynn believes the man in the center of this photo is Charles Anthony Doyle (born 1867), and the women, his daughters (born in 1891 and 1892). She can’t identify the man on the left.

Let’s answer the simple question first—when was it taken?

The women’s hats provide a time frame of 1904 to 1908. Large hats and pouched front bodices gave women a then-fashionable S-shaped figure. (Read more about women’s headgear history in Jonathan Walford’s online article on Vintage Fashion Guild.)

However, this date somewhat disagrees with Guynn’s tentative date. Doyle’s daughters would be young children at the beginning of that time frame and teens by 1908. So let’s look at other evidence:

Hindering this investigation is the lack of a photographer’s imprint. Guyunn’s photo is a copy and doesn’t know where the original is. Since a house’s clapboards and window sash are visible, likely this is an amateur snapshot rather than a professional studio photo. Guynn could examine her own and relatives' pictures for a house with similar construction.

Also in the background are two screens. One is a fabric divider commonly found in houses of the era, while on the right is a large divider with attached photographs. They’re blurry, but Guynn should enlarge this photo and try to see if any of the images match other family pictures.

One man stares directly into the camera while the women look to our left (probably at another person), and the other man looks in the opposite direction. The man with the top hat is the significant figure based on how they’re posed.

That man is Charles Anthony Doyle, according to Guynn’s tentative identification. He’d be about 40, the right age for this photo. The pose and attire indicate he’s a man of authority.

The questions remain about the women. Further research using census records could help sort it out.

I’ll be back soon, hopefully with more information and an ID.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:35:24 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)

Comments [0]

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)

Comments [1]

Google Sponsored Links