Free Updates
Navigation
Categories
| November, 2009 (3) |
| 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 |
|---|
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 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 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
by Maureen A. Taylor
More Links
|
 Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Pictures Without Provenance
Posted by Maureen
Hilda Barton sent me this lovely photo of a young girl with the subject line: "No Idea Who This is..." It's a picture without provenance.
I've written about provenance before. It's the history of ownership of a photograph or other object. It's easy to underestimate the value of knowing the previous owner of a picture, but this is actually one of the keys to figuring out who's in an unidentified picture.
Start by asking the following questions:
- Who owned the picture before me?
- Did the photograph hang on the wall in relative's house?
- Was it loose in an album or on a page with other relatives?
These questions can determine which branch of the family owned the image and bring you one step closer to putting a name with face. But remember, the photo could show a friend's child—not a relative at all. Facial similarities to people in identified photos may help.
Then answer the next set of questions:
- Where was it taken? Look for a photographer's name and address on the image. Then consult your family history to see who lived in the area.
- How old is the person? In this case, it's a young girl, probably less than 5 years old.
- When was it taken? In 1916, The Ladies Home Journal published a short photo essay on "Arranging Your Little Girl's Hair." Younger children wore narrow bows, like this youngster. Her short bobbed hair was popular around 1919.
If Hilda can answer these questions, she can consult her family tree and make a short list of who's the right age to be in this picture.
On a side note, a fascinating new book by Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo is called Provenance: How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art (Penquin Press, $26.95). It's amazing how one man could dupe the art world with falsified documentation. I couldn't put it down.
1910s photos | children
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:11:47 AM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00) 
|
|
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Trouble With Captions on Old Photos
Posted by Maureen
Barbara DeCrease found a photo in her grandmother's belongings with a one-word caption on the back: Grandfather. The trouble with captions like this is the lack of other identifying information. She doesn't know who wrote it, so she's puzzled.
Her grandmother's grandfather was William James Elmore Jr., born circa 1860 in Panola County, Miss. The family has no record of him after 1910. This Elmore's father was also William James Elmore, born circa 1842 in South Carolina. No record of this man exists after 1880.
This is a wonderful picture of a hard-working man. Note the dusty work-boots. So which man is he? Barbara is fairly certain it's Elmore Jr., but does the proof add up?
Let's look at the caption again.
This is a postcard. The first photographic postcards were introduced in 1900, so it's clear this image dates from after that year.
The "when" is also simple: The stamp box in the upper right corner is an AZO design with triangles in the corners. This particular design was first introduced in 1910 and remained common until 1930. If you have a photo postcard in your collection, try matching up the stamp boxes with the one's on the Playle Web site.
On the front of the image, someone wrote William Elmore and then erased it. It's barely visible even when I enlarge the photo on my computer, so I'm not going to zoom in here. The erased writing didn't indicate which Elmore this is.
In the 1890s and the early part of the20th century, photographers often used wicker chairs as props. This is another detail that helps firmly set this image in the 20th century.
I agree with Barbara that this is likely William Elmore Jr. in his middle years, about 1910. Elmore Sr. would have to be older than 70 to be in this picture.
Labeling images is tricky business. Identifying this photo would've been a cinch, if the person who wrote grandfather had added a bit more information. I'm beginning to believe that when you caption your photos with the name, date, etc., you should include your name as the person who added the information.
If you're looking for tips on how to label digital images for the Web to maximize their search potential, the Footnote Maven's Search Engines Can't Read Your Mind or Your Images is mandatory reading.
1910s photos | men
Monday, June 15, 2009 4:08:24 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, February 23, 2009
Two-Sided Mystery: On the Flip Side
Posted by Maureen
I love a good mystery. Last week I analyzed a group portrait and provided a time frame of the early 20th century. It was on one side of a sheet of pink paper. Before I divulge the family information behind this image, let's look at the other side. It's a two-sided mystery. Over the years, I've seen photographs used for doing math homework, writing grocery lists and even sketching embroidery patterns. In this instance, the two photographs and the pink sheet of paper form a single scrapbook page.  In the upper left hand corner of the flip side of the page is a picture of a young man dressed for work on a ranch--cowboy hat, tall boots, heavy gloves and riding pants that are wide at the upper legs and hips and narrow at the lower leg. To the right of this image is a valentine.  The lower half of the sheet is a child's drawing of a flower with one of the petals ripped off.  It's the final piece of evidence of this collage that so's interesting. It's a bit of a printed page.  It turned out to be a piece of a music catalog for Conqueror Records. Carson J. Robison and his trio recorded Moonlight on the Colorado and Oklahoma Charley in 1930. You can view an online catalog for Conqueror. Just below that listing is another song, My Blue Ridge Mountain Home, a tune that Robison wrote in 1927. If you're interested you can still purchase the sheet music from eCrater. Wikipedia has a short biography of Robison with links to sites for more information. He was very well known as "the granddaddy of the Hillbillies." In the early 1930s he formed his own band and travelled around the U.S. and the British Isles playing country music. He was posthumously named to the Country Music Hall of Fame. He died in 1957. I have to admit that I couldn't do all this research without listening to his music. You can a recording of Going to the Barn Dance Tonight on YouTube and find a picture of him and a clip of I Don't Wanta Be Rich on Hillbilly-Music.com. It's foot-tapping music. The pieces add up to suggest that sometime in the early 1930s, a person (perhaps a little girl) decided to piece together a few of her favorite things--a couple of pictures, a valentine, and a drawing. Maybe she was a country music fan.  Next week I'll be back with the family details.
1910s photos | 1930s photos | men
Monday, February 23, 2009 3:36:15 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
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)
|
|
Monday, December 01, 2008
Photo Clones: Duplicates in the Family
Posted by Maureen
 This photo's owner Diane Gould Hall knows these six women are the Hunter Sisters. In the back row (left to right) are Grace Hunter (1874-1946), Daisy Hunter (1876-1948), and Ada Emily Hunter (1865-1949). In the front row are Estelle M. Hunter (1867-1947), Florence Hunter (1869-1946), and Myra Hunter (1859-1938). Florence is Diane's great-grandmother. Diane knows this was taken after 1892 because another sister died that year, and she's not present. The sisters' beautiful, diaphanous blouses appear in fashion catalogs for the period 1910 to about 1915. If this picture was taken about 1915, the sisters would range in age from 39 to 56. In the course of our email correspondence, Diane mentioned two interesting facts: - Grace Hunter's husband Charles Fenner and his brothers owned a photo studio in Lima, Ohio. That's where this picture was taken.
- When she posted this image on her Ancestry.com family tree, a cousin contacted her. Turns out, that cousin owned a picture from this same studio sitting. Diane was amazed. In the second image, the sisters are seated in a different order!
How often have you considered that a photo in your collection might
not be the only copy? Our ancestors went to the photo studio to acquire a
picture, but "package deals" offered the opportunity to obtain
multiple copies of the same image. Duplicates made it easy to share pictures to relatives. Since professional photographers usually
took several different poses to make sure all parties were happy with
the final image, the extra prints might be slightly different. Diane's discovery is proof that you should ask to see the photo collections in the hands of distant cousins. Who knows what you'll uncover! You could solve that photo identification mystery or find new pictures. The latter happened to me recently. A distant cousin posted online pictures of my great-great grandparents. My mother and I had no idea that these images even existed.
1910s photos | group photos | photo-research tips | women
Monday, December 01, 2008 3:14:24 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, October 27, 2008
Final Installment: One-Glove Mystery Solved!
Posted by Maureen
I'm doing the happy dance right now! I finally contacted Sue Anderson, the owner of the photo of the four men—two wearing one glove each—featured in two blog posts. Turns out she was on vacation and hadn't imagined the fuss being made over this photo. All she wanted to know was the date of the image and why the one glove. In the first post, I dated the image using the postcard back to a time frame of 1904 to 1918. That was the only sure information in the picture. In the second installment, I reported readers' theories and focused on the gloves. Well, the pieces have finally fallen into place. You're not going to believe it! While Sue's older relatives were sure two of the men were Lance and Elmore Melson, she wasn't positive because these elderly relatives have been wrong before. They said the two men in the front were Melsons and the men in the back were Wingfields. Those two in the front are definitely Melsons. Sue sent me several other family photographs that confirm the resemblance. The ears are a giveaway. Elmore Melson (b. 1896) had two other brothers: Joel (b.1894) and Bertram (b. 1892). I think Sue's family was partially right. Lance Melson would be too young to be in the group photo, but Joel is old enough. It's actually his presence (right front in the group image and below) and age that specifically date the image and solve the one glove detail!  Notice the rolled up pants <smile>. So here goes... - Joel dies in 1918 in Oklahoma of pneumonia. The group portrait is likely the last image taken of the 24-year-old. It fits the 1918 period. His brother Elmore would be 22 in that image.
- Melson and his brothers worked as farmers and weren't very well-off. In Joel's spare time, he also worked as a bronco rider. In the first blog post on this mystery, I suggested the glove was work-related. Since bronco riding isn't something I'm pfamiliar with, I contacted a colleague, Kathy Hinckley (known as the Family Detective), who grew up on a ranch in South Dakota and participated in riding events. She confirmed my theory that bronco riders wear one glove on the dominant hand! Mystery solved.
The men's ties are very Western in style. Kathy made one other comment about something I pondered: Why dress in suits and wear the riding glove? She thought this picture probably commemorated a special event, such as winning at the rodeo. I have no proof of this detail, but the explanation makes sense.
- There's one more detail Sue helped with—the rolled pants. In the group picture those rolls look like cuffs, but it turns out Joel wasn't very tall, and instead of having his pants hemmed, just rolled them up.
Sue is amazed at the number of comments and emails about her photo. Thank you to everyone who posted remarks or sent comments. I'm glad we can put the artifical hand theory to rest; Joel had both of his hands at the time of his death.
1910s photos | group photos | men | props in photos
Monday, October 27, 2008 3:28:18 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, October 13, 2008
Postal Clues and a One-Glove Mystery
Posted by Maureen
In honor of an upcoming article in the print Family Tree Magazine, this week's photo mystery is a postcard.
In the January 2009 issue, I wrote a piece called Getting the Message on the ways our ancestors communicated and the types of records they left behind. One of the methods highlighted was postcards. (The issue mails to
subscribers near the end of October and goes on sale Nov. 11.)
Sue Stevenson sent me this postcard of four men:
In the front row are supposedly (left to right)
Lance Melson (1907-1988) and Elmore Melson (1896-1938). It's a real-photo postcard—a photograph with a postcard back.  Sue's big question doesn't concern the men's identities, but the mysterious single glove on each man in the front row. Before looking at that puzzle, let's backtrack and look at the other clues. Let's start with the postcard back. One of my favorite postcard sites is Playle's Auction Site. It has an online directory that details the stamp box designs. According to this site, the AZO box with upright triangles in the corners appeared from 1904 to 1918. Uh oh—if Lance Melson was born in 1908, he'd have to be 10 in this photo. That doesn't add up. The men's clothing is a bit odd. Are their pants legs rolled up, or do they just have very wide cuffs? Cuffed pants were common on casual clothes in the early 20th century, but the cuffs on these pants are a bit extreme. Neckties are the other interesting clothing detail. The man on the right in the front row wears a soft polka dot tie, a pattern that first appeared in the late 19th century. This style may be unique to his area, since it's not the type of tie you'd see in most of the country in the early 20th century. Based on a working date for this image between 1904 and 1918, it may depict Lance's and Elmore's fathers, rather than the boys. More family history information would be necessary to verify that conclusion. As to the one glove? It's curious that one man wears a glove on his right hand and the other on his left. This could indicate their dominant hands. I haven't found other images like this, but I suspect these heavy leather gloves were worn for work. Or perhaps the men were just clowning for the camera. Sue's right about their ears, though. This facial similarity indicates the men are likely related. If anyone else has a photo of men wearing one glove—decades before Michael Jackson made it fashionable— send it along to me.
1910s photos | group photos | men | photo postcards
Monday, October 13, 2008 4:44:33 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, August 11, 2008
Sports in the Family
Posted by Maureen
Like many of you, I'm glued to the TV and online news sources watching the Olympics. While I don't have any Olympic hopefuls in my house, there are plenty of athletes on the family tree: In one oft-told tale, my husband's grandfather had an opportunity to play for a major league baseball team, but his father made him go to law school instead. Do you have a photo of an ancestral athlete? Send it to me and I'll share it in this space. Got a story to go with it? I'd love to hear it. I looked through my archive of recent submissions to this column, but couldn't find a mystery family photo that fit the theme of sports. Instead, I've pulled one from the Library of Congress.  George Grantham Bain took this photo, captioned, "Champion Australian girl swimming team," April 8, 1919. Bain was a news photographer who primarily worked in New York City. Haven't found the associated news story to go with it yet, but I'm still looking.
1910s photos
Monday, August 11, 2008 3:08:06 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Loopy Photo Labels
Posted by Maureen
A big thank you to Leanne M. Baraban! She bought this photo to share with me (and you). It's a great example of how good-intentioned labeling can go so very wrong. Below are all the identifications, and the woman who made them added a note: "I numbered these all so you would know who all of them were."  While it was a great idea to name each person for posterity, the numbers are written on the front of the photo in India ink. Here are the identifications: no.1 Is my feller
" 2 Nans feller
" 3 Papa
" 4 Nan
" 5 me
" 6 Mamma
" 7 Mrs. Ashcroft (a neighbor)
" 8 Miss Smith (the school teacher)
" 9 is Miss Smiths feller
" 10 Lucile
" 11 Pleasant
" 12 Mabel
That's all she wrote. I'm sure you've seen other examples of photos identified with arrows or x's, but if you really want future generations to be able to say who's who, follow these three steps. 1. Never write on the front. On the back is OK if you use a soft lead pencil for cardboard-mounted images, or a special photo-marking pen (such as a Zig marker) for 20th-century resin-coated snapshots. You can tag digital images using photo organizing or editing software.
2. Use the full name whenever possible. Wouldn't it be great to know who "Nan's feller" was? While this woman knew everyone's name, it's doubtful that identification lasted past her generation.
3. We'll probably never know why all these folks got together on a summer's day. If there's a special occasion associated with the image, include a short note.
If you're curious about when this picture was taken, look at the hats on the neighbor (7) and the school teacher (8). Those broad-brimmed, deep-crowned chapeaus were very common in the 1910 era. By the way, this is a postcard, and the design on the back first became available in late 1907.
1910s photos | photo postcards | preserving photos
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:26:59 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, April 28, 2008
Family Portraits: Boy or Girl?
Posted by Maureen
Elva Martin sent me this picture to help settle a family reunion disagreement.  See the child in the second row on the far right? The one with a bow in the hair? Do you think this is a boy or a girl?  The picture is an example of confusing details even when you know the name of everyone in a photo. Martin's clan is clear about this being the Peter Mower family. They even have a date for the picture, 1910. It's that troublesome child causing the disagreement. "Petter" Mower, his wife and their nine children appear in the 1910 census for Saugerties, NY. Their oldest, Harry (age 16) stands proudly in the back. Leona (3) sits on her father's lap while baby Marion is with Mom. The rest of the boys are Leory (15), Arnold (13), Adelbert (11), Orie (10), Louis (7) and Everett (5). Orie is supposed to be the child with the bow, but did boys wear bows in the their hair and long curls? The answer is, sometimes! I know I've written columns about the ways boys and girls wore their hair parted—boys on the side and girls down the center—but there are always exceptions. Frances Hodgson Burnett's 1886 book, Little Lord Fauntleroy, featured a main character named Cedric whose mother dressed him in a "black velvet suit, with a lace collar, and with love-locks." You can read the whole text for free on the Project Gutenberg site. But Burnett didn't start the trend, she only popularized it. Throughout the centuries, there have been mothers who couldn't bear to cut the gorgeous curls from their little boys' heads. It appears Orie's mom couldn't either. Of all the children in the portrait, Orie resembles her the most.  He has her mouth, eyes, nose and even the same-shape face. Perhaps he was her favorite. It's impossible to know, unless there's a family story about Orie's place in his mother's affections. Despite the family disagreement about his sex, this child is a boy. E-mail me your old pictures of boys in curls and I'll feature them in a future blog. For now, this is another picture puzzle solved.
1910s photos | children | group photos
Monday, April 28, 2008 10:51:33 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, February 25, 2008
Italian Military Picture Part 2
Posted by Maureen
Two weeks ago, I promised a second installment of the blog on the Italian soldier photo. Thank you for commenting on the first column. While I puzzled over the v. Fabio Massimo.83, two of you reminded me that v. stands for via, Italian for the road on which the photographer had his studio. I'm amazed at the additional material in that postcard and where it led me this week. Gosh! Let's continue reading the evidence. - Next to SPQR is an image. Taking a chance, I researched Roman tourist sites. Turns out that columned structure is a monument to Vittorio Emanuele II, the first king of unified Italy. It wasn't inaugurated until 1911, providing another beginning date for this picture.
- Above the monument is a plume with an interwined EV, which represents the king—either Vittorio Emanuele II or his grandson Vittorio Emanuele III.
- At the top of the card are portraits of Vittorio Emanuele III (1869-1947) and his wife, Elena (1873-1953), Princess Petrovich of Montenegro. He becamse king July 29, 1900, following the assassination of his father, Umberto. He reigned until he abdicated May 9, 1946. Next to the portraits is the flag of his House of Savoy—red with a white cross.
- A quick search for secoli fedele made me shout, "I got it!" The phrase "Nei Secoli Fedele" means "always faithful." That phrase on the photo mat identifies the man pictured as a member of the Carabinieri. These men policed both military and civil matters. Follow the link to read more about them and see another picture.
Remember the owner of the picture, Justin Piccirillo, thought this man was his relative, Costabile Piccirillo ( 1891-1974). This could be him. Judging by the other clues in the image this picture dates to about 1911, when he'd be 20. Case solved! PS: I asked a military specialist to take a look at the uniform. I'll report back soon on what he had to say.
1910s photos | men | Military photos | Photos from abroad
Monday, February 25, 2008 10:58:10 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Backgrounds in Old Photos
Posted by Maureen
In mid-December, I asked readers to submit photos with interesting backgrounds. Thank you for images. I'm conducting an informal study of the different types of backgrounds in photos—it's a vastly understudied area of photo history. Here's an overview: In the 1840s and 1850s daguerreotypists really didn't use backgrounds. Their focus was capturing a likeness of a person, not making the pictures look like they were taken outdoors. In the 1860s, suddenly you start seeing the wall behind the sitter. You can see the blank wall and the moulding at the base. At some point in the late 1850s photographers began offering handpainted copies of images with gorgeous backgrounds painted in. Many of you probably have these and wonder if they're photographs or paintings. They're actually both. In the late 19th century, photographers began paying artists to create backdrops. You've seen some of them in past columns. The backdrop and the architectural elements create a stage setting for the portrait. In photos taken at tourist resorts, you're likely to see seaside scenes. In next few weeks I'll share some interesting backgrounds I've purchased as examples. One of the photographs I received was from Alissa Booth. These three boys were born in the period from 1911 to 1915. Notice the delicately painted backdrop. It's professionally done and creates a nature scene so the boys look like they posed outdoors.  Keep sending me the interesting backgrounds!
1910s photos | 1920s photos | children | group photos | photo backgrounds
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:11:07 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, January 14, 2008
Photo Mystery Solved!
Posted by Maureen
 Two weeks ago I wrote about Russell
Chowning's search for an identity to go with a photo (right) in his collection. I added up the fashion details and estimated the picture was taken about 1919. That's all it took for Russell to locate two snapshots of the same man and put a name with the face: Edward Haskins Brockman (born 1894). He lived well into the mid-20th century. Before submitting his portrait to this column, Russell had shown the image to all the older members of his family, but none of them claimed to know the young man's identity. It's a mystery why no one recognized someone who lived that recently. Although the young man had a full head of hair, later in life he lost much of it. Perhaps this detail distracted family who may have known him before he died.   Take a look at the 1919 picture (top). Compare it to these pictures of him in the 1940s (above left) and 1955 (above right), both already identified in Chowning's family collection. This man's distinctive ears and nose are a clear indication all three pictures show the same person. It's important to look for the facial details that stay the same as people age: noses (without plastic surgery or injury), ears, and the shape of your ancestor's eyes. Keep this in mind when you're trying to match photographs in your family album. Several people sent me interesting background shots. I'll show them off in next week's column. Thank you!
1910s photos | men
Monday, January 14, 2008 3:35:44 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
20th-Century Men's Clothing
Posted by Maureen
I'm trying something different this week and my fingers are crossed that it's going to work. I've tagged this week's photo so that you can spot the details I'm talking about. If you want to do this to your digitized photographs, you can download a bit of free software from Fototagger.com. Russell Chowning submitted this picture, a perfect example of how it takes many clues to determine a date. Let's add up the head-to-toe details: - This man wears a wide brimmed hat set rakishly back on his head. He's relaxed for this portrait.
- His suit has padded shoulders. That detail alone could date the picture to the 1940s, but additional features of his suit rule out that date.
- Notice the large pocket on the left side of his suit and the button trim on the sleeves. This suggests this portrait dates from earlier in the 20th century. The sleeve trim is similar to details on suits from the late 1910s.
- This man has paired his suit with a light-colored, soft-collared shirt and a silk tie, also in a light color.
- He wears embroidered, light-colored socks. You could buy these through catalogs in the WWI period. In the 1920s, this simple pattern was replaced by brightly colored argyle socks.
- His shoes are a bit of a mystery. The opening (known as the cuff) comes to the ankle like shoes worn in the period from 1914 to 1920, but I can't find similar shoes in catalogs from that time frame.
All these facts point to this picture being taken around 1919. The final detail helps determine that date. Notice the narrow pants leg at the ankle. Around 1920, men's pants narrowed at the ankle. In the 1920s, pants got wider. (Click on this image to open a bigger version in your Web browser, then click on the bigger version image to magnify it.)  A couple of weeks ago I asked readers for photos with interesting backgrounds. Here, you see a simple backdrop with few architectural details (stairs, doors and curtains) and no scenery. It was decades old when the portrait was taken—the paint is so old it's crackled. Either this photographer had been in business for a long time, or he purchased the canvas used.
1910s photos | men
Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:39:06 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, November 12, 2007
Ancestral Vacations
Posted by Maureen
Two things drew me to this picture. First, the owner sent me
wonderful background information to tell the story. Second, it’s proof this blog has an international following: Kathryn Larcher submitted this photo
from her home in France.
There's no mystery about the relative depicted. Kathryn
knows the last woman in the middle row is her maternal great-grandmother, “Mom
Battle” (Mary Clement Crawford Battle). When Mary’s husband died in September
1909, instead of staying home, she traveled in Europe. 
Here, she poses for the camera in the Gap of Dunloe, Ireland. This
photo comes from a family scrapbook—one probably created by Mom Battle herself.
Kathryn would like to know when the picture was taken. The
numbers on the lower right side of the picture, 51.2.8.10, elaborate that
detail. I believe the first number is the photographer’s notation for his 51st picture, but the last three digits are clearly the date.
Using the European
method of notation, Mom Battle had her picture taken on the second day of August, 1910. Her black attire, including hat and coat, supports this date. Victorian mourning
standards required widows to wear black for the first year after a husband's death.
Centuries of visitors have marveled over the natural beauty of
the Gap. You can read more about it in Black’s Guide to Ireland (1902), available through Google Books.
A documentary, Trip Through the Gap
of Dunloe (1903), probably boosted tourism in the area. A key stop on the immortalized tour was Kate Kearney’s Cottage, with its legendary history of spells cast by
Kate herself, followed by food and drink. Visitors could then hire a horse-drawn conveyance to take them through the Gap and back. Today the cottage still offers refreshments and tourists can still take a horse and buggy.
Kathryn also wondered who else is in this picture. I have a
question for her, “Did Mom Battle travel alone or with a companion?” A traveling companion would've been along for this ride. The rest of the
folks are just fellow travelers, such as the young honeymoon (perhaps) couple cuddled up in the
second row.
This is a great photo of a woman who decided to enter the next
phase of her life with a sense of adventure!
1910s photos | group photos
Monday, November 12, 2007 5:00:54 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
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)
|
|
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Identifying Children in Photos
Posted by Maureen
The imprint of photographer S. Adamkiewicz appears on this photo of two towheaded boys, but questions still mount up for owner Annette Gathright and led her to post the photo on the Photo Detective Forum.  Who are the boys and when did they pose for this darling picture? Gathright’s family lived near Adamkiewicz's studio in Chicago's Polish neighborhood. Her uncle Norbert claims the boys are his uncles. Reading the clues requires a two step approach: Research the photographer and sort out the family facts. The photographer is the easy part. I quickly located Adamkiewicz in the 1910 US census using the HeritageQuest Online (free through many public libraries). Stanley Adamkiewicz, then 34, listed his occupation as photographer, his birthplace as Russia/Polish and his immigration year as 1892. I couldn’t find him in the 1900 census, but he appears again in 1920 with a different occupation. That gives this picture a tentative time frame of 1892 to 1920. Gathright thinks the photo was taken before her great-grandparents died in 1907. So she examined her tree for two boys born a few years apart, who’d be about age of this pair between 1907 and 1920. She’s found at least two candidates who lived in the neighborhood of Adamkiewicz's studio: Stanislaus “Edward” Dittman (born 1893) and his brother Aloysius “Otto” (born 1898) fit the criteria. If the portrait were taken in 1906, Ed would be 8, and Otto, 3. The high, starched collars, short pants and high-buttoned boots in this photo fit the time frame. Just to be sure, Gathright should ask her uncle for a few more details. It’s important to ask for specifics when talking about photos: Your relative knows who he or she means by “Grandpa,” but later, when you’re confronted with several possibilities on a family tree, you’ll probably wish you had a name. If you have access to Chicago city directories, you can help us find the final fact—check to see if S. Adamkiewciz is listed as a photographer before 1910, then post it in the comment section of this blog.
1910s photos | children | photographers imprints
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:42:32 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Making Dates
Posted by Maureen
Questions from readers of this Identifying Family Photographs column range from "which wife is it?" to the more-general "who is it?" A date for this photo would go a long way to help Kellee Eubanks-Stevenson determine the woman's name. Is it her great-great-grandmother, who lived from 1842 to 1920, or a great-great aunts? Eubanks-Stevenson thinks this photo was taken either in the 1880s or around 1900. Is she right?  This woman, probably in her 20s, posed simply in a wooden chair with her hands folded in her lap. The backdrop isn't fancy, and neither is the patterned linoleum floor. The key pieces of evidence here are the accessories. From 1914 to about 1920, women wore high-top two-tone patent leather shoes just like this young woman's. Dresses at the time fell to just below the calf, showing off shoes but not skin, thus keeping a woman's appearance modest. A wide-brimmed hat adorned with a single ribbon and a flower makes this woman a head-to-toe fashion plate. According to our estimated date, this woman isn't the great-grandmother, who'd be close to 80 after 1910. Could it be a daughter born in the 1870s or 80s? The appearance of the young woman, the lack of lines in her face and the time frame for the photo strongly suggest she's a granddaughter. Eubanks-Stevenson estimate wasn't too far off. She had the right century, but the wrong generation. By searching her family tree, she should be able to come up with suspects to put a name with this attractive face.
1910s photos | women
Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:36:51 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
|