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.

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!

Debbie Deaton sent me a photo hoping I could confirm the identity of this family. She thinks this portrait depicts the Deaton family: Franklin Deaton, his wife, Mahalia Mae Archer Deaton, and their children. Standing next to Mahalia is her son and Franklin’s step-son, Harley. The other boy is Arthur Lee Deaton, Debbie’s husband’s grandfather. The girl is supposedly Zelda.

The clothing in this picture is the first thing I looked at, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. The full sleeves on the women’s dresses suggest a time frame of the mid 1890s. That’s the easy part. I know I’ve said it before, but costume is only one clue. In this picture’s case, the family history and genealogy can solve the mystery. 

Debbie knows little about the individuals in this picture. They lived in Oklahoma, and Mahalia was supposedly a full-blood Cherokee Indian. Franklin worked as a Sheriff. He died delivering a tax bill; as he got to the door, the man shot Franklin dead.

I searched GenealogyBank for newspaper stories relating to Franklin, but didn’t have any luck. Then I tried the Oklahoma Historical Society Web site, where you can search citations for Oklahoma newspaper articles. Unfortunately, Franklin didn’t appear in the index.

I decided to search the Federal Census using HeritageQuest Online (I have access with my Boston Public Library card—see if your public library system provides access to HeritageQuest). I didn’t find Franklin, but there was a 1900 census record for Mahalia (below). 

She’s living with an Archer family. Her relationship to the head of the household is "step daughter;" Mahalia's children are "step grandchildren."  Both Arthur and Zildy (Zelda) appear, but no Harley. The census states Mahala’s race as "Ind." and she reported having given birth to three children. 

That led me to some possibilities:

• If this picture shows Arthur (b. August 1894) and Zildy (b. January 1900), it certainly wasn’t taken in the mid- 1890s.  The children are too old and their ages reversed. The girl in this photo is older thn both boys. I’d estimate she's around 10 years old. The boy on the right is 7 or 8 and the other is even younger.

• Where’s Harley in the census? He may have died. This is a key piece of information that requires additional research. Perhaps the photo shows Mahala and two boys from a third marriage, though I think this is the least likely scenario.

• Instead of depicting Mahala and her husband, could this image feature the Archer family from the census: Earl, his wife, their daughter and two youngest sons?   
  

There are a lot of unanswered questions about the Deaton family and this picture, but it’s a solvable problem. I’d continue to look for a death notice or news story about Franklin’s death, which appears to have occurred about 1900. I also suggest Debbie look at her family tree for other families with children the right ages for this image. Other research that can help includes the Dawes Rolls of Five Civilized Tribe enrollments.  

I have to admit all the questions around this picture make my head hurt. If you have a suggestion for these Oklahoma research woes, please post a comment.

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! 

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!