Free Updates
Navigation
Categories
| February, 2012 (1) |
| January, 2012 (5) |
| December, 2011 (5) |
| November, 2011 (4) |
| October, 2011 (5) |
| September, 2011 (4) |
| August, 2011 (5) |
| July, 2011 (5) |
| June, 2011 (6) |
| May, 2011 (7) |
| April, 2011 (4) |
| March, 2011 (5) |
| February, 2011 (3) |
| January, 2011 (5) |
| December, 2010 (4) |
| November, 2010 (5) |
| October, 2010 (4) |
| September, 2010 (4) |
| August, 2010 (5) |
| July, 2010 (4) |
| June, 2010 (5) |
| May, 2010 (4) |
| April, 2010 (4) |
| March, 2010 (5) |
| February, 2010 (4) |
| January, 2010 (4) |
| December, 2009 (3) |
| November, 2009 (5) |
| October, 2009 (4) |
| September, 2009 (4) |
| August, 2009 (5) |
| July, 2009 (4) |
| June, 2009 (5) |
| May, 2009 (4) |
| April, 2009 (5) |
| March, 2009 (6) |
| February, 2009 (5) |
| January, 2009 (5) |
| December, 2008 (4) |
| November, 2008 (4) |
| October, 2008 (6) |
| September, 2008 (5) |
| August, 2008 (5) |
| July, 2008 (4) |
| June, 2008 (6) |
| May, 2008 (5) |
| April, 2008 (5) |
| March, 2008 (4) |
| February, 2008 (4) |
| January, 2008 (5) |
| December, 2007 (4) |
| November, 2007 (4) |
| October, 2007 (6) |
| September, 2007 (4) |
| August, 2007 (4) |
| July, 2007 (5) |
| June, 2007 (4) |
| May, 2007 (3) |
| April, 2007 (2) |
| March, 2007 (1) |
Search
Archives
| | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|
| 29 | 30 | 31 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 1 | 2 | 3 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
by Maureen A. Taylor
More Links
|
 Monday, January 23, 2012
Which Mother is It?
Posted by Maureen
This lovely image depicts either someone's mother or stepmother. The question is, which one? It's a north-of-the-border mystery.
Chris Rye inherited this photo from his grandfather, who in turn inherited it from his mother. The back of this tintype reads "Enos Mother." Enos Storm is Rye's great-great-great grandfather.
Enos' mother was Susannah (born in 1836), who died in childbirth in 1866 when Enos was born. The family lived in Vaughan, Ontario, Canada.
Susannah also had three daughters, born in 1859, 1861 and 1862. This woman is posed with a toddler on her lap. Notice the size of the toddler, as compared to the mother's diminutive size. She has large hands but a tiny body in contrast to her very hearty child.
Enos' father remarried a woman named Mary (born about 1847) and she had a daughter in 1879.
The clothing clues in this picture point to the 1860s. The mother wears an everyday dress with cap sleeves and a small collar, and wears her hair pulled back. In the late 1870s, women's clothing featured more trim than this, and even everyday dresses had fitted bodices.
The little girl's dress also dates from the 1860s.
This is an entrancing portrait. Susannah looks directly into the camera with a slight smile on her face, while her child sits still for the image. It's a family history treasure!
This is one of the three daughters, but which one? She could be any one of them depending on a specific year. The toddler is likely around 3 years of age, meaning the photo was taken in approximately, 1862, 1864 or 1865. Any photos of the girls taken later on would be useful for comparison.
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
1860s photos | children | Tintypes | women
Monday, January 23, 2012 4:30:55 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00) 
|
|
Monday, January 16, 2012
Scottish Photographers
Posted by Maureen
Last week, I discussed Winston Cochrane's family photo taken in Dumfries, Scotland.
Late in the week he emailed me to say he had new information.
The image of Mary Jane Rae was taken at a photo studio in the Jubilee Buildings at the Queen's Photo Co. According to Richard Torrance's Scottish Studio Photographers to 1914 (Scottish Record Societies, 2011), Thomas A. Moryson operated the Queen's Photo Co. in the Jubilee Buildings from 1893 to 1900. The building opened in 1887.
Now Winston thinks the photo was taken to commemorate an engagement. Mary married on Aug. 7, 1894.
The clothing clues are the epitome of the late 1880s. Clothing from the early 1890s usually features fuller upper sleeves, so I have questions regarding this image being taken in the early 1890s.
Not everyone kept up with the current fashion. When I look in my own closet, I see clothing I wore several seasons ago. Perhaps Mary didn't have the means to buy a new dress or this one was her favorite.
I'm not sure of the source used to establish the work dates for Thomas Moryson. He bought his photo business from a James Rae, who might be a relative of Mary Jane's. It's possible that Rae also called his business the Queen's Photo Co. and that Moryson bought the name and the equipment.
This photo remains a little bit of a mystery.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | 1890s photos | women
Monday, January 16, 2012 4:36:09 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, January 09, 2012
Mother or Daughter?
Posted by Maureen
Winston Cochrane sent in this lovely portrait of a young woman. Her hairstyle and dress date from the mid to late 1880s. He wanted to know if the item on the studio prop to our left is a hat. It is! It's a tiny topper that would rest on the top of her head. I love that's covered with spring flowers.
On her left wrist is a ribbon bracelet.
His big question was about her identity Could this be Elizabeth (Gourlay) Rae (1840-1921) or her daughter Mary Jane (Rae) Bell (1869-1934)? The woman depicted here is probably only in her 20s, so it's likely the daughter. Mary Jane's brother James immigrated from Scotland to the United States in 1886.
It's the back of the image that made me think about who and where.
This imprint reinforces my belief that being quick to judge can lead to mistakes. When I first glanced at it, the "N.B." stood out. Could it stand for New Brunswick? Many immigrants to the United States first stopped in Canada, but Dumfries, New Brunswick is a rural community even today and it's not near the coast. So what does the N.B. represent?
I called Fred Farrell, the photo archivist at the New Brunswick Provincial Archives for a little clarification. He confirmed that it was unlikely taken in Dumfries, New Brunswick. Turns out that Scotland was often referred to as North Britain even into the 20th century.
This photo was definitely taken in Scotland.
Solve your family photo mysteries with these books by Maureen A. Taylor:
Preserving Your Family Photographs
Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900
Finding the Civil War in Your Family Album
1880s photos | Immigrant Photos | women
Monday, January 09, 2012 4:36:04 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, December 19, 2011
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
1900-1910 photos | candid photos | children | holiday | men | women
Monday, December 19, 2011 2:32:18 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, October 17, 2011
1890s Fashion in Color
Posted by Diane
It's so easy to look at a vintage photograph and image that our ancestors dressed in drab colors. If you're as curious as I am about fabrics and colors then watch my new video on hand-colored images.
These two women wear cotton dresses from the circa-1890 period. Their sleeves and hairstyles pinpoint the period. Frizzed bangs were popular in the 1880s.
Notice the full upper sleeve on the dress of the woman on the right. This style of leg-of-mutton sleeve (a full sleeve that is gathered to be sewn into the armhole) was quite popular in the last years of the 1880s and the early 1890s. The shape and size of this type of sleeve varied throughout the decade.
Here's a colorful look at an 1892 fashion plate from the French fashion magazine, Journal Des Demoiselles. I don't have a description of the dresses, but you can see what they looked like in full color. In this time frame, little girls dressed like their mothers.
I have one last fashion plate to show you. This one is from the February 1890 Godey's Lady's Book, an American women's magazine. Each issue of the magazine featured a series of fashion plates and a description of them. I have a description of both the fabric and the fur used in these outfits.
On the left: Cloak of green and black cloth, trimmed with a band of black monkey fur. Her hat is known as a toque and it's made of velvet trimmed with "jet ornament." Jet was a black stone quite popular in the late 19th century.
On the right: "Carriage cloak of dark maroon plush and crushed strawberry embroidered satin." An unspecified fur trims the coat but the description goes on to say that the front is made from satin and is tight-fitting. On her head is a velvet hat trimmed with feathers.
I'd love to see a photograph of a woman wearing one of these outfits. It would be interesting to compare the plate and the photo.
As you can see from these plates, our ancestors wore bright bold colors or subtle shades depending on what was fashionable.
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
1890s photos | women
Monday, October 17, 2011 1:50:37 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, October 10, 2011
Mother and Daughters
Posted by Diane
Family photographs are endlessly fascinating. There is the life story of the individuals in a picture and then there is the story of the person who took the image. I've looked a thousands of photographs over the years so I can spot a talented studio photographer just by looking at their pictures.
The unidentified studio photographer that took this picture knew what
he/she was doing. It's beautiful. Each person in the image is posed so
that she stands out. The girl on the left looks off to the side
with a tilted head. The girl on the right looks slightly off to the
right while the woman in the center looks directly into the lens. This
type of pose, an older woman flanked by two younger women, generally
suggests that the woman in the center is older and the mother (or an older sibling). This whole identification mystery hinges on who's in the middle.
Tom Keith knows that his great-grandmother Josetta (b. 1879) is the woman on the right, but he's not sure of the identity of the other women. Josetta had two sisters, Emma (b. 1862) and Carrie (b. 1880). Their mother Susan was born in 1844. So who's in the picture?
Emma died in childbirth in 1893. If she's in the picture then the image is from the early 1890s, but if that's the case, then Josetta is only 13 here and Carrie, 12.
Two clues in this picture pinpoint the time frame. Notice the topknot on Josetta's head? This particular style of hair was commonplace in the mid to late 1890s. Josetta and the woman in the center wear wide-collared dresses with large sleeves. This style first becomes stylish circa 1893. The sister on the left dresses like a schoolgirl with a big bow in her hair and a tailored jacket and shirt.
I don't believe this portrait was taken prior to Emma's death, because both young women look older than their early teens, plus the fashion clues don't add up.
If this picture was taken circa 1895, then Josetta would be 16, Carrie, 15, and their mother Susan would be 51. Do you think the woman in the center is old enough to be about 50 years of age?
I'm looking for more evidence. Do you want to add your opinion? Please add your comment below.
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
1890s photos | hairstyles | women
Monday, October 10, 2011 8:19:45 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, August 29, 2011
Hurricane of 1938: Before and After
Posted by Maureen
 I grew up on the Rhode Island shore and spent summers on the beach. In Rhode Island (and New England), we measure storms like this weekend's hurricane/tropical storm against the grandaddy of all New England hurricanes: the Hurricane of 1938.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the shores of Narragansett Bay were dotted with resorts and beach houses. In this circa-1930s photo of Watch Hill, RI, groups of bathers and sun worshipers cluster under umbrellas in all modes of beach attire. It was a typical summer scene until Sept. 21, 1938.
Watch Hill was famous for its beaches, which stretched seven miles to the west to a lovely place known as Napatree Point. The 1938 hurricane changed the Rhode Island shoreline and washed away many of those summertime places.
On Napatree Point, 39 cottages, their owners' cars and the road all disappeared and 15 people died, swept out to sea or into Watch Hill Harbor. Today, Napatree Point is a nature conservation area.
Here's a view of part of the Watch Hill shoreline after the storm.
You can see other scenes of the 1938 damage to Rhode Island on the Rhode Island State Archives Virtual Archives. You can use the search box on the home screen to search for hurricane or place names. If you want to read about that storm, I suggest, R.A. Scotti's Sudden Sea: The Great Hurricane of 1938 (Back Bay Books, 2004).
The Rhode Island State Archives has one of my favorite picture collections, so don't stop with hurricane pictures. There is a lot more to look at in their virtual exhibits.
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
1930s photos | candid photos | men | women
Monday, August 29, 2011 3:22:32 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, July 18, 2011
Wacky Hair or Fashionable Foible?
Posted by Maureen
I can't help it. I love the hairstyles and facial hair in photographs so much I'm actually thinking about a second volume of my Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900 book. The curls and whorls of nineteenth century styles definitely provide insights into your ancestor's fashion sense and their personality. This week I'm sharing three images from my growing collection of purchased images of women's tresses and men in beards.
In this 1860s carte de visite, a middle aged woman wears her hair in the style of her youth. Women wore their hair looped over their ears in the 1840s and early 1850s. Both her attire and her hair are conservative.
Look closely at her hair.
There is a lack of gray hair. One of my colleagues who's also a Civil War reenactor is looking for pictures of Civil War era women with gray hair. Did they color their hair or is our prevalent gray hair a result of modern living? Hair dye was available, but a fashion historian told me that women who ate a lot of seafood didn't go gray. Hmmm.
Here's a very fashionable woman from the 1880s with her oiled curls and large bow. Her hair is neatly coiffed.
Let's not leave the men out of it. <smile>
It's the 1870s look with a bit of the past mixed in. In a beard style chart from the nineteenth century, his is called the "Burnside, short." The full Burnside look featured much longer sideburns. My favorite part of this man's hair is the wave on the top of his head.
Hope you're having a nice summer!
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
hairstyles | men | women | beards
Monday, July 18, 2011 2:34:24 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Friday, July 01, 2011
Identifying an Old Crayon Portrait
Posted by Diane
This crayon portrait passed from Geri Diehl’s grandmother to her mother, and ultimately came to be in her own collection. She asks, "Could this be the wedding picture of Elizabeth Goza and William Harrington who married in 1846?"
On FamilyTreeMagazine.com, Photo Detective Maureen A. Taylor adds up the clues in the image and gives some cautions for dating hand-drawn portraits based on photos.
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
1850s photos | men | women | Drawings
Friday, July 01, 2011 6:51:54 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Friday, May 13, 2011
Aging Well
Posted by Diane
Dating a photograph of an older person presents a unique dilemma: Is the subject wearing contemporary fashion, or an older style that he or she was hanging on to?
On FamilyTreeMagazine.com, Photo Detective Maureen A. Taylor addresses this question as she analyzes these two photos that might show the same woman at different ages.
Click here to see what clues Taylor finds.
Got a photo mystery of your own? Enter it into our Photo Mysteries Contest.
And remember to sign up for the free Photo Detective Live! webinar taking place May 18.
1890s photos | 1910s photos | group photos | men | women
Friday, May 13, 2011 5:01:49 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, March 14, 2011
Mom, Dad and Baby
Posted by Maureen
Marla Hathhorn sent in this picture with a simple question. On the back someone wrote, "Ann Hicks." Is Ann Hicks the baby or the mother?
Marla knows that her ancestor Anna Foley Hicks was born in Canada in 1844 and died in Oklahoma in 1914.
A lot of people ask me, "What do I look at first in a photo?" The answer depends on the image. In this case, I read Marla's e-mail and quickly glanced at the photographer's imprint at the bottom of the card to see where the picture was taken. Then I examined their clothing.
The woman's dress is from the circa 1880 period. The bodice extends over the hips, extra fabric drapes over her upper legs and there are two layers of pleats. Her choice of jewelry is also typical for the time -- a thick chain with a charm was very popular. In the early 1880s, women wore their hair pulled back with short bangs. This young mother is very stylish in an understated way. Dad's clothing agrees with this time frame.
The baby is very cute in it's long dress, thick tights and buttoned boots. Around it's neck is a lovely bib.
Could the mother be Anna? In 1880 she'd be 36 years of age, a likely fit.
T.R. Colpitts took this photo. The Rock Lake Herald of 1881 featured a short bit of news about him. It stated that he was taking a trip into southern Manitoba to take scenic views for resale. It appears from this photograph that he also found employment with the Hudsons Bay Parlors, a photographic establishment possibly connected with the Hudson Bay Company. I'm looking for that link.
1880s photos | men | women
Monday, March 14, 2011 2:08:38 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, November 29, 2010
Shipboard Clues
Posted by Maureen
Last week in A Photo Mystery, A Clue at a Time, I introduced you to a wonderful group picture of folks on a ship.
The Ship
What I didn't show you is the caption that runs along the bottom edge of the picture. Unfortunately, part of the cardboard is broken off, leaving us to guess at the rest of the information. I can't make out the first word, but there is a "....noon" or "roon" followed by "on board German Ship Baltimore." According to the owner of the photo, below the caption and cut off in the scan of the photo is "Capt. Hillr..." The rest of his last name is missing. So far, no luck in finding a man with a last name starting with those letters.
When you're faced with incomplete caption information, it's best to start with what you know. In this instance, I Googled Ship Baltimore. On theshipslist.com, I found a description. There was a German ship, Baltimore. It was built in 1868 for the North German Lloyd of Bremen and traveled from Bremen to Baltimore until 1872. In 1881, she was then used for the Bremen to South America service. The big problem with this ship being the one in the photo is the final date of service. This particular Baltimore was scrapped in 1894.
In the first column I dated the photo from 1896 to 1899.
There was another ship, the City of Baltimore that operated as part of the Baltimore Mail Line, but its dates of service are too late. It traveled from Baltimore to Hamburg in the 1930s. Not all information is online and I'm still looking for a good off-line resource.
There must be another ship with the same name that operated in the late 1890s. Just haven't found it yet.
The Location
Jake Jacoby's grandfather lived his whole life in either Mobile, Ala., or Pensacola, Fla. There is a BIG question about where this photo was taken. Mobile was a busy port and many immigrants arrived there, but right now we lack proof.
If you had an ancestor arrive at Mobile, the National Archives has an Index to Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at Ports in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, 1890-1924 (T517).
There is another possibility. The Sept. 1, 1904, Canebrake Herald (Uniontown, Ala.) mentioned Joseph Jacoby. He was a traveling salesman for his brother's business, Jacoby Grocery Co.. Since in the 1900 federal census, Jacoby lists his occupation as a salesman, perhaps he traveled, and this photo might have been taken on a trip during the last years of the 1890s.
While I've been able to date the photo and work with the owner to sort through clues, the final answer is elusive. Jake Jacoby thinks the photo was taken in Mobile rather than Pensacola. It's a good assumption. His grandfather had business and family connections in Mobile.
A single name of an immigrant depicted in this photo would help solve the mystery, but unfortunately no one's name appears on the photo.
Got a mystery photo? Demystify it with help from Maureen A. Taylor's book Uncovering Your Ancestry Through Family Photographs.
hats | Immigrant Photos | men | unusual photos | women
Monday, November 29, 2010 9:52:32 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, November 08, 2010
Family Across the Border
Posted by Maureen
Like so many French-Canadians and Acadians, some of Marie-Josee Binette's family left Quebec in the 1890s to seek jobs in the United States. She owns a lovely photo album that documents this move in pictures, but she has no idea who the people are.
Marie-Josee knows that her great-grandmother Elina (Aline) Beaudoin spent several years in Lowell, Mass. with her husband Onesime Deblois. Both worked in area factories. After several years, some relatives stayed in the United States while others returned to Quebec. It's a familiar story to those of us with French-Canadian ancestry.
From the imprint on this photo, it also appears that someone either lived in or visited the nearby city of Lawrence, Mass. Its nickname is the Immigrant City.
In the album is this beautiful image of a young couple. The style of her sleeves and dress date the photo to the last years of the 1890s. The photographer, Amos Morrill Bean, appears in Chris Steele and Ron Polito's A Directory of Massachusetts Photographers 1839-1900 (Picton Press, 1993). He was in business from 1868-1900.
It's a great picture and I've seen poses like this before. While the couple's hands aren't touching, it suggestive of a wedding picture. Both the man and the woman wear very nice clothing. On their hands are brand new rings. The light glints off them. The woman wears her ring on the traditional left hand while her "husband" wears his on the right. It's interesting.
My favorite part of this picture is the props. Both the man and the woman hold photographs on the table between them. Could this symbolize family that couldn't be there for the wedding? It's possible. There are any number of reasons to include photographs as props.
Marie-Josee might find she still has cousins living in this country. Two organizations worth contacting are the American Canadian Genealogical Society and the American-French Genealogical Society. Both organizations have extensive resources on families that moved here, as well as those in Quebec.
Got a mystery photo? Demystify it with help from Maureen A. Taylor's book Uncovering Your Ancestry Through Family Photographs.
1890s photos | Immigrant Photos | men | wedding | women
Monday, November 08, 2010 4:44:17 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, November 01, 2010
From My Mailbag
Posted by Maureen
Not everyone has owns a scanner or has access to one, so in the "How to Submit" link to the left, there are instructions on how to send me copies (not originals) of your mystery pictures.
Every so often I receive a package containing photos from the editors at Family Tree Magazine. This week, instead of digging into my e-mail backlog, I thought ... let's check out the real mailbag.
There was a problem. I'll show you two pictures in a minute, but first a gentle reminder. Please send me updated contact information when you move. I'm not sure what happened to the folks in my mailbag. All five of them no longer have active telephone numbers and don't appear to be living at the same address. My last attempt to contact them will be via their e-mail addresses. I'm not confident that those will work either. Sooo, if you know Mary Leal, formerly of Houston, or Christine Regan, formerly of Cincinnati, please let them know I posted their pictures here.
Mary Leal sent in this lovely photo of a young woman. Mary inherited a box full of unidentified photos from her mother. She has no idea who this is, but believes she once lived in the South Texas area because Mary's mother was from the Brownsville area.
Mary wanted to know why someone would cut this image. It's probably because it was once in one of those oval frames suitable for wall hanging or setting on a bureau.
The wide collar with pointed ends and the dress with the double row of buttons is in the style worn circa World War I, about 1915.
There's a long story associated with the picture Christine Regan sent in. She wasn't sure who was in this image, but hoped it depicts Louisa Whitford Hannay (1847-1897). Unfortunately, it's more likely Eva Grace Hannay Mitchell (born 1890). Just about everyone in Christine's family is gone and she's left with a pile of mystery images. It's a shame that no one in the family ever passed on the identity of these two young women. Eva lived until 1982!
As a young child, Eva's mother, Louisa gave her to an aunt to raise. Louisa had tuberculosis and couldn't care for her child. Instead, Alvilla Whitford Stanford (1848-1908) raised Eva, but according to family lore, the two never really bonded.
Could one of these women be Eva? Christine really wanted one of the women to be Louisa, but the clothing style with the short skirts, combined with their young ages, rules out a woman born in 1847. Both wear calf-length summer dresses with tiered skirts and ruffled bodices. Their pointy shoes, dresses and short hair all suggest a date in the late 1910s to early 1920s. Eva would have been 30 in 1920. If she's in this photo, then she's a young-looking woman, but perhaps there is another answer.
The identical dresses suggest an occasion or a relationship. I think the two girls look a bit alike. Similar mouths, and same-shaped face. Perhaps they're sisters. One of Louisa's daughters, Maude Hannay Sollitt (died in 1936) had three daughters born in 1898, 1902 and 1908. As for the occasion, that's still a mystery.
Our webinar download, Photo Retouching: How to Bring Old Family Pictures Back to Life, shows you on how to fix tears, spots and rips in your family photos using low-cost or free photo-editing software. The webinar download is available from ShopFamilyTree.com.
1910s photos | 1920s photos | women
Monday, November 01, 2010 4:15:09 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, October 18, 2010
Civil War Roll Call, Part 2
Posted by Diane
I hope you enjoyed last week's gallery of Civil War soldiers. I have several more to share with you this week.
Merle Ladd's ancestor Lemuel Ladd (below) lost his life at Blackburn's Ford, near Manassas, Va. on July 18, 1861. He served with the 12th New York.
Roxanne Munns sent in this photograph of George Allen (below). This photo was stored with her Young family pictures. She doesn't know who George is, but she thinks he might be George Allen of Co. G of the 7th Wisconsin. If anyone is related to this man, email me and I'll forward your message to Roxanne.
Bruce A. Brown's great-great-grandfather John McNown (below) enlisted Oct. 6, 1861, into Company F, 16th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry Regiment from Lemonweir Township, Juneau County, Wis. He lost his life on April 6, 1862.
John McNown immigrated from the Isle of Man to Canada about 1825, and then to the United States in 1849.
This picture of John is a copy of the original photo. From its appearance, the original is a tintype or an ambrotype. There are distinctive marks that suggest it was once in a case with a mat framing the image.
Four children of Oliver and Lucinda (Boodey) Leathers of Maine served in the Civil War. John served with the Maine cavalry, Alphonso served with a New Hampshire regiment while the other two brothers enlisted with a Minnesota unit. Lynn Kent submitted the photo below and thinks it depicts Charles Leather from the 1st Minnesota regiment.
Look closely at Emvira Smith Fuller's dress (below). She was the wife of Calvin Fuller of Barnard, Maine. She wears his picture in a piece of photographic jewelry.
Thank you for all the photos!
For a guide to researching your Civil War ancestors, see the July 2007 Family Tree Magazine (available as a digital download from ShopFamilyTree.com).
1860s photos | Civil War | men | Military photos | women
Monday, October 18, 2010 7:44:58 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
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)
|
|
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wearing Family
Posted by Maureen
This is a fantastic family photo owned by Sharon Pike. It's actually a photo within a photo. In this card portrait, a stunning portrait of a well-dressed middle aged woman, Jane Rivers Meriwether (1829-1897) gazes directly into the camera. Let's look at some of the details.
Hair
It appears she has naturally curly hair, but in this period the Marcel Wave was a popular hairstyle. It was invented by Francois Marcel in 1872, created using heated curling irons to form small waves. The style remained popular into the 1930s. You can read more about Marcel here.
Collar and Dress
In the late 1870s and early 1880s, wide collars were commonplace. However, they were usually white and made from fabric. This woman's collar looks like small threads woven and knotted, like macrame. She's used the collar to accent her dress, which is a lovely fitted bodice with small buttons and some fullness to the sleeve.
Jewelry
All right, I admit it: I left the best detail for the end. Jane wears gorgeous drop earrings in what appears to be a floral pattern. Around her neck is a braided necklace made of either hair (yes, hair!) or silk. Both materials were common and popular. In the 19th century, women often wore jewelry made from the hair of their family and friends. Hair jewelry is a fascinating topic and the pieces are quite lovely. You can learn more about it and see examples in an online article from Victorian Magazine. These long braided ropes were often used as watch chains.
The most prominent feature of this card photo is the piece of portrait jewelry at Jane's neckline. It's a large pin setting with a paper photograph of a middle-aged man. Photo jewelry came in all shapes and sizes. I'm particularly fond of it (although it often costs more than my pocketbook can bear <smile> ). The top experts on photographic jewelry are Larry J. West and Patricia Abbott. Their book, Tokens of Affection and Regard (published by the authors, out of print) took years to research and write. It's a stunning volume filled with color plates of actual jewelry. You can view examples on the Smithsonian web exhibit based on their collection.
The big question is "Who's the man on the pin?" Sharon wondered if it was Jane's father, who died in 1840, or could it be her husband, Ethelred Westcott, who died sometime between 1870 and 1895. He's a bit of a mystery man; Sharon doesn't have a specific death date.
The dark color of her collar could mean the man in the photo deceased. Jane could have
had this pin made from a small card photograph. The man's photo is
difficult to see, but it could date from the early 1870s. His suit and
tie are from that period. He has a full beard with lots of gray in it.
I don't have a birth date for Westcott, but it could be him. Women
often wore pins depicting children or a spouse.
This photo of Jane Meriwether dates from the late 1870s or early 1880s. The light pink tone to the card and its gold trim makes me lean toward the late 1870s.
You'll find advice for creating, sharing and saving your family's photographs in the Family Photo Essentials CD, from the editors of Family Tree Magazine and Memory Makers magazine.
1870s photos | men | photo jewelry | women
Monday, September 20, 2010 6:34:10 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Summertime Farewell
Posted by Maureen
I don't know about you, but I'm having a difficult time saying good-bye to summer. This weekend I took a short field trip to historic Concord, Mass., and ended up in an antique shop. I couldn't resist the piles of unidentified photos. Picked up some of fantastic hairstyles and hats, but also these two beach scenes:
In case you guessed...this wasn't taken in the United States. According to the postcard publishing information on the back, it was taken in Rugen, Germany. This lovely multi-generational family went to the beach. I love the beach hut that shades the two older women and the little girl. Mom and Dad sat in the sand. Can you imagine dressing for the beach in a full suit and dress shoes? The image was taken by A. Haase, circa 1910. Haase may have traveled up and down the beach taking pictures of folks on vacation.
If you want to learn more about this seaside resort, there is a website, but it's in German.
The other image I bought is a snapshot. It's clear from the woman's pose and expression that she is having a good time at the shore. I have no idea where it was taken.
It's a great shot of a young woman in a late 1920s bathing costume. She's the epitome of the late 20s, from the wrap on her head to her glasses and the belted waist. The 1920s saw the evolution of women's swimsuits from blousy, long skirted suits to form-fitting tanks.
You'll find advice for creating, sharing and saving your family's photographs in the Family Photo Essentials CD, from the editors of Family Tree Magazine and Memory Makers magazine.
1910s photos | 1920s photos | women
Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:21:38 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, August 23, 2010
Studio Backdrops
Posted by Maureen
At last weekend's FGS conference in Knoxville, I did a little shopping. Picked up a couple of interesting books and this lovely trio of photos. I just love the backdrops. This photographer spared no expense.
While in the 19th century most backdrops looked like the outdoors or living rooms, in the 20th century the backdrop often sets the scene into a historical context.
In December 1903, the Wright Brothers lifted off the ground in the first flight. Mass transit by airplane was decades away, but that didn't keep folks from simulating flight. Here, a group of friends are posing in a painted backdrop
that looks like an early aircraft, with the skyline at their feet. Their clothing and the design of the airplane dates from circa 1912. You can view early airplanes on the web at Early Historic Aircraft.
In the next postcard, the same woman seated at top right in the first photo takes another picture in the same studio. This time, you can see the airplane set to her left while she sits on a fake racehorse. She wears the same suit and hat so it's possible it was taken on the same day.
In the same batch of photos I found another image of her standing near a painted wall with "Pennsylvania Pullman" on it. George Pullman manufactured train cars, trolley buses and streetcars. You can read more about him on Wikipedia. I think this is a train car, but I'm still trying to find a reference to the words on the side.
I may not know the name of this woman, but it appears that in the early early 1910s she liked to frequent photo studios with creative backdrops.
You'll find advice for creating, sharing and saving your family's photographs in the Family Photo Essentials CD, from the editors of Family Tree Magazine and Memory Makers magazine.
1910s photos | photo backgrounds | props in photos | unusual photos | Vehicles in photos | women
Monday, August 23, 2010 5:17:58 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, August 09, 2010 Monday, July 19, 2010
Mourning Clothes
Posted by Maureen
Ten years ago, I analyzed a photo sent to me from a woman in New Zealand. In the New Zealand Mystery, I discussed the family information, but also described her clothing and how it indicated she was in mourning.
Queen Victoria set the standard for both wedding attire and for mourning. After the death of Prince Albert in 1861, she wore black mourning clothes for the rest of her life. In the Victorian era, men would wear a black armband when someone died, but women wore full black crape (the 19th century spelling for crepe) dresses for a year and a day. Then they wore just crape-trimmed black dresses for another 21 months. (Tortora and Eubank, Survey of Historic Costume, 348).
But what if your family didn't have the resources of the woman depicted above? A wardrobe of mourning clothes probably wasn't economically feasible. Instead, clothes could be rented or borrowed for the funeral. According to the 1877 article by Henry R Hatherly, "Mourning Clothes as a Source of Infection" (Sanitary Record: A Journal of Public Health, Google Books), less-fortunate folks were spreading disease by wearing clothing worn by others—in particular, skin and parasitic diseases.
Not just Queen Victoria's subjects followed mourning customs. This week I looked at a tintype from Dresden. The dark clothing and the large hat with long, heavy fabric at the back suggests this 1880s woman is in mourning. The style of the hat is a bit unusual. I think the browband helps keep the hat on her head.
If you have any 19th-century photos of family wearing crape, I'd love to see them. You can e-mail them to me.
Need help researching, preserving and displaying your family photos? Visit ShopFamilyTree.com for how-to books and CDs.
1850s photos | 1880s photos | mourning photos | unusual photos | women
Monday, July 19, 2010 3:47:35 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, July 12, 2010
Follow-up to Stitching Together An Identification
Posted by Maureen
Two weeks ago in Stitching Together An Identification, I wrote about Candace Fountoulakis and her search to identify the women in two photos. At the time she thought they were related.
Soon after I posted the column she wrote to update me on her search. Now she doesn't think there is a connection. Her research didn't turn up a link.
She knows the single woman is "Aunt Mary Jane Hill," but now thinks that the couple could be either from the Newburn or the Mathews family.
Candace hopes that either the other researcher working on the family history will discover a new clue or that her mother holds the key in her box of old photos.
She's done all the right things—compared pictures, researched the photographic evidence, consulted family and delved into family history. My fingers are crossed that all her efforts result in another identified picture!
Of course, there is another possibility—they aren't relatives at all. <smile>
Family collections are often a collection of family and friends.
You'll find guidance for identifying the mystery photos in your family albums in Maureen A. Taylor's book Uncovering Your Ancestry Through Family Photographs.
women
Monday, July 12, 2010 5:10:32 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, June 28, 2010
Stitching Together an Identification
Posted by Maureen
Last June, I wrote about a photo owned by Candace Fountoulakis that was surrounded by a cross-stitch pattern. At the time I published the photo, Candace thought the couple was from either her Watts or Boohler side of the family, but now she's not sure. This photo changed her mind:
This photo was in her mother's collection and is captioned: "Aunt Mary Jane Hill." The young woman wears a beautiful dress with dark trim on the bodice. Her small waist is highlighted by a belt. She leans on a chair for support. This pose and the dress style were common in the 1866-1868 period. The line line border was also common on card photographs in the late 1860s.
Now Candace thinks this woman is the sister of the woman in the first image:
The image above was also taken in the 1860s, making it possible for the two women to be of the same generation.
Candace knows a lot about the Hill family. They were a pioneer family in Gallia County, Ohio, and intermarried with the Watts family.
Additional research needs to be done before confirming that these two women are sisters, including:
- If this is Mary Jane's sister, it's important to verify the birth
date and parentage of this woman.
- Who's the man in the photo?
- Are there any other pictures of him in the family?
Since both images were in Candace's family, it's clear that there is some connection to her. All that's left is to put the pieces together.
Need help researching, preserving and displaying your family photos? Visit ShopFamilyTree.com for how-to books and CDs.
1860s photos | women
Monday, June 28, 2010 5:45:02 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, June 21, 2010
Spotting a Wedding Photo
Posted by Maureen
Irene Powell sent me this lovely wedding photo of her great-grandfather Joseph Kapler and his wife, Theresa. They were married in December, 1888.
Their clothing is perfect for the late 1880s. Theresa's dress features a fitted bodice and her sleeves have vertical puffs at the shoulder seam. Her skirt has knife pleats at the side. Joseph wears a fitted 1880s jacket, a shirt with an upturned collar, vest and tie. He has short hair and a trimmed mustache.
This photo is a perfect example of how a bride would often wear a very nice dress, rather than the Victorian ideal of a white ensemble. In this case, Theresa has accessorized her attire with wedding white in the bow at her neckline and a tiny headpiece. She doesn't carry a bouquet, but Joseph wears a large corsage pinned to his jacket. These tiny clues identify this as a wedding photo, even though neither one wears a wedding ring.
You might have wedding images in your collection and not recognize them. Watch for accessories that suggest a wedding—headpieces, corsages, flowers, bows and even sashes. Match up the family history information with a date for a photo, and you might be surprised that you have a wedding image or two. Getting married was a significant family milestone, and one that couples often commemorated with photos.
I've never seen the item that stands between them. It appears to be a small table, but it has unusual filigree legs and a support under the drum. Can anyone identify it?
Need help researching, preserving and displaying your family photos? Visit ShopFamilyTree.com for how-to books and CDs.
1880s photos | wedding | women
Monday, June 21, 2010 4:48:49 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Jamboree Mystery Photo
Posted by Maureen
I'm back from the Southern California Genealogical Society Jamboree. Over 1,700 folks attended the three-day event. I met many readers of this column. Thank you for stopping by and saying hello!
As usual, I held individual photo consultations. This is one of my favorite part of going to conferences because I get to look at photos and chat face-to-face with their owners. I hear a lot of interesting family stories and see some amazing photos. This week, I'm sharing one of them with you:
Kris Robinson and her sister visited me at Jamboree to try to answer a question. They know the man in the middle of this picture is their father, Robert Robinson (born in 1917), but they wonder if one of the women could be his mother, whom the Robinson ladies never knew. This casual snapshot of three smiling people has a bit of a dark side.
Lola Cloos Robinson was born in 1894 in Illinois. Her father abandoned the family when she was young. By 16, she was on her own working as a domestic in Unity, Ill. Kris isn't sure how her grandparents met, but they appear with their two boys in the 1920 Mason City, Iowa, census. One died at 4 years of age. In 1927, the family moved to California; they lived in Los Angeles and Huntington Park from 1928 to 1932, when they disappear from the city directories.
Robert Robinson never discussed his family history or mentioned any other relatives. He had an unhappy childhood. However, Kris' mother told her that her father Robert had come home from school one day to find his mother gone. Lola had been institutionalized at a local hospital for unknown reasons. Kris is trying to gain access to those records.
Kris and her sister have spent a lot of time discovering the details of this woman's life. Just recently, they learned that Lola had two aunts and two cousins living in Los Angeles in 1931 and that those individuals had children.
Could one of the women that linked arms with Robert be his mother? The clothing styles reflect the styles of the early 1930s especially the sailor collared shirt worn by the woman on the left; the women's
calf length skirts; Robert's suit with the bold tie; and the sweater worn by
the woman on the left. You can find similar outfits in Sears Catalogs of
the period. This dates the photo to the early 1930s, when Robert was in
his mid-teens.
This photo raises so many questions.
- It's an amateur snapshot, probably part of a series of images. Who's the photographer?
- Where's the rest of the roll and who owns it?
- If Robert's mother was institutionalized when he was young, when was she released? This information would help determine if onf of the women in the picture could be her.
- If one of the women is her, I vote for this woman. She's older than the teen on Robert's other arm. She's also wearing lipstick, which young teens in the period generally didn't wear.
I hope Kris and her sister can solve the information riddle surrounding this woman's life. Perhaps someone will see this column and recognize Robert and the women in the photo. Anyone have the rest of the roll?
Go to ShopFamilyTree.com for the how-to books and CDs you need to research, preserve and display your family photos.
1930s photos | men | women
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 8:33:28 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, May 10, 2010
Sorting Truth From Fiction: Picture Tales
Posted by Maureen
Behind every picture is a story. Some are simple tales of why someone went to have their portrait taken. In other cases, a picture tells the story of a lifetime.
Carmen Camoros sent this soft-focus photo of two young women. She's hoping one of them is her grandmother.
Carmen's mother always told her that her grandmother had died giving birth to her in 1911 in Puerto Rico. She never talked about her. After Carmen's mother died in 1979, Carmen packed up her belongings and put them away.
A decade later, she decided to look at them. In it was her mother's empty wallet with this picture inside. The original is only 2 x 2 inches. Carmen's convinced the woman on the left looks just like her Mom. She's sure that the woman is her grandmother.
There's a twist in this story. Carmen began researching her family and discovered that her grandmother didn't die in childbirth. She died of dysentery at 28 years of age, when Carmen's mother was 9. For 5 years, her mother lived with her maternal grandparents until her father's remarriage.
Carmen's right. This photo could very well be her grandmother. The long, flowing dresses are from the first decade of the 20th century, but their hair clinches the date. Both young women wear decorative bands and trims popular from 1911 to about 1915. The large coils on her grandmother's head were one variation on the full styles of that decade.
The chair in the photo is in the Egyptian Revival style of the late 19th century. It was bowed legs and a curved, slatted back.
It appears the grandmother has flowers pinned to the front of her dress. The significance of this picture and those flowers is a still a mystery—at least for now.
1910s photos | women
Monday, May 10, 2010 3:16:40 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
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)
|
|
Monday, April 05, 2010
Mother Hubbard
Posted by Maureen
Last week I featured Judy Linnebach's picture of a 19th-century couple and their triplets. If you have a photo of a pre-1900 set of triplets, I'd love to post it in this space. Just about everyone who commented mentioned a multiple birth in their family. I can't wait to see the photos—you can e-mail them to me.
Here's the rest of the story about Judy's photo.
When she wrote to me, she asked if this could be John Basilius Boll, his wife Barbara Platzer Boll and their children. According to her research, the couple married in 1879 and had two children before they had a set of twins in 1883. Is it possible that one of the triplets died and the death went unrecorded? Let's examine the evidence.
The picture is a card photograph measuring 2.5x4 inches. It's the size of a carte de visite. These small card photos were first introduced into the United States in 1859 and remained popular for decades. The thin red line border was first common in the late 1860s.
Tobias and Co. took this photo. On the back of the image is the name of the company and key details about their location and practice.
What I find interesting is the first sentence of the second paragraph: "To Mothers and heads of Families, we wish to call their attention to the frequent trouble of obtaining good and permanent Pictures of Babies." Tobias & Co. had a patented process to guarantee success.
To locate more information on Tobias, I contacted the St. Louis Public Library and spoke with librarians in both the local history collection and in fine arts. The company appeared in 1878 and later city directories, but by the mid-1880s Henry Tobias was a printer. It was unclear from census data if this was the same man who ran the photo studio.
This photo was found in a Bible once owned by Judy's father's maternal grandmother, Lena Wilhelms. Given that it wasn't directly connected to the Boll family, I asked Judy to research all the branches of the family to see if there was another multiple birth. Last week, we learned that multiple births were hereditary, so it's quite possible that this could depict someone else in her family. No luck!
There was another possibility though: Lena's daughter Emma was a genealogist and collected information on the Boll family. It's likely that she placed the pictures in the Bible for safe-keeping.
The clothing clues in this picture are fascinating. The husband wears a simple work shirt (the Bolls were farmers). The wife's dress is barely visible except for a plain neckline and lace-trimmed cuffs. My grandmother always wore a "house dress" when she was home, and I wondered if the same wasn't true in the 1880s. While this woman's dress isn't the current 1880s dress that you see if fashion encyclopedias, there was a wide variety of dresses for women.
In the 1880s, a new style of dress became popular for pregnant women. It was called a Mother Hubbard. Loose-fitting and comfortable, these cotton dresses could be made with a pattern available from a catalog. The mother in this photo had likely just given birth—these are very small infants. With three babies to breast-feed, a comfortable dress like a Mother Hubbard would be perfect attire. They often featured trim at the cuffs, just like you see here.
They were so comfy that many other women wore them belted in summer to stay cool. It was a controversial choice. In the Oct. 26, 1884, New York Times, an article titled, "The Mother Hubbard in Chicago" talked about variations of the dress being worn by women in one neighborhood and how one particular woman had been arrested for it. It ended on a reassuring note: "Ladies who wear Mother Hubbard dresses on the street need not be alarmed. There is no ordinance in Chicago against the wearing of them, although such an ordinance is in vogue in the town of Morris, Ill."
According to Joan Severa in Dressed for the Photographer: Ordinary Americans & Fashion, 1840-1900 (Kent State University Press), these dresses were meant for indoor use. They were house dresses, not to be worn outdoors.
So could this picture depict the Bolls and their children in 1883? The evidence is conflicting.
- In late December 1883, the Bolls had twin boys baptized—Charles and George.
- In the 1900 census, the family is listed except for George. I have to double-check with Judy on his whereabouts. When asked, Barbara said she'd given birth to six children but that only five were still living. Could this refer to a deceased George? There were five children currently living with the parents. Why not mention another child if one of the triplets died?
- Could another multiple birth in the family have gone unrecorded? It's possible.
Right now it appears that this photo documents the Boll family.
- The mother's dress dates from the 1880s.
- The photographer could still be taking images in his printing business (if, of course, it's the same man)
- There are no other documented multiple births in the family.
- Judy has one documented multiple birth—the twin boys.
If this is the Bolls and their babies, then one of these triplets is likely deceased. This was a complicated case.
It's a haunting image. Next week I'll be back with some other unusual pictures from Judy's family!
1880s photos | children | unusual photos | women
Monday, April 05, 2010 5:40:39 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, March 22, 2010
A Women's History Month Salute: Spanish American War Style
Posted by Maureen
Surrounded by recuperating soldiers and orderlies is Deb Wilson's great-aunt Mary L. Keeler, also known as Molly. She served as nurse during the Spanish American War (1898-99) at Fort Monroe, Va., as well as in Cuba and Puerto Rico.
Deb knows this is her aunt, but the names of all the soldiers and other staff are unknown, as is the identity of the photographer.
Molly appears to be the only woman in the image. On the left is a small
table with an American flag, a vase of flowers and other small items.
I never really know where some of these picture stories are going to take me. Now that I've started researching this image, I wonder about the purpose behind it. An article on "Women Nurses in the Spanish-American War" in Minerva: Quarterly Report on Women and the Military by Mercedes H. Graf (article date March 22, 2001, available on Highbeam.com) revealed that female nurses were a controversial topic during the war. Molly's decision to use her nursing skills was a ground-breaking one.
Traditionally, since the end of the Civil War, men had done the nursing in the military. However, during the Spanish American War, Surgeon General George M. Stemberg knew that women nurses would be needed to help care for injured troops and those ill from yellow fever, malaria and typhoid. According to the article, shortly after the start of the war, the military added 100 women nurses. Was Molly one of those women? Or could she have been among the 32 nurses who'd already had yellow fever and were sent to Cuba to help with the epidemic? There's a bigger story in this photo than just the names of the men. This picture makes me want to know more about Molly and her service.
From the article, I learned that in 1898 the average nurse earned $30 a month plus a daily ration. By 1899, nursing applicants had to sign a one- year contract, and they received $40 a month for stateside service and an extra $10 per month for service outside the United States. Between April 25, 1898, and July 1, 1899, only 1,563 nurses served the more than 250,000 troops.
Tent hospitals such as the ward depicted here were commonplace. On the Nebraska GenWeb site is a list of Spanish American War Camps compiled by Fred Greguras.
Discovering the names of the men in the picture is a tough challenge. Spread the word about this picture, and let's try to put names to their faces. Finding out more about Molly's military service may provide a few leads.
Does an image in your family photos depict an important piece of American history? Take a closer look and find the Molly in your family.
1890s photos | Military photos | women
Monday, March 22, 2010 5:25:32 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Monday, February 15, 2010
Friends and Neighbors
Posted by Maureen
A couple of weeks ago, I presented several lectures at the San Luis Obispo Genealogical Society conference. I had great time and got to look at some interesting pictures. Roma Miller showed me this snapshot.
This was in Roma's box of photos from her step-grandfather's family mixed in with other family photos. On the back it says, "Caroline 1927." But who's Caroline and where was it taken?
Look carefully at this image. See the shadow of the photographer at the bottom? It's a great shot of someone taking a picture of this woman. his or her arms are raised, holding the camera.
Next look to the right of Caroline—there is a child. This little kid wears overalls and has his head bowed down. The short pants signify a boy, as does the haircut. This "baby cut" was similar to what we'd call a bowl cut—ear-length on the sides and bangs.
Caroline wears a simple daytime dress. She's probably busy taking care of the her child and the housework. The style of this dress makes me wonder if she could be pregnant. It's very loose-fitting. Her hair is one of the short cuts popular in the 1920s. I think it looks a lot like either something called the "Senorita" or the "Broadway."
The house is a two-story dwelling with a bow window in the style of the late 19th century. It's a Victorian-style house with a tall picket fence in the front and a wrought iron gate. In the background, a latticework wall surrounds a doorway with stairs.
Roma and I talked about ways to identify this woman.
- Ask the owner: The child is about the right age to be her step-grandfather—could this be him and his mother? Nope. He doesn't recognize the woman.
- Post it online: I'm helping out by featuring it in this column. Roma has also uploaded the picture to DeadFred.com
- Contact extended family: Roma sent out a mass e-mail to all her relatives. Success!
A cousin identified the woman and the location. It was a neighbor of Roma's maternal great-aunt when they lived in Oakdale, Calif. A quick check of the 1930 federal census should result in a last name (as long as Caroline remained in the area). Roma may never know who took this picture, but it could be someone related to her great-aunt.
On the surface it's such a simple portrait of a young mother, but when you add in the child, the house and the photographer, it's the beginning of a story and evidence of a friendship between neighbors.
There is one other reason I love this picture. It's a perfect example of how family collections of photos contain more than just blood relatives. There are usually friends and neighbors mixed in as well.
1920s photos | children | house/building photos | women
Monday, February 15, 2010 4:03:53 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
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:
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)
|
|
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
1860s photos | 1890s photos | 1900-1910 photos | group photos | men | Photo fun | props in photos | women
Monday, September 07, 2009 8:59:22 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, May 04, 2009
Photographing Children in Our Ancestors' Day
Posted by Maureen
In honor of Mother's Day, I'm including a short piece on photographing of children from Rhode Island photographers William Coleman and Orville Remington. They were business partners in their studio from 1867 to 1883. During their first year, the men published a booklet advising potential customers how to dress and pose for their pictures. They also include practical advice for parents on getting pictures of their children. I find some of it quite funny and hope you do, too. Many photographers dislike taking children. It is true, they are sometimes troublesome, and the result uncertain; but again, they are so often easy and graceful, and their pure complexions give such delicate half-tones, that some of the finest pictures are those of children, and no artist seeking after excellence would forego, even from choice, the oportunity they afford.
For very young children, it is necessary to choose a fine day, and the best light, which is usually in the forenoon.
Avoid giving or mentioning sweets to them. Do not play or fuss too much with them. Generally a child will sit best if left entirely to the operator.
The last bit of advice is still true today <grin>. Here are some pictures of "hidden mothers" (or photographer's assistants) who often appear—partially—in old pictures of babies.  Ancestories blogger Miriam Robbin Midkiff sent in this adorable photo (above). She writes:
Attached is a photo
of my husband's maternal grandmother, Leona Mary MARTIN (on left) and her twin,
Lee Joseph MARTIN, taken c. 1907 in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. If you look
closely at the left side of Leona's gown and the right side of Lee's gown,
you'll see evidence that someone (or a couple of someones) are sitting out of
sight, holding the children on the sofa. The twins would have been about
a year old (they were born 17 Dec. 1906). The back says "For Grandpa
and Grandma". Only their maternal grandparents, Isaac and Rebecca
(HEWITT) LUKE were still living by the time they were born. I imagine
this photo was a Christmas gift.
These close-ups show the odd folds in the children's gowns—it looks like they're concealing grown-ups' hands:
  Donna Richmond sent this picture (below) titled "child of L.C. Hataway, Black Creek, La." At teh baby's waist, you can clearly see the hands of a woman hidden under the rug. 
Here's one more picture from my collection of unidentified photos of hidden women. It dates from the late 1860s. Don't you just love the hands holding the baby's head still?
Happy Mother's Day!
children | women
Monday, May 04, 2009 2:35:25 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, April 06, 2009
Why the Long Faces in Old Photos?
Posted by Maureen
Every so often I bump into a 19th century photo in which the subjects are grinning. It's a rare event. Occasionally, you see a Mona Lisa smile, but it's difficult to locate an image from the 19th century where folks actually showed teeth the way we do today. So, you're probably wondering—why the long face in most pictures? In the beginning, I imagine that sitters were nervous in front of the camera. It was new, and having your picture taken was an uncomfortable procedure. Look closely at your early photographs and see if you can spot a posing device such as a wooden stand behind the subjects' feet. This device sometimes extended as far up as the head and had clamps around a person's waist or head to keep him still for the long exposure time. Would you feel like smiling? In this 1870s tintype, you can see a chair with the adjustable back. This man holds the the chair back, but if you look closely at his feet, you can see a wooden brace stand.  You can learn more about photographic patents and these tools in Janice G. Schimmelman's American Photographic Patents 1840-1880: The Daguerreotype & Wet Plate Era (Carl Mautz, $25.00). Unfortunately, I don't own a picture of a full clamping device. Anyone got one to share? I have a small collection of women and babies I call "hidden mothers." Women hid under blankets and rugs to keep their babies still for the camera. In this photo, a mother or a photographer's assistant braces the toddler for the picture.  There were also devices to hold babies that look like medieval instruments of torture. Let's not forget another reason individuals didn't smile for the photographer: dental care. Forget cosmetic dentistry—few folks had a full set of pearly whites. In fact, dentistry was a new profession in the mid-19th century. The online Encyclopedia Britannica has a short article on the history of dental care. If you have a picture of a "hidden mother," a smiling ancestor, or a photo that includes a posing device, email it to me and I'll post it in this space. Both of the images above are from my research picture collection.
1870s photos | children | men | photo backgrounds | women
Monday, April 06, 2009 5:26:27 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, March 30, 2009
Picture Origins: Overseas or in America?
Posted by Maureen
In response to last week's column on tinted pictures, Barbara Stone sent in this oversize hand colored photo of a young woman.  It's on canvas and framed in a gorgeous gold setting. According to Stone is was found in a collection of pictures of her father's Irish relatives who lived in Ansonia, Conn. The problem is: Where was it taken and who is it?
I own a similar type image of my great-grandfather. His picture and the one owned by Stone are charcoal-enhanced photographs. Each is likely based on a much smaller original photograph. In the late 19th century, photographers advertised that they could produce this enhanced enlargements.
The wide upper sleeves on her dress, the design of the bodice and her hairstyle all provide a time frame for the image of the late 1890s. Stone wrote that it might depict Jane (Lomasney) Coppinger from Kilworth, County Cork, and wondered if it was made it the United States or in Ireland. Figuring out if this is Jane is a matter of finding out her birth date to see if she's a young woman in the late 1890s. If that's the case, verifying her immigration year could identify the place of origin for this picture. It's a case of adding up the facts. Do the details of her life (i.e. her age) and immigration information support Stone's hypothesis? I'll let you know if I find out. BTW, there is a new Web site for English photo reunions. You can watch my YouTube video about it. If one of your ancestors lived in Hull, England, you'll definitely want to take the Hull Challenge.
1890s photos | enhanced images | women
Monday, March 30, 2009 2:15:39 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Picture Origins: Overseas or in America
Posted by Maureen
In response to last week's column on tinted pictures, Barbara Stone sent in this oversize hand colored photo of a young woman. It's on canvas and framed in a gorgeous gold setting. According to Stone is was found in a collection of pictures of her father's Irish relatives who lived in Ansonia, Connecticut. The problem is: Where was it taken and who is it?
| Friday, February 27, 2009
Wish I Were There!
Posted by Diane
Hope it’s OK if I butt into the blog for a second. Maureen’s on a whirlwind trip to the Who Do You Think You Are? Live family history show in London, where she’s staying with genealogy Facebook friends. She says hi, and she sent a picture of the group queueing up to get in. More pictures and some words to go with them next week.  Mind the gap, please! 
Photo fun | Photos from abroad | women
Friday, February 27, 2009 9:24:29 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, February 02, 2009
Summer in the Family Album
Posted by Maureen
I live in New England. Winter started early this year and with more snow on the way, it isn't leaving anytime soon. It's one for the record books. The lack of a January thaw has me daydreaming of summer—sunshine filled days and the beach. Obviously, I'm not alone. Derek Sundberg of Essex, in the United Kingdom, sent me this photo. It's part of a series of 14 snapshots that all depict the same people.  The woman in the belted bathing suit on the right is his mother, Emily May. (I'm withholding her last name for privacy purposes.) Derek believes that one of the group members is the photographer. So who are the six other people shown above? He has no idea. It's a lovely group snapshot taken at the beach in the late 1920s to about 1930. The girls' bobbed cuts and shapeless bathing suits confirm the time frame. I love the canvas bathing pavilions that surround them. In this picture, Emily (b. 1905) would be in her 20s, but I think some of the women look like younger teenagers. Derek wrote that his mother spent her entire life in Thurrock, Essex, and that she once worked at Thames Board Mills, in Purfleet, Essex. It's possible these folks are her friends from work, friends from town or a couple of younger relatives. It's an identification mystery. Here are some suggestions: - I'd start by showing the images to relatives to see if anyone recognizes the man and the women. I'd also ask if anyone remembers his mother's friends from her job. Another relative might have other pictures of this group. The unknown photographer likely would''ve taken other pictures that summer.
- Next, I'd compare their faces to other images in family albums. If these individuals were Emily's friends or family, they'll appear in other pictures.
If anyone recognizes these young people, send me an email and I'll forward it to Derek. I'm going to link this to my FaceBook page because it's possible one of my FB friends from overseas will know these folks. Guess what? Next week I'll be back with more ancestral pet photos. I've found a way to show them all at once. Let's hope it works.
1920s photos | hairstyles | women
Monday, February 02, 2009 3:23:13 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)
|
|
Friday, September 26, 2008
An Early Paper Print Confirmed!
Posted by Maureen
Way back in June 2005, I wrote a Photo Detective column for Family Tree Magazine on a mysterious-looking paper photograph. This week, the owner of the image, George Pek, sent me an update.  In 2005, I surmised that Pek's image was a salted paper print, but I didn't have proof. At the time, he didn't have a scan and lived too far away for me to see the original. This week, however, he sent me this lovely scan. It clearly shows the thin paper image and the heavier paper backing. (By the way, I've made several attempts to even up the contrast without
any luck. The surface of the paper is shiny and reflects the light from
the scanner.) Pek also sent me proof that I'd identified the photo correctly: results from tests on the image. Using an electron microscope, a scientist had captured an X-ray spectrum of a fragment of the image that clearly indicated it's a salted paper print. The testing showed that the paper contained not only sodium and magnesium, but also traces of bromine—which the scientist says was an experimental additive at the time. His report concluded that, although there's no way to confirm the picture's date from this testing, the results are consistent with 1848. That's the year on the image. Pek continues to look for evidence that this is Judith Simpson, a woman who appears in Quebec records. If the name and age are correct, Simpson was born about 1774. Salted paper prints date from 1840 to circa 1860—the same era as silver-plate daguerreotypes. Interestingly, the pricier daguerreotype images were more popular than paper prints in the 1840s and 1850s, at least in America. The most charming part of this portrait is Simpson's attire. Her clothing reflects fashions of the 1830s, not the late 1840s when she sat for this picture. It's clear proof that not everyone dressed in the latest fashion for their portraits—so it's important to consider all the clues in an image.
women | 1840s photos
Friday, September 26, 2008 4:42:14 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
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)
|
|
Friday, August 01, 2008
Medical Conditions and Family History
Posted by Maureen
Two weeks ago I put out a call for photos showing medical conditions. There are three images and one blog link in this post so be sure to read all the way to the end. The inspiration for that request was a photo that Elizabeth Vollrath emailed me in May.   It's a lovely 1880s photograph showing an unusual feature in her right ear. While not a medical condition, it made me think about details in photos. Vollrath's dad inherited the split in the earlobe, showing a relationship to this unknown woman. I wondered whether she was his grandmother. I was close. A cousin later positively identified this woman as Ida Sophia Hass (b. 1866). Ida's sister Pauline Hass was Vollrath's great-great-grandmother, and her dad's great grandmother. Diedra March sent me this photo of her great-grandfather's family.   She thinks her dad has inherited macular degeneration from this man, his mother's father. Anders Norberg appears to have something wrong with his eyes. According to March, Macular Degeneration causes blindness in your center vision, and people with the condition often look out of the corners of their eyes. Rachel McPherson shared a photo of a school group that shows her grandmother in a leg brace (front row, fourth from right) due to polio.   She was born in 1933, before a vaccine was available. Bloggers like to share through their online postings. The Footnote Maven posted a medically related photo on her blog, Shades of the Departed, on " Health Issues and Women Wearing Glasses." Thank you to everyone who sent images in response to my request!
1880s photos | group photos | men | photo-research tips | women
Friday, August 01, 2008 4:23:52 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, June 16, 2008
Sisters or Mother and Daughter?
Posted by Maureen
A reader named Judy sent me a picture mystery that's a lot like choosing the answer to a multiple choice question—a, b or c. This makes my brain and eyes hurt. Here goes:  - On the back is written Great Grandma Frances Huffman. Huffman was born in 1838.
- In a different handwriting on the back someone wrote, Nira. There were two Niras in the family: Frances Huffman's mother, born about 1817, and a sister, born in 1859.
- Frances Huffman had a daughter in 1856.
In case you're confused, both Huffman and her mother were giving birth to children in the 1850s. Huffman was 18 when her own daughter was born; her mother was 42 when she had Nira. So who's in this picture? That's the quandry. The wide lace collar and beads suggest it was taken in the mid-to-late 1850s. The caption on the back suggests the woman is Huffman, but if it's really her and her about-2-year-old daughter, then it's an odd picture. In 1858, cased images such as daguerreotypes, ambrotypes and even tintypes were available, but paper prints weren't common. Note the gray cardboard used as backing and the circular shape to the portrait—I think this is a copy of an earlier image. The blurring of the portrait suggests the photographer shot the copy through the glass covering the original picture. What about the additional caption mentioning Nira? Unless this is a picture of Huffman with her much younger sibling, that's probably a misidentification. I'm not sure all the pieces of this puzzle are in place yet. I don't think the mother in this picture looks like she's in her 40s, but genetics and illness are just two factors affecting the aging process. Another picture of either Huffman or her mother wouldhelp confirm the woman's identification.
1850s photos | children | women
Monday, June 16, 2008 10:33:34 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Belieu Babies
Posted by Maureen
Within moments of posting last week's column on the pictures of Catherine Denison Belieu and her babies, I received an e-mail from Midge Frazel, Denison family historian. Turns out there's nothing simple about those Belieu kids. Did Catherine have 11, 12 or 13 children? It's still being debated. I wrote that the family traveled to Oregon by boat, but another family historian commented that the family could have traveled overland. She's right, but this family took the water route. You can read Midge's note about how the family got to Oregon by clicking Comments below last week's piece. So which babies are depicted in these portraits? Catherine's clothing is a simple dress with a small collar accented by a pin. This helps date the picture to a short time frame, the mid-1860s to at least 1869. After 1869, women's collars changed. Of course there's no guarantee Catherine stopped wearing her older clothing into the early 1870s. Catherine and her husband, John Asbury Belieu, had several children in the late 1860s and early 1870s. - Sarah Naomi Alice, born Dec. 4, 1864; died June 13, 1867.
- Jesse Leander, born Oct. 11, 1866.
- M. Elizabeth Evalin, born Feb. 3, 1869. This Eva is supposed to be Carole Hayden's great-grandmother, but some genealogists claim this child died in 1872. There's a mistake in here somewhere.
- James Asbury Elmer, born Jan. 2, 1871
It's likely the two babies in the photos are two of these children, but it's difficult to assign names. I think that at least one of them is Sarah, who died in 1867. It was a common practice to pose for a picture with a first child. The two images show different children. I've come to that conclusion by comparing the shapes of their heads—they're slightly different. Both children wear dresses, but you can't jump to the conclusion they're girls. The mother could be reusing a garment from her first baby. Regardless of who's who, these two images are treasures for the Denison/Belieu family. Now here's a challenge to other descendants. Do you own pictures of Catherine with her other children? Send them in and let's really try to settle the question of which baby is which.
1860s photos | children | women
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:09:13 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, April 07, 2008
Family Travels and Family Photos
Posted by Maureen
Every family has significant events documented in photographs. For immigrant families, that usually meant taking a group picture before a loved one left home. The immigrant also often sent pictures home to show he'd arrived in one piece and was happy. In some families, photographs don't actually document the travels, they become the icon for the retelling of a family story. Carole Hayden owns two images of women with a baby. She found them in a box of newspaper clippings saved by her great-great-grandmother, Catherine Lavinia Denison (born in 1848). When Catherine was a mere 2 years old, her parents took her to Oregon. In those days, that meant boarding a ship and sailing around the tip of South America. Approximately 6,000 other people also made that trip. If you've got an ancestor who decided to settle in Oregon in 1850, you can check his or her name against this online list of pioneers. It's not comprehensive and the Denison family doesn't appear there, but you might get lucky. Now Catherine's descendant wants to know the significance of these two tintype images. Do they show the same woman?   Definitely! These images depict the same mother, but is the baby the same? That depends how many children Catherine Denison had with her husband Asbury Belieu. They married in 1863, and judging from her clothing, these two pictures were taken in the year or two after their marriage. Family history research would provide information on when their children were born and the sex of the babies. The babies in both images appear to be female. I need to do a little more research before I can answer the rest of Carole's questions. Back next week with more! By the way, thank you to everyone who added comments about last week's column. You'll have to look at the column and the comments to see my response :)
1860s photos | cased images | children | women
Monday, April 07, 2008 11:22:32 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, March 10, 2008
Multi-generational Portraits
Posted by Maureen
There's something special about seeing a grandmother and grandchild posed together in a photograph. This little tyke is the spitting image of her grandma.  Emma Dempster-Greenbaum owns this picture. It's labeled "Grandmother & Sarah Ann." The photographer was J.C. Cone and Sons of Farmington. Emma dated this photo based on family information. At 11 months old, Sarah Ann Jackson immigrated to the United States with her parents in November, 1886. The clothing details support this time frame. Sarah wears a typical baby dress while her grandmother's conservative pleated skirt and fitted bodice are from the 1880s. Her dress lacks the bustle typically worn by younger women. Her eye-catching hat accessorizes her outfit—it's tied with a wide ribbon at the chin, and the high crown features what looks like leaves and small berries. She holds a handkerchief, ready for a drooling baby. The photographer also fits the time frame. Emma researched J.C. Cone and found he lived in Farmington, Ill. I double-checked and found Joseph C. Cone in both the 1900 census for Farmington and in a biographical encylopedia, Portrait Biographical Album of Fulton County, Illinois (1890). There's a bit of bragging in his business name. Cone was 58 in 1900, and his son, 27. When he printed the photographic card bearing this photo, his son was still a teenager just learning his father's business. It's the grandmother's presence that confuses the picture evidence. While Emma found an immigration record for Sarah Ann and her parents, she's unable to verify that grandmother Catherine Dempster came with them. Catherine was the baby's only living grandmother in the 1880s. Emma wonders if this picture is a copy of one taken in England. That's possible, but it's also likely his is an original. So, how old is Sarah Ann in this picture? She's still a baby, based on her short hair and long dress. The length of the dress indicates she's not walking yet—otherwise, the dress would be shorter to accomodate her steps. Since most children's first steps occurring around a year to 15 months of age, Sarah Ann is probably less than a year old here. Unfortunately, this data doesn't help determine whether the photo was taken in Illinois shortly after arrival, or in England before she left. I'll be back next week with a follow-up.
1880s photos | children | photographers imprints | women
Monday, March 10, 2008 9:56:31 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Sunday, January 06, 2008
New Zealand Mystery Revisited
Posted by Maureen
While I planned to write a second installment for the photo featured in last week's blog posting, I'll postpone it a week due to an email I received. It was a call for help. In October 2000 (that's seven and a half years ago), I wrote about this haunting photograph of a woman in mourning in New Zealand Mystery.  Now someone e-mailed me trying to contact Dafanie Goldsmith, the owner of the picture. Since I've had several computer crashes since 2000, I no longer have Goldsmith's contact information. The person who e-mailed me has genealogical data on one of Goldsmith's lines and would really like to find her. In an attempt to resolve this "missing person" issue, I googled Goldsmith and discovered she's a high profile genealogist. - Family Tree Magazine once even named her Web site a site of week.
- A newspaper in Lancashire wrote a story about Goldsmith's search for her family in 1999.
- She also exists in countless message board postings. I found them by Googling her name. (If you ever wondered whether you're leaving a Web trail behind, try searching on your name in a search engine.)
Using the clues, I've sent Goldsmith e-mails using addresses used in her postings and even joined a New Zealand social networking site to send her a private message. No results. As a last resort, I'm hoping she still reads this column. Dafanie, if you're out there please send me an email. The other researcher might just be able to solve one of your brick walls.
photo-research tips | women
Sunday, January 06, 2008 3:23:32 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
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)
|
|
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)
|
|
Monday, November 05, 2007
The Plane Truth Revisited
Posted by Maureen
Last year I wrote about Jacqui Marcella's photo of two couples standing in front of an airplane in The Plane Truth. I'm revisiting a few of my older columns to see if I can discover anything new about those pictures. When I looked at this 1920s image I thought, "Why not?" Imagine my surprise when a closer look at some of the details revealed that this simple family picture was a historically significant photo!  The couple on the left are Jacqui Marcella's grandparents, Arthur and Theresa Henschel, but the couple on the right are a mystery. I initially assigned a timeframe of 1926 to 1930, but this "fresh look" narrowed that even further. Take a close look at the T to the right of the second couple. It holds the key to this image.  I searched some of the links I recommended in the original article, and found an exact match! The T is part of the name of the plane, the Smiling Thru. If you look closely, you can see part of a G behind the man on the right. Compare this photo to the photo I found on the Wichita Photo Archives site—the plane's name in that picture is the same font as the T in Jacqui's picture. The Smiling Thru was the first corporate aircraft in America, owned by the Automatic Washer Company. The name came from the company slogan, "Buy an automatic washer on Monday and you will be smiling through the rest of the week." For company president H.L. Ogg, it was a corporate office in the sky with dictaphone, telephone and lavatory. His secretary typed letters while they flew around the country. Strip out the office equipment and the company could use it to deliver washing machines. The Automatic Washer Company bought this plane from Travel Air in 1929, then sold it in 1934. Based on the clothing here and the aircraft's history, Jacqui's grandparents probably posed for this portrait in about 1929. The history of the plane also suggests the other couple might be associated with the Automatic Washer Company. I know the man isn't Ogg, but perhaps its another representative. Jacqui thought of this portrait as a family picture, but its actually a piece of American history, since very few pictures of the Smiling Thru still exist. You can read more about it in an article in the Newton (Iowa) Daily News. By the way, Jacqui, please send me your new email address. I was unable to contact you to provide this update on your photo.
1920s photos | group photos | men | photo backgrounds | women
Monday, November 05, 2007 2:51:49 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
|
|
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Could this happen to your family history treasures?
Posted by Maureen
Before diving into this week’s identification, I have a question for you: Have you specified in your will who’ll receive your heritage photos after you’re no longer here? If not, your relatives could find themselves in a battle. Carolanne, the owner of this week’s photo, has spent 17 years trying to gain ownership of her great-aunt’s pictures and family history materials. When Addie Mattilda Weed died in 1990 at age 106, the tenants in her house gave her manuscripts to a university and kept her photos. Carolanne, Addie’s closest living relative, finally got the photos, but she’s still battling the university—which currently expects her to pay even to copy the papers. So, make sure you’ve planned for the future of your genealogy collection. On to Carolanne’s question: Who are these people? She hopes they’re Addie’s mother, Laura Gilman (1844-1926), and father, James Wyatt Weed (1839-1888).   I think Carolanne’s right. Addie lived her whole life in one house—birth to death. Since these photos were in that house among her belongings, they’re likely her close relatives. Also, this couple is the right age to be her parents. That’s easy, but as usual, there are other questions: When were these images created, and what format are they? Both are photographs enhanced with charcoal. Photographers generally took pictures first, then enlarged and enhanced them—turning an ordinary cabinet-style picture into a piece of art. I happen own a similar-style image in a large gilt frame. The frames for these images are missing, and if there were smaller photos, those are unfortunately lost as well. From about 1869 to 1875 women wore high, ruffled collars, long curls and ties at the neckline just as in this portrait. Notice her neck ribbon. Since Gilman and Weed married in 1873, it’s possible this is an engagement or wedding portrait. It’s much more difficult to date the picture of her husband, due to the sparse costume details in his picture. If his picture was done at the same time as Addie’s, he’d be 34 years old. His beard resembles the untrimmed facial hair men wore in the mid-1870s. Unlike his wife’s unwrinkled face, he has lines around his eyes, suggesting hard work that required he squint into the sun. According to the 1880 US census, James Weed worked in a mill, but I imagine he also spent time outdoors in his native Maine. Caroleann sent a third family photo. I’ll tackle that next week, with a few more things to say about the three images. ‘Til then…
1860s photos | 1870s photos | enhanced images | men | women
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:50:43 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Women's Sleeves Are Clues to Photo Dates
Posted by Maureen
 Bill Dodge thinks one of these young women is his paternal grandmother because he found the picture in his father’s belongings. He wonders if it’s a graduation photo and if the girl on the lower right holds a nurses cap. I truly believe each family portrait tells a story about a person, place or occasion, so let’s deconstruct this image into its pieces and see what’s what. ClothingEach of these women dressed in one of her best dresses. It’s relatively easy to tell when that was—all wear sleeve styles common in the 1890s. I’d date this picture to about 1897. That’s when tight lower sleeves accented by puffy upper sleeves began to get fashionable, yet you still see evidence of an earlier style.   The two girls on the right in the back row wear the full fabric sleeve popular from 1893 to 1896. The dress on the young woman on the lower right features an uncomfortable-looking high starched collar and attached scarf. It’s that extra cloth that resembles the shape of a nurse’s cap. If this were a nursing school graduation class, all the girls would have posed in uniform with caps on their heads. Photographer
If you have a photographer’s imprint with a surname and address, but don’t know the first name, try looking more closely. Photographers often included their intertwined initials as a decorative element. In this case, W. T. is for William Teush.  By researching him in US census records, I learned Teush worked as a photographer for several decades in New York and New Jersey, but by 1900 he had become a hotel proprietor. OccasionDodge was probably right in guessing this image was a school picture. In the late 19th century, portraits like this were quite common. I’ve even written about other class pictures of this period. What’s a mystery is whether this image represents all the girls in the class or a group of friends. Who’s Who? Dodge needs another picture of his grandmother to find her here. By comparing the shape of her eyes, nose, mouth and other features with this image, he should be able to pick her out of the crowd. I hope to do a follow-up to this piece identifying exactly which one is his grandmother. Stay tuned!
1890s photos | group photos | photographers imprints | women
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:36:59 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Identifying People in Two 1890s Photos
Posted by Maureen
This week two photos have tentative identifications, but in both cases, the time frame of the image and the life dates for the individuals don’t compute. Thomas Wetten suspects the girl in this portrait below is his great-grandmother Margaret Ellen Atkinson, born June 1870 in Durham, England.  A caption on the back of the second picture (below) states a relationship to the unknown writer, but no name: Grandma—taken in Liverpool. This label makes Barbara Diemer think the simple studio portrait is a relative of hers, who was born in 1820 and died around 1860.  No photographer’s name appears on either image. Unfortunately for Wetten and Diemer, one detail in each picture refutes their conclusions. The wide sleeve on the girl’s blouse and the full upper sleeve on the woman’s dress date these images to the late 1890s. Further proof exists in the girl’s wide collar and striped skirt, and in the woman’s high, collared bodice—both contemporary fashions for the time period. Wetten correctly identified the child’s portrait as a tintype (also known as a ferreotype or melainotype) by testing its magnetic qualities. Anyone with any doubt about the type of metal in an old can use a magnet to see if it’s a tintype. Tintypes, first patented in 1856, aren’t actually tin, but iron. Wetten has several other suspects on his family tree for the girl. For the photo dates to fit the age of the girl pictured, he should look for a female born in the mid-1890s. (FYI—stone walls and fences were common settings in photographer’s studios of the period.) Diemer’s paper print of an elderly woman depicts someone who could've been born in 1820 and lived into her 70s, rather than dying around 1860. Diemer has the right generation, but either the wrong woman or an incorrect death date. Click Comment below if you have something to add about either picture.
1890s photos | children | women
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:50:23 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
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.
1900-1910 photos | candid photos | group photos | men | photo backgrounds | women
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:35:24 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Traveling Photographers
Posted by Maureen
All Michael Bell knows is that this photo’s subject, Martha B. Bell, sent the image to her uncle (Michael’s great-grandfather) after her father died in 1892. The month and day of the portrait aren’t recorded.  I’m estimating the photo could’ve been taken before or after Martha's father died—the puffed shoulder seams date the picture to the early 1890s. It’s a classic example of a family milestone photo. Tragic events often pushed people into studios to capture images of their remaining loved ones or even the deceased. Read more about postmortem pictures in my column Dead Men Tell No Tales. When Bell asked me about a date for the portrait, he also inquired about the photographer, Orris Hunt. I wrote about two other Hunt pictures in a column several years ago, Which one is Real?. When that picture was taken after 1905, Hunt was in St. Paul, Minn., having recently purchased another photographer’s studio. The imprint in the lower left of Bell’s picture identifies Hunt as traveling photographer. Hunt’s Palace RR Photo Car was actually a photo studio in a railroad car. Whenever and wherever the train stopped, Hunt opened his studio to residents of the area.  Martha Bell took advantage of one of these rail stops in her hometown in Floyd County, Ga. Perhaps after a decade or more of endless traveling, Hunt decided to settle down in a St. Paul studio. That’s when he took the photo of the young man in the earlier column. Hunt wasn’t the only railroad photographer in 19th- and early 20th-century America. Any time you see an imprint with RR as part of the address, you’ve found another one. Then, railroads were what planes are today. They crisscrossed the country bringing goods and services—including photographers—to folks in far-off places. Bell’s photo has an interesting past. Not only was it taken for a specific reason, but now he knows he had a patient relative: She had to wait for the next train with Hunt aboard to have her picture taken.
1890s photos | photographers imprints | women
Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:58:12 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Monday, June 04, 2007
Porcelain Complexion (Literally!)
Posted by Maureen
I own a pillow case with a photograph of my grandmother taken in about 1910. You’re probably thinking it’s an unusual picture format, but it’s actually not. In the early days of photography, daguerreotype buttons and jewelry were common. Once paper prints and light-sensitive chemicals became readily available, photographers could develop pictures on anything you could apply the chemicals to: leather, wood, paper, cloth and like this week’s photo submission, a piece of porcelain.  This photo’s size, 3 x 4 inches, and hand coloring give it the appearance of an 18th century painted portrait miniature. It’s really a photo enhanced with color to make it look like a painting. When Diana Truxell showed this picture to a friend who likes old photographs, the friends didn’t recognize it either, and suggested Truxell send it to me. Thank you! I’m always on the lookout for photographs on items other than cardboard. Truxell is also trying to figure out who’s in the picture. This is one of those queries that make me feel like I’m playing a game show with a choice of answers. Is it her husband’s grandmother Mary Ditner (Martin) Truxell (born 1891)? Or Mary’s mother (born 1863)? The woman’s high-necked dress, prominent buttons and contrasting trim date the picture to about 1883 to 1888. This is likely Mary’s mother, who would be between 20 and 25 years old in this picture. Oral traditions and provenance (the chain of ownership) can confirm the ID. Truxell had one final question: Does the unique surface indicate this woman lived anywhere in particular? No, photographers across the country, even in rural areas, had access to materials that allowed them to creatively present family pictures. The careful coloring of this photo wasn’t done by an amateur though. Professional photographers often employed artists to handle such intricate jobs. Case solved!
unusual surfaces | women | 1880s photos
Monday, June 04, 2007 7:26:52 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Church Clues
Posted by Maureen
Jan Oliver thinks this picture of an older man and a younger woman shows her great-grandfather John Henry Smith (born 1861) and his daughter Alice (life dates 1888 to 1962). Oliver knows Smith was alive in 1921, but she can’t find mention of him after that year. Will this photo tell her he lived longer?  The stone archway behind them, the people around them and the formal clothing with a boutonnière for him indicates this snapshot was taken at a wedding outside a church; perhaps one in which the elder Smith was a participant. Alice’s floral print dress, hat, net gloves and small clutch purse are perfect for a summer wedding. In the mid-1930s, women wore wide-brimmed hats tilted to the side with a single band of trim. No well-dressed woman was seen with a bare head. Social events also called for gloves—leather in the cooler months and net or crocheted styles in spring and summer. Through her choice of accessories, Alice is the epitome of fashion. Both individuals look the right ages to be father and daughter. If this photo was taken in 1935, Alice would be 47, and her father, 74. But the wedding image raises other issues: - Since Oliver can’t find Smith after 1921, she has to figure out where’s he’s been for 14 years and why he’s dressed as a member of a wedding party. His common first and last name presents a research challenge.
- Whose wedding is it? Listing who in the family was married in the mid-1930s may give Oliver a date for the photo and help her track down Smith in the intervening years.
I bet the photographer who snapped this spontaneous shot took others.
Oliver can start by circulating this photo to family members who
remember Alice and her father. Likely, a relative has a photo of the
wedding party with Smith included.
1930s photos | men | women
Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:20:14 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)
|
|
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Blanket Backdrop
Posted by Maureen
Last time, we used the stamp box on the back of this photo postcard to establish a date. Now let's look at the beautiful backdrop. I've seen ancestors posed in front of all sorts of painted backdrops and even a few wrinkled sheets, but this gorgeous bed covering adds texture to a simple portrait. Georgia women such as these ladies have a long tradition of producing beautiful quilts and blankets. The online New Georgia Encyclopedia contains a description of this history. On this Web page, you can see a photo of several members of another family, the Wheelers, in front of a quilt they made. This makes me wonder if the backdrop in Armstrong's photo is part of the story.  Armstrong believes whole-heartedly the older, seated woman in this photo is her great-grandmother Margaret E. Jordan Stephens, because she owns identified pictures of her. The picture dates from about 1910 based on the length of the young women's dresses, as well as the shape of the collar on the dress of the woman on the left. According to information from census records, Margaret would've been about 77 years old at this time. There are a couple of possible IDs for the two younger women: They may be Margaret's daughters, hard to find in censuses because they went by nicknames or middle names. Margaret had sons, so the women could be daughters-in-law. Or they may be ladies who helped with the quilt in the background, posing to commemorate the completion of their work just as the women in the New Georgia Encyclopedia photo did. I'm still working on the bedcovering facts. I'll let you know about new information in the Photo Detective Forum. Or if you can identify the pattern, please add your own thoughts to the forum.
photo backgrounds | photo postcards | women
Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:28:52 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Ladies First
Posted by Maureen
Often details other than what's pictured in a photograph tell you a larger story. Helene Armstrong thinks the seated woman here is her great-grandmother Margaret E. Jordan Stephens. A caption on the back of this photo reads "Ally, Rose, Mar." The "Mar" probably stands for Margaret, but Armstrong has no idea who the other women are. She's trying to research all Margaret's children, but there may be as many as 13.  Since Armstrong knows Margaret's husband's name and where the family lived, I began my photo identification work in census records, looking for children named Rose and Ally. Armstrong had already searched the census for 1860 through 1900, but I wanted to double-check. Though I found Margaret and her husband Joseph in the 1880 US census for Georgia, living with 10 children aged 1 to 25 years, no daughters were named Rose or Ally. Both Margaret and her husband listed their ages as 47, suggesting a birth year of about 1833. This information will come in handy when trying to verify the rest of the evidence in the photo. Along with the caption on the back of the image was a distinctive box for a stamp. It was easy to match up this stamp box with one on Playle.com, a Web site with an alphabetical and pictorial listing of postcard manufacturers.  Armstrong's "real photo" postcard (a photo with a postcard back) was manufactured by CYKO, which used this particular stamp box design from 1904 into the 1920s. This provides an initial date range for the photo. You can read more about postcards in As We Were: American Photographic Postcards, 1905-1930 by Rosamond B. Vaule (Godine, $45). Next time, we'll narrow the date and see what this photo's beautiful backdrop can tell us. It's coming your way April 26. You can weigh in on photo identifications on the FamilyTreeMagazine.com Photo Detective Forum. Post your own mystery photo, too—it might be selected for free analysis in my next column!
photo postcards | women
Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:24:02 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
|
|
|