Free Updates
Navigation
Categories
| November, 2009 (1) |
| October, 2009 (4) |
| September, 2009 (4) |
| August, 2009 (5) |
| July, 2009 (4) |
| June, 2009 (5) |
| May, 2009 (4) |
| April, 2009 (5) |
| March, 2009 (6) |
| February, 2009 (5) |
| January, 2009 (5) |
| December, 2008 (4) |
| November, 2008 (4) |
| October, 2008 (6) |
| September, 2008 (5) |
| August, 2008 (5) |
| July, 2008 (4) |
| June, 2008 (6) |
| May, 2008 (5) |
| April, 2008 (5) |
| March, 2008 (4) |
| February, 2008 (4) |
| January, 2008 (5) |
| December, 2007 (4) |
| November, 2007 (4) |
| October, 2007 (6) |
| September, 2007 (4) |
| August, 2007 (4) |
| July, 2007 (5) |
| June, 2007 (4) |
| May, 2007 (3) |
| April, 2007 (2) |
| March, 2007 (1) |
Search
Archives
| | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | | 29 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
by Maureen A. Taylor
More Links
|
 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)
|
|
|