Free Updates
Navigation
Categories
| June, 2008 (5) |
| 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 | 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 | 31 | 1 | 2 | | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
by Maureen A. Taylor
More Links
|
 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
6/16/2008 5:33:34 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Monday, May 05, 2008
Curly Locks: A Trend Revealed
Posted by Maureen
I asked for it. I posted a request for images of curly-headed tots and now I've got several. Thank you!!
They confirm my hypothesis about boys and hair. It appears that in the early 20th century, there was a trend—little boys with long hair and hair bows. They look just like their sisters. What's a genealogist to do to tell them apart?
Family traditions, oral histories and good old-fashioned genealogical research are the only ways to tell the boys from the girls in these cases. Don't jump to conclusions when you see a bow in this period—you might be wrong. Add up the kids in the family, ask older relatives if they know who's who, and try to match up their ages to kids in the photo using census returns and other documents.
Here's an image Esther Thompson sent me:  Her emails says it all "This is a picture of my great-grandparents William and Ida Johnson, and the boy in the front with the curls (and bow in his hair) is my grandfather Andrew Clyde Johnson, born in 1897. I got this picture from my Dad's sister and when I asked her who the little girl was, she said, 'that little girl is your grandfather.' I couldn't believe it."
Here's a close-up. Enjoy!  1900-1910 photos | children | group photos
5/5/2008 11:26:17 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Monday, April 28, 2008
Family Portraits: Boy or Girl?
Posted by Maureen
Elva Martin sent me this picture to help settle a family reunion disagreement.  See the child in the second row on the far right? The one with a bow in the hair? Do you think this is a boy or a girl?  The picture is an example of confusing details even when you know the name of everyone in a photo. Martin's clan is clear about this being the Peter Mower family. They even have a date for the picture, 1910. It's that troublesome child causing the disagreement. "Petter" Mower, his wife and their nine children appear in the 1910 census for Saugerties, NY. Their oldest, Harry (age 16) stands proudly in the back. Leona (3) sits on her father's lap while baby Marion is with Mom. The rest of the boys are Leory (15), Arnold (13), Adelbert (11), Orie (10), Louis (7) and Everett (5). Orie is supposed to be the child with the bow, but did boys wear bows in the their hair and long curls? The answer is, sometimes! I know I've written columns about the ways boys and girls wore their hair parted—boys on the side and girls down the center—but there are always exceptions. Frances Hodgson Burnett's 1886 book, Little Lord Fauntleroy, featured a main character named Cedric whose mother dressed him in a "black velvet suit, with a lace collar, and with love-locks." You can read the whole text for free on the Project Gutenberg site. But Burnett didn't start the trend, she only popularized it. Throughout the centuries, there have been mothers who couldn't bear to cut the gorgeous curls from their little boys' heads. It appears Orie's mom couldn't either. Of all the children in the portrait, Orie resembles her the most.  He has her mouth, eyes, nose and even the same-shape face. Perhaps he was her favorite. It's impossible to know, unless there's a family story about Orie's place in his mother's affections. Despite the family disagreement about his sex, this child is a boy. E-mail me your old pictures of boys in curls and I'll feature them in a future blog. For now, this is another picture puzzle solved. 1910s photos | children | group photos
4/28/2008 5:51:33 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 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
4/15/2008 9:09:13 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 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
4/7/2008 6:22:32 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Internet Tag: Happy Baby Photo
Posted by Maureen
I love the blogosphere! This week the sharp-eyed Kathryn M. Doyle of the California Genealogical Society sent me a posting she spotted on the Genealogue blog about a baby photo. Chris (the Genealogue) threw out a comment that he'd love to see what I'd say about this smiling, barely dressed tyke. The photo shows a toddler in a droopy diaper. I can't copy the photo here, but you can see the original posting on the Swapatorium: A Journey Through Junkland blog. It's an odd picture. The child's stocking are dark; and the diaper, light-colored. He's probably around 2 years old. But it's not his lack of attire that grabs the viewer. This kid's an optimist. His diaper is falling down and he's got to be uncomfortable, but he's happy. It's great to see a 19th-century picture of someone with a full grin—doesn't happen very often. The wicker chair and animal-fur rug date the picture to as early as the 1890s. Anyone want to help me out by researching the photographer, Bigelow of St. Joseph, Mo.? Why pose him just in a diaper? There are two reasons: First, the mother is showing off her healthy kid. Second, believe it or not, it was the style in the late-19th century to pose in your undies. I've got one I'll share sometime, a middle-age woman in a chemise. Send me pictures of your smiling ancestors and I'll post them in my new SmugMug album. It's fun to see what's in other people's photo collections. SmugMug's security settings let me watermark your images and prevent right-click copying. 1890s photos | children
4/1/2008 4:10:09 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Monday, March 24, 2008
Baby Photos
Posted by Maureen
In honor of Women’s
History Month, I’ve decided to run another picture of a woman and baby—but
this time only part of the woman appears in the picture.
I’ve taken to
categorizing images like this as “hidden mothers.” There's no way to say for certain the
arm extending into the carriage to brace this child belongs to its mother, but
it’s either a cautious mother, a nursemaid or a photographer’s assistant. I
vote for the mother.
Before I start dissecting this picture—do you have any
images with partial women in them? I’d
love to see them and feature them next week. Send them to me.
 So who’s this darling
tot? Gwen Prichard doesn’t know. A genealogical Good Samaritan gave her the
album it was in after finding it in an antique trunk in California. Several of the people
are identified members of the Godfrey and Locke families who, according to the
photographer’s imprint, posed for pictures in Jonesburg, Mo.
The woman who purchased the trunk wanted family
members to have the photo album so she contacted Jonesburg Historical Society
who in turn suggested she write to Gwen. It’s one of those odd serendipitous
genealogical connections.
Gwen thinks the album
belonged to Olive Cornelia (Locke) Smith (born in 1861) based on the identified
images. Now she’s trying to figure out who else is represented. This is one of the mystery pictures. There are
four photos on a page—this baby, an older child, a man and a woman. They may be
the baby’s parents, but before jumping to conclusions let’s date this picture.
- While the baby picture
doesn’t have a photographer’s imprint the other three were taken in Moberly,
Missouri.
- The light green card
stock of this small (4” x 2 ½”) photo was typical in the mid to late 1870s.
- The toddler wears a
white dress with colored sash and a necklace. This child’s attire is also
typical for the early to mid-1870s.
These last two details
date the picture, but it’s the baby carriage that draws our attention. The
first carriage that could be pushed was invented in 1848. Before this, baby carriages
were drawn by ponies and other small animals. Newer carriages, like this one, enabled
mothers, nursemaids and nannies to stroll with their children. This fringed
model looks similar to the horse-drawn surrey carriages used by families
in the 1870s. The top would protect the child from the sun. Babies faced front
to be admired by passersby.
This particular carriage
is well padded with an animal fur lining and a checkerboard knitted blanket. A
scalloped edged embroidered cloth decorates the inside. The woman has her hand
underneath this cloth supporting the baby allowing us to see the beautiful
stitching. You can see other examples of early carriages on the Wisconsin
Historical Society website.
While this is a picture
puzzle, the date brings Gwen one step closer to figuring out who it might be.
This baby (probably a girl because her thin hair in parted in the middle) was
born in the mid-1870s.
Anyone interested in helping me narrow the time
frame? Check patent records to see if you can match up the design of this
carriage. I’ll give you a hint: The leading baby carriage designer in this time
frame was Adolph Meinecke. Don't forget you can respond in the Comments field below.
1870s photos | children
3/24/2008 11:04:44 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 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
3/10/2008 5:56:31 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Backgrounds in Old Photos
Posted by Maureen
In mid-December, I asked readers to submit photos with interesting backgrounds. Thank you for images. I'm conducting an informal study of the different types of backgrounds in photos—it's a vastly understudied area of photo history. Here's an overview: In the 1840s and 1850s daguerreotypists really didn't use backgrounds. Their focus was capturing a likeness of a person, not making the pictures look like they were taken outdoors. In the 1860s, suddenly you start seeing the wall behind the sitter. You can see the blank wall and the moulding at the base. At some point in the late 1850s photographers began offering handpainted copies of images with gorgeous backgrounds painted in. Many of you probably have these and wonder if they're photographs or paintings. They're actually both. In the late 19th century, photographers began paying artists to create backdrops. You've seen some of them in past columns. The backdrop and the architectural elements create a stage setting for the portrait. In photos taken at tourist resorts, you're likely to see seaside scenes. In next few weeks I'll share some interesting backgrounds I've purchased as examples. One of the photographs I received was from Alissa Booth. These three boys were born in the period from 1911 to 1915. Notice the delicately painted backdrop. It's professionally done and creates a nature scene so the boys look like they posed outdoors.  Keep sending me the interesting backgrounds! 1910s photos | 1920s photos | children | group photos | photo backgrounds
1/22/2008 11:11:07 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
|
|
 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
11/26/2007 9:39:14 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)
|
|
 Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Crayon-Enhanced Portrait of a Child
Posted by Maureen
Last week I wrote about Carolanne’s portraits of her relatives Laura Gilman and her husband James Wyatt Weed. Here’s a third, unidentified, picture. Behind each picture is a story, and Caroleann's three portraits are no different. Photo identification techniques can tell you when a person sat for a picture, but it’s the historical and genealogical research that fills in the details of their lives. In this case, Carolanne knows the birth dates of Laura, James and their four children, Flora (b. 1874), Alvah (b. 1879), Wyatt James (b. 1881) and Addie (1883). The family folklore and her research reveal a tragic tale you’d never guess by looking at their lovely pictures.  First, let’s identify the baby in this crayon portrait. I’d estimate this child is around 2 years old. The child is wearing a dress, but the outfit and short hair confirm the sex and dates. During the 1880s, little boys wore “masculine” dresses like this one, featuring less trim than by girls’ dresses. Wide lace collars were in vogue, too. The short hair could be due the toddler’s age or because his mother cut it short to mimic men’s styles. Notice the ball in his right hand. It’s either a photographer’s trick to help him sit still, or a treasured possession. The artist or photographer who enhanced the image with charcoal did a good job around the face but didn’t accurately draw the hands and feet. Since the artistic style is similar to that of his parent’s pictures, the work was probably done by the same studio. Therefore, if this portrait depicts Alvah, it was created around 1881, and if it’s his brother, it dates from about 1883. Either identification is possible. There is also an emotional story to this image. Around 1910, Wyatt moved to California with a friend to “hook up electricity.” The next year, his mother received a telegram that “Wyatt J Weed accidentally killed eighty dollars in bank wire instructions." In a second missive from Wyatt’s friend, his mother learned he died when he “took hold of a drop light in a dark cellar” and that the embalmer wanted seventy-five dollars for a metal-lined box and casket. The friend offered to arrange transportation home. His sister Addie remembered it cost $172 to bring Wyatt back to Maine and that the loss of her son changed Laura forever. Carolanne thinks that's why the grief-stricken mother would’ve kept this portrait of Wyatt, rather than another son, but the clothing clues suggest it could be either boy. A picture is sometimes just an icon for the greater tale of your family. Take time to research the life of each person to fit their photograph into their life story. Carolanne has. 1880s photos | children | enhanced images
10/17/2007 12:37:51 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 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
9/12/2007 8:50:23 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Monday, September 03, 2007
Photos of Summer
Posted by Maureen
Two weeks ago I asked readers to submit their summer photos. I received a wide variety of mystery photos and one that fit my request. Sandi Gill e-mailed this lovely photo of a group of children, one of whom is her mother.  Even though Gill doesn't know the names of the other children or where this photo was taken, she thought it made a good example for my Labor Day summer album. She's right. All the children wear the bobbed hair of the 1920s and light summer garments. Her mom is one of the smaller children, being only around kindergarten age. Gill knows the family lived in Bayside, NY, but isn't sure if this photo was taken in her mother's backyard or elsewhere in the neighborhood. The large lilac hedge is a clue worth researching in other family photos or those of her mother's childhood friends. It's definitely a summertime shot, with the lilacs long past their bloom. Thank you, Sandi, for sharing your picture! 1920s photos | children | group photos
9/3/2007 7:50:39 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Identifying Children in Photos
Posted by Maureen
The imprint of photographer S. Adamkiewicz appears on this photo of two towheaded boys, but questions still mount up for owner Annette Gathright and led her to post the photo on the Photo Detective Forum.  Who are the boys and when did they pose for this darling picture? Gathright’s family lived near Adamkiewicz's studio in Chicago's Polish neighborhood. Her uncle Norbert claims the boys are his uncles. Reading the clues requires a two step approach: Research the photographer and sort out the family facts. The photographer is the easy part. I quickly located Adamkiewicz in the 1910 US census using the HeritageQuest Online (free through many public libraries). Stanley Adamkiewicz, then 34, listed his occupation as photographer, his birthplace as Russia/Polish and his immigration year as 1892. I couldn’t find him in the 1900 census, but he appears again in 1920 with a different occupation. That gives this picture a tentative time frame of 1892 to 1920. Gathright thinks the photo was taken before her great-grandparents died in 1907. So she examined her tree for two boys born a few years apart, who’d be about age of this pair between 1907 and 1920. She’s found at least two candidates who lived in the neighborhood of Adamkiewicz's studio: Stanislaus “Edward” Dittman (born 1893) and his brother Aloysius “Otto” (born 1898) fit the criteria. If the portrait were taken in 1906, Ed would be 8, and Otto, 3. The high, starched collars, short pants and high-buttoned boots in this photo fit the time frame. Just to be sure, Gathright should ask her uncle for a few more details. It’s important to ask for specifics when talking about photos: Your relative knows who he or she means by “Grandpa,” but later, when you’re confronted with several possibilities on a family tree, you’ll probably wish you had a name. If you have access to Chicago city directories, you can help us find the final fact—check to see if S. Adamkiewciz is listed as a photographer before 1910, then post it in the comment section of this blog. 1910s photos | children | photographers imprints
7/31/2007 3:42:32 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Tuesday, July 17, 2007
British Schoolboy Uniforms (or, the Bluecoats Are Coming!)
Posted by Maureen
It’s only fitting this week’s photo is a British one—after all, the final installment of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books comes out July 21. Catherine Hamilton submitted this photograph of her grandfather John Porter with his schoolmates and tutor.  Here's a close-up of Porter; he’s the one in the back row standing sideways with his hand in pocket and no cap.  Just like the boys and girls at Hogwarts, British students wear distinctive uniforms and caps. You can identify the school by the color and design of its outfit, as well as the badges worn on students’ blazers. Take a look at some of them. There’s some minor variation in caps depending on which house (a kind of division) a student belonged to, or which level of school he attended (such as grammar school, or what Americans call high school). That’s right—the competitive houses of the Harry Potter books are based on the real thing. In English private schools, students belong to houses and compete against each other in sports just as Harry, Hermoine and Ron do. Hamilton knows that John Porter (1881-1937) attended school in Manchester, England, and she thinks this image was taken at Chetham’s School (now Chetham’s School of Music). This photo was taken in the early 1890s, based on Porter’s age and appearance. A search for photos of the school using Google Image Search suggests these boys aren’t students there. Chetham’s is historically a “ bluecoat school.” During Porter’s student days, the school's pupils wore long, cassock-like blue uniform coats, a tradition dating back centuries. So where did Porter go to school? I’m still looking. If anyone has knowledge of late 19th-century school uniforms in the Manchester area, post a comment here. Maybe we can wrap this up in time to stand in line for J.K. Rowling’s latest opus. 1890s photos | children | group photos
7/17/2007 4:35:59 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
 Thursday, March 29, 2007
You're Kidding
Posted by Maureen
Kathy Culbert owns this carte de visite captioned "Dora and Frank" and is having trouble dating it.  Children's clothing can be confusing. Mothers often dressed boys like girls until they were school age, but you can tell the difference by their hair. Girls had center parts; boys had side parts. Here, the boy (on the right) wears knickerbocker-style pants, high laced boots and an upswept hairstyle from the 1860s. The big curl in the center of his head was actually the fashion. His sister's dress has a ruffled yoked bodice and bows along the hemline. She also wears high boots. Girls' attire mimicked that of adult women, so compare it to dresses in books such as Dressed for the Photographer by Joan Severa (Kent State University Press, $65). A good source for dating kids' clothing is JoAnne Olian's Children's Fashions 1860-1912 (Dover, $12.95). It features fashion plates from the 19th-century magazine La Mode Illustree. Designs similar to these outfits appear in plates from 1867. The rest of the details in this image confirm this date. Photos were taxed from Aug. 1, 1864 to Aug. 1, 1866. The lack of a tax stamp on the back of this photo means it was taken earlier or later than those years. The girl's clothing is evidence for post-1866. The double gold-line border dates it to between 1861 and 1869. Culbert can verify the identities of Dora and Frank by studying her family tree for children of these names during the late 1860s. I'd estimate their ages here as 6 and 4, based on their attire and face shapes. Frank, especially, still has a round baby face. By the way, the kids' stiff stances aren't due to nerves. Look at their feet. Braces, barely visible behind these children, clasp them around their waists. Photographers often used braces to keep fidgety children still. children | photo tax stamps
3/29/2007 2:36:38 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
|