Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Old photograph opinions wanted?
I'd like some fellow genealogists to take a look at the photograph below and tell me what you think:
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2039/oldphotown...
I already know that the studio photographer, Mrs Susan Williams is recorded at this address in 1895, 1899 and the 1901 census, but not in 1905, and obviously the style of the photo dates it to somewhere a couple of years either side of 1900. What is really puzzling me is the woman and the baby. The photo came from my granddads tin, but neither me or my aunt have any clue who she or the baby might be. To my mind, the lady in the photo looks quite old - too old to be the mother, so probably a grandmother.
My gt grandfather married in 1897 in West Gorton, and the only one of his parents to be alive at this point until 1907 was his mother (my 2x gt grandma). Their first child to survive infancy was born in 1901, a girl.
Does anyone have any opinions and ages of either party in the picture. Mum&Child or Grandma&Child?
And yes, I know the photo is extremely faded, and yes, I am making enquiries to have it professionally restored, I'm just after some well-informed opinions on the family grouping in deciding just who these people are.
My grandfather wasn't born until 1912, so it's not him, and the lady looks much older than my great grandma who I have a picture of dated 1928, which is why I think it might be 2xgt grandma taken around the turn of the century.
Guessing peoples ages is not my strong suit. That's why I'm asking for a second opinion. The lady does look a bit too old to be the babies mother, doesn't she?
And yes, I know the photo is extremely faded, and yes, I am making enquiries to have it professionally restored, I'm just after some well-informed opinions on the family grouping in deciding just who these people are.
My grandfather wasn't born until 1912, so it's not him, and the lady looks much older than my great grandma who I have a picture of dated 1928, which is why I think it might be 2xgt grandma taken around the turn of the century.
Guessing peoples ages is not my strong suit. That's why I'm asking for a second opinion. The lady does look a bit too old to be the babies mother, doesn't she?
in reply to Blu eyes:
Yes. That puzzled me as well. Why would a grandma have her photo taken with a grandchild, why not the mother?
Bearing in mind I can pin the date down to within 2 years or so either side of 1900, I think it is my grandfathers sister Hannah (1901-1979) as many of his photos in the tin are of her and from her collection. Their mother was alive until 1962 (she was born 1878 - so you can see why I think this lady is FAR older than her early twenties at the turn of the century when this would have been taken). There is almost no-one else this can be, except for my 2x gt granny (1834-1907), sitting with the first grandchild to reach infancy. It just has me puzzled a bit. I might never know for certain, but it seems a reasonable guess. I'm just not sure how common this family group shot might have been.
LOL @ copious
Middle class. Well-to-do. If only!
Merely a standard railway labourer and family I'm afraid. 2x gt granny did indeed once run a pub with her husband in the 1880s who was also a stonemason and parish clerk, but after her husband died I think she'd have seriously struggled to make ends meet during the 1890s when they moved out to West Gorton, but yes, she was probably lower middle class at one point and weren't dirt poor.
Some interesting answers though. Keep 'em coming! It's going to be tough to choose a best answer, they're all good. Thanx to all who have responded.
Hibee :
Granted, these "cabinet" style photos can date as early as the 1870s/1880s, I already know that the photographer was in business at this address only from the mid to late 1890s, so my dating is quite correct.
Itsjustme:
No nannies I don't think. Not too poor, but certainly no servants or housemaids in my family anywhere. I was thinking 60ish, which would match 2x gt granny Martha (1834-1907) in around 1900, but the condition of the photo makes it really hard to tell, as one answerer has already suggested. A professional restoration might help, but I'm not sure whether it is already too late for this one. It pre-dates all of the others in my grandads old tin by some considerable margin.
There are some interesting theories and warnings here about identifying those in the picture. As I said before, I've already done quite a bit of work as regards dating it.
(a) It came from my granddads tin. He was born in 1912. It's either from someone on his line, or someone on his wifes life. She was born in 1913.
(b) The named studio on the front of the card is "S. Williams, 118 Clowes Street, West Gorton". I did check up this address in various old directories and the census. She wasn't active in West Gorton till 1895, and is listed in 1899 and 1901. The 1905 directory has a greengrocer and this address, and post 1909 till well after WW1, it became a pawnbrokers. Mrs Williams was working out of Cheetham Hill in 1891, so I can be fairly confident of a date sometime around the turn of the century.
(c) The address is useful in itself, as it is only two streets away from where my ancestors lived back then.
(d) Great grandfather was born in 1872. Gt grandma was born in 1878. They married in 1897. Great grandmas mother and father had already died by then. The only surviving relative of my great grandfather was his mother. A lot of his other brothers and sisters died in childhood.
(e) Gt grandfathers first child in 1898 died aged just two days - their second child in 1900 died age 4 months. The first child to survive was born in 1901. About ten others followed, including my grandfather, in 1912.
Conclusions then. My great grandma in 1900 was about 22 years of age. The woman in this photo is clearly older than that. The baby is probably one of my grandfathers brothers or sisters. Because the younger ones died, this can't be any earlier than the girl born in 1901. We already know that the artists studio was active in this year, but not for long afterwards. Almost all of my gt grandfather and his wives older relatives were long dead by 1900. That only leaves his mother.
Obviously, I have to keep an open mind, and any identification will always be open to debate, but given the facts as I know them, and ruling out those people it can't be, only leaves me with one option - child and granny.
As someone above already said, there may have been a whole series of family pictures and portraits produced at the time, and this was the only one to survive. My grandfathers sister died in 1979, and most of her photos came to him. We think that the baby is probably her, around 1902, and this is the only one she had of her as a youngster and kept. The others with her parents are probably lost in the mists of time.
There's been some great answers and opinions, all helpful in their own way. I'll keep the question open a while longer and then have to choose a best answer. It's not going to be easy.
13 Answers
- copiousLv 41 decade agoFavourite answer
The photo does indeed date to the late 1800's, by all appearances. A physical description of the photo would help to hone into the date a bit more accurately, but I don't think that is necessary for your purposes.
I put the baby at 9 to 18 months, and the lady at about 30-40, so I think it's possible to be the baby's grandmother.
If I blow up a section of the lady's hand, it is seemingly smooth. Not aged. Hands often show age more than any other body part. This is not an "old" woman. Hand lotion was not popular at that time.
Another area of consideration is clothing. Lets make a couple of assumptions:
The woman in the photo is at least middle class or maybe better. Clothing is clean, pressed and modern for the period. The baby is certainly no worse off. Clothing is very nice....ruffles, lace and all the nice expensive things....those things were expensive back then. Even the cost of a photograph at the time would have cost a weeks pay in many circles.
So, this is a photo of a rather well-to-do woman and child. Probably not a young woman in her teens or twenties who did not have the time to acquire these nice things.
Now, these are really stabs in the dark, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
- tangerineLv 71 decade ago
Actually, it is quite possible that the woman is the child's mother. Before birth control came along, it wasn't at all uncommon for women to keep having children until they reached menopause. Not only that, but I once saw a picture from the late 19th century of a woman in the East End of London. She looked like she was in her 40s or 50s, but it was said that she was actually in her 20s or 30s. Since people lived harder lives back then and they didn't have an abundance of beauty products like we do now, it wasn't uncommon for them to look prematurely aged in our eyes. Of course, I don't know anything about the woman or the child in the photo, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the woman is the child's mother.
- dlpmLv 51 decade ago
I think your instinct in right: grandmother with about 6 month old grandchild.
First, consider all possible grandmother/baby combinations. Infant boys c 1900 were often dressed in frills, too.
Second, blu eyes said "was it the done thing for a Grandma to have her picture taken with her grandchild...may have been left in sole charge of a baby." It's completely possible that this is one of a set of pictures taken and the mother/baby and group pictures didn't survive or were given away.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Yes, she does look too old to be the mother but, was it the done thing for a Grandma to have her picture taken with her grandchild then? This makes me think that maybe circumstances where she may have been left in sole charge of a baby? Maybe the natural mother died for example.
- LolaLv 41 decade ago
I think the damage done to the photo could be greatly affecting the perceived age of the woman, especially as it seems to add wrinkles. However I would lean towards grandmother, or older aunt.
Also you might consider that it may be a godchild, or a friend of the family. In my gr-grandfather's trunk we found a handful of photos that despite sending a photocopy/email around to distant relatives, no one knows who they were. So I posted to DeadFred.
- steffiLv 71 decade ago
Bear in mind there was no contraception in those days, and a lot more children were born to parents in their 40s. My grandmother was born to her 47 year-old mother in 1878. She always said she felt Great Granny was more like her Grandmother than Mother.
See if there is a Family History Society locally, usually by County. They sometimes have sessions on identifying old photographs. Could also try your Local Studies Library, if they have a help desk.
- wendy cLv 71 decade ago
you already have a jpeg of the pic, and the original, so you can use a photo editor to play with 'restoring' it for your self. This is something I have done.. adjusting the contrast can help a lot.
I think there is no doubt that the woman in the pic is older..but that alone doesn't prove grandmother or ?? It MIGHT BE a more distant relative or even a dear friend of the family. Keep an open mind, and don't let desperation to id all the photos, lead you to something you cannot support.
- Veronica AliciaLv 71 decade ago
re dating/thick card. I have a photo of my father b. August1906, standing on a photographer's chair unaided, but not breeched; he is still wearing several petticoats. My photo is on thick card.
The thoughts about photo being taken with grandmother - we have a studio family group photo and we were placed grandparents seated in front, daughter and son in law standing behind, granddaughter (aged 2) sitting on my lap.
re age of adult - no contraception worth speaking about - my Gt. Gt. grandmother was 45+ when she had my Gt. grandmother and many women were producing beyond then, "change" babies were quite common pushing a mother into her early 50's.
Her eyes are small and narrowed (older eyes), her hairline appears to have receded, suggesting post-menopausal.
I'd like to see it again after you've had it restored - I love old photies.
- itsjustmeLv 71 decade ago
In my honest opinion she really doesn't look to be any older than about 60, bless her she does look as if she has the worries of the world on her shoulders, as if she has just had this poor baby thrust upon her. She doesn't seem to very attached to the child in a motherly or grand motherly sort of way. Could she possibly have been employed to mind the child? like a nanny or similar, or am I way of the mark do you think.
- fengirl2Lv 71 decade ago
The child does not appear to be able to sit unaided, although s/he is fairly solidly upright, so I would guess the age at around 6 mths.
The old lady could be any age over 60 - people had harder lives 100+ years ago, so its hard to be sure. My guess is that she would be the grandma or great grandma.
