Dating a photograph

stepmars · Post by **stepmars** » Sat May 24, 2008 11:32 pm

Thanks to all for your input.

We're reasonably confident we know the identity of the seated woman based on other photos and family resemblance. We are not sure of her age, hence my original question. Like some of us, Anne H believes there are enough years between seated woman and standing woman to make the group grandmother, mother and baby. Personally I think the two women are close in age. Isn’t it strange how we all see different things from the same source?

We are guessing that seated woman is the baby’s mother which would date the picture at about 1905, 1907, 1909, 1912, 1914, 1918 or 1924. We think Alan's first reply about cabinet photos is most likely which means 1900-1910. Meg's suggestion about it possibly being a christening photo is also likely and would explain the presence of the standing woman with wedding ring (as Godmother). Standing woman is then likely to be a close friend, cousin, sister-in-law etc and explains why we can't place her within the family or see any resemblance.

There are so many other possible answers and we’ll probably never know for sure but it’s interesting to speculate.

Regards,

Steve

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sat May 24, 2008 11:45 pm

Hi Steve

Standing woman is then likely to be a close friend, cousin, sister-in-law etc and explains why we can't place her within the family or see any resemblance.

I can see a resemblance between the two women. Not knowing anything about them, I assumed they were related.... at a quick glace I was thinking grandmother holding child, mother of child standing.

Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **paddyscar** » Sun May 25, 2008 2:00 am

Hi Steve:

As soon as I saw the picture, I assumed that Grandma was holding the baby, while Mum was in the background.

Personally, I think the Grandma is rather 'flash' for her age, as that is a very bold print in her blouse and her hat has rather a fluffy puff of feathers on top. The younger woman in the background looks rather subdued in her manner and dress, which may make her appear 'older than her years'.

There is, to me a very strong similarity in the shape and curve of the nose, the curl to the corner of the mouth, and given a few more pounds and years, the lady in the background will resemble the seated one, even more.

Could it be cousins, with one being the mother and the other the godmother?

In terms of Fred Ash, Photographer. Perhaps you could locate him in 1891/1901 English census reports on Ancestry.com and with luck, he would have been at the Lark Hill, St. Georges Rd., Bolton on only one of those dates.

Surprisingly, Fred Ash still prospers in Manchester (although I doubt he's the original)

They may be able to at least identify what years the business was at the location on your photo.

From: UK Camera Information about Camera Shops, Cameras & Photography
http://www.ukcamera.com/index.htm

Fred Ash
107, Oldham Street
Manchester
M4 1LW
Tel: 0161 832 5005

Best wishes,
Frances

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Sun May 25, 2008 11:25 am

I’m can only go by instinct and suggest the clothing is more Edwardian than Victorian or even late Victorian particularly in the case of the younger, standing woman who by the way doesn’t seem to me to have recently given birth. But then, what would I know. This tells to me that Mum is seated.
There might be one or two clues in the photography itself. The shadow behind the subject for example looks like the photographer himself next to his camera which is covered with a shroud. Or is this my imagination running away with me. The backdrop is crude with a touch of Victoriana in its decoration but the lighting is good, too good. I would guess that a fairly fast shutter speed and a relatively modern flash were used possibly using a bulb which would date the photo no earlier than the mid twenties. Perhaps Flapper fashion had not reached the working women of Bolton yet.
These are just my thoughts.

hg · Post by hg » Sun May 25, 2008 7:29 pm

Hi Steve,

I think the women look of similar age and that they are possibly related. The clothing appears more Edwardian because of the style of hats they are wearing.

regards

Helen

Post by **AnneM** » Sun May 25, 2008 10:35 pm

Hi there

My gut feeling is that the photo is about 1910 but that's just from looking at some sites re costume when I was writing the 'Sarah' story a while ago.

The women look to me as though they may have been related. I don't think there is a huge age difference and I suppose the seated woman could be post natally plump! I have some excessively podgy pictures of me from when my babies were very little (before the middle aged podge set in.)

Anne