An old photograph

[Bay Horse]

This photograph belongs to another family member, and between us we have decided which family member it is likely to be, given a strong family resemblance. However, we don't know for certain - and I do have a hunch that it could be someone else.

I wonder if you could all guess at the approximate date of this one? Thank you.

 

[Old Stoneface]

No help to you, Bay Horse, but weren't they well behaved in those days - when a photograph took a lot longer than a single click!

 

[Bay Horse]

Probably why they all looked so miserable.

 

[Old Stoneface]

Can you smile nicely for ten minutes when your clothes are uncomfortable and you've been warned not to move by even a hairsbreadth?

 

[Old Stoneface]

What's with the cup on the chair? Could it be a coronation mug of some sort? It looks somehow out of place, especially if this was taken by a professional, so I wondered if it had some meaning, and that's all I could come up with. There don't seem to be any smiling faces on it though, unless someone put it the wrong way round.

But then the little girl's in black. Queen Victoria's funeral, and a mug with her effigy on it turned round in respect?

 

[Bay Horse]

I hadn't thought of the cup, Stone Face, but you're right... it looks very out of place. My own thoughts are that someone was trying to be 'arty' with the composition of the picture and failing.

I'm not sure whether the child is sitting, standing or leaning. She has a hand on the chair for support. I also have no idea of the age of the child. She may also have been underweight/small for her age, if it's who I think it possibly is, given her circumstances.

Is that linoleum? Again, that could assist in dating, but perhaps floor-coverings had patterns prior to the invention of lino; I don't know.

 

[Bay Horse]

A closer look at the cup. Silver, or pewter maybe?

 

[Bay Horse]

And the boots. I am having difficulty deciding whether they are buttoned or laced. Really not terribly good at this.

 

[Daft Bat]

I think that she is perched on the edge of the balustrade (probably made of wood) so that she can stay still. Otherwise, she looks out of proportion. The hand is on the chair for support and also to draw the eye to the silver cup. I think that the boots are buttoned, rather than laced.

Just some thoughts....

(I really ought to be more up on dating photographs, but I'm not, I'm afraid. I think that I had better invest in this at some point..... )

 

[Bay Horse]

She does look out of proportion, Jan. If it's who I think it may be, she wasn't out of proportion as an adult!, so I think she is half-sitting in that reluctant way kids do when they just want to spring up and run off. Although I don't think she'd get very far in those boots. They look new and very uncomfortable, almost too small.

I invested in the books - they did give me pointers, but...
I have my own thoughts on which decade(s) this could have been, but they could be entirely wrong.

(You and OS have both been very helpful, btw).

 

[Mealymoo]

Hi Bay Horse,

Take a look in my user album where there's a photo of my paternal Grandmother; do you think the clothes look a little similar? The dresses are alike, sort of, and my Grandmother has buttoned boots but longer than the ones in your photo. If it helps, my Grandmother was born 1882.

 

[Archie's Mum]

If I could put in my two bob's worth, I believe she is standing. It's the dress and it's exceptionally long bodice that makes her look out of kilter. The dress does not rest on anything at it's hem as it would if she were sitting or leaning against the balustrade and the bodice is sitting very low down across her hips, making her legs look very short. Take the hip band up further to rest on her waist and she looks quite normal.
Boots definitely buttoned.
Poor little soul, she looks so uncomfortable.

 

[Archie's Mum]

After checking children's proportions, I think she is about 3 or 4 years old, i.e her head being around one fifth her body length.

 

[Archie's Mum]

Between 1880 and 1890! Maybe a tad later but not much.

 

[Old Stoneface]

I agree with Jan that the child is sitting on the balustrade and,although her dress is long-waisted, you can see that the ruffles of the skirt have been spread around her. Then her legs appear short, because the dress covers the bent knees.

Buttoned boots, probably patent, and definitely for best.

Lino was invented in 1860 by an Englishman, Frederick Walton, apparently; inventors.about.com/od/lstartinventions/a/linoleum.htm
I would have said tiles otherwise, but, in your close-up of the boots, you can't see any lines for tile edges.

What's more, the boots appear not to be quite touching the ground! I wonder if she's actually sitting on something like a stool and the balustrade is a cardboard cut-out behind her.

I'm also intrigued by her hair, because it's so short. If you Google Edwardian girls clothes, you find similar dresses - although with higher necklines - and boots but nearly always ringlets.

Was the person you think it was sickly in any way?

 

[Stafford]

Between 1880 and 1890! Maybe a tad later but not much.

I have a photo of a young girl, wearing similar boots and with the same severe haircut circa 1875-1880.

 

[Huncamunca]

Is there any clue as to the name and address of the photographer? If there is, directories, censuses, etc. may help in narrowing down the date.

 

[Bay Horse]

None, Huncamunca.

The child we assume it to be, because of the family likeness, was born mid-1890s. Therefore it would be late 1890s - very early 1900s, missing a couple of years in-between.

Stafford, you mentioned an earlier date. If this was, in fact, the child's mother - which is a possibility - it would be about 1870. The boots are buttoned rather than laced, which would be about right for the time.

"I'm also intrigued by her hair, because it's so short." You, Old Stoneface, may have a Gold Star. I'll explain why, shortly.

Are we going to go with the late 1890s-very early 1900s?

 

[Huncamunca]

Oh dear, I was hoping I wouldn't have to commit myself on the date from the costume! If we had to choose between c.1870 and late 1890s I think I would prefer the former.

I tried looking for similar examples. How about this little girl:

https://www.
pinterest.com/pin/261842165808064457/

The photo isn't dated, unfortunately, but the photographer is identified as Smith of Aberdare. This Genuki list of Victorian photographers from Wales has a Wm Smith in Aberdare in 1868 and 1871:

http://www.
genuki.org.uk/big/wal/VicPhoto1.html

Many different directories were used to compile the list, but it looks like there aren't any others with coverage of Aberdare until 1880, so Mr Smith may have been operating later than 1871.

Roger Vaughan's site has a photo of c.1875 by Alfred Eustace of Reading with two sisters, with some similarities to yours. Go to the 1875 section here and it's the third photo in the list:

http://
freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~victorianphotographs/dated/dated.htm

 

[Bay Horse]

Thank you, Huncamunca. That's very helpful.

Knowing the dates involved has made this one particularly tricky for me, which is why I didn't offer them at the outset. The composition of the photo suggests it is much earlier than the turn of the century.

However, OS mentions the shortness of the little girl's hair. This would certainly tie in with the second child, who'd been in the Workhouse. This might also explain why she might be small or underweight.