An old photograph

[Old Stoneface]

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.

None, Huncamunca.

Is the photograph just a photograph or has it been made into a postcard on the back?

Postcards were first found in Britain from 1870, and many family photographs were made into this format. But there was nowhere to write a message; the back was only for the address. Then, in 1902, in Britain, the first divided postcards were made, with a picture on the front, and, on the back, a space for the message and another for the address.

 

[gillyflower]

I would hazard a guess at 1880ish. Thinking of the haircut made me start to think - perhaps the child had been ill/frail at some point. People used to cut long hair during these times as they claimed it "sapped all the strength". Would they have cut it if she had nits?

 

[Bay Horse]

Possibly, Gillyflower - that has been suggested by my hubby.

If it is the person we think it is, given that it looks like her, then I am guessing at two possible dates. c. 1898, where she would have been around four and still with her parents, or after 1901 where she had been through a very turbulent time. Parents had done a runner, and she was with another family, so had been a welfare case. This would have been just after leaving the WH, so the hairstyle is very much a WH cut, as I mentioned earlier. First thoughts were that her new family were eager to show her off.

However, much of the photo would seem to predate this - unless... could the frock have sentimental value, perhaps, and they wanted her to be pictured wearing it ? (I remember my own mother in law producing the most ghastly toddler clothing that she had kept mothballed for thirty years in the hope that her grandchildren would also get some use out of them. They didn't.)

I'm still keeping very open-minded about this one, and appreciate all your input.

 

[Old Stoneface]

I would hazard a guess at 1880ish. Thinking of the haircut made me start to think - perhaps the child had been ill/frail at some point. People used to cut long hair during these times as they claimed it "sapped all the strength". Would they have cut it if she had nits?

That was exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned her short hair! At one point, they shaved heads against nits, but I don't know if it was in the nineteenth century.

 

[Bay Horse]

I have been giving this photo more thought, and think I might be falling into the trap of saying it must be c. 1900 because I want it to 'fit in'. The child still bears a strong family resemblance, however.

What, then, if I was to say that this person actually had an older sister b. 1884 that the rest of our family don't know anything about? She was adopted by her uncle and his wife.

I'm not sure how the photo would have been passed down our side, but, given the unbiased responses to the picture above, I'm thinking it could actually be her.

 

[Mealymoo]

I still think the little ones dress style is very similar to my grandmother's #11.

As I said my grandmother was born 1882 and looks maybe a couple of years older than the child in your photo, I estimate gran to be about 7yrs making picture taken about 1889.

 

[HildaW]

Some time ago on another site a photo of a dirt poor farming couple in the US in very smart clothing but with really old almost broken shoes and boots was discussed and someone suggested that it might be possible the couple used clothing which the photographer had "for hire" when a photo was taken - I have no idea if this theory is correct but if it is, the clothing would not have been the height of fashion and could therefore distort the date of the photo. Photographers had all sorts of unlikely props, so why not clothes as well - just a thought.

 

[Bay Horse]

Some time ago on another site a photo of a dirt poor farming couple in the US in very smart clothing but with really old almost broken shoes and boots was discussed and someone suggested that it might be possible the couple used clothing which the photographer had "for hire" when a photo was taken - I have no idea if this theory is correct but if it is, the clothing would not have been the height of fashion and could therefore distort the date of the photo. Photographers had all sorts of unlikely props, so why not clothes as well - just a thought.

This thought had occurred to me, Hilda.

Thanks, Mealymoo.

I don't suppose I will ever know for certain.