Antique-shop.com
Antiques! => Antique Questions Forum => Topic started by: sapphire on April 27, 2012, 08:10:03 PM
-
Was at my favorite 'store' today and saw this. Something about it just drew me to it.......guess I just hated seeing her sitting there all alone on the floor. Anyway, I did a bit of searching and found info on the photographers and apparently they were at the Queen Victoria St. address until 1906. Also as it states Photographers to her Late Majesty, it would have to be post 1901.
Now I've bookmarked some pages I've located so far on their work and have found mention of photographs that were believed to be copied from early ones (anywhere from a few years to what they think might be 20 years old). So what I'm wondering is would her 'fashion' be from early 1900's or possibly older?? To me, after looking at a site dating by 'costume', I almost feel her clothing predates 1900.....but I could be way off.
Any input or ideas would be appreciated.
-
Something else that intrigued me as I searched was coming across another set of photographs by Taylors of an elderly couple. Believed to have been originally taken in the 1870's and reproduced by them in the 1890's or early 1900's (at least prior to Queen Victoria's death), I couldn't help but be struck by the resemblance (at least to me) between the picture of the woman of the couple and the lady I brought home today.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~brett/photos/agtaylor.html
"Notes: David Simkin, to whom I am indebted for these two interesting additions to the A & G Taylor collection, believes that they are copies, produced perhaps around 1900, of much earlier photographs possibly taken in the 1870s."
I'm hoping I'll be able to remove the photo card from the backing in the frame (if it's not fully glued) to see what is printed on the back.
-
Nice little pic , sapphire !
Just judging by the expression on faces of folks , seems like 'grumpy/stiff' photos were 'in' during those & earlier times .
They tend to look rather constipated , in my 21st century view .....
One real good way to get a handle (on the time that the photo was developed) on this is to break out the old handy loupe (30x works best for these old eyes) & check the surface of the photo for 'tell-tales' of the photos' 'type of processing' !
All the wierd science aside , I'd give an opinion that it was developed from a negative (of some sort) dating from the 1890's through early 1900's .
Scary lady .... I imagined being chased by her , with a carpet-beater in her hand & hell-to-pay in her eyes .... maybe it's time to go take my medicine ....
-
Now like even if I possessed a loupe I'd be able to tell one type of processing from the other!! ::)
:D
-
My mother has a family album that dates back into many generations and into the 1800's. Looking at it as a comparison I would think your time frame guess is close. One problem is that people didn't have mounds of clothing and sometimes they weren't "fashion" current. I would look closer into the headress and hair style. Also people seemed to look stern from the era because they had to hold the pose for some time during the exposure. Braces holding the neck and head still were quite common. Having pictures taken was fairly uncomfortable.
-
Sapphire,, why don`t you send Tales a PM and get her to look at the clothing !! She is into those clothing styles and could probably give you a pretty close estimate !!
-
Sapphire, after studying those photos I'm 99% convinced they are the same woman. The pic above I think is when she was ten years about older than the pic below. The nose and mouth match perfectly and the eyes of the woman above is more heavily lidded as you would expect form being ten years or a little more older. FWIW an old man I knew told me one time, "Don't ever marry a women whose mouth turns down at the corners, she'll make your life a hell." I didn't ask him how he knew.
-
My husband and I agree with Jondar. It was common in those days to put on a serious face when you took a picture. It showed their pride. But, I must say she doesn't look that sweet, lol
-
Decided on a 'name' for her (really shouldn't do this when over tired and giddy, but couldn't help myself)
She brought to mind a verse I may have included here at one time, taken from my maternal grandmother's family genealogy. It was about the wife of one of the first Aitken's settling on Prince Edward Island, Can. She apparently was not one to mince words or win hearts.
When the Israelites wanted bread,
The Lord sent them manna.
When George Aitken wanted a wife,
The devil sent him Hannah.
Introducing ........ Hannah!
;)
-
lol, I brought topic up in the Antique Talk section. ( about dating pictures ) There's a website with dating clothing. I'll have to find it. Hanna faux, faux Fanna, Hanna! ;D That's my poem.
-
http://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/814584/genealogy-research-dating-vintage-photographs-by-clothing-and-hairstyles-1 You could try this website.
-
Nice website greenacres, thanks!! Hadn't come across that one yet.
-
Sorry I'm coming arriving late to the conversation, wonderful photo! Her clothing style is definitely 19th century rather than early 20th, BUT the thing to keep in mind is that just like today, ladies who are middle-aged and elderly tend not to wear the latest fashions. That would be the equivalent of your grandma dressing like Brittany Spears. :o Women later in life tend to wear some form of the styles that were in fashion when they were younger. So it would not be at all out of place for her clothing to be a little bit behind the times and a little more modest since she is an older woman. The bonnet looks strongly 1860's - 1880's to me, so let's figure she's about 50 or 60 years old and has been wearing these little bonnets for thirty years or so, that could easily put the photo as having been taken in the 1890's-ish.
Here is one of my favorite sites for identifying clothing styles. They use antique photo examples and it's all arranged by period: http://bartoscollection.com/antiquephotosbyera.html (http://bartoscollection.com/antiquephotosbyera.html) Compare her hat to those in the hat and bonnet section.
-
Thanks Tales for narrowing it down for me. That's about what I was thinking, but not being too familiar with it all and knowing that they tended to wear clothing styles of earlier eras it was just a guess. The hair and bonnet is what struck me, as looking at styles of early 1900's the lines were much cleaner.
I'm considering taking the paper back off the frame to find out just how 'stuck' the photo card is on it's backing. Do you know of any methods for loosening old glue without damaging the card itself? I'm terribly curious as to what might likely be on the back of the card as the other examples I've seen contained more information on the company and it's locations.
Also, did you see the other photo I posted that I located on a web page dedicated to the photographers? Was wondering if you also noticed any similarities, if it might possibly be the same woman taken years later?
-
The process I've both used & seen used by conservators is sometimes a very slow go , using small thin (but not sharp) tools , sim to those used for sculpting clay & an extra-fine (atomizing) distilled water sprayer , @ the pace of around a sq. centimeter per min if possible ;
sometimes a bit of gentle quick-drying (daubing) with clean cotton cloth is part of the process , and all 'wet-work' should be done with the photo always facing 'up' .... think of it as if you would if you were trying to open a sealed envelope & were trying to make it seem as if it was not tampered with at all ......... & that's about as close as I can get to describing the gentle touch required for the process .
One must first know the 'sort of' dissolution/loosening rate for the adhesive used , in order to time the drying/wetting/separating cycle for this type of work .
Always start in a corner of the 'valuable' area & progress to the opposing corner , so that if & when you get that far , you sorta peel-it-back as if turning a page in a book , rather than diagonally .
Conservators (real ones) use a rate table , for pricing exactly this type of work , per sq centimeter - so you'll always know what you'll have to pay ... any conservator who does not quote an exact rate is NOT on the up & up , as professionals go ... in case you're considering using one o' those .
Sometimes one can simply use a pallette knife & separate the photo from it's backing in a dry state (this really depends on many variables) & will work just fine , but that's not always !!!
You never know what might turn up , esp stamps/writing on the back of old photos , so care must be taken to watch for any signs of ink , while doing any wet separation processes !
-
Well I took the paper backing off the frame......it feels and handles like a many years old dry tree leaf. It's amazing what a simple piece of paper hides behind it!
An extremely thin wood 'shingle' held in place with what appear to be hand made nails covered a page out of an art book of some sort. Henry Graves & Co. has quite the history in itself! Near as I could find they were still printing under that name in 1901, a few years later it apparently joined another company and published under both names. The back side, which only bears a page number, clearly shows the impression from the printing process.
On to the 'backing' of the photo itself, which I thought was likely similar to a card stock. It's a thinner piece of paper, similar to a book page that seems to have been tinted around the edges. (Handwritten notation on the 'art book' page states 1" Brown.....possibly instructions?) Interestingly, the side facing me bore a 'picture', likely a copy of a painting by another artist. From carefully moving the paper away from the edges of the photo (which itself is firmly affixed to the 'card' that bears the photo and the photographers embossing) I can't see anything printed on the back as is shown in the examples of their work in a previous link I posted. I think the paper is glued full surface with the exceptions of around the edges. There may be printed text beneath but no way to tell.
For a few minutes I thought I might have to change the old lady's name from Hannah to something more fitting of royalty but a quick read through gave me the date of Gainsborough's work. I think my lady is definitely more interesting than his duchess ;)
-
More
-
And yet more ..... ;)
-
'Backing' of the photograph......whi ch bears the above photo on the other side
I am no closer to discovering who she might be or pinpointing a closer date, but it was interesting, informative and best of all, exciting.
-
Tales, your mention of 60's to 80's and that site you gave me certainly seem in line. I noticed a couple under the Civil War era that were similar in style. Also, in the photo I posted of another woman done by the same company (who bears a strong resemblance to 'my' lady) she is wearing the same type of 'bonnet' style and it's believed that that was taken possibly in the 70's and reproduced much later. You definitely have an eye for the fashions of those times. ;)