And Another Mangled Portrait!

[JPK Huson 1863]

Bumped into yet another photograph where someone's face has been ' removed '. If anyone remembers, posted a baffling photo of a man and woman, her face almost scientifically scratched from the image.

This hatchet job isn't as neatly done as the last- still pretty darn complete. Gives me the willies a little, thinking how angry someone must have been to ' deface ' ( hee ) a costly object in this way. The thing is, unless she was the man's wife this looks like a shot of a mother surrounded by her grown children.

 

[Andersonh1]

If only they'd had Photoshop back then, right?

This reminds me of a family picture or two that I've run across where someone had clearly cut the picture in half at an angle, almost certainly to remove an ex-spouse.

 

[Mike Serpa]

The thumbs up is for the 'deface' pun!

 

[diane]

There might be yet another reason for it. The sister there on the right appears to have a mild case of Down's Syndrome. If an offspring is defective in any way, it's always mom's fault! But I'm not sure that's mom - it may be another older sister who committed some offense. Maybe she ran away with the milkman!

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

I think Mom is the bottom, middle? De-faced sister- and must be, look at the identical hand to mother, gosh, bet would be the eldest- especially if Diane is right and a sibling is afflicted with Down's. Generally the youngest. I'm sorry but the son looks a little scared and the younger sister like she's uncomfortable. Of course, could all be wrong, maybe that's another woman of the same age and the younger people are cousins? * sigh *

 

[TinCan]

maybe she just didn't like the way she looked in the picture.

 

[dlofting]

For some reason George Thomas and his sister came to mind when I saw this picture. I can imagine she might have done something like this to a photo that he was in, if she had such a thing in her possession. Maybe the "scratched out" person was in a similar position.

 

[diane]

I think Mom is the bottom, middle? De-faced sister- and must be, look at the identical hand to mother, gosh, bet would be the eldest- especially if Diane is right and a sibling is afflicted with Down's. Generally the youngest. I'm sorry but the son looks a little scared and the younger sister like she's uncomfortable. Of course, could all be wrong, maybe that's another woman of the same age and the younger people are cousins? * sigh *

Gosh, I had just the opposite reaction to the son - wouldn't cross him!

 

[Greg Taylor]

They all look like siblings to me including the defaced one. It is not a happy looking lot. Their story might make a great period Soap Opera!

 

[TerryB]

Here's one of mine from the 1870s. My best guess on the ID is Julia Valette McGhee of Northern Mississippi and two of her children. If I'm right in my ID, she was the Aunt Julia mentioned by Stark Young in his biographical works. The picture was cut for some reason, and I assumed that the girl whose face is cut of was a black female domestic servant. The image was small even before it was cut--smaller than the standard tintype--maybe half-size. So why cut it even smaller? Depending on the date, the girl who's been cut out may have been an older daughter. The owner of the album died in Dallas in 1878, so that's the latest date for the photo. I prefer to date it a few years earlier based on who I think the children are.

 

[TerryB]

One possible reason for the above (original) defacing and others I've seen on this site is that a naughty kid does it, possibly in revenge for a spanking or some other perceived meanness.

 

[MRB1863]

Or perhaps she did something that shunned her from the family....now here might be a story...

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Here's one of mine from the 1870s. My best guess on the ID is Julia Valette McGhee of Northern Mississippi and two of her children. If I'm right in my ID, she was the Aunt Julia mentioned by Stark Young in his biographical works. The picture was cut for some reason, and I assumed that the girl whose face is cut of was a black female domestic servant. The image was small even before it was cut--smaller than the standard tintype--maybe half-size. So why cut it even smaller? Depending on the date, the girl who's been cut out may have been an older daughter. The owner of the album died in Dallas in 1878, so that's the latest date for the photo. I prefer to date it a few years earlier based on who I think the children are.

View attachment 95166

How do you know this stuff? That's so amazing! Other people's stories are always very cool anyway, some kind of sad element like a family rift awful enough to be removed from a photograph makes you wince- she looks so happy here!

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Gosh, I had just the opposite reaction to the son - wouldn't cross him!

Rats! Ok now that's all I can see, a scary guy! You're right. There's sure some bad feeling here, too. Looking at the scratch marks, someone was really wiping out this woman's face. Gosh. Little violent.

 

[RebelHeart]

I'm inclined to agree that "mom" is likely the bottom middle person. She looks older and I believe that children often "surrounded" the parents in older photos. I'm no medical expert but I'm just not seeing the "Down's Syndrome" on the bottom right female. Her eyes seem a little narrower than everyone else's, as though she may have been the child of a second husband or something.
The scratched image looks to have been done with malice. I'm not sure if the swirl-patterned damage was an effort to clean up the scratches or further the damage.
I'd love to know the story behind this image....

 

[diane]

I'm inclined to agree that "mom" is likely the bottom middle person. She looks older and I believe that children often "surrounded" the parents in older photos. I'm no medical expert but I'm just not seeing the "Down's Syndrome" on the bottom right female. Her eyes seem a little narrower than everyone else's, as though she may have been the child of a second husband or something.
The scratched image looks to have been done with malice. I'm not sure if the swirl-patterned damage was an effort to clean up the scratches or further the damage.
I'd love to know the story behind this image....

Yes, it's just a possibility with Downs Syndrome. I've worked with a number of people with this and a few look almost like anyone else. Thought she might have it because her nose bridge is a little wide, chin a little recessive, fingers a little short - especially the pinkie. Way back, kids with this were often chucked into the system or explained as something else - she/he was normal until a fever came... Downs Syndrome people are a lot of work and need a lot of patience and love - and they give it back tenfold - but back in the day it was a real stigma. But - that said - she's not the one scratched out!

 

[TerryB]

How do you know this stuff? That's so amazing! Other people's stories are always very cool anyway, some kind of sad element like a family rift awful enough to be removed from a photograph makes you wince- she looks so happy here!

The owner of the album received it as a Christmas gift on Dec 24, 1873, if I recall. She was the sister of my great ( forget how many greats) grandmother. She got married in 1872 in Miss and the family moved to Dallas in 1874-75. Hugh McGehee, her husband, died of a fever in Miss in Sept 1874, then she died in Dallas in Sept 1878 (yellow fever cases had even been reported in Dallas, so that makes me wonder). Hugh and his sisters were orphans and were adopted by their Aunt Julia (of the picture). One of the sisters was Southern writer Stark Young's mother. He writes about these people a lot, but sometimes he embellishes, sometimes just gets his dates wrong. I also got a lot of info from an 1874 family Bible that even had some loose slips of paper in it with other data besides the Births, Deaths and Marriages pages. Young wrote that Hugh got a fever from being out in the fields but was expected to recover until a screech owl landed on his window sill and stayed till dawn, a sign taken to mean he would die. He did die. I have a picture of him from that album, and he looks very sick. There's also one of him and his bride, but that was in another album.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Thought she might have it because her nose bridge is a little wide, chin a little recessive, fingers a little short - especially the pinkie

When I had a look at her fingers, I have noticed (or have I?) that all the rings at the sitting ladies' fingers were scratched out, too, but not the ones on the hand of the one with the scratched out face and also not the ring on the gentleman's hand. Does anybody else see that also or is it just me?
The story might become even more interesting then! Might be one started with the scratching and then another one "replied" with more scratching out of a feeling of revenge or jealousy ...

 

[TerryB]

When I had a look at her fingers, I have noticed (or have I?) that all the rings at the sitting ladies' fingers were scratched out, too, but not the ones on the hand of the one with the scratched out face and also not the ring on the gentleman's hand. Does anybody else see that also or is it just me?
The story might become even more interesting then! Might be one started with the scratching and then another one "replied" with more scratching out of a feeling of revenge or jealousy ...

I think the rings were gilded by the photographer.

 

[TerryB]

The OP image looks like it dates to about 1860. One possible reason for the defacing could be that she took the wrong side in the conflict and was disowned.