Dating Mystery Photos, For Dummies, Yours?

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Location
Central Pennsylvania
eThe disclaimer here please know is we have a few knock down, drag out experts here on the forum. Apologies to them. You know who you are, having kept us all honest for many years- and thank you, please, please continue- as annoying as it must be.

There are several photos in the jumbled mess we inherited now defying identification. It just doesn't pay to guess. Here's what happens. You make even a GOOD guess, post the thing, it becomes adopted by relatives who post it, then it spreads. Like wildfire. Then someone contacts you who says " Um, this isn't grgrgrAunt Polly, it's her mother.... "

An idea of when the blazes the photo was taken would have been helpful.

No, I'm not the one to tell anyone, at all. There's a woman who is awfully helpful. She seems to be part of an online magazine and doesn't deal in technicalities, writes in a lovely, light narrative, is easy to follow- th various years and topics are found on the menu to the left. The only thing about the site is, easy to get lost.


http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/photodetectiveblog/CategoryView,category,hats.aspx

Using this family photo solely because the hat delights me more than any other hat ever encountered bar none. The people are still a mystery, the man bears a resemblance to my father as a young man. Posted it here previously asking for dates, very helpful! Writing what was gained from the site so far below, SO interesting!
billman or walton or knarr.jpg


Seriously, best, best hat ever?


1869-1875, women wore high ruffled collars BUT those sleeves? 1890's. You have to take the latest decade of course, no way around it.

1870s were one of the decades men wore wide ties, not flowered or striped, flowered was the following decade, striped the next. His haircut is longer than the close-cut style of the 1890's. But, the boy's haircut is certainly close cut, according to this site, a slam dunk for the 1890's.

Wide collar on children, 1870’s, late, but it's part of the Little Lord Fauntleroy rage lasting for an awfully long time. Poor guy, also 1890's.

Everyone here on the forum said this was 1890's so I'm cheating. It would have been a bad, bad thread to have been wrong, just a good thing my favorite hat ever happens to be in this tintype.

If I'm feeling brave, may try another one without a net ( expert ) tomorrow. Please remember the thread title? ' For Dummies ', it's my disclaimer. Be kind to one?

If anyone has one, especially suspected of being from around the war happy to put our heads together, have a shot at it. Feel free to post it.
 
In "Finding the Civil War In Your Family Album" by Maureen A. Taylor, this is written about collars and sleeves of 1860s.

Collars:

"While many different collars styles were available, they were usually less than an inch in width. Small round collars (like today's Peter Pan collar), narrow stand-up collars, or turned down collars with no ends were common. Lace was still popular option as was a solid white fabric collar. Older women often wore dark colored collars. These collars were not attached to the dresses. Women changed collars to 'freshen up' the dress between washings."
page 50.
Sleeves:

"In the early 1860s, sleeves could be wide, flaring at the elbow. According to Joan Severa, in "Dressed for the Photographer: Ordinary Americans & Fashions 1840-1900", this type of sleeve was worn over an undersleeve and only in summer. Undersleeves of white muslin were worn under the lower half of the full sleeve and were trimmed with lace or embroidery. Undersleeves tied around the arm at the elbow. In summer months or for evening dress, short sleeves were acceptable. The majority of sleeves were gathered at the wrist." page 52.

I highly recommend this book. There are many photos and illustrations. She also has a very complete and helpful Bibliography. She is also author of "Fashionable Folks: Hairstyles 1840-1900. This is another book I find helpful in dating photos.
 
That is one crazy hat. At least, I hope that's a hat.

I have family photos of relatives who dressed similar from the 1900-1910s.
 
That is one crazy hat. At least, I hope that's a hat.

I have family photos of relatives who dressed similar from the 1900-1910s.


OH noooooo, do not tell me that! I'm ready to Google ' Vintage Photograph Psychic ', 1.99 for the first 3 minutes, 200.00 every minute after that. ( Just made that up, no idea if such a person claims to exist )

Right? I was sincerely, sincerely hoping very much she was in fact a ' blood ' relative. Gosh. To be able to claim that hat even through genetics would be a feather in my own cap, in my opinion. Who would not wish for a woman of such original taste in their tree? Good point though, suppose we must ascertain it is, in fact, a hat.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes please! I have one or two at least. I have ideas and have tried to place this image straight into my family tree as my soldier ancestor Richard. I love the clothes the kids are wearing. I think this is a boy (his lap)and girl (her lap). I think the backdrop is gorgeous. I think there is plenty in this photo to date it, I simply cannot do it objectively myself.
This is a tintype.
I apologize for the sprinkles of book dust...


image.jpg
 
Oh yes please! I have one or two at least. I have ideas and have tried to place this image straight into my family tree as my soldier ancestor Richard. I love the clothes the kids are wearing. I think this is a boy (his lap)and girl (her lap). I think the backdrop is gorgeous. I think there is plenty in this photo to date it, I simply cannot do it objectively myself.
This is a tintype.
I apologize for the sprinkles of book dust...


View attachment 69967


Just logged back in to leave this for the moment? I'll look myself later and there will probably be members more helpful than me, but your photo ( complete with the same dust mine has- mine appears to have more :smile: ) reminded me an awful lot of this one in our family. This we did identify- thankfully, I mean it was already. The woman sitting, right, is my great grandmother, Mary Huson Keep of Dundee, New York. Her fraternal twin Martha is left, their elder sister Josephine standing. The curls, very tightly arranged across the forehead, the flounces on the bottom of the dress, even the fabrics seem terribly similar? The twins were born in Washington, DC in 1863. You can't really tell how old they might be here? Mary did not marry until 1889, sorry to leave the date SO open, at least there's some kind of estimate so far!

Your photo's husband does look somewhat older than this generation- not a young man. Was he married previously? Or perhaps was very young going into the war like so many, married a few years afterwards, had children even one or two years later, the dates could still match.

Huson girls b 1863.jpg
 
OH noooooo, do not tell me that! I'm ready to Google ' Vintage Photograph Psychic ', 1.99 for the first 3 minutes, 200.00 every minute after that. ( Just made that up, no idea if such a person claims to exist )

Right? I was sincerely, sincerely hoping very much she was in fact a ' blood ' relative. Gosh. To be able to claim that hat even through genetics would be a feather in my own cap, in my opinion. Who would not wish for a woman of such original taste in their tree? Good point though, suppose we must ascertain it is, in fact, a hat.

Wish I could go back in time and stop women from buying these hats. Simply awful!!
 
no you are right. The styles are similar. Although my group is older and maybe be a few years earlier, the tight curls and multi- flounced, narrower skirt are definitely mid 70s and later. that discounts my ancestor. So I have no idea now, but it leaves me room to figure out. Have to go back to the other images...see if they folks are in other photos.
 
no you are right. The styles are similar. Although my group is older and maybe be a few years earlier, the tight curls and multi- flounced, narrower skirt are definitely mid 70s and later. that discounts my ancestor. So I have no idea now, but it leaves me room to figure out. Have to go back to the other images...see if they folks are in other photos.

But still, these children are what, 6 or maybe 5? Perhaps they are a second batch- we have a couple in my family whose cross generational marriage makes me crazy on a regular basis. His era is that of the Civil War, in fact he has 2 brothers who served, his wife's generation is the one born to that generation, usually. My mother knew her very, very well which makes both seem terribly close when of course the husband passed away decades before Mom was born. THEN entering the husband's brother's information takes you back an entire generation- none of the cousins are where they should be, dates on grandparents look ridiculous so you think there's some massive mistake somewhere- very hard to keep track of!

I'm just saying if nothing else makes sense after looking around maybe look into this possibility .
 
But still, these children are what, 6 or maybe 5? Perhaps they are a second batch- we have a couple in my family whose cross generational marriage makes me crazy on a regular basis. His era is that of the Civil War, in fact he has 2 brothers who served, his wife's generation is the one born to that generation, usually. My mother knew her very, very well which makes both seem terribly close when of course the husband passed away decades before Mom was born. THEN entering the husband's brother's information takes you back an entire generation- none of the cousins are where they should be, dates on grandparents look ridiculous so you think there's some massive mistake somewhere- very hard to keep track of!

I'm just saying if nothing else makes sense after looking around maybe look into this possibility .

I certainly will. I'll be chasing it down today!... After my coffee.
 
Back
Top