New photo of Britta? Or of Mary Drusilla?

Who is this??????

My kind first cousin three times removed sent this photo to me. Dating the photo will help establish the identities of the subjects. 

Here's what I was told about the condition of the photo:

"The original is oval, 13" X 19"; and it is on paper, which is bowed out. It was in a frame with a bowed piece of glass over it. The original is very blurry and seems out of focus..."

"...{My cousin} said her mother said the picture was of her grandmother or great-grandmother, and that it was on the McGuire side.  But {her} memory of what her mother said seems pretty fuzzy, like the picture."

"Nothing written on the back."

If this is my cousin's mother's grandmother on the McGuire side, then it's Britta Ann Green and a male. If it's her great-grandmother, then it's either Margaret Kelley and male; or it's Britta's "brick wall" mother and a male. But considering the "fuzzy memory...of what her mother said," it could also be Mary Drucilla McGuire and a male. 

The short version:

Based on the research detailed below, I believe this is Mary Drucilla McGuire and her husband Simmin Aaron Eddins. 

Here's why I think so.

Following is an in-depth discussion of internal evidence from the photo. If this doesn't interest you, please skip to the pictures at the end. 

Overall description:

This is a portrait of a man and a woman, presumably a husband and wife or a mother and son. Mostly sepia tones. The faces have more detail than the clothing, but not much. Many areas look as though someone drew over the photo with chalk—part photo and part drawing. The woman is seated, and the man stands behind her left side. Her left hand rests on a stand with something on it. The man's right arm lies across and down her left shoulder. Neither person is wearing a wedding ring. 

Description of subjects:

The man...

... Is Caucasian. He seems to be 20 - 50. Slender, not  heavy build. He wears a mustache but is otherwise clean-shaven. His hair is dark, neatly combed or slicked back. Looks combed. It may be parted on the extreme left but is not a comb-over. His ears lie fairly close to his head. His features are regular with no distinguishing marks. 

He wears a white shirt with stiff, maybe starched, white collar and some sort of distinguishing item where one would wear a bowtie. The jacket has narrow shoulders (no padding) and narrow but sharply defined lapels. The jacket is single-breasted (not double), short, ending about his hips. The sleeves are comfortably but narrowly cut and end just above the cuffs, which extend from the jacket. There's just the hint of a cuff button or cuff link on his right arm, which would reinforce the idea of a fancy collar button or stud at his neck. His hands are arranged but comfortable, and he holds a bowler hat in his right hand. (Maybe he's fingering a watch fob in the left hand?) The top button of his jacket is buttoned, but the rest of the jacket falls away. Can't see shoes. 

The woman...

...Is Caucasian. She appears to be 20 - 50. Slim, not slender, not heavy build. Her hair is pulled back away from her face in a severe bun. There is a part in the middle of her hair. She may have lost some hair around the part, or the hair closest to the part may be gray or white. Her ears lie fairly close to her head. She has regular features and a wide jaw (at least in this picture). Her body seems to be sitting in a three-quarter position, while her head looks straight on. Can't see any shoes.

She's wearing some kind of white collar, maybe a bowtie-like ribbon, but the photo seems to be damaged there. The dress is dark with a distinctly narrow waist. The shoulders seem wide, maybe padded or mutton. The bodice is narrow-waisted but not pigeon-breasted. The dress fabric looks either paisley or shiny. There seem to be loops down the front of the dress. This could indicate either decoration or folds of shiny material. The distinctly shiny folds of the right sleeve indicate shiny material. The sleeves are voluminous, not skinny, ending in finished edges but not cuffs. The skirt is full, almost voluminous. The back of the dress seems to fall from her back, rather than her waist. Though made of shiny material, the dress is rather plain, e.g., no ruffles or frills or lace (other than the collar).

The paper:

Is old and damaged in places. Not small and in a frame like a tintype or daguerrotype. At high resolution you can see paper fibers. 

Conclusions from old photo research:

The picture is probably an enlargement of an earlier original. The copy has been altered as was often done pre-1900 to look part photo and part drawing. The style is called “crayon portrait.” That would explain why the hands look cartoonish and the faces lack fine detail. 

Here's a description from Page 70 of Judging the Authenticity of Photographs by David Rudd Cycleback, Lulu Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1257018963:

"Large, framed and often highly attractive ‘crayon portraits’ were made in the 1800s and early 1900s, typically as family portraits. These were artistic photographs that resemble a cross between photographs and charcoal or crayon sketches. They can be monochrome or with charcoal coloring. The photographer started with a light photograph and embellished it with chalk and crayons. This image was either the final product or rephotographed. Most common are albumen crayon portraits from the late 1800s with attractive and bright colors." 

Remember the "bowed" aspect of the picture and its frame? A similar frame is described in Cycleback, Page 70:

"Large oval photographs held in frames with bubble (concave) glass were popular in the late 1800s and early 1900s."

The photo is albumenous, which was thin paper backed by a stiffer paper. Also from Cycleback:

"Many albumen images have very fine web-like pattern of cracking. This is often seen up close with the naked eye. Sometimes a normal magnifying glass or loupe is needed. The cracking, which does not appear on all albumen prints, can be throughout the entire image or in sections.

One of the keys to authenticating albumen prints is examining the image area under a microscope, preferably of 50x or better power. Unlike with the later gelatin silver prints or common modern color photos, the paper fibers can be seen on the albumen print."

http://www.cycleback.com/photoguide/albumen.html

One last point about the photo itself:

There is no photographer's name or imprint on the back. This information is actually neutral; it doesn't help or hurt the dating process. The original image may have had an imprint which would help, but there's none on this one. Or the photo may have been taken by an itinerant photographer, who didn't sign his name. See:

http://mirrorofrace.org/about-early-photography/

 So now we have established some facts from the frame and technique: the photo was most likely enlarged from an earlier original and came from the late 1800s to early 1900s.

Moving on:

What clues can the man's clothing give us? Do the clues argue for or against late 1800s?

For. 

In fact, for around 1890.

First, he is wearing a "sack suit" and holding a bowler hat. The popularity of sack suits began in the 1850s, hit its heyday by 1890, and developed into today's three-piece suit. At first it was worn with top hats, but: 

"...By the 1870s, top hats were limited to frock suits, morning suits and evening wear, and sack suits were worn with bowler hats and pretty much every other sort of hat a 19th Century man could find."

http://walternelson.com/dr/node/198

From the same site:

"On frock or morning coats, the buttons were usually covered in silk or other fabric, while they were usually uncovered on sack suits...The most common colors were black or gray, and the pieces usually, but not always, matched...They could be almost any color though....

The coat usually had four buttons, the top one of which was generally buttoned--the rest left undone.

Fits our male subject to a "T."

But more importantly:

His portrait distinctly shows the wing tip-collar with narrow wing-tip lapels and (possibly) a stud, which were fashionable in the 1890s. See the website below for several similar examples:

http://www.photosmadeperfect.com/AA%20Mens%20Fashions%20By%20Decade.htm

So the male subject's clothing date the picture to around 1890. What about the female's clothing? 

Yup. Same here. Compare the 1886 and later dresses and clothing at these sites:

http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat=80s&f0=1880s

http://www.uvm.edu/landscape/dating/clothing_and_hair/1890s_clothing_women.php

In addition, we can note that these are not high end fashions of the time. They are the good clothes of working class people. More specifically, two farming class people who got dressed up for the special event of having their picture taken. 

We've dated the photo fashions and frame to roughly 1886 - 1910, plus or minus a few years. Now let's compare this to the lives of McGuire women. From 1886 - 1905:

• Margaret Kelley McGuire is not a good candidate, as she died in 1859.

• Britta Ann Green McGuire Flynn, born 1834, would be 52 to 71, maybe still married to Mike Flynn, who disappeared after 1897. The problem is, Mike was at least 10 years older than Britta. I REALLY don't think this can be Mike, who would have been 62 to 81. Maaaayyyybbbbeeeee, but unlikely.

Britta had only one son. If this is her, the son would be Stephen Arnold Douglas McGuire, born 1860, age 26 to 45 or so. 

• Mary Drucilla McGuire, born 1858, would be 28 to 47. Her husband Simmin Aaron Edins/Eddins, born 1848, would be 38 to 57. Her oldest son Len Franklin, born 1875, would be 11 to 30. 

That pretty much narrows the candidates down to just two. Interestingly, we know that both Britta had a shiny dress around 1900 - 1910, because that's the approximate date range of the best picture we have of her. We know that Mary Drucilla had a shiny black dress, too, from pictures 1900 - 1919. So that piece of evidence supports either the BA or the MD theory. 

People of the time didn't always wear wedding rings. First, rings are expensive. Farmers couldn't always afford them. Second rings got in the way of work. You wouldn't want to lose a finger on farm equipment. I don't think lack of rings indicates lack of marriage.

The pose seems a little too intimate for a son to all the people I've asked. The 10 ± people I've asked think it's a husband and wife. So while probably not Douglas (as they called him) McGuire or Len Franklin, this line of questioning bears a little more research. 

If not a son, then that likely eliminates Britta and leaves Mary Drucilla and Simmin Aaron as the best candidates for the photo's subjects. They fit the criteria: if the photo was taken 1886 - 1910, they were both definitely alive (Simmin died in 1914); in the right age range (Mary Drucilla 28 - 47; Simmin 38 - 57); husband and wife; and Mary Drucilla had a black, shiny dress.

There are two kickers for me. The first is that the surname "McGuire" was distinctly mentioned in my cousin's memory. "Mary Drucilla McGuire" fits exactly. The second kicker for me is a photo that I believe is Mary Drucilla at an older age. The hair's similar (note the funny hair part), the eyes are similar, and the dress is similar. See?

 

To me, it's the same face. And if it's the same face, then it's Mary Drucilla McGuire, and thus the first picture I know of Simmin Aaron Eddins. 

Your constructive comments are welcome!

http://www.uvm.edu/landscape/dating/clothing_and_hair/1850s_clothing_men.php

http://www.corsetsandcrinolines.com/timeline.php?dt=1870

http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat=couples&f0=Couples

Oops! Maybe MD, not Britta

I collected all the photos of Britta and Mary Drucilla in one place, edited them to a similar size and shape, and compared them. The comparison leads me to believe that the woman my ggrandmother Lizzie gazes so lovingly at in the original is her own mother Mary Drucilla McGuire Edins. 

The pictures are below. What do you think?

Young Britta

Britta about 75

Older Britta--Label on photo is "Granny Flynn."

This has been identified as Mary Drucilla McGuire Eddins, age about 52

This photo is labeled "Mary Drucilla, Grandmother Edins."

Guess who???

A new picture of Britta. I think.

I just got back from my annual trip to AL. My aunt was kind enough to give me lots and lots of family pictures, many of which I plan to post here in the coming weeks. 

The most important thing she gave me was her mother—my grandmother's—photo album from the period 1918 - 1922. There are many pictures I'd never seen before. One in particular leapt out at me because I believe it is a picture that includes Britta Ann Green McGuire Flynn among the faces. Here's the picture:

The woman in the middle with her head turned is my great-grandmother Lizzie. I believe the next woman on the right (Lizzie's left) is Britta Ann Green McGuire Flynn. Britta was Lizzie's grandmother. 

The photo's position in the album seems to put it in 1919 or before. The next or so album page says "1919," and the pages are in their original position (i.e., not cut out or reattached).

The woman in question could not have been Mary Ann Jones, who at one time lived with Lizzie. Mary Ann died in 1914. The woman could be Mary Drucilla McGuire, Lizzie's mother, who was alive in 1919; Mary Drucilla died in 1928. But if you compare this person to the one picture we have of Mary D., it doesn't look like her. The face is too thin. 

However, it does look like Britta, who always wore her hair parted down the middle. Who wore a similar black dress in the best picture we have of her. Who was alive during the spring and summer of 1919. Who was thin like this woman. 

I'll continue to study the picture and album to see if it yields any more clues. I can't prove yet that this is Britta, but I sure think it is. 

RIP, JRR

One of the reasons that I love genealogy is the connections made with distant relatives. Almost without exception the contacts have been enlightening and fun. JJR, my half second cousin twice removed (!), was one such person, and he just died. He went out of his way to be helpful to me in researching our common ancestor Britta Ann Green. 

Britta was my great-great-great grandmother with her first husband John L. McGuire. J was Britta's grandson with her second husband Mike Flynn/Flin. Britta was known as "Granny Flynn" till the day she died. 

Thanks for the help, JRR, and RIP.

Exciting DNA news!!!!

I'm posting this super news in both ALRoots and ALRoots3:

Maybe we've identified some of the DNA that comes from Britta Ann Green or John L. McGuire. Maybe. But we need more cousin samples to be sure.

My fragrant cousin showed me how to create a DNA map. It can be tedious to enter long lists of numbers, but the results can be verrrrrrrrry interesting. In essence, you create a database with chromosome start and end locations and compare matching centiMorgans and SNPS. Numbers that are similar to each other likely indicate that the chromosome is inherited from the MRCA (most recent common ancestor). The more distant cousins (3rd - 8th) who take part, the more you can triangulate and hone in on those pesky buggers.

The tools on GEDmatch.com are the easiest to use. I think it took me five minutes to upload my data from Ancestry and FtDNA.

We've uploaded at least a dozen kits from our branch of the family to GEDmatch. This is great, but what it tells us is that we're all closely related. Luckily a fourth cousin descended from Britta and John recently uploaded a kit.

Hooray!!!! Thank you!!!!

By comparing which chromosomes match with ours, we can start to find Britta and John's DNA. If we can find Britta's DNA, we may be able to find her mother using mitochondrial DNA. So exciting!!!!

I've found spots on two chromosomes that seem like a pretty close match. I will not go out on a limb and say that this is Britta or John's DNA. What I will say is that if we can get a few more distant cousins to upload to GEDmatch, we might be able to triangulate and prove in a statistically meaningful way that this is definitely Britta's/John's DNA.

This method allowed us to break through a brick wall and prove that Polly Pinson Peters was indeed born a Dennis.

When Britta died in 1919, she was survived by 104 living descendants. Any cousins out there got a DNA test—and a sledgehammer????