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 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:
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
