I'm going through some old things of my deceased parents. I have well over a hundred old photographs of my dad's mom's family, almost all of which are labeled with names, dates, and locations. But here is one notable exception.
I am trying to identify the lady on the left in this picture. And if I can get an approximate date of this photograph, I can likely either identify, or at least rule out, who I believe she is.
The man, I am almost positive, is my great-grandfather, known as "Pop".
This picture has no markings on the back of it.
IF this photo is what I am surmising, then this is the only photograph I have of my great-grandmother as an adult, and the girl in pop's arms is my grandmother as a baby, so this photo would have been taken around 1896.
But I'm not sure, and there are several reasons why. First, is that this lady does not look anything at all like the only known photo of my great-grandmother as a 14-year-old. Take a look at this next photo.
The photo here is clearly labeled as being my great-grandmother at age 14, taken in 1876. She doesn't look a bit like the lady in the photo above.
Of course, some girls change appearance over 20 years or so
Second is the date issue. My grandmother was born in 1894, meaning the photo in question above would have to been taken around 1896. Great-grandpa (Pop) was born in 1859, so he would be coming up on 40 years old if the photo were taken in 1896. This guy looks like he's about 40. Great-grandma however would have been close to 35. Is the lady in the photo 35? More? Less?
To support my assumption that it is Pop, and he is almost 40 in the above photo, here below is a photo of Pop (on the right), with his daughter Helen (my grandmother), and my dad, taken in late 1923 or early 1924. My dad is the baby in her arms. In 1923-4 (when the photo below was taken), you can see that Pop is past 60, much older than the fellow in the photo in question above.
And below is another picture of Pop around 1930. You can see he is a bit older. But based on this and numerous other pictures I have of Pop, the guy in the photo in question at the top of this post is almost certainly Pop.
Third, is the clothing. If the photo in question is Pop and his wife and daughter, taken in 1896, there is a disconnect in the clothing. Notice Pop is dressed to the nines. He and his father and brothers were hatters and haberdashers in Baltimore, and they always dressed well, very natty. Even the pictures I have of Pop on the farm, he is wearing a dress shirt and tie, and usually a waistcoat. Kinda like Oliver Wendell Douglas on the Green Acres TV show.
The lady, however, is not as dressed up as I would expect his wife to be. If Pop were visiting someone (a cousin, a friend, etc.) and her daughter, well, that would explain why Pop is dressed up but she isn't. Remember, in the 1896 to 1910 timeframe, you couldn't call someone ahead of time to announce you were thinking of dropping in for a quick visit, and you might just catch her in her housedress. So the mismatch between Pop's and her clothing would argue against it being my great-grandmother.
Further, go back up to the top and look at her skirt length. Her dress is a bit short for 1896... the Google search images show 1896 styles to be ankle-length. The dress she is wearing is more typical of mid-calf skirt lengths in the early 1920's. So again this would argue against it being my great-grandmother, and against it being taken in 1896.
Next, let's take a look at the sisters of my great-grandmother. My great-grandmother was one of six girls. The oldest (Julie) was my great-grandfather's first wife. I have no photos of her. She had a son, then died five years later. Pop then married her younger sister Mollie (my great-grandmother, possibly the lady in the top photo). Mollie bore my grandmother and two more boys, then also died, around 1900. Julie and Mollie had four other sisters who lived to adulthood: Emmie, Lizzie, Susie, and Lasan.
The photo below was taken about 1924. This photo is labeled and is of Lizzie on the left and Susie on the right, taken about 1924. This is almost 25 years after my great-grandmother (their older sister) had died. Notice their (ahem) body builds and facial shape match that of the lady in the photo in question above. Compare the lady in the photo at the top, with my great-grandmother's sisters, then with the second photo, of my )known) great-grandmother at age 14. What do you think?
Now look at the hairstyles. Here is Susie (on the left), about 1922...
.
And here is Lizzie in 1919. (Deborah McSwain, you might be interested that this photo was taken on the family farm in Maxville, Florida.) Notice the skirt length in these photos from the 1920-era match the skirt of the lady in the topmost photo.
And here are Furley sisters in 1928, from left: Emmie, Lizzie, and Lasan. Notice the hairstyles and facial shapes. Compare the hairstyles with the hairstyle in the first picture. Is this a style from 1928? Or is it a style from 1896 and the Furley sisters were just old spinsters who never updated their hairstyles? (Spinsters, for sure: only Julie and Mollie ever married, and both of them to my great-grandfather!)
And now for something else that suggests the photo is from the 1920s not 1896. The photo album where all of these photos were located was not organized by date. But the size, coloration, and type of photo paper of the photo in question is very similar to photos in the album which are dated from 1915 to 1928, with two exceptions: the photo in question does not have any penciled markings or names or dates. Nor does it have the rubber stamp impression on the back of it saying "John Lloyd, 30 West Adams Street, Jacksonville Florida", which obviously is the photo lab which printed all of the other photos which are labeled between 1915 and 1928. The photo paper and coloration of the photo in question does not match any of the photos from any date in the 1800s, or the photos from 1901, 1905, 1909, or even 1913.
Finally, look at the lady holding my grandfather's arm in the topmost photo (the one in question). And her proud smile. The Furley sisters all look like first-class sour-pusses in all the photos I have of them. (As I said, I have no identifiable photos of Julie, and none of Mollie as an adult, so I don't know what she looked like when she died. So that may be her smiling, then again maybe not.)
A logical question might be, given the album full of photos, including many of her sisters, why isn't there a photo of my great-grandmother herself? Or of her older sister Julie?
Here's the answer my dad gave: The family was living in Baltimore, Pop married the oldest Furley girl, Julie, and she had one son, but died five years later. Pop married her younger sister (my great-grandmother, Mollie) who bore my grandmother, then bore two more boys, and then she died too, about 1900. Pop was reportedly so broken-hearted he couldn't stand to continue living in Maryland, so he left and moved to Florida to raise the kids himself. The youngest boy was still a baby and he died too just before they made the move, causing even more emotional pain. Pop reportedly tried to erase all memories of his wives in an attempt to handle his grief. Somehow, my grandmother apparently hid a photo of her mom at age 14 (which is shown as the second photo above). It was not in the album, it was in a frame in a separate box, by itself, labeled "Keepsakes". It was the only thing in the box.
So if the top photo is my great-grandmother, the above explanation might explain why it is unlabeled. Plus, it is possible that my grandmother, as an adult around the 1920's, might have asked relatives for a copy of a photo of her mom, which would also explain why the photo paper and coloration of the photo matches photos taken and developed in the 1920's, not the 1800s. It would also explain why the photo didn't have the "John Lloyd - Jacksonville" stamp impression, and why it was in the album containing other photos most of which date in the 1920's.
Given than every photo in that leather-bound album was mounted on four corner holders, which were then glued onto the album pages, all by hand, it had to have taken hours and hours to put together. So I can't imagine why grandma would have taken the time to mount that photo, but not label it, unless it held some special importance. ... Like being her baby picture with her dad and mom.
So help me out here: Is the photo at the top of this post a family photo of my great-grandfather, my great-grandmother, and my grandma as a baby? Or is it of my great-grandfather and some other lady? And if it is some other lady, I have no idea who she is, or why my grandma would have her picture in the album. And if the girl isn't my grandma, then I have no idea who the girl in his arms might be.
And was this photo taken in 1896 or some time later? My grandmother had an older brother (from Pop and Julie) who would be about six years old if this photo was taken in 1896.... where might he be if this photo was taken in 1896? Why wasn't he included?
And finally, is the guy even my great-grandfather? He sure looks like him.
Inquiring minds want to know... leave your comments here or on Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment