Mrs. Howells' Sunday School Class, 1890

I look at the painted backdrop, cutout panels, artificial flowers and grass, and ask why they didn’t meet in someone’s garden and take a much more charming and natural portrait. I am also sure that Mrs. David Howells and Charles S. Craven, the photographer, are sorry I wasn’t in Kane, PA, on that day in 1890 to make my helpful suggestions. 

If, however, it was taken on a snowy day in mid-January, I may have been less free with my advice. Besides, who am I to impose my 2009 cultural and artistic perceptions on nice people who were doing very well by their own lights in 1890? (If it looked like it had been taken in 2009 I would not have given it a second glance, now would I.)

I am very glad that Mrs. C. C. Davis wrote on the back of this large cabinet print and gave us the following: Front row: Anne Davis, Pearl Coleman, Edith Evans; Middle: Maud Byham, Mary Griffith; Top: Anne Griffith. I think Mary and Anne may be twins – they are dressed identically and are surely sisters.

As genealogists understand, dates are not always reliable. I have a large photo from the same family, of the Davis house with the family on the porch and lawn, dated 1885 (clothing confirms that date); in it is Anne E. Davis, age 18. How could the Anne in both photos be the same person, or how could a 10-year-old Anne be a daughter of the older Anne a mere five years later? The answer is they could not; either the date on this photo is five or even ten years too early, or there was more than one Anne in the extended family during that period. Only research has any chance of answering the question.

NOTE: 8/5/2009. Don Williams, who has contributed his considerable genealogical expertise on other Timebinder images, was able to confirm, together with the original owner of the Davis images, that the date for this photo is likely correct and there were indeed two Annes – they were first cousins, their fathers were brothers and they lived in the same community. Mystery solved!

Ruffles and Lace

We look with amusement at the way young boys of a century ago were dressed in certain sectors of our society – velvet, ruffles and lace – not at all like the older males of their own times, more like the dress of our founding fathers more than a century before 1905. There was an acceptable dress distinction between the boy child and the boy, the boy and the man.

There seems to be a genuine affection between this boy and his older sister (I am not at all sure he was directed to put his hand under her arm); they are relaxed; their eyes smile. She wears rings on both hands, a necklace and a brooch I feel certain is a photo, not a painted portrait, of another young girl – perhaps her mother, sister, cousin or close friend.

We Belong

What can you know for sure from a group portrait that has no names, date or place? Nothing for certain. You can, however, be reasonably sure it is from c. 1910 and you can know from visual clues in the photo and from statistics that this is four generations of a family, the two older couples may have come here from europe, at least some the younger ones are first generation Americans and their children have known no other place. You can know that whether they work on the land or are wage laborers or craftsmen, they have worked hard and have made a better place for themselves. They would also likely tell you, with or without an accent, that they belong here and are Americans. Some of the adults on the back row may have higher education degrees. The body language of the young women (wives or sisters) tells you that they feel themselves every bit equals even if they cannot yet vote. The affection these people feel for one another is evident.

Those are the realistic probabilities. The actual facts may be somewhat, but not a great deal, different. The expressions are confident and genial, especially the little girl on the far right.

Less than one percent of us can claim that our ancestors have inhabited this land or this continent for from 10–30 thousand years; the rest of us are newcomers.

A Chip Off The Old Doll, 1905

I was struck by some similarities in the facial features of the girl and her doll, although the doll is an adult fashion doll and the girl is all of seven. Both have round faces, strongly arched eyebrows, quite large eyes not deeply set in the face, set off by a straight grecian nose and generous mouth.

There the similarities end: the doll has the unnaturally long torso, arms and legs of a fashion doll, a luxuriant head of hair and a dress of incredible detail and craftsmanship; the girl has the sturdy build of a healthy child, hair in corkscrew curls and bangs, an attractive age-appropriate dress with shoulder flounces and lace at the cuffs. Dolls that really looked like children or babies were a later 20th century invention. Notice that though the doll's head is porcelain or composition, her body is stuffed cloth and her hands are sewn (some less expensive dolls of the age were made entirely of cloth with less realistic painted faces without raised features). If a doll is ever meant to look human, it is usually the eyes that never quite meet the test.

This cabinet portrait by Meathieu Studio in Watertown and Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, is unusual in that the child is not seated holding the doll – it intends to display the doll, her prized possession.

Vacation In A Moment

You can almost hear the photographer asking, “Where would you like to be for your photograph?” while going through scenic backgrounds like raising and lowering window shades. So they choose the sea air and crashing waves without the bother of going to the seashore.

But actually, they may have been at the shore on holiday! Tintypes like this one were frequently what was offered quite cheaply at beaches, resorts, carnivals, fairs and places where people went for a day’s entertainment or a few days way from home. Such studios may have been not much more than kiosks along the boardwalk or fairway, and having your “picture taken” may have been not much more than an impulse souvenir to take home. A frame might be offered at extra expense, but many were handed to the purchaser in a light paper sleeve with the portrait visible through an oval or rectangular cutout with printed border. Millions have survived in albums, boxes and drawers.

The tintype, or ferrotype, was invented by Hamilton L. Smith in Ohio in 1856. It is a collodion process, exposed wet in the camera on a thin iron (not tin) sheet that has been japanned (black varnished) so the negative image appears positive. Each photo is unique. Traveling photographers liked tintypes because they were cheap, light weight and not breakable. They were the most popular photographic medium with the masses during the second half of the 19th right through the first three decades of the 20th century. A tintype, as you can see, had very limited tonal range and low contrast. Most were quite small.

I have rebalanced the contrast without sacrificing the tonal range in this 1880s portrait (stiffly posed but better than the average example); the young woman looks pleasant but somewhat bored; the other has chosen to keep her pince-nez firmly on the bridge of her nose – the better to eye that shady photographer fellow; the gentleman may have a touch of heartburn from lunch.