More help in dating a photo please!

[Jan65]

I've had such fantastic help with my last photo, how about this one?

http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr216/Janice1965/Photoofsecondmysterywoman.jpg

Can't put a name to this girl within the family at all. I'm fairly certain it's not a family member as such. However, this photo was amongst my great uncle's belongings when he died, aged 78, in 1990. He was a life-long bachelor, had been a prisoner of war in WW2 and, I believe, worked on the "death railway" in Japan although I admit to not knowing much history behind this.

Now then, a clue! My uncle (never called him great uncle and he was a sort of surrogate grandad) told my mam once that he had a daughter. Mam never really took him seriously.

So - could this girl be his daughter, or his sweetheart?

Perhaps if I could establish the date of the photo and the age of the girl (again!) this would help me to decide if it could be one or the other.

Many thanks - again!

[Jan1954]

I would say 1940s - patch pockets on the jacket - and have a look at some of the hairstyles here (http://www.lphouse.com/hairstyles-1940s.htm) for comparison.

[Geoffers]

I'd agree - the hairstyle and fairly simple design of clothing suggest 1940's to me.

Are they heavy curtains by the window for blackout???

Age is difficult (I was taught all ladies are 21), photos from this period seem to me to make people look older than they are..............purely a guess, early 20's??

[don.]

I would agree with date being the 1940's due to the design of the clothing and also the hair style but would suggest that this is more likely to be his sweetheart than daughter and she would appear to be sporting a band on her ring finger.

don

[Browneyes]

A long shot if you get really stuck...a good watchmaker or 'watch collector' might be able to identify the ladies watch for you. I tried searching (it looks hexagonal, perhaps with a leather strap etc) but the nearest I came to it was the late 1920s and that was just guessing on the description plus of course she might have had it for a while or something.

Browneyes.

PS..is it an art deco style window in the background?

[Browneyes]

As usual :D having pondered on this photo I've discovered all sorts of interesting websites but this one is (in my opinion :D) REALLY interesting and might help anyone looking for clues re fashions...

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f89/index2.html

Browneyes

[David Benson]

I suggest that it is a 'studio' portrait taken with a false background. It was mostly only professional photographers who would sepia tone a print. The main lighting is coming from top right - look at the shadow on her neck. It might have clues on the back as to where it was taken. Then try searching for the photographer - you may find examples of their work will see the background being used over and over again. The date it was taken could then be narrowed down - the backgrounds only changed ever couple of years tomake the photos look different.

[birdlip]

What a lovely face...I think she's quite young, maybe only 17 or 18...definitely posed in a studio...and definitely 1940's. Its a pity we can't see the length of her skirt, but its not full enough at the waist to be the 'new look' longer length after the war. I must be going blind, I can't for the life of me see a ring on any of her fingers.

[Jan65]

Once again thank you everyone for your suggestions. I too think it's a studio shot, and thank you for confirming that it's probably early 1940s. I also think she looks young, say 18-20, rather than in her 20s, and neither can I see a ring on her finger! Although looking very closely, her ring finger looks narrowed at the base, rather like my own looks when I take my wedding ring off, and there is a very faint line across the finger which could suggest a ring, but it's a bit difficult to say.

I think it looks like there is no ring, more than it looks like there is a ring, if you know what I mean. I think that if there was a ring there it would show up more, especially if it was an engagement ring, rather than a wedding band, as my gt uncle never married - or did he? Wow, that's a thought! Perhaps I shouldn't assume, and should look at the marriage indexes to see if anything comes to light? If he DID marry, then certainly none of my living relatives knows anything about it.

He was taken prisoner of war in Japan in February 1942, where as far as I know he remained for the rest of the war. So if this photo was his sweetheart, taken perhaps before he went to war, that would fit time wise.

If she was around 20 years old it means she was born around 1922ish. My gt uncle was born in 1912 so he would have been a fair bit older than her. If only I'd asked him more when he was alive... the eternal regret. But there again, he might not have wanted to talk about it; after all when he told my mam that he had a daughter, she dismissed it as fantasy. Not sure why. Perhaps it's because by the time we knew him he was a crotchety old bachelor, very set in his ways, a very tiny (only about 5 foot tall) and quite rotund man, nothing at all to look at, and she maybe couldn't believe in him having a girlfriend let alone a daughter. But as they say, there's someone for everyone, so perhaps he did after all. Wouldn't that be a turn up for the books! I'd love it to be true, myself.

Thanks again, all!

Janice