Any guesses for the date of this picture?

[Megan Roberts]

The picture below is a complete mystery. It may have nothing to do with my family........

Growing up there was a large head and shoulders shot of my grandfather in the army hung in his front bedroom and it is now in my possession. The frame has become damaged and so I took it to be reframed, and underneath/behind his picture was this was one.

It could be his paternal grandparents, as he was brought up by his widowed grandmother after he was .

It could be my grandmother's maternal grandparents as the house where the picture hung was the home of her and her mother when she married my grandfather in 1923.

It could be some other unknown ancestor.

[almach]

Megan, I have an almost identical photo of my gggrandfather, same beard and suit, if it helps gggrandfather was born 1829, died 1891.

[Megan Roberts]

Thanks. I have the right generations then, but as to which side of the family I doubt if I will ever know - its so frustrating

My grandfather's paternal grandparents were roughly 1840-1900 (grandfather) / 1920 (grandmother) and my grandmother's maternal grandparents were roughly 1830-1913.

[Lesley Robertson]

The clothes (and beard) are very similar to a group photo of my paternal Grandfather and family just before one son left for the Anglo-Boer War, which makes it mid 1890s. Don't forget that fashions changed more slowly in rural areas, my pic is from a small village in Angus, Scotland. Ggfather has the beard, his sons have moustaches, and only one son has a jacket with that single,high button.
There's no sign of a photgrapher's name?

[Megan Roberts]

There's no sign of a photgrapher's name?

No unfortunately not. There are some pencil marks on the back of the mount but they are so feint that they are just not legible.

I can't even see a particular likeness to either side of the family, although I am more inclined to think that it is his paternal side, on the basis that his grandmother, who raised him and his sister from ages of about 5 and 8, and she was widowed in 1899, so sentiment might have dictated that she would have had a portrait of her grandson of fighting in the war and if she could not have afforded 2 picture frames, have put over the picture of herself and her husband. She died about 13 months after he was married, so it could well have been something that came from her home.

[thewideeyedowl]

I too have been peering at this faded photo and also taking a look at Jayne Shrimpton's useful book How to get the most from Family Pictures, Society of Genealogists Enterprises Ltd, 2011. She covers fashions by the decades - for men, for women, and for children. Anyway, my guess more or less concurs with that of our learned friends here - probably 1880s/1890s.

The man: his jacket has a very narrow lapel and only the top button is fastened. It looks as if the waistcoat and jacket do not quite match the trousers. I think he is not high status - the materials look quite coarse, there is no gold/silver watch on his waistcoat and no handkerchief in his pocket. It's a pity we cannot see his neck, because of the splendid beard. I wonder what his shirt collar looked like and what sort of tie or whatever he was wearing. The shoes look well lived-in and have not been polished. He is a hard-working man (possibly dragged along to the photographic studio by the missus).

The woman: she seems to be wearing two skirts - an older, longer, possibly woollen one with a fancier one on top. There are little pleats on her bodice, which I believe is very 1880s-ish, and she has those pinched-in cuffs (which I just cannot identify). Though she is an elderly lady she is not wearing anything on her head (which she might have been doing mid-century).

A perennial problem with trying to date a photo from the clothes of older folk is that they may well have been wearing things that are quite old - because they are thrifty, perhaps; whereas younger folk, particularly women, are easier to date because their clothes nod along with fashion.

Like you, I do wonder who they are - do you think they might have worked on the farm/estate for a long time? Or might the photo have been taken to send to a child who had emigrated? Just speculation - really don't know. They are just older working folk - 'salt of the earth', I'm sure.

Owl

[Lesley Robertson]

I was assuming that the upper skirt was actually a "best" apron. My ggmother had one in black, not unlike that one....

[barbara lee]

I'm sure I remember reading that "full body" photos were a very early style, possibly earlier than the more relaxed photo posted by almach. So I would guess it's pretty early, possibly of people born nearer 1800 or 1810.
Barbara

[Megan Roberts]

Thanks to everyone for their contributions. Unfortunately the backgrounds to both my prime suspect couples is quite similar, and I have to be careful not to grasp at straws in order simply to add names to an unnamed photo.

One such straw would be the idea that the picture was for someone who had or was about to emigrate. My grandfather's paternal grandparents had a son who (from everything that is known) emigrated to the USA.

I suppose another point to bear in mind is that people aged much faster than they do today, so someone in their 50s could well look 10-16 years older.

[David Benson]

No unfortunately not. There are some pencil marks on the back of the mount but they are so feint that they are just not legible.

Try to photograph the marks under different lighting conditions and play with the images on a computer by changing brightness, contrast and even colour. It may help figure out what it says.