Genealogy
When was this old photograph taken ?
hoeka · 30/05/2020 14:47
We came across this photograph amongst a whole load of other family documents. It's been cut from its original size, and is a thick sort of card. The back is plain, so can't try and look up a photographer.
What kind of date is this ? Can we guess at what sort of social standing these young lads were from, as that could help me guess who they are.
What has the boy got on his head?
florentina1 · 30/05/2020 14:50
I would say around 1910 . I can’t see anything on the head of either boy.
TheMostHappy · 30/05/2020 14:54
I reckon between 1890-1910. What are you looking at on their head I can't see anything.
howlatthetrees · 30/05/2020 14:55
I can’t see anything on the head but I’d guess late 1800’s-early 1900’a
onalongsabbatical · 30/05/2020 14:55
Late 1800s - early 1900s.
Also can't work out what you mean by what's on his head! Very neatly controlled hair?
TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 30/05/2020 14:57
I would say first decade or two of twentieth century as that’s when Norfolk suits were popular for boys of all classes.
They don’t look very poor or very rich. I would guess upper working to middle class.
Lots of photos taken at the start of WW1 as people wanted mementos of family to take away with them, of course.
CallingOnAvengingAngels · 30/05/2020 14:57
I think around 1890 - 1910 too, ummm prosperous working class maybe? They're clothes look decent quality but the boot soles look a bit worn and battered.
Did you think you could see a Jewish Kippah on the backs of their heads? It looks like there might be something their wearing, but it could the way the lighting is hitting their hair.
FairyAnn · 30/05/2020 14:57
I think the head comment was referring to a time period when it was 'unseemly' for men and boys to see seen without a hat 
MrsOfBebbanburg · 30/05/2020 14:58
Late 1800s/early 1900s.
Cant see anything on heads? I would guess they’re not brothers. Or not full brothers. Maybe cousins.
Have you a rough idea of who they might be?
Thighdentitycrisis · 30/05/2020 15:00
I agree it looks Edwardian, and also thought there might be a hint of a kippah on the older boy but only because I was looking for something
Guttersnipe · 30/05/2020 15:02
I think they do look like brothers. Same eyes, though one has them set further apart, same ears, same mouth. I would think a photograph of brothers is far more likely than a photograph of cousins. How lovely to have the picture. I hope you can work out who they are.
SeriouslyRetro · 30/05/2020 15:03
I’d go 1910ish too based on photographs I have of my great grandmother from that era.
It’s hard to say much about socio economic group as people would want to look their best for a photograph, I’d think they were probably pretty average/run of the mill children.
hoeka · 30/05/2020 15:04
Well if it was a kippah then I would know exactly who it was in my tree. But as you say, can't figure out if it's because we are looking for something on the head. Might just be well combed hair...
I think he's either a son of a Solicitor, or of a Shopkeeper in my tree..
CallingOnAvengingAngels · 30/05/2020 15:08
I would go with shopkeeper, but that is just me guessing! They are in front of a painted background, so the more mass market end of photography - how big is the piece of photo you've got?
MrsOfBebbanburg · 30/05/2020 15:19
They’ve very different eyes and ears 
different nose, hairline too.
MrsOfBebbanburg · 30/05/2020 15:20
Not saying they aren’t brothers. They very well could be- I know a pair of full brothers who look shockingly different. But if I were to guess based on their looks I’d say not.
AdaColeman · 30/05/2020 15:26
I'd say 1890 - 1910, as they are wearing suits with breeches.
I'd say they lower middle class, as the suits are well made with a fair amount of tailoring detail, braid on the seams, buttoned waistband etc, but the fabric looks sturdy rather than luxurious.
Also the boots look sturdy and functional.
It's difficult to make out the background, those palm fronds could be on a painted backcloth in a studio or could be wallpaper. Generally, the more exotic and well painted the background, the more expensive the photographic studio.
If that is a kippah on the older boy, perhaps the photo was taken to celebrate his coming of age which would make him about 12 or 13 I think.
Tavannach · 30/05/2020 16:05
Early 1900s. I wonder if the boots are a bit of a red herring? Because other than that they look solidly middle-class. Maybe the younger just had a strop and refused to wear anything else? They look like brothers to me. Different hairlines, but the same eyebrows, eyes, noses and mouths.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.