What makes these photo's from the CW time period, or not?
I know, you won't find many photo's of folks in their normal day to day clothing. I would think, you got dressed up for a photo. Their hair looks good, right? So much to learn...





 

--Last edited by grumpydave on 2007-07-27 08:08:37 --

Dave,

As you well know the hair style is a big help and also the clothing style. Woman's styles have always been changing and you could most likely place most of your pictures in a 5 year range. Men are a different story in that the basic styles did not change as fast or had little changes that were not all that noticable. Need to get back into the study myself, but that is a big help in studying known pictures with correct dates and also some of the excellant books that have come out over the past 10 years.

linda and liz need to look at these, im definitely not an expert. and i could very easily be wrong. if i only knew half of what those 2 do!

their hair seems too flat to be war hair. war hair it was all about being wide, thus using the rats over the ears.

but then again i was doing a search and found a picture almost like those... the flatter hair, the zouve jacket and it says its from the late 1860s.

skirts were full in the 60s... the bottom one has the fuller skirt. shes not wearing a lot of petticoats as you can see her bottom hoop

so i could be wrong, and i hope liz and linda jump into this conversation.. my guess is late 1860s due to the flat hair, jackets and not so full skirts. the bottom one could possible be a little earlier than the other 2. someone please correct me if im wrong!

My computer's decided to start playing this new game (the last several days) that I don't like.  It's called wait till she's about to hit "send," and then she decides at the last minute to look up one more thing on a website and then said computer creates a fatal error shuts down all windows, and with it my post.  So... here's my attempt at recreating my post without going to the internet till I hit send.  I may have to edit this a few times.  Yep, I did.

The first photograph is a nice image of a teenage girl wearing a very typical Zouave jacket and skirt.  I can't quite tell about the sleeves, are those pagoda? if so they're not real wide, but then that means something, as I understand it.  

What's with the big bow?  Is that in place of a broach? or does she have some form of headwear on?  If my knowledge is deficient on adult clothing, it's even worse on children's clothes.

To me, her skirt looks plenty full, of course she's sitting down but you can see the large poof on either side of her body (that's where skirts go when we sit. )  Guys have it so easy, especially military.

Her hair is parted down the middle, pulled back and dressed.  If I'm seeing right it looks like she might be wearing a net to hold her dressed hair.

The second lady...  I love this image.  I'm picturing her as late teen very early twenties (after all she is wearing a Zouave which was typically worn by young fashionable ladies).  The stand up collar would tend to put the picture in the mid war years, but there are exceptions to every rule.  Again, I see lots of skirt on her, so no worry there.  Her hair is nicely pulled back and in a bun at the nape of the neck, typical of the 1860s. Did I say I love this image?

The third picture is also pretty typical.  Stand up collar, a nice coat with the points coming down in the front, and a beautiful full silk dress.  I did photoshop the image to see it a little lighter, and it almost appears as though the coat might have some fringe coming off the shoulder seam, almost like epaulettes, and that should mean something as well.  Yes, we ladies are a curious and mysterious sort.  Men just have to give up trying to understand us because we can't even understand ourselves half the time!

As far as the rats? There are a lot of examples of ladies with flat hair as well as poofy.  I'm wondering if like today ladies had the choice as to which one complimented her face better.  Perhaps for fancy dress they'd most typically follow the lead of the most influential people.  

All three I'd date to 1861-65 with a margin for error on either side, though I'd be surprised.

Linda.  

--Last edited by Linda Trent on 2007-07-12 19:39:09 --

Yes, I enjoy this!

Couple. Is the Lady with child?


This group inclueds the above couple:


Colorized Lady:


There's a nice view of the tax stamp here:


Colorized young Man:

im obviously not good at this, so im not going to attempt it

i do like the 4th one down with the stamp... she looks late 20s early 30s and shes wearing gloves.

i would say the first lady is definetly with child, probably 7 or 8 months along. i like the detail on her sleeves.

The most sure way to tell if a Carte de visite is of a Civil War-period individual is to not look at the image, but the card itself. Civil War period CDVs have square corners; curved corners came in the 1870s. Civil War period CDVs are thinner than later CDVs. Civil War period CDVs are always on white board; starting in the 1870s colored boards came into use. If you have a revenue stamp it dates from 1865 to 1866. Civil War period CDVs often have one or two (usually two) thin lines around the image. Finally, look at the typography of the maker's markings on the back. Type styles tell a lot. The more elaborate, the later the CDV.

Do you think mother dragged him to the photographer?


I think that tie is huge!

Flat hair, lots of underpinnings:


Look at these youngsters:

The auction house that is selling this photo has it labled as "House Servant." What does our pannel of experts think?


OK, Bill, I dare you:
 

--Last edited by grumpydave on 2007-07-27 08:12:36 --

those boys look like trouble...remind me of my 2.

the "house servant" doesnt look like a photo, looks like a painting to me.

"OK, Bill, I dare you:"

Grumpy,

Who, me?    

I've made my jokes about the boys prancing home, but I wonder if, besides the cultural differences of the period; if all the hand holding and and hands on shoulders wasn't also an attempt to remain still for the photo?    

The house servant was not taken in the home as the backdrop is a prop from the photographer shop. Her face and hands appear to have some corrosion on them. The dress would be one a house servant would wear as it appears to be a basic neat day dress. Also appears to be holding a small hat.

Pardon my use of terms here but, I think her hand an face were "colorized" and may have run.

Quote :

GrumpyDave wrote : Pardon my use of terms here but, I think her hand an face were "colorized" and may have run.

Possible, it appears to be blueish in color which may be some type of reaction to the basis of the paint depending on how it was stored all these years.