Buckeye Baby's Bombardier Bud and Philomena's Sweetheart Pin

Print of unidentified woman mounted in cardboard folder
by A Seaman & Sons
It's not often that I feature portraits on Photo-Sleuth from as late as the Second World War, but this reflects a paucity of such photographs in my own collection, rather than a lack of interest on my part. Mark Scanlon sent me scans of this portrait of a smartly dressed young woman taken at the studio of A. Seaman & Sons in the latter stages of the war. The print (60 x 80mm) is mounted in a cardboard folder (177 x 128mm, open) with a King George VI crown embossed on the left hand side, and the studio stamp with negative number (90301) on the reverse. Handwritten on the inside cover is the following message:

Not very good. but it serves its purpose - if you know what I mean!! - Happy landings Bud -

Backstamp from the studio of A Seaman & Sons
Sadly, although the name of the studio, the negative number and other text is visible, I can't quite make out the studio location, which I believe must be on the last line. Alfred Seaman's great-grand-daughter Anne Williams informs me that although her grandfather F.J. Seaman was operating the Chesterfield studio in the 1940s, it was under his own name, rather than the original title. She believes that probably the only branch which might have been still practising under the "A. Seaman & Sons" moniker at that time was the Scarborough studio, run by her uncle. It is perhaps worth noting that the stamped negative number is in a very similar style to that used on the reverse of a postcard portrait from the firm's Sheffield branch in 1936.


Click to enlarge
The photograph was amongst the war papers of Mark's father William Morgan (Bud) Scanlon, who served as a B-17 bombardier in the 401 bomb group, 613 bomb squad, flying 30 missions out of Deenethorpe, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom between August 1944 and April 1945. Mark says, "He obviously knew this woman, and she him! ... I regret not getting into this research years ago when dad would have been able to provide the actual story. Bud died 9 Sept 84, much too young at 61."

The woman's clothing and hairstyle fit well with the "Wartime look" as described by Geoff Caulton on his excellent PhotoDetective web site. Her "lifted" hairstyle, pinned at the back, and arched eyebrows - plucked and shaped, no doubt - were typical fashion for the period.



Image of Bombardier Badge © and courtesy of Iain Williams
At first, seeing the "winged" badge on her lapel, I wondered whether the woman was a member of some branch of the Royal Air Force (RAF), but this page demonstrates that the badges worn by members of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) were quite different. Besides, she is probably wearing civilian clothing, rather than a uniform. Further investigation, and comparison with this display of Aviation Wings from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum and a fine collection of America Aviator Wings presented by Iain Williams, identified the badge as that of a Bombardier in the United States Air Force (USAF). A further selection can be found on Bob Schwartz's web site Aviation Wings and Badges of World War II.


Letterhead, Lt. William M. Scanlon & "Buckeye Baby"
The natural conclusion is that Bud gave his Bombardier's badge to this woung woman prior to his departure, I suppose therefore making it a "sweetheart pin." Mark writes further:

I code-named the mystery woman Phylis because my dad mentioned someone with that name in a letter he wrote home on 15 October 1944. At least I think it's Phylis, the actual word is hard to make out. The letter includes a request of his sister to send him some 'films' to give to Phylis who can't seem to obtain any. Dad goes on to say he hasn't received his 'cheesecake' from her yet! This passage lends credence to Phylis being a local. And she may be our mystery gal.

View Larger Map
My own interpretation of the writing in the letter is that the name is written as "Philo," which may be short for Philomena. Philomena wasn't that common a name - at least compared with Phyllis or its variants - but there were still well over a thousand Philomenas married in England between 1945 and 1955. Only nine of these married in Northamptonshire, and one in the registration district of Kettering, which includes Weldon and Corby, the closest towns to the former air force base at Deenethorpe. Of course, she may not have been from that area at all!


Mark sent me this engaging snap of his dad - from his uniform, what I presume is his bomber jacket, and the star on the aircraft fuselage, clearly taken while he was in service. He is also shown along with the rest of the crew of "Buckeye Baby," piloted by 2nd Lt. William A. Shackleford, in a group photograph on the web site of the 401st Bombardment Group Association (shown below).


Crew of "Buckeye Baby" (2nd Lt. William A. Shackleford), 613th Bomb Squadron - Bud Scanlon at front right
Image © and courtesy of 401st Bombardment Group Association
For the moment at least, the identity of Bud's presumed sweetheart must remain a mystery, but perhaps she went on to marry and have children. Perhaps also one day someone will stumble across this page and recognise her from the portrait, a credit to whichever member of the Seaman family was running that particular studio at the end of the war. Many thanks for Mark for sharing the photographs, ephemera and story.

The Fauntleroy Suit - A possible example from London in the early 1900s

Today's photograph has been chosen as a contribution to the 5th Edition Smile For The Camera - A Carnival Of Images, to be hosted on FootnoteMaven's Shades of the Departed. The word prompt for this collection of images is "crowning glory," which creates something of a dilemma for me, as I have so many photographs in my collection showing a wide variety of interesting hairstyles and headgear.


The example that I've chosen is a recent purchase, rather than a portrait of a family member, and the subject is unfortunately not identified. I'll let the artistic merits of the cabnet card speak for themselves, but will add a little background to the costume that I think this child is wearing. The style of the Fauntleroy Suit was popularised as formal dress for middle-class American & British children in the 1890s and early 1900s, "much to the dismay of many young boys," after a book titled Little Lord Fauntleroy (online text, originally published as a serial in 1885) by American author Frances Hodgson Burnett, who also wrote that perennial children's favourite, The Secret Garden.




The style was derived from the illustrations of the clothes worn by the main character, which were pen-and-ink drawings carried out by Reginald Birch. These were based upon the "Van Dyke", an eighteenth century fancy dress which was, in turn, loosely modelled on Charles I court children's costume, and typified by Gainsborough's "Blue Boy."


Periodical brief revivals of the fad occurred after a film starring Mary Pickford was released in 1921, and again after an even better known version in 1936.

The photographer "Mac" was, in fact, the improbably named Algernon McIsaac who operated his Day & Electric Sudios at 212 King Street, Hammersmith, London in the early 1900s. McIsaac was born at Fareham, Hampshire (England) in early 1874, son of a pianoforte salesman, manufacturer and tuner, Thomas McIsaac (1825-1909) and his wife Emma (1838-1898; formerly Povey née Smith). He was working as a photographer by the time of the 1901 Census, but I have found no trade directory or similar entries showing his period of operation.


The only other example by "Mac" that I have been able to find is a carte de visite, also of a child, with a similar card mount design, shown above. I suspect that both of the portraits were taken in the early 1900s, perhaps between 1900 and 1905.



Post Script (5 September)

Well, it seems that I was wrong about this being a Fauntleroy suit! Birte Koch, who has a web site Album 1900, devoted to pictures of everday life over the period 187-1930, sent me an email pointing out that there were some significant differences:

Sorry to say but this boy is not wearing a fauntleroy suit. His suit reminds somewhat of a fancy musketeer-type suit. I add a picture of a typical Fauntleroy suit. Please note the cutaway-jacket (well, in my picture not that much cut away) (typically small, narrow and worn open because of the blouse) and the blouse showing lots of frills on front, cuffs and collar. And important is a sash. Fauntleroy suits often were done in velvet.

Another portrait from the Cape Town studio of W. Lawrence

Having come across my previous article featuring a colourised carte de visite from the studio of Lawrence Brothers of Cape Town (South Africa), Joanne Savile recently sent me another portrait from this studio.


Joanne asked:

I have a photo with "W. Lawrence, Photographer, Caledon Street Cape Town" on the back which looks pretty early too. I think it is my gg-grandmother Mary Black who emigrated there in 1858 and married in Capetown January 1860. She left South Africa 1869/70 and died in 1884. I'm guessing this might be an engagement /pre-wedding photo. What do you reckon? If I'm correct she would have been 18/19 yrs old at the time.

Unfortunately dating photos is rarely as cut and dried as we might wish. The hair style, with just the lobes of her ears showing, is typical of the early to mid-1860s, perhaps between 1860 and 1865. You can just see the outline of a hair net which, although commonly worn by women, often doesn't show up well in photographs of the period. The clothing is also characteristic of this time, with rounded shoulders, the sleeves widening considerably downwards from just above the elbows, a lace collar, and a cameo brooch at her neck.

However, there are a number of things which lead me to think that this particular photographic print was perhaps produced slightly later. As cartes de visite were only introduced by studio photographers in 1860/1861, it seems rather unlikely that this particular example could have been taken on or before your gg-grandmother's marriage in January 1860. Also the style of the CDV, i.e. a vignetted cameo half-length portrait, would be a little unusual for the early 1860s, and I think it more likely to have been produced in the late 1860s. The design on the reverse of the card mount suggests it was not much later than the late 1860s.

This disparity between the apparent date of the portrait and the date of the photographic print suggests, at least to me, that it may have been a later copy of a photographic portrait taken in the early 1860s, perhaps even on or around the date of your gg-grandmother's marriage. The vignetting, i.e. the fading at the edges, could also have been done at the time of making the copy. If this is the case, then it is a good copy - many copies, particularly from that era, show a marked loss of definition and contrast compared with the original. Also it is worthwhile noting that the original may well have been an ambrotype photograph, rather than a CDV, particularly in light of your view that it may have been taken c. 1860.

Joane subsequently sent me some more information about her gg-grandmother, as well as a scan of another photograph of her, taken some time later after she had returned to live in England.


"Mary was born on 14 September 1841 at Corrie Common, Hutton & Corrie, Dumfriesshire, Scotland, the eldest child of Peter Black and Catherine. She emigrated with her family to South Africa in 1858 where she worked as domestic servant to Rev Mr Douglas in Cape Town. She married a fellow Scot, John Cramond on 3 January 1860 at the Scottish Church in Cape Town. Mary and John had four children in South Africa: John (1863), Catherine (1866) Mary (1867) and Janet (1869). Her father and sister died in 1866 and were buried in St. John's Cemetery, Wynberg, Cape Town, along with Mary's younger sister, Isabella."

"Most of the family left South Africa for Cleator, Cumberland, England around 1870. They probably chose Cleator as John Black (Mary's brother) was settled there already, working as an engineman at the local iron ore mines. Mary's other two brothers and husband all found work at the iron ore mines as engine fitters/mechanical engineers. Mary had her fifth child Alexander at Leconsfield Street, Cleator on the 19 January 1871. She went on to have another eight children, all in Cleator, before dying at the birth of her 13th child Robert in August 1884, aged 42. Her children generally fared well and most of them kept in touch with each other. One went back to South Africa, six emigrated to New York, two to Australia, two remained in Cleator, Cumberland, one daughter died in childbirth in Scotland, and a son died aged 8, three years after Mary."

The photographer Joseph Warwick was originally a coal miner who moved from Lambly in Northumberland to Carlisle around 1882. He operated a studio at 46 Sheffield Street until at least the early 1890s, although he was also a book deliverer (1891) and life assurance agent (1901). The later portrait shown above was probably taken shortly before Mary died, between 1882 and 1884.

Jane Wyatt Barnes (1817-1887) of Collycroft, Edlaston

Nigel Aspdin sent me the following image of a photograph and asked me when I thought it had been taken, because he wasn't able to marry up his estimate of the date of the portrait with what he knew about the subject, his ancestor Jane Wyatt Barnes.


It is a 107.5 x 153.5 mm (4¼" x 6") print - possibly a silver gelatin print - mounted on plain thin white card (approx. 126 x 179 mm) with an irregular bevelled and silvered edge, which itself is mounted on more thin white card (approx. 203 x 280 mm) with a slightly irregular finish, and a plain irregular edge, and then mounted into a buff coloured folder (approx. 208 x 286 mm) with a similar rough edge, and with a thinner paper "protector" page. The folder has an oval art noveau-style design (166 x 176 mm) showing a long-haired young woman holding a flower embossed into the front cover. The name of the studio, "R. + R. Bull," has been pencilled into the lower right hand margin of the topmost card mount.


This style of photographic mount first came into use, in its simplest form, in the early 1900s along with the art nouveau movement. At this time a profusion of new formats offered more exciting alternatives to the cabinet card, at the upper end of the market, and the carte de visite, at the lower end. The photographs mounted in folders remained in vogue for many years, becoming more elaborate after the end of the Great War and during the 1920s. I hope to feature other examples of photographic folders from my collection on Photo-Sleuth soon. However, I estimate that this particular example was probably produced in the late 1910s or early 1920s.


The portrait itself, however, is not at all typical of that era. My first impression was that it was from the 1850s or 1860s, but that was largely a guess. After looking at a large range of designs in Victorian Fashions & Costumes from Harper's Bazaar : 1867-1898, by Stella Blum (publ. 1974, Dover Publications, Inc., ISBN 0 486 22990 4), I am a little more knowledgeable, but no nearer an exact date. Bonnets in this broad style appear to have remained in fashion throughout the 1860s and 1870s, particularly when worn by women of more mature years. The lace shawl was an accessory less commonly used by younger women, but was equally long-lived. It may be of relevance that lace running was one of Ashbourne's principal trades in early Victorian times, although by the 1860s, numbers of lace workers had fallen dramatically. [Source: A Portrait Of Ashbourne in the Mid 19th Century, by the Ashbourne Local History Group, edited by Adrian Henstock, 1978]


Click image for reverse of cabinet card
Once I had told Nigel that the photograph was obviously a copy of a photograph taken much earlier, perhaps in the 1860s or 1870s, he had a more detailed look through his collection of family photographs, and found a cabinet card of what appears to be the same, or at least very similar, portrait. The card mount indicates that it was by Robert Bull of Ashbourne, Robert being the uncle of another Robert Bull who joined the business around 1904.


The design of the card mount, produced by Fallowfield of London, is very similar to one used by Derby photographer W.W. Winter (see Type XV) between 1883 and 1886. Roger Vaughan's article, "Dating Victorian Photograph Card Printers c.1864 - 1895," has the firm of Fallowfield operating from c.1884 until 1888. I believe, therefore, that the earlier Bull portrait was almost certainly produced in the early to mid-1880s.


A detailed examination of the earlier portrait suggests that it may also be a copy. It is theoretically possible that both prints were produced from the same original negative. However, Robert Bull probably only started working as a photographer around 1876, and then only as a sideline to the newsagent's business, so reproduction from an original negative appears unlikely. I suspect that both prints were copied from an original portrait taken in the 1860s or early 1870s, and that the later copy was subjected to some retouching. It is even conceivable that the portrait was taken as early as the late 1850s, when the subject was about forty - if this is the case, then the original would have been an ambrotype.

It is perhaps worth noting that the subject's hair completely covers her ears - after about 1867, ears began to be more noticeable in portraits!

It may help to give some background to the subject's life. Jane Wyatt Harlow was born on 30 October 1817, a daughter of Ashbourne brass founder and clockmaker Robert Harlow (1779-1828) and his wife Amelia née Wyatt (1783-1853). She married Thomas Barnes (1810-1858), an ironmonger and grocer, at St Oswald's, Ashbourne on 11 Jan 1842. With him she had two sons and five daughters, before her husband died in 1858, at the relatively young age of 58. She continued to run the grocery and ironmonger's businesses until she was about 60. She lived at Collycroft Farm, near Edlaston, from the mid-1860s, died there at the age of 69, and was buried at St. Oswald's, Ashbourne on 4 January 1887 [Source: Ashbourne St Oswald Burials, by Mike Spencer].

Other References:
IGI, FreeBMD, 1841-1901 Census from Ancestry.co.uk, Derbyshire Wills database 1525-1928 by Mike Spencer

A & G Taylor, Photographers to the World (1)

Over the last couple of years I've been sent several portraits by the firm of A & G Taylor and, although I have a profile of the Derby branch, and there a couple of accounts of the studios on other sites (by Roger Vaughan's study and Peter Stubb's Edinphoto study), it might be interesting for readers to see some images of a selection of their CDVs and cabinet cards here.


The first portrait was sent to me by Diana Mungall, who provided the following background information about her great-grandparents:

I do know it was taken in their Edinburgh studio. The couple came from Harthill, between Glasgow and Edinburgh. He was born in 1843 and she in 1848 and she died in 1882 and he in 1884, and I understand Taylors operated from 63 Princes Street 1878-1910. Is there any information that can be elicited from this photo - he was a farmer (he died in a shooting accident) but looks very far from my idea of a rugged outdoor worker!

Peter Stubb's profile of the Edinburgh branch indicates that it operated from 1878 to 1910. This appears to be a cabinet card and the card mount is of a style commonly used by many A & G Taylor branches through the United Kingdom in the mid-1890s. It is glossy, thick card, probably with a blank reverse. I have a similar cabinet card of my grandfather and great-grandparents, shown below, which was taken - despite the mount indicating "Leeds" - at Derby c. 1896-1897.


The portrait of Diana's great-grandparents was certainly not taken in the mid-1890s. The pose, hair styles and clothing (e.g. her narrow sleeves and pleated bodice) are characteristic of the late 1860s and early 1870s. It is worth comparing the pose with that in the ambrotype shown below, which I have tentatively dated as being from the early 1860s.


The woman's hair style, drawn back well behind the ears, suggests that its was taken in the late 1860s, rather than early to mid-1860s, when only some of none of her ears would be showing. The cabinet card must therefore be a copy made of the original portrait, probably a carte de visite, some 25 years or so later. The couple appear fairly young to me, perhaps in their early 20s, and it may well have been a wedding portrait, as I have assumed for the ambrotype shown above. My guess is that the couple would have been born between 1842 and 1850, and I hope this fits with the dates that Diana has forher great-grandparents.

Another Burton cdv - a word of caution about inscriptions

This image of an early carte de visite by John Burton & Compy. of Leicester and Birmingham was sent to me by James Morley, and was the subject of some discussion on the UK-Photographers Rootsweb Mailing List. I include it here, not only as a very early example of this well known photographer's work - see my previous posting about this firm - but also because it shows the dangers in taking inscriptions on photographs at face value.



James originally posted this photo on the WhatsThatPicture site. Reading the entries posted there and on the mailing list will tell the full story. It was originally thought that the young child apparently identified on the reverse of the mount as "Mildred" could have been the Mildred Chataway (born c. 1870), daughter of the Rector of Peckleton, Thomas E. Chataway, and his wife Catherine. However, several features of the photograph and mount suggest that it was taken perhaps a decade earlier than this interpretation would suggest:

• The full length seated pose is one which was commonly used in the 1850s, with daguerreotypes and ambrotypes, and 1860s, but the angled view - rather than direct frontal - is more characteristic, in my experierence, of the early 1860s. It is worth comparing it with this photo of a mother and child from London in Roger Vaughan's collection, dated 1862.
  
• Her hair completely covers her ears - another feature which points to the early 1860s. By the mid-1860s, ear lobes could often be seen, particular those of younger women, and they were fully exposed to the elements by the late 1860s. Also common in the early 1860s was the drawing back of the hair into a bun on the back of her head - almost, but perhaps not quite, a snood.
  
• The very wide sleeves and crinoline dress with velvety bands and very full skirts are characteristic of the early to mid 1860s, typified by the dress worn by the woman in another of Roger's photos, also from c. 1862. The wider sleeves tended to disappear by c.1864, exept on older women.
  
• The simple text with no adornment or logo on the reverse of the card mount points to a very early date. It was obviously produced after the opening of the branch studio in New Street, Birmingham (given by Sandy Barrie as 1861) and possibly before the Derby & Nottingham studios were opened in 1862 or 1863. Other early examples on my site are unfortunately not accurately dated, although estimates provided by David Simkin give c. 1861-1863. They all have more ornate logos than this one.

The rounded corners are unusual for the early 1860s, as is the shape of the carte de visite. The possibility has been considered that the rounding was produced by wear (in James Morley's words):

As for the rounded corners, I am in two minds. Some do look damaged, but top-left seems almost too perfect a curve. At the same time all four corners are very similar, whereas I would normally expect any damage to be uneven, particularly top-to-bottom.

The card mount measures 64 x 96 mm (photo 52.5 x 86 mm), which is somewhat shorter than the usual 64 x 104-106 mm for a carte de visite of that era. It is possible that it was an experimental format being trialled by Burton. The "Burton & Compy." on the reverse may have some significance. It has been suggested that the firm started using the name "Burton & Sons" with some regularity from about 1864, and it seems likely that the "& Compy." suffix was used before John Burton's sons became formally recognised as part of the business. However, I don't have evidence for this. As Sandy has pointed out, production of new card mounts was erratic, particularly in the early days, and it is dangerous to interpret too much from the "& Compy." Now that we have a date of c. 1860-1864 for the photograph, a further investigation can be made into the inscription. The 1871 Census indexed by Ancestry only shows one Mildred Chat(t)away, aged 10 months, in Peckleton, Leicestershire. I used wildcards in the search parameters (Mild* and Chat*w*y) to cater for alternative spellings, but there is always potential for transcription errors, so other candidates can't be ruled out. However, the FreeBMD index to birth, marriage and death records, which has almost 100% coverage of the period in question, only shows one Mildred Chat(t)away born in England between 1850 and 1880: - Births Sep Qtr 1870 : Chataway Mildred Market Bosworth Regn Dist, Vol 7a Pg 61 This makes it very unlikely that the child in the photo is Mildred Chataway, and it the possibility needs to be considered that the inscription was made at a much later date, and in error. The 1871 Census entry for this family shows a number of other older daughters of Rev. Thomas and his wife Catherine: 1871 Census: The Vicarage, Peckleton LEI Ref. RG10/3240/7/7-8/40: Thomas E. CHATTAWAY / Head / M / M / 44 / Rector of Peckleton / WAR Birmingham Catherine S. CHATTAWAY / Wife / M / F / 37 / - / WOR Redditch Katherine A. CHATTAWAY / Dau / - / F / 13 / Scholar / NTH Ecton Agnes G. CHATTAWAY / Dau / - / F / 7 / Scholar / NTH Ecton Margaret A. CHATTAWAY / Dau / - / F / 6 / - / LEI Peckleton Christiana M. CHATTAWAY / Dau / - / F / 4 / - / LEI Peckleton Ella B. CHATTAWAY / Dau / - / F / 3 / - / LEI Peckleton Mildred CHATTAWAY / Dau / - / F / 10m / - / LEI Peckleton Catherine CHATTAWAY / Mother / Wid / F / 81 / Annuitant / WAR Coventry Jessie M. GORHAM / Board / U / F / 23 / Governess / KNT Tunbridge Cecile C.V. KERR / Board / U / F / 14 / Scholar / Gibraltar Mary BARWELL / Serv / U / F / 33 / Cook Domestic / LEI Carlton Lucy LUCAS / Serv / U / F / 28 / Nurse Domestic / NTH Church Stone? Hannah JACQUES / Serv / U / F / 21 / Housemaid Domestic / STS Walsall Emma BENT / Serv / U / F / 20 / Housemaid Domestic / LEI Peckleton Martha AMOS / Serv / U / F / 14 / Under Nurse / NTH Badby
FreeBMD demonstrates that the birth of the oldest daughter, Katherine Ada Chataway, was registered in early 1858 in the Wellingborough Registration District, which includes the village of Ecton. I estimate an age of between two and three years for the girl, so Katherine might be a potential candidate if the photograph was taken, as suggested between 1860 and 1864. Birth locations of the children shown in the above census extract indicate that the family moved from Ecton (Northamptonshire) to Peckleton (Leicestershire) some time between the births of Agnes Georgina, in late 1863, and Margaret Anne, in early 1865. If indeed this picture is of members of the Chataway family, and that is by no means certain, then it is unlikely to have been taken prior to late 1863, by which time Katherine would have been almost six years old. In that case, it is more likely to have been a different daughter, perhaps Fanny Mabel, who was born at Ecton in early 1861 and died at Peckleton, aged 5, in the first half of 1866.

Many thanks to James Morley for permission to use the images of this photograph, to James, Sandy Barrie and Marcel Safier for their interesting and informative contributions to the discussion, and to Roger Vaughan and David Simkin for examples used.

Ambrotypes - portraits for the middle class

Although photography had been "invented" by Louis Daguerre and William Henry Fox Talbot in the late 1830s, the daguerreotype remained expensive, and only affordable to the relatively wealthy, including the professional and political classes. With the introduction by Frederick Scott Archer of the glass negative process in 1851, and the ambrotype three years later, the cost was reduced considerably - they were available for between sixpence and a shilling - and photographic portraiture became easily accessible to the middle class. In contrast to daguerreotypes, which remain fairly rare, there are still many ambrotypes in existence in family collections, and you may well have one among your old family heirlooms. Although ambrotypes continued in occasional use until about 1880, they were most popular in the decade from 1855 until 1865, after which they were overtaken and superseded by the carte de visite.

The ambrotype was created by coating a glass plate with collodion and photosensitive silver nitrate. The plate was exposed in a camera, then quickly taken out and treated in a dark room with a developing solution to bring out the image. This produced a photographic negative which was then backed with something dark, such as dark felt or black varnish, which had the effect of inverting the image. It was then mounted and framed or cased, as had been the daguerreotype.


The ambrotype shown above is one from my own small collection. Unusually for Victorian portraits, both subjects are smiling, and she is grasping his hand quite firmly, which is what attracted me to it in the first instance. Unfortunately it has lost the frame or case in which it would have originally been mounted, but the the thin gilded, pressed metal, decorative frame is still present and in good condition. It shows the characteristic greyish appearance of an ambrotype - few of them have any of the lighter shades, and if you see lighter areas, it is wise to look for signs of touching up or that it may in fact be a cased tintype.

The three-quarter length portrait is of an unidentified seated couple, perhaps in their mid- to late 20s. I think they must be a recently married couple, because her wedding ring, earrings and the brooch at her neck, as well as his shirt buttons, have been highlighted with gold paint. It is interesting to note that the ring is on her left hand. As the ambrotype was a negative, the image would be reversed and ring should have been on her right hand. The photographer appears to have anticipated the problem, and perhaps instructed her to change the ring to the opposite hand and finger. As the enlarged and enhanced image below shows, however, she appears to also have a less prominent - and ungilded - ring on her "right" hand! The photographer's artist obviously took some liberties. The buttons on the gentleman's shirt and waistcoat give the game away, as they appear to be done up on the wrong side.


Typically for portraits from the mid- to late 1850s, they are seated side by side. This pose was not commonly used again in portraiture, except in the case of larger groups, and by some less experienced artists, until much later in the century. The woman's clothing (bell-shaped, layered and fringed sleeves, pleated bodice closed at the top with a gold brooch and trimmed with a lace collar, pointing downwards to a tightly corseted waist; a single full, ground-length skirt) and hair style (centrally parted, curved back down over the forehead to almost cover her ears, and drawn back to a bun on the back of her head) are indicative of the mid-1850s. The young man is wearing what appears to be a frock coat, simple dark waistcoat, and shirt with a turned over collar and rather untidily knotted bowtie. He has a slight Quaker-style chin-beard, with only a suggestion of a moustache, and hair parted on his "left"(right)-hand side.

I estimate that this was quite an early ambrotype, and probably dates from between 1854 and 1857. Nobody looks quite the same in the mirror - in other words, nobody has an absolutely symmetrical face. For the first time in a century and a half, we can now view the photo as it might have been printed more accurately, had the technology been available at the time.


References:
Dating Family Photos 1850-1920, by Lenore Frost, self publ. 1991, Essendon, Victoria, Australia.
Family Photographs 1860-1945, by Robert Pols, publ. 2002 by Public Record Office, London, England.