Skarb z Pchli Targ

I'm back blogging again, after a lengthy layoff while I dealt with a thesis, the summer holidays and general torpitude. With that now all out of the way I'm hoping to get back into a regular - and frequent - blogging schedule with a lot of interesting new projects and ideas, but more about that later. I'd also like to offer a rather belated welcome to those who've joined the list of "blog followers" since I last posted, and apologise for the lack of activity since July last year. I hope I can make amends.


For the moment, I'd like to share this postcard portrait of a well dressed Polish family in a well appointed studio setting (Apologies to those who attended Miriam's Scanfest on Sunday - you've already had a preview). It was sent to me by fellow photo-sleuth Nigel, who picked it up in a pchli targ in Kraków while on a flying visit there in January. Knowing how much I enjoy receiving postcards from around the world, he struggled at first to find something suitable, but this excellent find from a street market very near to the old Jewish ghetto he sent under separate cover, and it certainly hits the mark. The only trouble is, I can't bluetack it up in the kitchen with all the others, or it would be ruined. By the way, if you haven't worked out the meaning of "Skarb z Pchli Targ" yet, I suggest you try Google Translate.

It is tempting to think of the family as Jewish, but of course there is no evidence that they were. From the type of postcard and the style of both the studio setting and the subjects' clothing, I estimate that it was taken around 1908-1912, at which time Krakow was part of Austrian Galicia. The side table looks to me a stylish example of Art Nouveau furniture, but more than that I'm afraid I'll have to leave for the experts.


The reverse of the postcard provides few clues. Apart from the vertical dividing line and lines for the address, there is no photographer's name, only what may be a street address, written in pencil: "Rochim a 281." This could mean Rochim aleja 281 or 281 Rochim Avenue. Alternatively Rochim could be a surname.

I wonder if any readers - at least those who've hung on this long - can offer any further comments on this delightful postcard portrait? Oh, and thank you, Nigel.

Edward Montague Treble (1869-1925) of Derby

The two postcard portraits featured in this post, which were a recent purchase, are typical of the style which became particular popular before, during and after the Great War (1914-1918).


Apart from the use of the postcard format, which brought the price of studio portraits within reach of practically everyone, the pose is a complete contrast to those characteristic of a decade or two earlier. The stiff formally arranged family group, often in a symmetrical triangular, diamond, W or inverted-W pattern has been replaced by an asymmetrical distribution. However, the most striking difference in this style of portrait is that the subjects are smiling. Well, the children are; while their mother is perhaps trying, she doesn't seem to be able to put out of her mind the Victorian studio habits that she grew up with. The chintz-covered chaise longue is fairly typical of the Edwardian period between the turn of the century and the Great War.


The 1910s also saw a return to the spartan studio settings not seen for several decades. Here the subject is perched on a plaster bench left over from the excesses of the 1890s, but the remaining background has been stripped to the bare essentials - a plain floor and wall, probably purposely light in colour in order to bring out the detail in the girl's clothing, which might otherwise have appeared somewhat washed out. With a child of this age, the ball that she is holding is less likely to have been used to keep her from fidgetting, but more as a simple accessory.


The use of generic, mass-produced postcards enabled the studios to reduce the cost of production even further. Some of them would be stamped on the reverse with the the photographer's or studio's name, but a method used very commonly from the early 1900s until the 1930s was the blind stamp. This involved the embossing of text, an image or a logo, or a combination of these, onto the postcard without using ink or gilding. Although printed, embossed card mounts were produced by the same studios, they were able to offer these standard, stock-in-trade postcards very cheaply indeed.

Edward Montague Treble was born in Hastings, Sussex in 1859, the youngest son of artist & photographer Frederick Treble and Elizabeth Wyndham. His father at various times operated from premises in Nottingham, Yeovil, Salisbury, Hastings, London, Brighton and Norwich, and his older brother Charles Frederick Treble also became a photographer, with studios in London, Norwich and Great Yarmouth. E.M. Treble possibly trained with his father before working as a photographer's manager in Yardley, Worcestershire, and appears to have moved to Derby in around 1912, when he took over the studio of C.F. Dereské in East Street. He was in business at least until the mid- to late 1920s.

An early Seaman portrait : Mary Louisa Gaunt (1869-1965)

Bill Addy from New Jersey in the United States sent me this image of a carte de visite portrait of his paternal grandmother Mary Louisa Gaunt.

The photo is of my grandmother Mary Louisa Gaunt (not married at the time) who was born 7 Dec 1869 in New Brampton and died 27 Dec 1965 at Roosevelt Hospital, Edison, NJ, USA. She emigrated to Canada Oct 1895 and married my grandfather Edward Addy, Oct 23, 1895 in Magog, Quebec, Canada. He had come a few years earlier and was working in Magog at the time. He was born at Moorhay Farm near Old Brampton where the family had farmed for many years. In 1900 with three young children they emigrated from Canada to New Brunswick, NJ, USA where my grandfather worked for Johnson & Johnson, the pharmaceutical company (world headquarters) as a supervisor.

The photo was recently found in our attic and had been in possession of my grandparents and then our parents. I can only guess the age of the photo as taken sometime in the mid to late 1880's. Perhaps you can narrow it down further.

The card mount, the reverse of which is shown above, has a similar design to one that I have estimated (in my profile of the studio of Alfred Seaman & Sons) was used between c.1881 and 1886, but with gold ink on a glossy dark brown card instead of dark brown ink on a pale yellow or beige card (see below). It is worth noting that in very busy studios such as this one, new batches of card mounts were probably ordered on a fairly frequent basis, perhaps as often as every six months to a year. One of Alfred Seaman's sons probably started to work for him as early as 1881, but I don't believe that the firm was actually advertised as "A. Seaman & Sons" (later it was more often just "Seaman & Sons") until around 1887. This card mount merely uses the name, "A. Seaman." The reverse of the card mount lists the branches in Brewery and Burlington Streets. By May 1886, the Burlington Street branch appears to have been closed and replaced by another in Corporation Street, so we can surmise that the card mounts were at least ordered prior to that date. It also seems have been produced before to their opening of another branch studio in Ilkeston, which happened around 1886-1887.

The clothes worn by the girl/young woman, the style of the photograph and the design of the carte de visite card mount all point to a date of the early to mid 1880s, perhaps slightly earlier than the mid- to late 1880s which Bill suggested. The tight, frilled collar, with a brooch at her neck, the shape of the hat, the rounded shoulders, vertical row of buttons, and tight, narrow sleeves all suggest to me a date of between 1882 and 1886-ish. The intricate and elaborate embroidery on the tight-fitting bodice of her dress, especially, is characteristic of this period. There is a similar example on Roger Vaughan's web site, tentatively dated at 1883.

I suggest, therefore, that this portrait was probably taken between c.1884 and early 1886. It's difficult to accurately estimate the age of the young woman in your photograph, particularly as she may have been wearing a corset, but I think she is probably in her mid-teens, say between 14 and 17. This appears to fit well with your identification of the subject as your grandmother Mary Louisa Gaunt, who was born on 7 December 1869 - she would have been fifteen years old for most of 1885.


It's also worth noting that the item of studio furniture - actually a fake pillar and balustrade, probably made of wood and plaster - is identical to that pictured in a portrait of an unidentified couple sent to me by John Bradley, and included on my Seaman web page. That one is on what I have assumed to be the slightly earlier "dark brown on pale yellow" card mount, and must, I think, have been taken at around the same time as Bill's photograph. The painted backdrop may be different, although it is more likely to be just another part of the same one.

What happened to Patience?

This cabinet card by the Wellington (New Zealand) studio of Connolly and Herrmann shows a young woman, perhaps looking slightly unhappy, in a typical late 1880s dress with high collar, tight boddice, rounded shoulders and bustle.


The studio set up is fairly rudimentary, showing a two-panel backdrop crudely painted with wood panelling, ornamented column and an open window, showing some vaguely tropical plants outisde. The centrepiece is an extraordinary home-made contraption, looking like something between a tree trunk and a bird's nest, the latter acting as a receptacle for a fern of some kind. To complete the furnishings, two rectangular fur rugs - one looks like sheepskin, while the other may be possum fur - have been placed on an unpatterned floor.

James Connolly and Richard Hermann (also spelled Herrmann) both worked as photographers in Wellington in the 1880s. Connolly was in partnership with Pierce Mott Casneau on Lambton Quay from c.1882 until 1885. He then collaborated with Richard Hermann, the studio being referred to as either Connolly & Co. or Connolly & Herrmann, until that partnership was dissolved in 1889. Wise's New Zealand Directory for 1890/1891 lists the firm of Connolly, Beauchamp and Price with a studio on Lambton Quay, but this was probably also fairly short-lived, since it was reported to have been taken over by William Henry Scott Kinsey in 1892. Richard Hermann and his wife Louisa arrived in New Zealand (from Birmingham, England) in 1880. After 1889, they established their own studio in Cuba Street. Richard died in 1892; his widow Louisa M. Hermann took over and continued to run the business until at least 1902.


The reverse of the card mount is a fairly typical mid-1880s design, with diagonal "signature," coat of arms, the use of several fonts and ornate scrollwork. An inscription in ink pen on the reverse, apparently contemporary with the photograph itself, identifies the subject as, "Patience Amanda Pinhey" and states that the portrait was "taken in N.Z. aged 22 yrs 1889."

I eventually managed to track down Patience Amanda Pinhey through the indexed census records at Ancestry. She was born in late 1867 in the village of Loddiswell, South Hams, Devon, England, the eighth of ten children of farmer William Henry Pinhey (or Pinhay) and his wife Susan. In 1881, the census shows Patience working as a domestic servant in the household of farmer Richard Pinhey and his wife Betsey, presumably relations of some sort, in the nearby village of South Brent. Her parents had moved to Middle Bradleigh Farm, where her father was working as an agricultural labourer.

Some time between April 1881 and 1891, the family appear to have emigrated, as I can find no evidence of them on the UK Census. From information provided by Graeme Ardern, who is distantly related to the family, it appears that Patience's eldest brother Nelson Albert Pinhey (1858-1926) was married at Ippleton in Devonshire and emigrated shortly after, arriving in Wellington on board the early steamship SS Aorangi on 15 September 1884, after a journey of six and a half weeks. After a few weeks "they settled on a farm called Fernridge, at Wangaehu, Masterton."

I presume that the remainder of the family also went to New Zealand at about this time, from the existence of this portrait, taken in Wellington. It seems quite possible that Patience was married not long after the date of the portrait, and her surname would have changed, but what happened to the rest of the Pinheys? It was a big family, so there must be some sign of them somewhere.

William Henry (or John) PINHEY b. c.1825 Diptford DEV m: Susan (surname unknown) b. c.1830 Stockingham DEV
- Nelson Albert PINHEY b. 1857 Diptford DEV
- Dora Anne/Anna PINHEY b. 1859 Diptford DEV
- Alice PINHEY b. 1860 Loddisham DEV
- Valentine PINHEY b. 1862 Loddisham DEV
- John Southwood PINHEY b. 1863 Loddisham DEV
- Stanley & William Oscar PINHEY (twins) b. 1865 Loddisham DEV
- Patience Amanda PINHEY b. 1867 Loddisham DEV
- Reginald PINHEY b. 1869 Loddisham DEV
- Susan Southwood PINHEY b. 1871 Loddisham DEV
- Matilda PINHEY b. 1873 Loddisham DEV

It is possible that the parents later returned to England, as I found some potential death index entries on FreeBMD, as follows:
Deaths Dec 1900 - Pinhey William Henry, aged 74, Kingsbridge R.D., Vol 5b Fol 127
Deaths Mar 1908 - PINHEY Susan, aged 77, Totnes R.D., Vol 5b Fol 131

If any readers out there are able to find this family after 1881, I would be most grateful to hear from you (Email).

References

Auckland City Libraries Photographers Database
Knight, Hardwicke (1971) Photography in New Zealand, A Social and Technical History, John McIndoe, Dunedin
Knight, Hardwicke (1981) New Zealand Photographers, A Selection, Allied Press Ltd., Auckland.
Roger Vaughan's Date an old UK Photograph
Transcribed Indexes to the GRO Birth, Marriage & Death Records from FreeBMD
Indexed 1841-1901 Census Records & Images from Ancestry

Two family portraits, at opposite ends of the price range

The first portrait is a carte de visite by an unknown photographer of an unidentified young family.


The mother and father look to be in their late twenties to early thirties, and early to mid-thirties, respectively, while the four children are perhaps aged between one and eight. The two adults appear to be seated on some kind of bench, although that is hidden from view. The youngest child is being held in the crook of her mother's arm, on her lap, while another two children, hats in hand, are held close, perhaps to keep them still for the lengthy exposure time - all three of them lean shyly towards their parents. The oldest child, a girl, is more independent, standing to the side of her father, with an inquisitive, almost expectant, look on her face.

Both the photographic print and the card mount have been trimmed very roughly, so that they are only approximately rectangular. The card mount has not been printed and has no marks identifying the photographer. However, some inferences can perhaps be made by the rudimentary nature of the setting. While he has used a canvas backdrop, the photographer has made little effort to disguise the fact that it has been taken outdoors. In such circumstances, it was quite common to use a carpet to obscure the rough grass foreground, but in this picture the patchy grass, with what appear to be some scattered stones, is clear. The ends of two planks at the right are perhaps part of the frame used to hold up the canvas backdrop, presumably included in the view unintentionally. A column is, I think, painted on the backdrop, although at the base of the column the plinth, carefully aligned, is probably an actual piece of studio furniture, rather than a continuation of the painting. The photograph is also crooked. This may have been because the camera was not level, but it could also have been the effect of poor trimming of the print.


Handwritten on the reverse, in what appears to be a contemporary hand, is the date, "February 1871." The clothes worn by the subjects, the style of portrait, and thickness and square corners of the card mount are all compatible with this date, so I have no reason to doubt that the portrait was taken at this time.

The almost amateur nature of the whole picture, and the use of plain, unprinted card stock, indicates that it was probably taken by an itinerant or travelling photographer, and perhaps a relatively inexperienced one at that. It is likely that the portraits were very cheap, in comparison with prices charged by urban photographers with permanent studios and established reputations. Although the subjects appear to be dressed in their Sunday best, the clothes are plain, with the implication that they are working class, maybe country folk.


The second portrait was taken some thirty years later, I estimate in the first few years of the twentieth century, perhaps c. 1900-1905. It is a cabinet card with square corners by A. & G. Taylor of 63 Princes Street, Edinburgh, showing a middle-aged couple in their late forties or early fifties, with three children, a boy aged six or seven and two girls aged about twelve and sixteen. They are, once again, unidentified. The portrait has been taken in a lavishly decorated studio setting, with heavy curtains and an elaborately painted backrop framing the family, who have been carefully positioned, the children standing in an asymmetrical but not unbalanced group between the two seated adults. The clothing and poses intimate a middle or upper class family.

Sailor & sport suits for children in the late 1890s and early 1900s

I recently received this engaging cabinet card portrait of a young boy from fellow South Derbyshire researcher Hilary Linnington. Hilary told me that she doesn't have a definite identification of this boy, and wondered if I might be able to provide a date, which could help her pinpoint which child in which branch of the family it might be.


The photographer George Vaughan Sankey (1842-1912) operated a studio at premises in Woodville, Swadlincote and Church Gresley between 1881 and his death in 1912. Unfortunately, I don't have enough of a handle on either the photographer's movements or the changes in card mount designs to be able to infer a date this way.

I wondered, therefore, whether an examination of the boy's clothing might help to some extent. Although I am not very knowledgeable about childrens' clothing, I spent some time browsing the pictures in Joanne Olian's book, "Children's Fashions 1860-1912 : 1,065 Costume Designs from 'La Mode Illustrée'" (1994, Dover Publications, ISBN 0 486 27615 5). Although the sailor suit as a choice for both girls' and boys' clothing underwent numerous revivals in popularity from the 1860s until at least the early 1900s, this particular version appears to match most closely an outfit which appeared in "Magasins du Louvre" in 1896, as shown below.


Sailor suit, 1896
from Children's Fashions 1860-1912
I suspect that it may have taken a year or two for this fashion to filter through the smaller towns of the rural English Midlands, and based on clothing alone I would therefore tentatively date it to somewhere between 1898 and 1901.


I note also that the item of furniture on which the boy is seated - I hesitate to call it a table, because it is almost certainly a piece designed especially for use as a studio prop - is one which appeared in another of Sankey's portraits, which I originally dated at c. 1892-1895, but which on further reflection I think may have been taken some fifteen years later. The costumes shown below, taken from the same source as those shown above, are described as sport or travel suits for 12 to 15 year-old boys, and dated 1910. The picture above has a distinctly Edwardian, rather than Victorian, feel to it, both in the design on the reverse of the card mount and the cut of clothing.


Sport or travel suits for 12 to 15 year-old boys, 1912
from Children's Fashions 1860-1912
Although the photographer could have used the same studio props for many years, perhaps the existence of this same item in both portraits by Sankey suggests a slightly later date for the first, i.e. shortly after the turn of the century? I then found a cheviot suit design from 1905, pictured below, which shows many similarities with that worn by the boy in Hilary's photograph, particularly in the waistcoat. This would tend to support a slightly later date of c.1905-1910.


Cheviot suit, 1905
from Children's Fashions 1860-1912