Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ancestry/Genealogy

tclambert

(11,156 posts)

11. Is the one on the front left little Teddy Roosevelt?

Reply to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Oct 23, 2014, 02:28 PM

Oct 2014

And you in the back! Close your mouth!

Some of the girls remind me of the twins from the The Shining.

Seriously, in 1880s photography, didn't the subjects have to hold still for several seconds? That many kids and none of them blurry means they had to take the photo in an instant. In the second row, there's a little girl with short hair and bangs. Don't know if that's a clue. But perhaps someone can look at historical hairstyles as well as clothing to make an estimate.

And it can't be Canada. Back then (you know, before 1960), Canada only had fur trappers and Eskimos.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

can you tell the era of this photo? [View all] grasswire Oct 2014 OP

The "11" might be 1911. Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2014 #1

Not grade II? Roman numeral 2? MADem Oct 2014 #10

Yeah, probably 2nd grade with roman numerals.... Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2014 #14

I think it's Victorian into Edwardian, but that's just a guess. MADem Oct 2014 #21

True, but this is a real challenge Shoonra Oct 2014 #35

Look at the shadowing.... Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2014 #36

that's a very interesting observation. grasswire Oct 2014 #37

It would explain the look on some of the faces too... Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2014 #39

I agree with 1911 swilton Oct 2014 #33

The clothing looks to me to be the same as worn in Grandma's family photo from 1903 DesertDiamond Oct 2014 #2

I'm into family genealogy... ReRe Oct 2014 #3

High button shoes on the kids; girls in ringlets; boys in short pants and Little Lord... Hekate Oct 2014 #4

I agree with the others kdmorris Oct 2014 #5

The Fauntleroy suit, 1886 PADemD Oct 2014 #6

Those boys have a very scaled down version. My dad was born in 1918, and there's a photo of him... Hekate Oct 2014 #15

How precise do you want it? malthaussen Oct 2014 #7

I agree with that. I'd say late nineteenth century myself. Fortinbras Armstrong Oct 2014 #13

1880's, maybe? gregcrawford Oct 2014 #8

thanks for input, everyone grasswire Oct 2014 #9

Do you know why people are frowning in early photographs? Hestia Oct 2014 #16

Is the one on the front left little Teddy Roosevelt? tclambert Oct 2014 #11

haha! grasswire Oct 2014 #12

sailor suits + such were big in a repro sears catalogue i had from 1894. pansypoo53219 Oct 2014 #17

This children are dressed the way the children in a family portrait I have were Jack Rabbit Oct 2014 #18

I'm more inclined to this time... MrMickeysMom Oct 2014 #19

I'm more inclined to go with pre-WWI. No Vested Interest Oct 2014 #20

Lace collars, to indicate a formal occasion--sort of like a little kid's cravat! nt MADem Oct 2014 #22

I don't know but thanks for posting. oldandhappy Oct 2014 #23

Not a single child is smiling. Curious. Helen Borg Oct 2014 #24

Back then, taking a photo involved standing very still for a long time. Maedhros Oct 2014 #25

Some studio portraits used a metal support to hold the head steady. alfredo Oct 2014 #34

WWI? valerief Oct 2014 #26

I love old photos . . . markpkessinger Oct 2014 #27

It has to be late 1800s - 1920s proReality Oct 2014 #28

I know the answer. Helen Borg Oct 2014 #29

1900-1920 nt newfie11 Oct 2014 #30

I am thinking 1890's. evemac Oct 2014 #31

Late 1890s. nt sarge43 Oct 2014 #32

viewing this generationally... grasswire Oct 2014 #38