can you tell the era of this photo?

[grasswire]

Last edited Thu Oct 23, 2014, 01:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Wondering if anyone has an idea which decade this photo might represent, from the style of the clothing. It's a family photo but I don't recognize anyone. If I could get an idea, I might be able to identify someone. It likely was taken in either Ontario or Saskatchewan.

Thanks in advance!


try again!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

1. The "11" might be 1911.

[MADem]

10. Not grade II? Roman numeral 2?

To me, that looks like the very late 1800s, very early 1900s. Victorian-into-Edwardian eras.

The big bow in the hair of the girls and the curls are a clue. Also, the Little Lord Fauntleroy collars and knickerbocker trousers on the boys. See:


http://www.victorianweb.org/art/costume/nunn14.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. Yeah, probably 2nd grade with roman numerals....

Others have got it in a 40 year range which has the accuracy of a drone strike.

[MADem]

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

Queenie died in what, 1901?

If I were forced to guess a date, I'd put it in the very beginning of the 20th century.

[Shoonra]

35. True, but this is a real challenge

We don't even know for sure which city, much less the school. My guess would be after photography was advanced enough to enable inexpensive prints involving a multitude of children (because it would mean a fast shutter speed, otherwise some of the kids would move and be blurred) and before 1910. Yes that's about a 40 year range. Almost any additional details to the photo - such as the inclusion of an adult - would have helped.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

36. Look at the shadowing....

Also the way whites are washed out.

Fingers aren't blurred. All of this leads to the obvious use of flash powder.

[grasswire]

37. that's a very interesting observation.

I had wondered about those white areas. Flash powder.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. It would explain the look on some of the faces too...

It also explains why there are very few pictures of people holding cats back then as they became a ball of hair, teeth and claws.

[swilton]

33. I agree with 1911

I have a picture of my father in a very similar suit when he was about 5 and his birth year was 1909.

[DesertDiamond]

2. The clothing looks to me to be the same as worn in Grandma's family photo from 1903

[ReRe]

3. I'm into family genealogy...

... and have seen many old group photos like this. I'd say it was around 1900, give or take a few years.

[Hekate]

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

...Fauntleroy collars. I agree with the others that this is turn-of-the-last-century.

It's an adorable elementary class photo. I wish you luck in identifying your relative(s).

[kdmorris]

5. I agree with the others

I would say it was taken around the beginning of the 20th century (1900-1915)

[PADemD]

6. The Fauntleroy suit, 1886

The classic Fauntleroy suit was a velvet cut-away jacket and matching knee pants worn with a fancy blouse with a large lace or ruffled collar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Lord_Fauntleroy

[Hekate]

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

... about the age of 4, with his red curls done in shoulder-length ringlets, and wearing a version of that fancy little suit.

In the school photo in the OP, some of those collars look like mama tied them on for the photo.

[malthaussen]

7. How precise do you want it?

1900, plus or minus 10. I lean more to before the turn of the century, but it could be after.

-- Mal

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

13. I agree with that. I'd say late nineteenth century myself.

[gregcrawford]

8. 1880's, maybe?

The "Little Lord Fauntleroy" outfits would place it around then, I think. I'll bet the "11" is actually a Roman numeral ("II&quot indicating the second grade class. The kids look about that age.

[grasswire]

9. thanks for input, everyone

I am leaning toward slightly before turn of century as well.

No one looks very happy!

[Hestia]

16. Do you know why people are frowning in early photographs?

It is because people were expected to sit still for 4 minutes (!) to have their picture taken, and there is no way a person can hold a smile for that long; hence, frowning/still faces in early photographs. As photography improved and less time needed, then you start to see the smiling, happy faces.

Just an FYI

[tclambert]

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

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.

[grasswire]

12. haha!

It is sort of amazing to look back at the fact that great parts of Canada were still unsettled in the late 18th century. My Loyalist family members who fled New England at the end of the Rev. War were the first white settlers in part of Ontario. And my grandparents homesteaded on the lonely prairie of Saskatchewan in the early 1900s.

I have considered that when looking at this photo. Although the wood background is rustic, the fact that the kids are all the same age means it isn't a one-room school, which would have been the case on the prairie. It must have been a fair-sized community.

[pansypoo53219]

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

victorian hair on some girls. could be 1890's.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. This children are dressed the way the children in a family portrait I have were

My mother is in the picture. It was her first Thanksgiving, so the photo was taken in 1914.

[MrMickeysMom]

19. I'm more inclined to this time...

Mainly cause that's the year my mother was born. It may have been as late as 1920, but the collar and dress are more like the "teens".

[No Vested Interest]

20. I'm more inclined to go with pre-WWI.

I'm not sure that girls' hair was so loose and flowing before 1900.
I have a photo of my father in ca 1910 actually in a dress and long hair. He was raised by aunts and grandnother after his mother die shortly after his birth in 1905, so they might have dressed him like that.

What are those white things around most of the boys' necks?

[MADem]

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

[oldandhappy]

23. I don't know but thanks for posting.

I love these old photos. What a treasure. Take good care of it. Priceless.

[Helen Borg]

24. Not a single child is smiling. Curious.

[Maedhros]

25. Back then, taking a photo involved standing very still for a long time.

Hard to keep a smile up that long.

[alfredo]

34. Some studio portraits used a metal support to hold the head steady.

[valerief]

26. WWI?

[markpkessinger]

27. I love old photos . . .

. . . and am very lucky to have a treasure trove of my own family's photos that have been preserved for several generations. Here's one I am particularly fond of:

?oh=16efb4b20fe87467a34eb3d55590fa99&oe=54EE8C37&__gda__=1424544261_e7dd45e4712988292b99da599b22b439

This was taken in about 1908. The little boy on the left is my grandrafther, Thomas F. Kessinger. The second from the left is unidentified. The third from the left -- the "hippie" dude (50 years before his time) is my great grandfather, William F. Kessinger, and on the right, my great great grandfather, Henry F. Kessinger. The field in which they are standing was on Henry's farm in Centre County, PA -- the spot is less than a mile from the house in which my father was born in 1927, and in which he died in 2000, the same house I grew up in.

[proReality]

28. It has to be late 1800s - 1920s

That's when the Little Lord Fauntleroy and Buster Brown suits were in style for boys.

[Helen Borg]

29. I know the answer.

It's old.

[newfie11]

30. 1900-1920 nt

[evemac]

31. I am thinking 1890's.

I have pictures of my grandmother who was born in 1901, and the quality of the photograph seems just a little bit older.

[sarge43]

32. Late 1890s. nt

[grasswire]

38. viewing this generationally...

my grandfather was born in 1874. If this was his class, it would have been about 1881. Do the clothes fit 1881? My grandmother would have been about seven years old in 1883. Does this fit 1883?

My father would have been in second grade in about 1917. I don't think these clothes fit 1917, plus the fact that he attended a one room school then, on the prairies in Saskatchewan.

Therefore, the clues lead me to believe this was my grandfather's/grandmother's generation. Of course it could be a cousin's class, or that of one of his/her siblings. I doubt that school photographs were as they are now, with many multiple copies for each student.