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

Shoonra

(571 posts)

35. True, but this is a real challenge

Reply to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 12:56 AM

Oct 2014

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.

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