When Was That?

Grandpa and Babies Photo

Todays photo has an exact date and photographers imprint, and two of the three subjects are identified. Our goal is to see if we can identify the third subject, simply referred to as ‘grandpa’ in the inscription.

Here is the image, a cabinet card, showing front and back:

As you can see, the photographer’s imprint is on front:

B Nauschuetz, No. 221 Sharer Street, San Antonio, Texas.

On back is the inked inscription:

Grandpa & babies
Allie Lee Weatherly
5 yrs and 14 days
Sydney Morrill Radliff
3 yrs 1 mo. 24 days
When Taken
Dec 14 - 1898

New Years Eve

That ‘New Years Eve’ is embraced in curlicues, and probably represents the date of the actual inscription, though that inscription informs us that the image was actually taken a couple weeks earlier.

So we have two young children, each with different surnames, and their grandfather. To find him, we simply have to find the children in the 1900 census, just two years later. But neither Allie Weatherly nor Sydney Radliff are listed in the census index. So we broaden our search.

A genealogy shows Allie Lee Weatherly born 3 Dec 1893 - San Antonio, Texas, parents Alexander J Weatherly and Ida Bell Radcliff. That certainly matches our information well, though we suspect right off that Ida Bell’s last name was Radliff, not Radcliff. The mistake could be in the photo inscription (which clearly lacks the ‘c’ — but more likely it is the genealogy that is wrong.

Continuing with that genealogy, we find Ida’s parents:

Alexander J Weatherly
Born: 1861-12-00 Tennessee
Died: 1895-07-16 San Antonio, Texas

Ida Bell Radcliff of Alonzo Radcliff (1833-) and Sarah Hutton (1838-1895)
Born: 1861-10-03 Warnerville, NY
Died: 1912-09-09 San Antonio, Texas

So we know Allie Lee Weatherly’s father was already dead by the time the picture was taken. The genealogy also tells us that Allie married Edgar William Boyd and they had three children, and was married to Lyle Metcalf, though it isn’t clear which marriage came first. Further details are suppressed to protect the privacy of living individuals. Two siblings are shown for Ida Bell Radcliff: Menzo Radcliff (1866-) and John Emery Radcliff (1868-1886).

So how about little Sydney Morrill Radliff, what can learn of him? Since John Radliff was dead long before he was born, he is most likely the son of Menzo Radliff, Ida Bell’s brother.

In the 1910 census for 1910 census Teague, Freestone, Texas we find:

M J Radliff 46
Sallie M Radliff 34
Sydney M Radliff 14

The M J Radliff could well be Menzo, but we would like further confirmation of that. Then in the 1930 census for Fort Worth, Tarrant, Texas we find that confirmation, but finding Menzo listed with Sallie M again, even though by that time Sydney was out of the household.

Menzo D Radliff 64 NY NY NY married at age 27
Sallie M Radliff 54 TX TX TX married at age 18

So now we know Sydney Radliff and Allie Weatherly share one grandfather in common, Alonzo Radliff. Indeed, when we search for him in the 1900 census, we find not only his daughter and granddaughter in the same household, but his son and grandson nearby, and even the photographer, Bruno Nauscheutz!

We know from the imprint that Nauscheutz’s gallery was at 221 Sharer Street, San Antonio, Texas. In the 1900 census for that city, we find Bruno Nauscheutz, Photographer living at 221 Sharer Street with his wife and son, Alonzo Radliff living at 209 Sharer Street with his daughter ‘Ida Wetherly’ and granddaughter ‘Allie L Wetherly’ — those should, of course, be Weatherly. Next we find, at 203 Sharer Street, a Radliff household, though the head of household’s first name and sex has been crossed out. Listed in the index as ‘Sarah Rudloff’ the rest of the information for this person matches what we know of Menzo Radliff, and is listed with his wife Sallie (they have been married six years) and son Sydney, born Oct 1895.

The men in these families seem to have been railroad workers. Menzo is listed in the city directories in the early 1890s as a Fireman, first for G H & S A Railway in 1891, then for S P railroad in 1893 and 1894. Each of those directories shows a different household address for Menzo, but the 1894 one is 203 Sharer Street, the same as in the 1900 census. By the time of that census Menzo is listed as Railway Engineer, and Alonzo, at age 65, is a watchman.

Alonzo Radliff was still living at the time of the 1920 census in San Antonio, though we find no later mention of him. Allie may (or may not) be the same as the Allie Boyd listed in the SSI death index as having died Apr 1967 in Seguin, Texas. Sydney Radliff died in Jul 1982 in Fort Worth, Texas.

Mrs. Charles Dean photo

Today’s picture is a CDV showing a young woman with a high collar. She is framed inside an oval, typically an 1870s feature, and outside the oval is filled in with a leafy pattern. This photo has an inscribed date and identification, as well as a photographer’s imprint.

The photographer imprint reads:

Raimheld & Graham
Photographers,
Lyons, Ia.

The inscription says:

Ma 1878 D. AD. 12-29-10
(and in different ink:) B D Dean, wife of Chas. Dean

The blue ink that the names were added with appears to be ballpoint pen, and so is certainly not contemporaneous with the image. The date is also not of the same age as the print, since it appears to include a reference to her death in 1910, but it is probably older than the name portion of the inscription.

The image certainly looks as if the 1878 date is correct — everything ‘fits’ that time period, the color and style of CDV and the woman’s clothing style. Let’s see if we can find anything more about the subject and photographers.

Searching the ClassyArts site, I find George Graham listed as a photographer in Lyons IA in the 1880 census. Raimheld is an uncommon surname, so we can guess it is probably Henry Raimheld, who with his wife Harriet are both listed as photographers in the 1880 census, but at that time they were in Morrison IL. In fact, as we continued to search the census records, we found Henry and Harriet were the only Raimheld’s listed, so the identification is essentially certain.

Here is the information from the ClassyArts site:

Raimheld, Henry (born abt 1833 in PRU) is listed as a photographer in the 1880 US census for Morrison, Whiteside county IL. The census shows that this person was the spouse of Harriett.
—
Raimheld, Harriett (born abt 1837 in New York) is listed as a photographer in the 1880 US census for Morrison, Whiteside county IL.
—
Graham, George (born abt 1851 in Ohio) is listed as a photographer in the 1880 US census for Lyons, Clinton county IA. The census shows that this person was the Son of Elizabeth.

I searched Google for Raimheld and Dean, and found a very similar image at the University of Iowa. Note the stern copyright warning — in point of fact, scanning an existing image does not establish copyright to that image, any more than I can claim copyright to the Mona Lisa by photographing it. Anyhow, we see it is almost exactly the same as our photo — just a different woman. The librarian has assigned it a date of 191_ based on the high collar (which became very popular in the 1895-1915 period). Clearly the correct date would be late 1870s — we know Raimheld left the partnership before 1880 sometime.

In doing further research we found quite a bit about Henry and Harriet Raimfeld. Military records show Henry Raimfeld served in the Civil War. One record notes him joining Company F, 29th Wisconsin Infantry Regiment as a private, but is undated. Another shows that when his first hitch was up he re-enlisted in the same company, this time as Corporal, on August 21st, 1862. He served until the end of the war and was mustered out on 22nd June, 1865 at Shreveport LA.

We next find him in the 1870 census, living in Fort Atkinson WI and his occupation is listed as ’shoemaker’ — however in the same household is William Monville, whose occupation is ‘photographer.’ Thus we can guess that it was about this time that Henry Raimfeld learned the photography trade. Harriet Raimfeld is also listed, so they were married some time prior to that census.

Since we assume the date of 1878 for this photo is correct, the Raimfelds must have moved to Lyons IA sometime in the early or mid-1870s, and Henry formed a partnership with George Graham. Then, around 1879 the Raimfelds moved again, this time to Whiteside IL, where we find them in the 1880 census. In that census Hannah Bullis is also in the household, identified as his mother-in-law.

By 1885 we find the Raimfelds moved to Minnesota, where we find them in the state census, living in Warren, still with Hannah Bullis in the household.

On September 28th 1888 Henry Raimfeld died of ’softening of the brain’ and was buried in the Minneapolis Pioneers and Soldiers Memorial Cemetery. By 1889 until 1891 we find his widow listed as ‘matron’ at the Benedict Home in Des Moines, Iowa. At the time of the 1895 state census she and her mother were again living in Minnesota, in Minneapolis. By 1910 Harriet Raimfeld was living alone in Upland California.

Finding information on George Graham was a bit more difficult, since the name was so common. We did note that in the 1880 census, George was living with his widowed mother and two younger sisters — and the mothers occupation was ‘teacher of oil painting.’ In the 1870 census he was only 19 and had apparently not taken up photography yet, as the only likely candidates I find were farmers sons. I could not find him in the 1900 census, all I can say is that he was no longer in Lyons IA at that time.

Searching for information on the subject of our picture, B D Dean, wife of Charles Dean, proved more difficult. There was no Charles Dean in Lyons IA in 1880, but we don’t even know for sure if they were married yet at that time — the inscription was added much later than than the image was taken. Without knowing her maiden name, or even her full name, I kept coming up with blanks when searching for her. I checked all of the 750 or so Charles Deans listed in the 1900 census, but only a few had wives with names starting with ‘B’ and they were all too young. She may have been called Betsy and listed under Elizabeth, in which case there are lots of candidates, but no way to know which is correct. In short, I can not confirm that the identification is correct, nor prove that is not. That’s the way these things sometimes go — often you find lots of details about people, and other times nothing.

Matthew W Budlong picture analysis

Ok, so there haven’t been any posts here in a long time. Takes too long to assemble one of those analyses, so we are changing track (again). From now on I will post one image and look at how we can determine the date, identity of the sitter, and identity of the photographer — in so far as those things may be possible. It isn’t always realistic to expect to be able to find these details, but by presenting concrete examples, I will give you lots of practical advice on how to attempt it.

One thing you can do is post the image on the Internet and ask for help! If you have any information about this image, or any others we present in the future, or the photographers who took them, please leave a comment letting us know.

This is a CDV (Carte-de-Visite) so we can be pretty sure right off it dates from the 1860-1900 time range. If it were foreign, I’d add at least ten more years to that range, and if it were French perhaps move the earlier end of the range back five years or so.

We see here a little boy (the hair is parted on one side, and is short on the sides, both boy-styles). It is a head and shoulder portrait that nearly fills the available space, so it is probably after 1875. He is wearing a plaid shirt or blouse, and a huge lace collar. The large lace collars were most popular on little boys clothes in the 1880s and 1890s.

Looking at the back of the card, we see it is inscribed with a name, and there is a photographer’s imprint. The inscription reads ‘Matthew W Budlong’. As that is the only name, and the subject and name are both male, it may well be the name of the subject — but we can not be sure of that. Often written names are those of the intended recipient of that particular print, or were added later and indicate a subsequent owner of the picture. Other names have been written on years later by relatives who are uncertain, and often wrong, about the identity.

The photographer’s imprint shows a monogram, with ‘Jones, Providence, R.I.’ and at the bottom ‘357 Westminster Street, Providence, R.I.’ Looking carefully at the monogram, we see it shows the intertwined letters B F J — probably interpreted in that order as the J we know is Jones, and is larger than the others, while the other two are of equal weight, but the B is above, and hence most likely first.

Checking our database at http://www.classyarts.com/ for Jones in Rhode Island we find only two listed, one of which is in Providence: Benjamin F Jones — certainly the correct person since the initials match the monogram. Our database entry for Jones shows:

Jones, Benjamin F (born abt 1847 in Massachusetts) is listed as a photographer in the 1880 US census for Providence, Providence county RI. The census shows that this person was the spouse of Ida E.

So we know Jones was active in Providence in 1880, though we can not be sure how much earlier or later he may have worked there. Checking that 1880 census listing, we find that Ben and Ida had three children, one born ca 1872 in MA, the other two born RI: 1878 and 1880. So he moved to RI from MA sometime between 1872 and 1878.

Next we search the 1900 census for Ben and Ida, and find them living in Somerville MA, his occupation ‘artistic pictures’ … which probably means he was still a photographer. By that time the couple have two more children, both born in RI, the youngest in 1882. So now we know they moved back from RI to MA between 1882 and 1900.

A search of city directories in MA shows Benjamin F Jones listed in Bradford MA in 1889 as a photo operator, and in Haverhill MA 1894 as ‘artist’. Clearly, Jones operated in Providence no earlier than 1872 and no later than 1889. So next we went to the Providence directories, to see which years we could show him present in that city. The earliest we found available was 1881, which listed Jones. In 1883 the listing showed Jones and Shaal, but in 1884 it goes back to just B. F. Jones. He was listed in 1885, but not 1887. All directory listings give the same address as shown on the CDV. So we know the card must pre-date 1887.

Out next line of research is to look for Matthew W Budlong in Rhode Island. Searching the censuses, we find only one listing for a Matthew Budlong, and that in 1880. He is shown as 11 years old, son of Charles and Jane Budlong. Birth records for Rhode Island (at least those on-line) do not show Matthew, but I found several of his siblings listed.

I couldn’t find any other records for Matthew, except one possible citation, a death record from 1895:

Matthew W Budlong, witt: John C Budlong, Martha A Budlong, died 31 Aug 1895 age 20 yrs

This looks like him, though the age is off a few years, and who are these John and Martha? Those were not the names in the census, or any of his siblings. Then I found another citation for a Matthew S Budlong (the S is probably in error) — an 1895 directory for Providence RI shows Dr. John C Budlong, and in the same residence the Matthew S Budlong, student, boarding.

So very likely, the Matthew W Budlong of our photograph was born about 1875 (death record), and the photograph taken around 1879 or 1880. The Matthew born about 1869 and listed in the 1880 census was either a different person, or the census taker mixed up the ages of Matthew and one of his siblings, or he was considerably older at death than stated in the record. Possibly each record was off a couple years — I can find no Charles Budlong in the 1870 census of the correct age and birthplace except one — and that shows no wife at that time. If Charles and Jane were not married until after 1870, Matthew was probably under ten in 1880, not the 11 shown.

So what does this tell us about our photo? That it can be very difficult to identify such old pictures sometimes? Yes, I suppose so. But the preponderance of evidence seems to suggest a date right around 1880. The photographer search was more productive, but he seems to have stayed a long time in one location, so it only narrows the field to between 1872 and 1887.

The Tasseled Frame

William Culp Darrah, in his 1981 publication Cartes de Visite in Ninteenth Century Photography, describes ornate oval frames around the image, either printed or embossed on the card, and dates them to the 1863-68 range. In fact, the use of oval or sometimes arch-topped rectangles, especially with tintype images, continued through the 1870s and into the 1880s. But today we are going to look at one special variant of the oval frame, the ‘Tasseled Frame.’

This style of CDV frame conforms to Darrah’s time-range, in fact all of the dated examples I have seen fall within the even narrower range of 1864-66, three years that certainly mark their peak popularity, if not the exclusive use period. The sample size was too small to say with certainty.

Since this style was popular during the Civil War, it comes as no great surprise that it is seen primarily with military figures:

These are typical of the style, though the lower right example is fairly uncommon in that the tassels and cord are in blue, while the rest of the frame is gilt. Undoubtedly this photographer felt the blue was more patriotic looking for the Union soldiers.

I was surprised that I was unable to find any embossed examples of this motif. There are plenty of contemporary embossed frame images, and like these, mostly with albumen images cut oval and inserted in the frame area, though some were tintypes that had been taped to the back of the card, that showed through a hole cut through the card inside the frame area. Here is an example of such a tintype that comes closest to having the tasseled frame — but that it is missing tassels:

I would not be surprised to find that examples of tintypes in tasseled frames exist, but I was not able to find any in my image collection. There were many tintypes with embossed frames, and few such as the above with a printed frame, but none had the tassels characteristic of this style.

Here is another military subject, dated 1864:

And finally, an example of a non-military subject, we have Fidelia Prescott on a card dated November 18th, 1865. I think most artists felt the tasseled frame was more suitable for soldiers.

Photos With Square Mounts

Somehow, about the year 1890, photographers got the strange idea that images might look good mounted on square card-mounts. Card mounts came in various sizes, but they had always been rectangular. Esthetically it was a lousy idea, but for a while in the 1890s and early 1900s there was a fad for square card mounts.

Here is a typical example from 1890. For this one, the print itself is also square, though the subject was arranged diagonally, which is typical of the earliest square mounted photographs. Others had round images — a take-off on the new Kodak no doubt, though smaller. These cards are typically between 2.5 inches and 3.5 inches square. One also sees amateur square mounts in various sizes, both larger and smaller, but this is typical of the mass-produced market (though amateurs might purchase these mounts for their own use as well as professional photographers, the other sizes referred to are hand-cut).

These became very popular in the early 1890s, then fell-off in mid-decade, as slightly rectangular versions were produced (e.g. 2.5 by 3 inches, or 2.75 by 3.25). By late 1890s the square mounts make a re-appearance, but now they typically have rectangular images mounted on them, and many are larger sizes, the most popular being 5 by 5 inches.

Most of the square card mounts from the early 1890s were white, or buff-colored as in the example above. By the late 1890s white was still most popular, but brown and gray shades are occasionally seen. After 1900 they were almost always brown or gray.

The above example is from 1906, and one of the latest I have seen for this style. The image itself is also square, which was not very typical after 1900, which makes me suspect the date may be incorrect. The women’s dresses look 1890s, but that is not uncommon for someone of that age. The image is too faint to be able to say for sure.

In any case, the vast majority of square mounted images date from 1890 to 1905. They most often have white pebbly-surfaced card faces. A large percentage seem to have been printed by amateurs, and have a snapshot sensibility, as opposed to formal studio portraits.

Be sure to join our Antique Photography Newsletter, using the sign-up box in the right column. It only comes out once a month, and has great information on old photographs and the methods used to produce them.

Dating Stereoviews

The principal behind stereographic images was understood before the invention of photography, though they were a scientific curiosity, and not, so far as I know, sold commercially. With the invention of the daguerreotype, it didn’t take long for photographers to begin producing stereo-daguerreotypes, but they were expensive and never produced in great numbers. Most of the surviving stereo-daguerreotypes I have seen seem to date from the early 1850s, that was probably the time of their peak popularity.

Stereoviews were produced in other types as well, including tintypes, glass plates (ambrotypes and transparencies), etc., but it was the card mounted images that really caught on. At first they were still rather expensive, though cheaper than the daguerreotype version, and the viewer was an expensive item too, so only fairly wealthy people had them. But by the 1860s a cheaper viewer was introduced, and cards began to be mass produced. Demand for scenes from the Civil War probably helped spark the increase in popularity for the format.

The 1873 financial crash caused a temporary slowdown in photographic business, but the 1880s and 1890s saw a tremendous surge in the popularity of stereo images. Stereocards were mass produced and sold by canvassers. Popularity began to wane around 1900, but they continued to be produced in mass quantities by a few large companies. By the 1930s the stereocard fell out of favor, and was relegated to hobby status except for the last of the big companies, Keystone View Co., who turned to the educational market and eye testing as the last bastion of sterecards. Small stereo-transparencies soon took the place of the cards, viewed through special enlarging viewers.

Here then, is a very rough guide to dating typical stereoviews:

1840s and early 1850s, mostly stereo-daguerreotypes

Mid to late 1850s, stereo cards on thin flat cardboard with square corners, usually white or beige, though occasionally pink or light purple. The images too were typically square at that time.

1860-65 colored cards began to be used, typically yellow, purple and green. Corners were still square, and most images were square. Tax stamps help date those from 1864-66.

1865- 1875 the same colors continued to be used, plus orange and red, but now the corners were usually rounded. The cardstock used was thicker than in earlier years. About 1870 some photographers began to print lists of available titles on the backs of the stereoviews.

1875-82 Cards continued to be flat with rounded corners, and a variety of colors were popular. Printed lists on the back increased in popularity, and a few of the later cards from this period also had images that were arched-shape, instead of square, though that was not common.

1882-90 Curved cards were introduced about 1882, and gradually gained popularity, until by 1890 flat cards were rarely used for real photograph stereocards. The arched shaped images became the norm.

1890s Cards were typically orange, buff or salmon colored. Toward the end of the decade lithographic stereocards were introduced. These stereoviews were typically printed on flat white cardstock, and much inferior in quality to the photographic images.

In the early 1900s the big companies dominated the stereoview business, and few photographers (other than amateurs) bothered to make their own — though they sold images to the big companies. Cards from this period were typically gray or black, and the backs contained detailed descriptions of the images.

1931 Tru-Vue introduced stereoviews on film strips, for viewing with their enlarging viewer.

1939 View-Master introduced round reels of stereoviews, for use with their enlarging viewer.

1963 Keystone View company ceased publishing stereocards.

Ruby Ambrotypes

Some people have asked me what a ‘ruby’ ambrotype is. A typical ambrotype is basically a glass negative, often intensified to make the silvered image area (negative, hence light areas) brighter. The back is then painted black, or else a black cloth or piece of cardboard is placed in the frame behind the negative. In the better quality ambrotypes there is often also a cover-glass, so the negative may be placed emulsion-side up in the case, correcting the lateral inversion inherent in all direct negatives.

In the ruby ambrotype, the negative is on red-tinted (hence ‘ruby’) glass, so the black background or paint is not required. Occasionally, dark green glass was used instead of red. For some reason these ruby ambrotypes are slightly higher valued among collectors, perhaps because the warmth of appearance is appealing.

To detect a ruby ambrotype you need to take the ambrotype out of its case, and hold it up to a light source, so you are looking through it, instead of light reflected off it. This will not only show the red tint of the glass, but will also show the image in negative, since it is only in reflected light that the image appears positive.

Change of Track

Well, since there were no paid subscriptions in the first six months of this blog, I have decided a change of track is in order. The subject of this blog will no longer be in-depth studies of characteristics useful for dating old photos, but instead I will write in general terms about old photographs. Of course that will include information on how to date old images, but it will be in more general terms, rather than statistical analysis results.

Subscriptions have been closed. Since only subscribers can post comments, comments are effectively closed as well. While I would love to be able to see your comments on my posts, experience on other sites tells me the spam problem is so severe that it is too time-consuming to manage comments.

If you want to contact me you can go to ClassyArts.com and click on the link at the bottom of any page, which takes you to a comment form on another of my websites. Be warned that I only rarely have time to respond to such comments however. To keep informed of the latest developments on this site and some of my other photohistory oriented sites, subscribe to the free newsletter — just put your email address in the red box on this page.

Single Border Line

If you read these posts regularly, you will remember that in an earlier post on the double line border I stated that:

We are restricting our research to the double line because a single line continued to be used sporadically for as long as CDVs and Cabinet Cards were produced.

Well now I will have to eat those words — at least metaphorically speaking. First, I’m trying to drop the royal ‘we’ and write in the first person — don’t know where I picked up that habit, but it’s just is not right. Secondly, I shouldn’t make statements about frequency of occurrence for a feature before I actually study it. The results of research on single line borders are quite different from my earlier impression. They have a very distinct temporal distribution, just that it is bimodal, and hence less easily recognized intuitively. That’s why I use statistical analysis to describe the occurrence of these features, rather than relying on impressions.

This study looks at the frequency and temporal distribution of printed single line borders, near the outer edge of cdv and cabinet cards. I did not include card-encased tintypes, as those almost always have lines of some sort and need to be described separately. Nor did I include embossed border lines, as those have a distinct temporal distribution and also need to be treated separately. And the wide, mostly gilt, lines around the very outer edge of cards we have already discussed, so those are not included here.

Glossy Dark Card Fronts

Chocolate Brown, Dark Green and Black

The cards we describe in this article have dark card faces, typically a dark chocolate brown, or very dark green, or even black. There were cards with black fronts both before and after the period we describe, but they tended to be mat-surfaced, like regular writing paper. The cards we are talking about here are glossy-smooth, with an almost waxy surface.

Most of these are cabinet cards, but cart-de-visites and other sized cards occasionally are found with this feature as well. When there is a photographer’s imprint on front, it is almost always printed in gilt. The lack of color contrast may make these imprints hard to read, particularly in copies or when the original gilt has flaked or tarnished, but on a clean mint-new appearing card, the appearance is rich. The dark card fronts also set off the yellowish tinged albumen images nicely.

One type of card we have not included in this study is the black memorial card, even though it was often cabinet-card sized and produced by photographers. Those memorials cards only rarely include a photographic image, most of them are just text. The special usage, and association of black with death and mourning, led to the continued use of glossy-black for memorial cards long after they ceased to be used for photographs. None of the memorial cards we have seen pre-date the earliest use of glossy-black cards for photographs, and only rarely are they seen within the period that glossy-dark cards were popular. In fact, it may have been in part the association with memorial cards that led to the disuse of dark glossy-faced cards for photographs.