Sepia Saturday challenges bloggers to share family history through old photographs.
During the month of March, I will be shining the light on
my Irish roots.
I have the perfect match for this week’s Sepia Saturday prompt which features two boys: one in a sailor suit and the other sporting an Eton collar.
This photo is from the many photos passed down to me from
my grandaunt Helen Killeen Parker. I really do not know who these boys are, but
I have a pretty good guess.
Since Helen had only one brother, I concluded these boys were not sons of my great-grandmother Mary Theresa Sheehan Killeen. I considered that maybe the boys were her nephews, sons of one of her sisters living in New York City. However, upon close inspection of the cabinet card, I saw the name and location of the photographer: Campbell, Norfolk, VA.
Closeup snip of the photographer's mark
I thought finding Mr. Campbell would help me date the
photos, thereby narrowing the field of candidates for the game known as “Name
that ancestor.”
It took some digging to find a photographer named Campbell in Norfolk. Two interesting images came up:
Photos of Jack Wentz (2nd base) and George Nie (catcher)
Campbell Studio 1897
Pitchers Fritz Clausen and Doc Secrist
Campbell Studio 1897
These two sets of cabinet cards of baseball players were
sold at different auctions. Maybe it was the rarity of the subjects, the baseball
history, or even the obvious clarity and skill of the photographer that drove
the prices to $657 in 2016 for Fritz Clausen and Doc Secrist, and $1320 in 2018
for Jack Wentz and George Nie. These men played for the Norfolk Jewels from
1896-1898, at least.
Does the photo of the children exhibit the same skill and quality?
The photographer’s mark is not the same, and there is no mark on the back at all, not like the fancy ad on the reverse of the baseball players’ photos.
 |
| Back of the photos of Wentz and Nie |
It would be helpful to know whether my photo was an earlier or later work of Campbell Studios. So, I checked the newspapers looking for ads.
B. S. Campbell promoted himself frequently in the local Norfolk newspapers from 1886 to 1903, and maybe longer than that but these are the dates that came up most often on GenealogyBank and Newspapers dot com. He offered special sales at Christmas and Easter. He sold frames. He promised to retake photos free of charge if customers were not satisfied with the proofs.
Campbell also developed special techniques using watercolors and pastels to make a photo look like a painting, or at least that is my interpretation of what the news reporter described in a news feature. Campbell did not know what to call this technique, so he invited the public to submit suggestions.
Many articles written about him praised the quality of his photography, often quoting big-name art dealers from New York City. He won many awards.
Unless Mary Theresa was extra chummy with a friend or neighbor, it is not likely she would have received such a fine photo from one of them. It is more likely the photo was a gift from a relative. Given the dates when B. S. Campbell seemed most active in his profession, I believe the photo dates around 1900. Maybe the boys were sons of Mary Theresa’s sister-in-law and brother-in-law, Bridget and John Joseph Glynn. Bridget was the sister of Mary Theresa’s first husband. They lived in Portsmouth, just a ferry ride across the Elizabeth River to downtown Norfolk where B. S. Campbell had his studio.
Matthew was born in 1891 and John Jr in 1893. Do they look 9 and 6 in the photo? Maybe 8 and 5? 7 and 4?
Am I even close to identifying these children?
Visit Sepia Saturday for more photos and stories of twosomes.
Wendy
© 2021, Wendy Mathias. All rights reserved.
Beautiful photo - beautiful boys. Is it possible that one grandmother wanted a photo of her two grandsons from different parents? They look alike in the foreheads and lips, but otherwise different - one is pudgy, the other thin, and the eyes and noses look different. BUT I know in my own family there are great variations, depending on which side one takes after. They look more like 7 and 4 to me; the older boy is tiny, or maybe the younger one is unusually tall? Yikes - so many factors to consider! Well, now I know what an Eton collar is - thank you! :)
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to tell! Just by height difference, I would say they are closer in age than three years, unless, as suggested by Mary-Alice, someone is unusually tall or short ...
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I think this is the second post today with boys dressed this way with the loose belt in front. Not a look I am familiar with.
That is a great photo. Can you imagine small boys of today consenting to wear such clothes - and the hairstyles? They don't look very much alike to me though. Maybe cousins rather than brothers.
ReplyDeleteHmm, that is a good thought that I should explore. However, my daughters look nothing alike - one got my husband's genes and one got mine.
DeleteI'd say 7 and 4, based on my impression of their individual proportions between head vs body. But the different haircuts may be deceptive? (Based on height alone, I'd guess the age difference was less.)
ReplyDeleteA delightful first picture, but I must admit I first thought it was a girl on the left, because of the longer hair and wearing that huge bow, rather than the tie of the boy. And then I saw “she” was wearing short trousers. Good luck with your detective work.
ReplyDeleteFunny you should say that, Susan, because I looked at that picture after I finished the post and out of the blue suddenly remembered something I read years ago about children in old photos. It pointed out that since boys also wore dresses, you can tell the difference by their hair - boys part on the side and girls part in the middle. That HAIR on the one kid would be GIRL hair. The shoes look girly too. The bow looks girly although I have a photo of my grandfather with a big ol' bow too. If he/she weren't wearing shorts, I'd swear he is a girl. Would the parents put a girl in shorts in those days?? Now I'm really second-guessing myself.
DeleteI love mysteries like this.
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness, those outfits! Funny. My son (now in his early 50s) looks back at the pictures we have of him as a young boy and says of the way I dressed him - "What were you thinking?!!" Well, I was thinking those were the styles of the day! ;)
ReplyDeleteA terrific photo puzzle, and I think you worked out some good leads to solve it. Mr. Campbell's photos are examples of a first rate photographer. Since Norfolk is a port city, he probably had a larger clientele then photographers in other towns inland. Maybe catered to foreign tastes in photos.
ReplyDeleteI think the boys look age 5 & 7, but they could be closer. I don't think the one on the left is a girl, but I like Liz's suggestion of cousins, which would fit with the subtle differences in clothing. The one on the left definitely went to a different barber, which is contrary to what most moms would do. Both wear fancy slippers but the white pair is odd, as it's more common to see siblings dressed alike. The mothers of cousins might shop at the same clothing store but arrange the garments to show family difference. But don't you have enough mystery kids to hang on the family tree?
An excellent job so far trying to identify these handsome boys. I agree they are likely 5 & 7, and pinpointing the photographer in Norfolk, VA, does support that these children came from a nearby family.
ReplyDelete