Any of these post cards have resale value?

Edwardian Hats 1918

 

I dated this hat to 1905 -/+ 5 years,.. which is close enough for me

lilfont I just now saw your post, may I ask how you came up with 1918 please? I goggled images for women's hats from 1875 through 1925 and saw the most similar ones right about 1900-1910

oh I see it is a link.....hmmm a few similar in shape,.... I may just split the difference and run with 1910-1915 +/- 3 years. I think that would be a safe guess.

Thanks for all the comments

 

LMFO at Afs hat story

 

My great granny,daughter to the tintype of my GGG I posted to the tintype thread. Now this looks like a wicker laundry basket,LOL

She was born in 1869 and passed in 1955 so as for the date of this pic?????

 

LOL,here is another funny hat pic.Again my silly great grans on the left wearing a flying saucer and her sister wearing a hat from outer space.

 

The big pleated "edge" and the possible ethnicity of the woman make me wonder if the hat was designed to mimic the hats of her tribe or band.

And, if you don't mind my asking - what happened with your thread "over there?"

 

Here is a pic of a huge hat from the 1890's and the similar pleated bust.

http://astimesgobye.com/?attachment_id=4873

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/260364422180989317/

Large Hats
The Edwardian love of large hats affected hair fashions and how the hair was dressed, as the hairstyles had to be able to support the size and weight of the headwear.

 

As for saleability, this month I sold a postcard somewhat like the one at the top, second from the right. It sold on eBay for $5.98 including shipping @$1.93. Not much income for the effort, but at least I made a buyer happy.

As for the other cards, photos of buildings can sell well. But lately I've found it harder to sell any postcards. I don't know if it's that postcards aren't selling, or that items in general aren't... probably the latter.

Here's the one I sold recently...

 

To add to the gaudiness of the hats, this postcard has bits and pieces of tiny decorations glued to the hat and clothing. If I remember correctly, even the earring is a glued-on bit.

 

As for dating postcards, although the images used may be older, cards with "divided backs" weren't issued until 1907, at least in the U.S.

Divided backs are cards that on the front have a photo or an image and on the back have one side for a personal note and the other side for the address, the way current postcards are set up. Before 1907, the address had to be on its own side.

 

I have been doing a review of mourning wear from 1805 thru 1920 (a long period, I know) and I have been going thru hundreds of issues of women's magazines and fashion magazines. I probably have over 400 images of mourning fashion scanned or down loaded. (I actually got a little mind boggled, and set the project aside a few months ago but I'm about ready to pick it up again. More of a winter activity for me.)

It's not like I haven't studied women's fashion before (I had one of the first vintage clothing shops in our town in the 1970s) Anyway, in the course of this recent research, I also looked at millinery magazines, (veils and all), and I know I have seen this exact same hat in one of those hat books. It may have been as early as 1816. I think that everyone is looking at the trim as a fuddy duddy maid sort of thing, and that obviously isn't the case here. It's a fresh-from-Paris sort of trim that goes in and out of style in a season. Find it in a fashion book and you will be able to date the photo exactly. Because the lady who owned this hat would typically take it to the milliner 6 months later to replace the trim with feathers or huge roses or what ever was in style next.

The general dating is for the silhouette and proportion (to the head). The earlier hats were shorter and less bucket like. Also, when researching, you have to discount pinterest, and eBay sellers, unless the postcard is dated, but still, the best source is period fashion spreads.

 

The difference is that your example hat is a hat that has been embellished with huge roses, it hides the brim. The op hat doesn't technically have a 'brim' it is a frame, with the pleated edge flouncing out an the rest of the hat is like a big slouch of fabric gathered around the frame with a huge bow and sash. Your second example (undated) is much closer in period and style.

 

Just got back to this topic...wow
Fig, I haven't taken shot of the back but I'm now sure it is after 1907 (Pat Parker ) as the card is divided into two sections, Hopefully I can get a pic soon..
Bakers LOL I thought the same thing when I first realized she was native...
lilfont, thank you very much for responding and offering info as to how you came to that conclusion!

 

Everyone keeps saying ethnic/native.
What do you mean? I don't think she looks anymore "native" than the man in the moon.
Many peoples have a dark complexion that are not Native American.
My mother's family was Danish and German for the most part, and were all quite dark (as am I).

 

correcting a typo above:
It may have been as early as 1816
should have been 1916, if that wasn't obvious.

As far as being Native American, I don't think it is skin shade that has them fooled (the photo is light skinned), but the shape of the face.

She is not Native American. She is European descent, possibly Eastern or Russian But I've known people with similar enough face features to be related and they had French lineage.

 

Well I am going to cordially disagree with: she is not native, I live in the PNW and have cousins, nieces, and nephews that are Tlinget,... this woman is def native. It is very obvious when looked at under a good magnifier, but to make sure I will ask the people who sold it to me as all the photos were of family members and the husband is part NA. I have bought from them before so it shouldn't be a big deal to find out. I would be very surprised if it turns out she is not NA.
I'm glad you came back with 1916 as I was finding many more hats with the "Bucket" shape to them , between 1913-16. But I think we have pinned it down close enough on the date.
I am going to follow up on the nationality and see if I can get more info on that, may even get a name

 

My Mom's side of the family all trace back to Ireland. Our ancestors consist of,blond fair skin, redheads,and all blue eyed, Viking influence ? and dark skin with black hair,and brown eyed, Moors/Berber influence?

My Dad's side,French,Danish,Swedish and Chinook NA. My Dad has the square jaw,high cheek bones like me,possibly NA and French influence? We all have blue eyes except for the granddad whose eyes were brown.My granddad on that side was very dark and some thought he was Mexican?

I looked closely at the pic of the gal of Tauriel's and she does appear to be either NA or throw back of another dark race ?

I guess I was trying to say that we ALL are really a mixture of everything from thousands of years ago.

 

A photo of my Great Aunt Ella Hansen (Born in Denmark) . . .

 

Here's a example of how we are more than whatever 3 or 4 or even 10+ generations may "show" us we are --

Had a small medical "problem/complaint" -- my regular physician (the best there ever was) did some bloodwork in addition to an examination. When I went back for the follow-up appointment he said that the diagnosed "quirk" was found almost exclusively in people of "Mediterranean descent."

I replied with complete confidence that my ancestors were from England, Scotland, and Wales.

He chuckled and then replied, "A long time ago Roman soldiers traveled a lot."

 

I find this card very interesting, if she is NA and 1914ish I find it even more intriguing, if you know anything about NA history this would be a very unusual photo,..google Native American 1915..This is not long after the .....cleansing of the Native populations..of the late 1800's and early 1900s not many NA women were as well dressed or "modern". I am including this edited pic, it shows her eyes, nose, and mouth better. I will not talk to the sellers until next week but I'm telling you this card is growing on me and I will be hard pressed to list it LOL!