Featured Antique photo - can anyone identify the mystery object?

HA!!!!
Missa T FOOL!

 

I pity da Photoshop.

 

Distortion of the table could be caused by the lens.

 

Hey folks...! I'm a "newbie" here, but I'm addicted to images. (Could be called hoarding?) This is probably British or European because of the pass partout frame where you can just barely see in the first image. The "pattern" you can see "behind" the image is the black surface behind the image to make it stand out. It's a lovely image and seems to be larger than average. Great find. They're almost smiling too. (Folks didn't smile much as it was "forward", plus dental hygiene wasn't what it is today.)

 

Welcome!

 

Really interesting information, Cindy.
And hola, and welcome to the Forums! HOARDING is sort of a four-letter word here... well, 4 plus 4. You know what I mean. Folks here don't HOARD... they collect/appreciate/rescue/store/archive/exhibit/warehouse... you're in good company!

 

Hello folks...! I'm a "newbie" here and have been learning a lot. I'm addicted to photographic images. (My spouse would call it hoarding.) This image is an ambrotype, which is probably English or European due to the pass partout frame. The clothing is quite formal also, not so much found in American images. (The frame looks original due to the circular attachments rather than "eye" screws.) It's interesting to see the expressions on their faces as smiling was considered "forward". The black backing that was used to make the image stand out can be shallowly seen behind the image. The "gilding" was usually done by young women, maybe wishfully thinking of jewelry they didn't own. Thanks!

 

Ha!! LOVE the "rescue mission", that's what we're doing is "saving" antiques from the dump!

 

Some of the things I/we have are not replaceable.
Just one of mine that would've been trashed for it was junk at a garage sale...>
11 mailer type rolls of Kodak film taken by one of the team that built Charles Lindbergh's; The Spirit of St. Louis.

 

Thanks for all the information! I'm in the UK, so it makes sense that it's probably British. From what I can tell, the actual photo is a quarter plate size. I didn't know it was called a pass partout frame, so I've learned something new! The whole construction inside the wooden frame measures about 15 x 13cm.

When I bought it the image was quite loose in the frame, making it easy to lift out, but I won't be doing that again because I've realised how delicate and easily damaged it can be. The original tacks are there to hold it in, but I've added some low tack masking tape to secure it - and now worrying that I might have affected any value it might have? I'm leaving it well alone now! The frame is in great condition - do you think it is of a similar age to the photograph?

Cindy, I see you've just expanded your original post... with even more great information... welcome to the forum and I'll look forward to more of your posts!

 

Sweet!! Fantastic find! I LOVE that "nerd" stuff as I worked in engineering for over 30 years. I can still send images of mystery items to the skilled trades guys at work to ask questions.

 

It's a great image; I'd have snagged that too. One reason the smiling ones are rarer is that the exposure times made smiling difficult.

 

When Daguerre announced his process, he gave it to certain countries, but not the British, perpetuating the historical animosity. (Talbot came up with his own paper base process using the paper as a negative, then contact printing with that.) If a British subject wanted to make daguerreotypes, they had to buy the patent, thus there aren't very many daguerreotypes there. Some are "boot legged" though. As for the frame, it seems to be old, though I can't be positive. If it's "perfect", someone may have used to original hardware to hang it. Does the glass have "waves" in it? (Don't you love being a "history detective?) As for the low tack tape, there' something called filmoplast p 90 that can be used as it's archival. (There's a filmoplast p that's used in books, that almost disappears.) Just search for it online. It can be removed, very carefully, within 24 hours if necessary.
Sorry for the double post. Thought I had to sign up before it would be posted.

 

Oh yeah... Forgot to mention the exposure time about smiling. Took a daguerreotype class once with Mike Robinson in Toronto. My image was done late in the day. He has a northern exposure and it was 13 seconds.

 

I'm wondering if it's a newer frame? The condition looks awfully good to be mid-1800s, plus the exposed wood on the back doesn't look very aged.

 

Cindy, thanks once again. I'll buy some of the filmoplast P90 tape and use that .

I love images of all kinds but have a lot to learn about the history, and it's interesting what you say about Daguerre and his not sharing the process with the British. I've seen ambrotypes and tintypes here, but not dags as far as I know, so it makes sense.

I cannot see waves in the glass, but the top/front glass layer appears to be reverse-painted. And the paint looks to have lifted here and there (noticeably around the black border where the flowers are). The photo itself is mottled with what look like air bubbles - is that what you were referring to when you said the black backing could be seen? The reverse of the photo itself is indeed 'painted' black.

The wooden frame is lovely. One corner has been pieced together possibly using offcuts, giving it a rustic quality, although it is very well done. Hmm, my instinct is that the wood on the rear is too 'clean' to be antique... but the fixtures look old. The frame has been under-painted in a burgundy colour, then the gold paint, then some brown paint/substance applied to the ornate areas.

Sorry for so much info / so many questions! I'm learning everyday...

 

We cross posted, but these are my thoughts too

 

Additional info: certain photographers used a kind of iconography to indicate the status of their subjects; in this case the whatchamacallit thing and the books. (Artists in paint and other media did the same.)

Also, certain photographers gussied up their subjects to make them more wealthy looking. In this case, the jewelry and the buttons have been picked out in gold. But sometimes the ornaments are strictly from the imagination of the photographer.

 

silverthwait, I wondered if the objects on the table had any relevance. Maybe they did. It would be great to know who these people were but unfortunately there are no clues...

 

Hi,
I had a Great grand aunt who had a fabulous set of emeralds painted on her portrait. She had none nada but she wanted her husband to be hounded by his new wife when she would see the portrait.
greg