Featured Share your antique photographs here

Hello, thanks for the reply. I can't tell about the buttons. I've tried zooming in too, but it's too blurry. Do you think it may be a Confederate uniform based on color/shade, or some other clue? Thanks again for replying!

 

Fascinating thread this, glad I’ve just stumbled across it.

 

I collect antique photographs, and can tell you that the style of the CDV is reflective of the 1870s. The oval vignette framing and the decorative font style on the back both are suggestive of 1870s. CDVs in the 1860s had different looking card mounts and usually quite small and plain fonts for the lettering. This leads me to think of two possibilities: Either this is a CDV that reproduced an earlier photo (either an earlier CDV or a tintype), or possibly this gentleman got into his uniform from the Civil War to have his picture taken again. From what I can see, it is possible that the jacket is too small for him across the chest. However, it's also possible that he just wanted to wear it that way.

Also I did a little research on the photographer. He started his studio in Columbia, Missouri in 1863 and was still in business there until at least 1883. So that does not help date it. I found a synopsis of articles from the Columbia Tribune published in 2013, titled "150 Years Ago." So was referring to 1863. It includes the following notice from 1863:

COLUMBIA -- Frank Thomas opened a photography studio offering the latest innovation in reproduction, “Cartes de Visite,” or photographs on cards.

“These popular little LIKENESSES are taking the place of all other pictures in the East,” Thomas advertised in the Missouri Statesman.

Thomas’ studio was in a room over Samuel Victor’s drug store. Cartes de visite were cheap, durable, a good likeness and easy to send by mail or fit into an album, Thomas said in his ad.

“They fill the bill any way you want them, in case, frame or without.”

 

@anundverkaufen, I tried enhancing/enlarging the buttons a bit (yes, they ARE tiny)....don't think I got too far....second button up on the left and the pin..... although don't think I helped the pin any.....shown below on the card........

​

 

Thanks for all the replies/help. The card mount reminds me a bit of a cabinet as far as feel/texture. Maybe some 1870's CDV's were like that? If reproduction, I assume that means another photo from the original negative, as opposed to a photo of a photo? Great find on the photographer, I missed that! And thanks for the help on enhancing/enlarging, those buttons and pins are tiny! Well, the pin is I really need to try using Photoshop to try to enhance. I think I still have a copy on an older laptop.

 

I think they did copies in both ways... from the negative or as a photo of a photo. In this case, I suspect it would have been from the negative, and that the photographer was the one who took the original photo so had the negative. The photo doesn't appear to have started out as a tintype. Tintypes didn't have negatives. But I don't really know if it is a copy, or whether the original was taken in the 1870s.

 

OK, thanks figtree3, as for the uniform, does its color or shading indicate to you it might be confederate, or is there some other clue? When I was looking at other civil war uniformed subjects on CDV, I thought I could tell Union vs Confederate by the darker hue of the Union uniforms. But I'm not sure that is the best way to determine the difference, since maybe some photos have become faded, etc. over the years. But when looking at other examples online I didn't see many other clues other then the coloring, unless I'm missing something. In fact, I was struck by how similar both Union & Confederate uniforms really were. Of course I still have a lot to learn about antique photos. Phototree is a great resource BTW. Thank you.

 

Fig, I also noticed it has the NPA logo, National Photographic Association. They didn’t convene for their first meeting until 1869.

 

Thanks, I wondered what that logo was!

 

Thank you! I noticed the logo, and thought that was whose it was, but I didn't do the research on it.

 

I don't really know about judging the color of the uniform. Since I don't really collect that type of photo I've never really analyzed it. As you probably know, Missouri was a border state in that war and there were citizens in the military from both sides.

 

OK, thank you, I spent some time looking at civil war uniform photos, and reading about the uniforms, and my conclusion was, during the Civil War, many soldiers didn't even have uniforms till later in the war, then the when uniforms became available, the uniforms varied a great deal depending on rank, type of service (cavalry vs infantry, etc.) & which side (North vs South). So a lot to learn there for sure! Thank you.

 

Had to go back and study that picture again... to me it sure looks like he is missing his lower leg / foot as I see no evidence of a shoe or lower pant leg ..interesting too how he seems to be supporting his hand, and he looks none too happy . Sadly there was a lot of industrial / occupational / war wounds during that era of American History ....

 

Yes, I had not even noticed it till you mentioned it. It's hard to tell, but I don't see his other foot or leg either. I guess it could be hidden behind his other pant leg. The angle of the photo is interesting. He looks like all arms/legs Anyway, I'd forgotten too that limbs were often caught in farm & industrial equipment back them. Very sad indeed.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/steamarchive/albums/72157714238091837

 

Beautiful photos, I assume the Netherlands, circa 1920's?

 

Hello, I recently picked up a packet of Hollywood B/W still photos from Warner Bros. that I was told were part of a larger collection of packets/photos. There are around 50 photos in this packet. Below is a photo of the packet (says "Major Productions From 1926-1945"), a photo of one of the pages indexing the photos within the packet & a photo of one of the photos. I've been trying to figure out who might have had these in their original collection. They look like film PR photos of the type that might have been sent to theaters, or elsewhere, but the photos have no advertising on the fronts or backs. I've seen other examples of many of the subjects online, so it appears they are photos that were occasionally made from the original negative, but I'm no photo expert. Was wondering if anyone can maybe help me figure out what these photos might have been intended for & who might have originally had possession of them, like maybe a WB photographer, WB PR person, WB studio exec? Any feedback appreciated. Thank you. PS: Forgot to mention the photo backs are all blank.

 

Are you sure that's not 1926-1946? A 20 year production highlight review? There would be some sense to that.

Debora

 

You are correct! It probably is 1926-1946, a 20 year production highlight review. But I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps studio parlance used by people in the industry? Like maybe a photo review of film photos intended for others in the industry? Some of the photos are quite striking. I'm wondering if some of the older ones where done by Elmer Fryer. Just a guess. His name just popped up in one of my Google searches. Thank you for the reply!

 

Just realized most of these are film photos, so maybe not by a portrait photographer such as Fryer. Could these have been generated from film capture? The quality seems too clear for that, but I really know very little about film studio still photography.