Genealogy Case Study Archives

Dating old family photos can feel impossible. However, once you know what to look for the impossible becomes possible. All you need is patience, persistence, and some basic knowledge. Let’s take a look at a photo I identified in my family.

This picture above I have identified as my great great grandparents, Charles and Emmaliza Holmes. I will not go as far as saying I am 100% sure. With all old photos that are unmarked, I don’t think it is fair to say the certainty is that high. With the evidence I have gathered I would give myself 93%.

Now, let’s follow the steps in the process of finding out who is in this picture.

Step 1: Where did the picture come from?

This alone can be one of the biggest clues you can gather. I received this picture from my mother’s side of the family. More specifically, I was told the picture is from my mother’s cousin in Illinois. This information immediately led me to the Holmes side of the family from Crawford County, Illinois. You can narrow down your search dramatically if you can figure out who had possession of the photograph.

Ask any relatives you can if they have ideas on who may be in the photograph. Search other old family photos to see if you can find resemblances on a labeled picture.

Step 2: What kind of picture is it?

Knowing the history of photography, believe it or not, can help in identifying historical photos.

The Daguerreotype photograph peaked in the 1840’s and 1850’s. It has a mirror-like surface, a silver coated copper plate and is almost always cased.

The Ambrotype had a very short peak time between 1856 and 1860. The images were on glass and always cased. However, this type does not look like a mirror. Rotating the image will not make it appear to be a negative.

A tintype photograph peaked in the 1860’s up to 1871. These images were on a thin iron plate coated with a dark lacquer or enamel. They could be found cased or loose.

The Cabinet Card appeared in 1866 and had its peak in the United States between 1875 and 1895. Rarely are they found after 1906. Images were printed on thin paper and mounted on heavy card stock. Early photos in this period were sepia colored. Later photos were silver-like with rich blacks. Commonly the cabinet cards were 4 1/2 by 6 1/2.

This photo of my great great grandparents is mounted on heavy card stock and is 4 1/2 by 6 1/2. Noticing these features leads me to narrow down the time frame to 1875-1895. Now that I have a branch of the family and time frame let’s move onto what we actually see in the photo.

Step 3: Clues on the photograph

One of the best features of the cabinet card is that often the photographer’s name and the city and state are printed on the photograph-either on the front or on the back.

As you can see above, the photographer and city/state are printed on the photo. If you are lucky, you can do research on the photographer’s name to find out when he was business. Unfortunately, research on J.W Mitchell was a bust but much information is out there about other period photographers. This is always a clue to look into further.

I stated earlier that my family was from Crawford County, Illinois. Some of my ancestors were from the eastern part of the county and the others were from the western half. This might not seem like such a big deal in today’s world. However, this is a very large county and getting around wasn’t as easy in the 1800’s. Therefore, I narrowed down my search to the ancestors that lived in the western half of the county where Oblong is located. After looking at census records I could narrow it down further to relatives that lived in Oblong and the surrounding countryside (Crawford County is still to this day very rural).

Step 4: Identify Clothing and Hair Trends

One of the best ways to identify any photograph is to use clothing and hair styles to determine a time frame. In this photo I paid particular attention to Emmaliza’s simple hair and the simplicity of her dress with the buttons and bow at the neck.

Emmaliza’s dress is more fitted throughout. There is no hoop under the skirt suggesting this dress is post 1860’s. Skirts were still typically full until the late 1870’s when skirts became narrower from the waist down. Her hair is simple and put up in a bun which was more typical of the 1880’s and 1890’s.

Her collar is not too high or flared out and the upper sleeves are fitted with just a small stand up poof at the shoulders. The buttons also seem more typical of the late 1880’s and 1890’s.

Charles’ suit with a hip length jacket, wide lapels and lack of formality in buttons leads me to the 1880’s and early 1890’s. His short hair and facial hair is also typical of that era.

Conclusion

My research combined with the clues I found in the photograph pointed directly to Charles and Emmaliza Holmes.

I knew I was looking for a couple in the Holmes family from the western part of Crawford County, Illinois between 1875-1895. They had to be the appropriate age (25-50 by the looks of them in the photo). Based on the clothing and hairstyles I also narrowed this pictured further to most likely the late 1880’s. Emmaliza was pregnant most of the late 1870’s and 1880’s. Although this picture could have been taken between pregnancies it seems more likely that this pictures was after she had kids which leaves it after 1886.

I also compared this picture to a picture that is 100% known to be Emmaliza and did a side by side comparison. Although the other picture is probably 20 years after this one, the similarities are too great to ignore. This just added to the list of clues.

Below is the known picture of Emmaliza. They hair is the same and the mouth has the same crookedness to it. Had this been my only clue then, no, I would not draw this conclusion. However, taking the comparison with all the other clues makes me 93% certain it is her.

Although dating a photo can seem daunting, if you take it one step at a time you have a greater chance of success. Often it takes the combination of research, photographic clues, and comparisons but it is possible.

After a hiatus I am finally back to blogging. The holidays and starting a new job after being at home for 12 years has kept me very busy. I am adjusting my routine to fit in my blog writing. Bear with me as I get back on track.

In this post I will discuss surprising, somewhat soap opera like, scenarios you may encounter when doing research. We may all want to think our family trees will be drama free with cut and dry marriages, families, and lives. This is not always the case. Be prepared for unexpected revelations. I have often seen other researchers dismiss trails of facts because they believe it is not possible for certain events to happen. Just like us today, our ancestors were not perfect and pure.

George Bader Senior and Junior in Portland, Oregon.

Here is one such scenario in my family.

My 2nd great grandfather, George Bader, was born in 1859. In 1880 he married my 2nd great grandmother, Mary Kearns. Neither had been married before. Their first child and my great grandmother, Anna, was born in Indiana in 1881. The rest of their 8 children were born in Illinois. Sometime after August 1881 and before March of 1883 they moved just over the border to the south side of Chicago. Their last child together was born in Illinois in 1895.

This is where is gets interesting. On the 1900 census (five years after their last child was born) my 2nd great grandmother, Mary, is now living back in Indiana with all of her children. She is listed as married but George is not with her but her single sister is now living with her. She also eventually sends one child off to live with her brother and another child to live with another sister. Considering this, she seems to be struggling and needed help caring for the children.

Mary listed here in 1900 in Indiana without George Sr. Her sister, Hannah is living with her.

“Is George dead?”

Logical question to most people and the obvious belief. No, he is not deceased. He is still living in Illinois in 1900. Now you may think he is just working and living there to provide for his family back in Indiana. Again, no. The evidence does not support that.

George is living with a widowed woman named Elizabeth Johnson. He is listed in the 1900 census as a boarder of Elizabeth Johnson. His marital status is listed as being single (not divorced or widowed). The age/year of birth matches, place of birth, and general area where he lived with my 2nd great grandmother all match. It is him. This Elizabeth Johnson has a few kids living with her including a George Johnson born in 1897 in Illinois (a few months before Elizabeth Johnson’s husband dies).

George Sr. listed here as a boarder and single. George Jr. is listed as a Johnson/Johnston.

Skip ahead to the 1910 census. George is still living in Chicago with Elizabeth Johnson as a boarder. However, this time he is listed as married and the child, George Johnson, from the 1900 census is now listed as ‘George Bader’ son of George Bader Sr. Whoa! wait a minute. He goes from being Elizabeth Johnson’s son to the son of her boarder. Could just be an error on the census takers part, right? That is what I thought in the beginning. That is until I found the birth certificate for George Junior.

George Sr. still living with Elizabeth as a boarder but now George Jr. is a Bader and not a Johnson.

Birth record leads to more confusion…

After much digging for George Bader Jr.’s birth certificate and coming up empty I took a shot in the dark and looked for a birth certificate for George Johnson and to my amazement I found it. Same birth date and listed Elizabeth Johnson and her deceased husband as parents. So confused.

George Bader Jr. birth record. Correct birth date and same address on census record.

Still believing an error occurred on the 1910 census I went to the 1920 census. I could not find either George in Chicago so I expanded my search nationwide looking for George Bader and George Bader Jr. with what ages they should be. I finally found them–in Portland, Oregon. They were together living with one of Elizabeth Johnson’s daughters. On this census George Sr. is listed as ‘widowed’ which makes sense because he never divorced my great great grandmother and she died in 1912 from cancer.

George Sr. and Jr. now living in Portland with Elizabeth’s daughter, Mary (after she had married and been widowed).

I am awfully confused at this point. Was Elizabeth Johnson the mother of George Jr. like the birth record says? But then why would George Jr. go with Senior and leave Elizabeth behind in Chicago? Were George Sr. and Elizabeth Johnson having an affair and that is why my great great grandmother moved back to Indiana in 1898?

In the 1930 and 1940 census George Sr. continues to live with George Jr. and his family in the Portland area until his death in July of 1940.

Basically after my great great grandmother left him he appears to have never lived with her again or even see his children again. He lives with Elizabeth Johnson for around 12-15 years and then heads to Portland with George Jr. and one of Elizabeth’s daughters.

I had my suspicions that George Sr. had an affair with Elizabeth Johnson (while her husband was alive) and the birth record for George Jr. was just listed as Elizabeth and her husband’s. Then after her husband passed away it was easier to say the child was George Sr.’s. Simply listing George Sr. as a boarder with a son didn’t raise suspicion in an age where this was highly frowned upon.

Elizabeth Johnson in the middle with George Sr. on the left and George Jr. in the back left. Taken in Portland when Elizabeth visited.

I am not alone in my assumptions and research.

This all seems so out there I always doubted my findings. Then several years after my research began I came in contact with a distant Bader cousin. She had done her own research and had come to the same conclusion. However, growing up she always heard that Elizabeth Johnson had run a brothel in Chicago. She had also heard that family members believed George Bader Jr. was not Elizabeth’s child but rather her daughter’s child. This is controversial because Elizabeth’s daughter would have been only 14 at the time (and George Sr. would have been 39). My relative said Elizabeth’s daughter, Mary, and George Jr. were always extremely close and Mary was the one who moved out to Portland with George Senior and Junior.

When you put the pieces together it all seems to fit. A sad, soap opera like scenario but many of the facts are there. Will I ever know the 100% truth? Probably not. To this day I cannot be sure that Elizabeth Johnson is the mother of George Bader Jr. I truly do not think her husband was the father because right after he dies George Jr. takes on the Bader name.

The take away….

The take away here is that not everything is what it seems. As a genealogist we have to deal in facts. The facts in this case tell me that my great great grandparents split up but never divorced. They tell me that my great great grandfather had an illegitimate child. The facts also lead me to believe the birth record was a lie. George Junior was not the child of Elizabeth’s husband (and possibly not even Elizabeth). He was not born in a hospital but rather at home and it is a birth record…not a certificate. Elizabeth also, according to census records, had a total of 18 children but only less than half survived and she had her ‘Own Income’. Running a brothel could be a possibility.

I will keep searching, trying to find anything to support the theories. Key take away here is: Don’t assume your family was perfect or that just because something seems odd means it isn’t true. Just like people today, our ancestors had flaws too. Embrace it and accept it as just a part of your family history.