Like mother, like baby

For some reason this baby looks just like its mother to me. I can’t tell the gender of the baby because there just wasn’t enough hair for Mother to style it into a center or side part to give us a clue. Baby’s dress is lovely. By the long sleeves I’m going to guess the child was born in the winter or spring months and is about three months old by the time of this photograph. I love the chubby little fingers spread out on the left hand.

Mother has a velvet bodice and some sort of contrasting fabric skirt. She also has a bit of lace on her collar, which is in keeping with the style of 1880 onward. The photographer was Hartley again, who’s work we saw previously here. Without seeing much more of the dress it is difficult to date the photo to a more precise time frame. I’ll venture to say mid 1880s.

Advertisements

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. IntenseGuy
    Feb 09, 2011 @ 08:57:51

    Photographers named Hartley and/or Hartley’s Studios were at 309 W. Madison from at least 1877 to 1899 – This is from an index of Chicago directory listings, so they could have been there earlier and later, too.

    Edward F. Hartley and Mrs. Virginia Hartley (his wife) are listed at 309 W Madison – he from 1877 to 1894, she from 1893-94.

    “Hartley’s Studios” is listed at that address in 1893 and 1894.

    Edwin L. Brand, photographer, is listed at that address 1894-1897.

    The owner of the studio, Edward F. Hartley, died Oct. 9, 1887, according to his obit in the Chicago Tribune the next day. He had no children. His wife Virginia “Jennie” Boyd Hartley survived him. His father, Charles Hartley, and (unnamed) brothers and sisters survived him as well.

    In a Nov. 2, 1887 article in the Chicago Tribune, his wife was left his estate.

    In later ads for Hartley’s Studios in the Chicago Tribune (1890 and 1891) his wife is listed as “Mrs. Virginia Hartley Stiles, proprietor” so she was remarried by then.

    All of this does very little to help us determine a date for the photograph unless the design he (or his wife) used on the photo changed.

    http://uneinsamkeiten.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html shows a dated photo 1894 that has a different design.

    This album has proved a “tough nut to crack”.

    Reply

  2. Far Side of Fifty
    Feb 09, 2011 @ 20:13:48

    So since they used the same photographer..lets just think for a moment..cousins..friends..in laws..they don’t look like sisters… I vote cousins or in laws..
    It is a beautiful photograph..those “first” babies are so special:)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: