Today's post was going to be on the deceptiveness of age in photos and how I am such a very bad judge of it. (Please don't ever ask me to guess how old you are -- you will be disturbingly disappointed.) I was almost completed with the post, actually, when I happened to see another photo which not only made my "How old is this photo really?" post unnecessary, but also gave me a "Hey, would you look at that!" moment.
Make sense? Doesn't have to. I haven't had my morning coffee yet and I'm just rambling. On to the photos:
This (I believe) is my uncle, William Shaffer, born 1920. It's a wonder the poor boy doesn't slide off that chair, but then he's so strait-jacketed in that outfit I doubt he can move. In my original post, I questioned the true age and identity of the photo. There is another William Shaffer in the family tree, my great grandfather, born 1861. Simply armed with that information alone, and being somewhat ignorant of infant clothing styles of the various periods, I wondered which William this really was.
And then I ran across this photo:
If I'm not mistaken, these young ladies are my grandmother's two little sisters -- Mary, born 1907, and Ida, born 1911 -- which would make this photo circa 1912. What caught my eye about it was that chair ... and the I-Wanna-Be-A-Bearskin-Rug covering on it ... and the sheet hanging behind the children, with the stripes in exactly the same place.
Logic dictates that it's more conceivable the same background/setting would be used within eight years of each other as opposed to fifty years of each other, which means the first photo is more likely my uncle than my great grandfather.
That's part of the appeal of genealogical research for me ... it's a lot like solving a mystery.
To see what the rest of the Sepia Saturdayers have discovered, hop on over to the Sepia Saturday blog by clicking right ==> HERE!