What not to do to a tin type!

On my last outing with Shirley we stopped into an antique shop and I was able to score some old photographs at a good price.  One of them was a tin type.  It was being sold at rock bottom prices because it was damaged.SAM_2481

This poor photo has been scratched and bent to the point of one of these poor ladies loosing her half her face.  (But her best feature-her eyes-are still there for us to see.) Luckily for this photo, it has been found by someone who is primarily interested in the gowns and hair.  Judging by those features I’d guess this photo to be from the 80’s.  One lady has the frizzy bangs that was the rage in the 80’s and one does not.  It is a bit hard to be sure of the gowns because they are sitting but they seem to have the narrow front so I’m going to assume the bustles of the 80’s are there.

I found this photo interesting because it goes with my idea that next year I hope to have a stash busting/no new fabric year.  A lot of my stash is fabric left over from previous projects and so I’ve decided that can be cut up to add more details to my existing gowns.  One of the details I had considered was puffs and pleats similar to what the lady on the left has on the bottom of her gown.

The lady on the right has small pleats added to her bodice.  I also like her bow that is pinned to her throat.  That would make a nice quick project.

I can’t finish off this post without commenting on the gentleman’s hair and facial hair.  All I can say is I wonder if the hubby would ever consent to that coiffure!  Ha!  I think not! But, then again, I can’t get him to wade into my hobby/madness anyway!

4 thoughts on “What not to do to a tin type!

  1. kurajane says:

    The gentleman looks like a Victorian Elvis!

  2. flaregirl55 says:

    Hello, Just a couple of details about the photo. One is i think the lady showing her wedding hand is the wife to the man behind. The other women has covered her wedding hand for a reason. They could be sisters because it was the way a family could have a photo taken as the cost back then was expensive. The reason no smiles is because they thought the flash would steal their soul. My thoughts and i have a real love of pictures and read a great deal on traditional behavior. Your news clips are very nice to read. Best wishes, Sandy

    Sent from Samsung tablet

    • I agree with you about who is who in this photo. I had also seen the wedding ring and drew the same conclusion about her being married to the man. And when I noticed the other woman’s wedding hand was covered I thought it significant as well…perhaps she was hiding the fact she was an unmarried spinster. Unmarried sisters sometimes lived with their married siblings as it was unladylike to live alone. I had not heard the steal the soul belief. I will have to research that one a bit. I did hear that since photographs were rarely done, it was a serious event that demanded a high level of decorum. Grinning was not something you did at such a monumental event.

  3. I found a quote that may explain why some folks didn’t smile for Victorian photographs. It is from Mark Twain. In one of his letters, collected by Jeeves, he wrote:

    A photograph is a most important document, and there is nothing more damning to go down to posterity than a silly, foolish smile caught and fixed forever.

    Another reason not to smile…crappy teeth.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s