Are you good with faces? Help my identify family pics please.

An unknown family member (I believe my aunt) labeled a picture as being @Scully's great great grandmother. It also states her date of birth is 1821. However, the name given for the woman "Loretta Anita" does not exist in the generation pictured, though she did also write Mary in parentheses.

The only person in our family tree named Loretta Anita was Mary's granddaughter, born in 1871. This picture (from the dress) could not be her as by the time anyone born in 1871 was an adult the dress in the picture would have been long out of fashion.

The date of birth, being the great great grandmother, etc, lead me to believe that my aunt mislabeled her in-law's pic. I think it is Mary, (just Mary, no Loretta Anita) born around 1821 and who died of cholera sometime between 1859-1862. We have one known pic of Mary taken in 1840.

It is hard to tell if it is the same woman because the poses are very different, and the hair and dress are very dissimilar (in 1840 Mary was a recent immigrant, in 1860 she was well to do so if it is her the fancy dress does make sense).

Pic of mislabeled relative

Both women have their hair parted in the middle. The bottom pic lady has a much higher forehead than the top pic lady, although the mouth and eyes look the same. Cool that you have pics this far back.

Here, I did this for you:

Good point about the forehead, I wouldn't have noticed that. I just can't get past the name being so horribly wrong when it was labeled, and anyone who would have had any real clue about who this is is long dead. We found this in a pile of pictures in a relatives basement. Frustrating to say the least. I also can't see an Irish immigrant with a name like Loretta Anita, whereas Mary would fit.

Could the bowtie lady be the daughter of the other? I love stuff like this.

Bow tie lady is confirmed Mary, that picture was taken approximately 1840.

Fancy dress lady had her picture taken around 1860

spontaneous said:
Bow tie lady is confirmed Mary, that picture was taken approximately 1840.
Fancy dress lady had her picture taken around 1860

That's interesting. Bow tie lady's picture looks more modern, better quality. I would have thought it was taken later, as camera quality improved.

I have a dress very similar to fancy dress lady! I love those photos, I wish they were my relatives.

Bow tie lady, Mary, had daughters. Mary born 1845, Catherine Anita born 1850, Teresa Ann born 1853, and Margaret born 1856. None of them would have been old enough by the 1860's to be the woman in the second picture

Here is the full shot of fancy dress. (Taken on my cell, so it kinda sucks).

ETA: I took it out of the plastic sleeve to get a better shot.

Mary (bow tie lady) and her husband owned coal yards in NYC and ships that they used to ship grain and other goods across the Atlantic. Even with the privileged life they led they still had it rough. Mary was widowed at age 40 and died herself at age 45 leaving behind seven children, the youngest of which was only six years old.

How sad.

Spontaneous, these pictures are wonderful and the history very interesting. My 93 year old mom has a bunch of similar old potos of family hanging in her bedroom, I must make sure she has info. on who, what, when and where.

My take on this is:

Both women have their hair parted in the middle. The bottom pic lady has a much higher forehead than the top pic lady, although the mouth and eyes look the same. Cool that you have pics this far back.

I disagree. Face of ms bow tie is fuller. Mouth of ms fancy has a slight downward curve to the lips. Also, ms bow tie has a slight wave(curl?) to her hair, while ms fancy has dead straight hair. Is it just me or does ms fancy seem to have a longer neck?

Everything about the fancy dress pic is reminiscent of 1860-70s photos. This includes dress style, pose and sepia tone. This would mean that she couldn't be lady born 1871.

Please also post the photo the earlier photo.

VERY COOL

for your family

Aren't photos from 1840 very rare unless a daguerrotype (sp?)

I think that the two ladies noses are very very different.

The 1840's picture is a confirmed picture of Mary. I don't know what type of photo it is as my uncle has the original and I was only able to get a scanned copy. Mary was an Irish immigrant (as was her husband Peter but she and her husband were people of means, so being able to afford a picture does not surprise me. They arrived in the US around 1843 and immediately purchased a coal yard, and by 1849 they also purchased two schooners that they used for importing/exporting. We have copied of the bills of sales (coming from a family of hoarders has its perks at times) and they apparently spent $30,000 to buy the two schooners. I don't even want to know what that is in today's money.

I agree 1000% that she cannot be the woman born in 1871. I am betting that my aunt was confused when she wrote the name. She had the right person (great great grandmother) but had the wrong name

They're beautiful pix!

Yes, "bow tie" lady's nose seems to slant down from the lip to the tip, while "fancy dress" lady's slopes up. Though if one of the ladies was only 18 or 19 (1821-1840) at the time of the picture, the nose might not be quite fully formed yet. Also, at this point, I'm confused about which date/name goes with which picture. The hairlines also look different to me, though fancy-dress lady could have been retouched.

Is there any possibility that Mary found she wanted a more distinguished or dramatic name, either when she came to America, or when she came into money? Lotsa Marys in our family go by their middle name, or a completely different name. My money, though, (if any) is on mislabeling.

I hope you find the answer to this mystery, maybe through finding a third pic?

Much different nose

I know this is confusing since you don't have the family tree, named, dates, etc. laid out in front of you.

Bow tie pic is Mary, confirmed. It was taken around 1840, she would have been around 20, give or take.

The fancy dress pic was taken (guessing by the dress) around 1860, give or take. The back of the pic has "(Mary) Loretta Anita Clinton" written on it. It also says she was born in 1821, which is the guessed birthdate for Mary (we could not find birth records for Mary, her DOB was deduced based on the age given on her death certificate

The fancy dress/mystery woman in the second picture (1860) looks younger or at least around the same age as the bow tie lady (aka real Mary) in the first picture (1840), so it seems impossible that they could be the same person (unless they airbrushed the heck out of that second photo!).

If (big if) it IS Mary in the second picture then she would be the same age there that I am right now. Looking in the mirror I don't think she looks too young to be 40-ish.

I don't agree about the nose. After taking a ton of selfies having an upturned face (fancy dress) vs a downturned face (bow tie) makes a BIG difference in the size/shape of the nose. I'd say the hairline is a much bigger issue than the nose since I highly doubt electrolysis existed in the mid 1800's.

20 years between 1840 and 1860 would have taken a bigger toll than it would now. Forget if she "looks 40", she theoretically wouldn't have aged despite birthing seven children and living a hard life. Possible I'm sure, but it doesn't seem probable.

Good luck! Fun project.

It is also possible that the picture was taken in the 1850's. I am not a fashion expert and only guessed 1860's because the dress reminded me of something out of Gone With The Wind

Read about the history of photography. It was just beginning in about 1840 and I don't think the pictures are as detailed as those photos. I have some old family photos and some daguerrotypes. Love to research this sort of thing.

Southworth and Hawes operated a photography studio in Boston from 1843 to 1863. They photographed all sorts of people, including many luminaries of that period. The resulting daguerrotypes are extraordinary for their detail and composition, not unlike your photo of the woman in the lace shawl. Their work can be found on the Metropolitan Museum and the George Eastman House sites. I think you have images of two women -- the noses, the hairlines and the jaw lines all seem different to me. If Mary came to the United States in reduced circumstances as an immigrant, it would be surprising if she'd had the financial wherewithal to dress so beautifully and afford to have her portrait taken.

Here is the weird thing. Mary and Peter came to the U.S. from the same county in Ireland, but married here. He was from Dillonstown, Co. Louth, she was from Castlebellingham, Co. Louth. I don't know if they came together or separately, but the fact that their hometowns were only a few miles apart leads me to believe they knew each other before arriving in New York. If they came together then she wasn't a poor immigrant traveling in steerage. Peter had money. He was a landlord in Ireland. She would have had the money for a portrait.

Oh, I see. I backtracked a bit and read more about their background. Yes, sounds like she could have easily afforded the session. Another issue, though, is the switch from daguerreotypes to photographs, which, according to what I've been reading, took place in the early 1860s. That would put the date of the confirmed photograph of Mary later than 1840, unless the photo is a copy from a daguerreotype.

When I said confirmed photograph I didn't mean photograph vs daguerreotype vs celotype. That was my bad, I know very little about older photographs. What I meant was that it was confirmed that the image was of Mary. I do not have access to the original so I don't know what medium the picture was taken on. The relative who holds the original is unfortunately unreachable. What I have is a color print made from a computer scan of the original. Looking at the info I was given it was put in the 1840's, not exactly 1840, so they was also my error.

Looking through the huge packet of info I have addresses that Mary and Peter used to live at. Google tells me that one of their addresses, 559 Greenwich St is now a parking lot. I don't expect to see housing in NYC from the mid 1800's still standing today, but something about it being a parking lot just makes me sad.

Go to the National Archives and look up the census records.