Category Archives: Photos Without Names

More of Mayme E. Myers or Unknown

Posted on by
Reply

Three photos. Photographer(s):  Unknown. Sizes as noted include the cardboard matting.

Prices:  $15.00 each or $40.00 for three or $50.00 for all four (includes prior post photo).

About the possible name:  This is the same girl from our prior post. That photo has writing on the back that shows, “Mayme E. Myers.”  However, there are two women in that one but only the one name, so we can’t say for certain that this is Mayme. All four were found in an antique shop in Monterey, California. 

Size:  About 4 and 3/8 x 6 and 1/4″    Circa 1890s.

The subject of our photo above, at around thirteen years old. This one has a sticker on the reverse from the antique shop where it was found, (not naming names) which shows “1852.” Really, this was not from that time-period. For one, (no need to look for additional proof) there’s no doubt that she’s the same person in both the prior posting and the three on this page – this after comparing facial features and ear shape. (Just mentioning this sticker with “date” for a potential buyer and as a caution to anyone buying old photos that have a date affixed by the seller.) I’d estimate the date as circa 1890s – fashion-wise, with all the ruffles, the large sleeves, the grand bow in back, and that excellent hat with its high ostrich plumes. (Enlarging the photo, you’ll notice the two-heart pin at the neckline – rather adorable.)

Size:  About 4 and 1/4 x 6 and 3/8″      Circa 1900s.

Above, the second in this set. I think she’s a bit younger here than in the next one, and it’s another stunning shot. (She’s a beautiful girl and very photogenic.) If you enlarge the image, note that the curl that’s been allowed to drape on the shoulder seems to have fabric covering its upper portion. Unless this was altered in the photo process? Definitely possible, as it turns out there were modifications to this photo, read on to the end.

Size:  About 4 and 3/8 x 6 and 5/8″       Circa 1900s – 1910s.

Above, the third, our “Updo Girl.” I’m calling her this now in my head, after recently discovering a great movie on You Tube, called Detroit Unleaded. Check it out if you have the time. It has absolutely nothing to do with these photos and is just a phrase from the film – but fitting for her hairstyle. Enlarge to see the details on the beautiful lace blouse she’s wearing. As for the difference in skin-tone in this one compared to the others (especially the earliest) something was different in the photographic process – note the above’s slightly reddish hue. If these were modern-era photos we’d be talking about “white balance.”

Photo modification……

And having scrutinized the second photo, I’m compelled to show how it appears to have been retouched. The “dots” don’t appear to be dirt marks on the photo. The bodice of pleats with its soft polka dots looks very natural. But above that, more dots. Those look “off” or, at least, some do. Really, the full neckline trim is inconsistent – soft and flowery on our left and tighter, sort of knotted on our right. And then, we can see more telltale signs of retouching – the “scratch marks” as noted by the arrows. The changes were likely done while the image was still a negative, though “later on” they could be applied directly to the photo. We’ll get into some details on this extensive subject in an upcoming post, as time permits. But, see the last two sources below for more info.

Sources:  Hull, Rob. November 30, 2017. “White Balance:  100 Years of History.” https://thephotographeronline.com/inspiration/white-balance-100-years-of-history/. Accessed July 1, 2024.

Sears, Jocelyn. July 28, 2016. “How Photo Retouching Worked Before Photoshop.” https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/83262/how-photo-retouching-worked-photoshop. Accessed July 4, 2024.

Complete Self-Instructing Library of Practical Photography. Vol X. American School of Art and Photography. Scranton, Pennsylvania. (1909).  (Google.com book search).

Mayme E. Myers and Unknown

Posted on by
Reply

Oval family photo on cardboard. Circa 1900 – 1910s. Photographer:  Mowrey.

Price:  $15.00               Size including cardboard mounting:  About 3 and 1/2 x 5″

Two lovely young women have posed for this family photo, wearing striped blouses trimmed with high necklines, and with the upswept hairdo popular in the Edwardian Era…..

Wow, it’s too bad that both names were not written on the back. We don’t know which one is Mayme, and we also don’t know, for sure, if Myers was her maiden name. I’m wondering if these two might be sisters. See the next post for three more studio-type photos of the woman on our left. And, it looks like there are too many possibilities to be able to locate Mayme in records, especially since Mayme or Mamie was sometimes a nickname for Mary.

As for the photographer, searching under the surname Mowrey, nationwide, from 1900 – 1920, three possibilities were found. Hopefully someone will be able to identify Mayme which will point us to a photographer location. In any case, the following may be of help: 

Harvey Allen Mowrey in Ashland, Ohio. Ran his own studio as of 1901.

William H. Mowrey, longtime photographer in Newport, Rhode Island.

Walter Emmert Mowrey.  Kansas native, active in Kearney and Custer County, Nebraska. Several newspaper articles show up for him. He also worked out of Salt Lake City, Utah 1909 – 1911. Died in Santa Cruz, California.

Lastly, it’s always possible he was none of the above. Since we’re not sure, we won’t go to any great lengths in sourcing the above; various records found were viewed from the list below:

Sources:  Ancestry.com. U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995.

Various census records and a family tree via Ancestry.com.

Newspapers.com. 

Findagrave.com.

To Aunt Cornelia

Posted on by
Reply

Divided back, Real Photo Postcard. Unused, dated July 24, 1913. NOKO stamp box.

Price:  $10.00

A couple in a farming community somewhere in the U. S. pose in front of what may be their home. (Note the lace curtain in the window on our right.) But if this is not their residence it could have been a public meeting house for church services. (The woman is holding a small book, perhaps a prayer book). But the main reason that we might think “church” are the two side-by-side doors on the front of this structure:  It was not uncommon for church services to be segregated, having two separate entrances for men and women. However, old homes also, for many varied reasons, sometimes were built with this two-door design. (See the link below.) Also, notable about the building is that it sits up on blocks.

As for the young couple, (hard-working farmers we imagine, perhaps newly wed) we remark on the fact that the man wears overalls over his shirt and tie. (Are we back to the church theory or is he just dressed up a bit for the photo?) Either way, its pretty charming and adds to the uniqueness of this photo postcard.

Sources:  Kibbel, III, William. “Two Front Doors.” (oldhouseweb.com). Accessed April 2, 2024.

Family On Porch

Posted on by
Reply

Old photo, circa 1900 – 1910’s.

Price:  $5.00             Size:  4 and 1/2 x 2 and 7/16″

Nice gingerbread detail on this porch – clearly a family is gathered here, though we don’t have any names or even a location on the back. The woman on our right in the dark dress is the mom and possibly the man in front of them is the dad. Then we’ve got a grandmother or two, or perhaps a great-aunt and then a couple of men in conversation, maybe a neighbor has stopped by….I had picked up this photo thinking it went with some others (but probably not) that were loose in a bin; they were, per the norm, languishing – just hanging around in an antique store. How many millions of old photos are doing the same at this moment? Yes, rather a tragedy, especially to those of us that have actively searched for images of their ancestors; some found (amazing!) and many more not. (There’s always hope.) Back to this lack of i.d., really, it’s a rare person then and now (well, different now with everything digital) that always identified the back of a photo. (It is tedious, for sure.) But even unidentified it’s still good. We can get a sense of, certainly fashion, including house fashion (i.e. our Victorian gingerbread here with that beautifully tall door) and that can be important to historians and collectors. (You bet, you can get deep in research detail – those white shoes the mom and daughters are wearing, for instance, and their nearly identical hairstyles). But good also, for just life the way it used to be…..in what we now (laughably) think of as a simpler time.

Couple With Towle’s Log Cabin Display

Posted on by
Reply

Old photo, white border. Circa 1910’s. 

Price:  $20.00           Size:  4 and 1/16 x 2 and 3/8″

There may be some historical interest for this photo for any researchers or collectors of Towle’s Log Cabin Syrup items; we’re not finding anything similar online…..

In starting research for this one, I was surprised to find the Log Cabin brand of syrup still being sold. (I always go right for the real thing, apparently blocking all others from vision. And yes, I know, this makes me sound like a snob, 😉 especially in light of the absurd store prices we’re up against today). Thinking back, growing up in the ’60’s, our cupboard usually contained Mrs. Butterworth’s (we liked the bottle) and sometimes Log Cabin, but at some point, someone (maybe an uncle and probably not till I was in high school), introduced us to actual maple syrup (from trees!) and well, why would you want anything else? (Ha, memories, as an adult, of going out for breakfast and sneaking in syrup from home, and later, of a great place that my husband and I used to drive down to, in Carmel Valley, CA – The Wagon Wheel. Real maple syrup available upon request, still for just an extra dollar.)

About Towle’s

Towle’s was started in 1888 in St. Paul, Minnesota by grocer, Patrick Joseph Towle, and bought out by General Foods in 1927. They initially sold their log cabin syrup in a tall metal can and shortly thereafter in that iconic log-cabin-shaped container. In addition, they manufactured other syrup brands, as well as other related products. For much more about them, see this article by author Matthew Thomas. (Check out his link within the link. Note:  Even the original recipe for log cabin maple syrup may not have been pure maple.)

Our photo….

A couple, maybe in their twenties, are sitting on a porch; the woman backed up to one of the porch posts and the man with his elbow resting on a 3-D Towle’s Log Cabin display. An axe and hammer, and these both appear to be real tools, lean against the little cabin. We can see houses across the street, so the area seems to be residential. Now, it’s possible that this was a general or hardware store with this display set up, and the gentlemen has just bought these tools – but in typing this scenario, it sounds far-fetched, the display would be subjected to the weather, for one. This makes us wonder if the couple isn’t somehow connected to the Towle family….Or, the gentleman could have been a new distributor of the syrup and had added the two props for picture-taking purposes.

Advertisements in old newspapers abound; here are two:

From The Tacoma Daily Ledger, November 23, 1890, an ad touting Towle’s “Log Cabin” maple syrup as absolutely pure, unadulterated and without added glucose, though, if you read with skepticism, you’ll understand that this ad never definitively says that it’s 100% maple syrup.

And from The Oregon Daily Journal, September 27, 1912:

Sources:  Thomas, Matthew. (2017, August 31). “When Towle’s Log Cabin Was a Maple Syrup Company.”maplesyruphistory.com. Accessed March 2, 2024.

“A Card to the Public.” The Tacoma Daily Ledger (Tacoma, Washington). November 23, 1890. Sunday, p. 7. (Newspapers.com).

“Record-Breaking Shipment of Towle’s Log Cabin Syrup.” The Oregon Daily Journal (Portland, Oregon). September 27, 1912. Friday, p. 15. (Newspapers.com).

Couple On Porch

Posted on by
Reply

Old photo, white border, circa early 1920’s.

Price:  $4.00           Size:  2 and 3/8 x 4 and 1/4″

We’re continuing a short couple theme, no names on the back of this one. I’m guessing the ’20s due to the cloche-style hat the woman is wearing, though it could have been earlier. Estimating dates from clothing, footwear and hairstyles can be really time-consuming, unless something specifically jumps out to pinpoint, or you’re already an expert or close-enough to one. Alas, I’m not. What was the moment? Obviously, he likes her, but she has that skeptical, “nobody’s fool” look. Nice porch columns displayed here – quite detailed and with that bit of gingerbread trim at the top.

Belgrade Boy, Circa 1910’s

Posted on by
Reply

Old photo, white border. Circa 1910’s. Belgrade,Yugoslavia.

Price:  $5.00          Size:  About 2 and 1/2 x 3 and 3/8″

Blonde tousled hair, a boy of about ten years old, has a nice smile for the camera on a sunny day…..The alternate name for this post is “Belgrade Boy With Balloon, Minus the Balloon.” 🙂

On the reverse is written,  “Mediterranean Belgarde.”  Not finding anything under Belgarde, we have to presume it’s a misspelling of Belgrade, now in Serbia, though at that time it would have been Yugoslavia. What was meant by “Mediterranean” is utterly unknown, as this city is nowhere near that body of water. Was it a section of Belgrade or a street name? We can’t find any reference.

As always, it’s nice to pick out details:  the pocket handkerchief in the boy’s sweater; we see that he carried a watch – there’s the chain (wonder what he carried in his other hand); the building across the street, probably a store, with only the last two letters (or so) of the company name showing – so, not really enough to get that tantalized feeling when you can almost read something; the automobile, we’ll skip the potential i.d. on this one – the image is a little blurry. And, of course, not a “detail” but that massive hunk of metal that was fashioned into a beautiful streetcar – imagine the weight of that thing….and our proximity to it – five or six steps and you can feel yourself grabbing the handrail and climbing aboard….

Ready For Breakfast

Posted on by
Reply

Old photo, white border. April 1914.

Price:  $3.00           Size:  About 2 and 1/2 x 3 and 7/8″

“Vera & Geo just coming home from store. April 1914.”

No surnames or location for this one but perhaps someone will get a kick out a few old memories resurfacing, as I did. My own childhood definitely included going into stores barefoot. (Haven’t thought about that for years. In the summer, it was just about everywhere barefoot, wasn’t it?) And I remember being sent on a cigarette run (Newports in the green package) out of the vending machine mostly…. Anyway back to our photo, Vera’s got the tin of Quaker Puffed Rice and George has the milk – they just need bowls and spoons and they’re all set!

Comic Donkey and Couple Circa 1940’s

Posted on by
Reply

Old photo, circa 1940’s.

Price:  $6.00              Size:  About 2 and 1/2 x 3 and 1/2″

These type seem to be generally referred to as “face-in-the-hole-board.” Other names include photo cutouts, Aunt Sallys, peep boards, character boards, fat-lady-on-the-beach boards. This handsome and fun, young couple (out for a drive in the surrey – yep, surrey with the fringe on top 😉 ) look to be from the 1940’s era. 

Sources:  Photo Cutouts. https://photocutouts.co.uk/blog/peep-boards-face-in-the-hole-boards-cutout-boards-what-should-they-be-called/ (Accessed June 10, 2023.)

The Surrey with the Fringe on Top. n.d. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Surrey_with_the_Fringe_on_Top#:~:text=%22The%20

Surrey%20with%20the%20Fringe,jazz%20musicians%20to%20play%20it. (Accessed June 10, 2023.)

Mother and Son

Posted on by
Reply

Old photo, white border, circa 1930s.

Price:  $2.00         Size:  3 and 3/8 x 5″

Another poor quality shot (but the peering into the past effect is cool) and also, like the prior post, no identifying names. I just like the guy’s stance, (and that slightly askew necktie) his gaze upward and outward, in contrast to the older woman, though closer scrutiny shows she’s looking off in the distance as well, not directly at the camera. I thought at first glance this was a “couple photo” but in looking at their “ages,” no. More likely they’re mother and son.