Figure 1.--Here we have an imsage of the Powers family, a large, extended rural family. The portrait is undated, but we would guess about the 1890s. The portrait shows both the family and the family home. One curious aspect of the family is that one of the children looks to be a rather old boy wearing a dress. Another much younger boy wears kneepants. Another child who we think is a girl has ringlet curls. Hopefully HBC readers will have some thoughts on this portrait. Click on the image for an enlargement.

Here we have an imsage of the Powers family, a large, extended rural family. The portrait is undated, but we would guess about the 1890s. The portrait shows both the family and the family home. One curious aspect of the family is that one of the children looks to be a rather old boy wearing a dress. Another much younger boy wears kneepants. Another child who we think is a girl has ringlet curls. Hopefully HBC readers will have some thoughts on this portrait.

Chronology

Our HBC reader thought that this portrait was taken in the early 1860s. We would guess more the 1890s, but we are not at all sure. There are a variety of indicatots in the image that can be used to help date the image. The most useful are the clothes that the individuals in the film are wearing.

Location

The location may be Oregon.

Family

A HBc reader reports that this is an early portrait of the Powers family.

Chiild at Left

In this photo you will note that the child (hair side-parted) seated on the far left is wearing a dress/frock and appears to be age 10-12. Connie writes, "In my research thus far it seems he is rather old to still be dressed in such a way, but taking into account that these were rural farming folks, the latest fashions were not of great interest. I'm sure you'll also note there is another boy shown of a much younger age who is wearing kneepants and would appear to be more fashionably attired. If I am correct in my conclusions, these two boys are cousins and not siblings." Connie added further, "Not only does he/she look masculine to me and have short hair, the hair is also parted on the side... this is something I have not seen with any girls at all until the 1900's and later. In addition the dress is gathered at the natural waist, but not tightly and not up higher (empire) as with most young girls dresses. Then of course there is an absence of lace. Also the over the shoulder cape/collar treatment is interesting." HBc is doubtful that the child is a boy. I will grant you that he looks like a boy. But some girls in the 19th century had short hair. Not normally this short or cut like this, but I have noted girls that I wought have guesed were boys (and visa versa). There is no way to be sure about this. One reason that I doubt this is a boy is the rural setting. Farmers were very practical peope and a boy wearing dresses at this age was not very practical. There were boys this age that were kept in dresses in the late 19th century. It was not common, but not unknown. Almost alwats they were city boys from wealthy, very fashionable families that could afford private tutors.

Ladies Dresses

Connie tells us, "Ladies dresses were tight to the neck, with small collars (one trimmed in lace) and the belt worn by the lady on the left with the large buckle (became very fashionable in the mid 60's). Their hair was center parted and drawn back tightly behind the ears, but not lifted into a bun atop their heads as in the 70-80's, nor hiding the ear as in the 50's. The one aspect that I have not been able to find much on is their dress sleeves. All are rather large (too large for 1860 high fashion) and they are inset at the shoulder rather than lower on the arm as in the early 60's. Most all are drawn into a gather at the wrist with the exception of the lady on the right. Initially I thought the sleeve was tightly sewn from the elbow down, but on a closer look she may actually be wearing another garment under the dress with a tight sleeve and the dress sleeve actually stops at the elbow or was pulled up the elbow allowing the other garment to be seen. Each of the women's skirts are full but not gathered at the waist (flat fronted) and appear to be either inset or pleated for fullness. They are wearing short corsets."

Mens' Clothing

Connie reports, "The men are wearing vests with narrow collars and notched lapels and shirt collars folded down (with the exception of the one boy on the right with his up and a 'long' tie tied in a small triangular knot dropped slightly from the neck rather than up tight with his collar). The center man's boot is almost fully visible looks to be square toed (70's). He is wearing a striped pant. The man in the rear standing is wearing a shirt with a plaid print while the others all look to be white or of a solid light color. The men's hats might offer further clues but I have not found much info on them yet."

Younger Child

We note that many farm children, even boys this age worec long trousers. Kneepants were worn by boys this age in fashionable families, but thev blouse and cut of the kneepants looks to us more like the 1890s than the 1860s.

Photography

Connie points out, "The photo sitting itself took quite awhile as is evident of the blurriness of some of the details, especially the dog. If you look closely in the far right lower corner you can see where the dog is actually shown in 3 positions, the main spot in front of the young child and two times he is 'ghosted' further to the lower right." HBC agrees that photographic can be useful in helping to date old photographs. Photographers had low speed plates in the 1860s and buy the 1890s speeds were much faster. A ghosted image of a dog suggesting very low speed film does suggest the 1860s. The fact that an exposure of many seconds even in outside light is an important clue here.

Family Grouping

Our reader writes, "I believe the family groups shown (Mother and four grown children with their families) are (left to right):

Group #1: Son #1: Tall man standing with hat on His wife: Woman on far left Sons: yhree boys on far left (two on chairs and one seated on log).

Group #2: Son #2: Seated holding girl (hair center-parted) toddler on left His wife: Standing behind father Daughter: In father's lap

Group #3: Son #3: Seated (leg crossed with hat resting on knee) His wife: Standing behind father Son: Standing in front of father wearing short pants Daughter: Seated on log in center of photo.

Group #4: Mother: Seated in rocking chair

Group #5: Daughter #1:Standing behind mother

Group #6: Granddaughter of mother: (daughter of daughter standing behind mother) Herhusband: Seated holding infant (I believe to be female) Daughters: 1 Seated on log near center of photo on right and 1 in father's lap Son: Toddler seated far right on log with dog in front.

Group#7: Unknown man: Standing in the far rear of photo near horses

Assessment

Connie provides us this overview, "I of course have not been able to confirm any definite timeframe, hence why I asked for your assistance :-) I agree the ladies dress sleeves do not totally agree with 1860's fashion, but also must take into account these were farm women who made their own clothing and might alter the current style to suit their daily lives. If I am correct as to who is pictured here, the elder woman would be Sarah Mann-Powers, daughter of a very strict ME church elder and widow of James Z. Powers of whom very little is known about. It is quite possible he was of Irish descent, which brought to mind the 'fairy dress' possibility. All in all I think the biggest clues in this photo are the men's collars and ties (particularly the 'long tie' and the white tie of the boy next to him), the vest lapels and their hats, the 'ghosting' (long exposure), the side part and gathered waist of the boy/girl, the ladies hairstyles and the belt buckle and of course their sleeves. The one ladies gathered bodice is another strong clue I am sure, but I have not been able to narrow it down any further than the 60-70's."

Sources

Spindel, Connie. E-mail message, May 11, 2004. Connie has an interesting web site Connie's Family History Pages.

Created: May 11, 2004
Last updated: May 11, 2004