Tintype of a woman in a patterned gown

What it is:

Tintype measuring approx. 2.25 x 3.5 inches.

What I know about it:

Nothing!  Undated and unidentified.

Comments:

Since people seemed interested in the previous post of a tintype of a man, I thought I would post a tintype of a woman.  So this is a thin, blackened sheet of iron onto which the negative has chemically been affixed, creating a positive (and one-of-a-kind) image.  It is trimmed to about the size of a carte de visite photo, a popular size then for which albums and frames were created.  (This is not from the same album as the other tintype.  I bought this one by itself.)  It has gotten a bit dinged-up and corroded over the years, but you can still look into it and see a lady looking back at you from the 1800s, which I think is pretty cool.  She’s wearing a gown with a pattern that makes me wish I could see it in color.  She’s sporting an elaborate hairdo with a flower in it, jewelry including drop earrings, and an overall assured demeanor.  And, of course, there are the tinted cheeks.  I guess I can see at least that much in color.

Advertisements

6 comments on “Tintype of a woman in a patterned gown”

  1. I find this tintype intriguing and a little creepy. The corrosion and dings seem to complement the dots on the dress in an eery way. Since tintypes are one-of-a-kind images, are they on the pricey side?

    • Perhaps tintypes are a little more expensive than paper photos of the same era, though I haven’t noticed a big difference. Still, I haven’t made much of a study of it, so I could be wrong. I’m guessing they seem to be similarly priced because, even though they are one-of-a-kind, they aren’t especially scarce in general. This one might have cost more if it were in better condition. Also, this one doesn’t really fall into the categories of subject matter (minorities, animals, children, people in uniform or work clothes, people posing with the tools of their trade, etc.) that make them more desirable and expensive to collectors. Still, I like it, even if it is, as you say, a little creepy.

  2. I like it as well. This is probably from late 1800’s era based on the dress and media type. Love your blog btw! We have a lot in common with old photos. My great grand father was a photographer during the early 1900’s and I just found out! It’s a great hobby to collect old photographs.

    • Thanks! Yes, I’ve checked out the photos you posted that your great-grandfather took. They are wonderful. I agree it’s a rewarding hobby.

  3. Judging from her hairstyle and dress, I’d date it at the early 1870’s.


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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: