Who Were They?

Lost and forgotten photos from the past

The bust portrait was a popular variation of the cabinet card and CdV throughout most of the 19th century, but it enjoyed a renewal in the 1890s. This cabinet card was probably made around 1895, based on the scalloped or deckled edge of the card. This young woman looks so solemn. We know this is likely because of the long exposure time of the photography process at the time, but it does make her look sad. Her dress is very nicely made of watered silk or similar fabric. She has a tiny jeweled flower at her throat, and tiny earrings. It makes me wonder if she was tiny, too.

This photo from the Dobb Long Book was made by James at 120 Clinton Street, Iowa City, IA.

In 1898, this fellow had something very bad smelling stuck to his lip, just under his left nostril, and no matter how he scrubbed, it lingered. It caused him to perpetually look like he was on the verge of tears. This fellow might have been an incredibly happy-go-lucky fellow, but his facial expression is very unfortunate.

We have seen many photos from Chicago and the surrounding areas, New York, England, and Iowa. Now we venture into Missouri. A. Rino Art Photography was known to be in business as early as the 1880s, although the back of this cabinet card says 1898. I will date this to 1898.

This photo is strangely not in as good of condition as many of the other photos in the Dobb Long Book. I suppose it could be that whomever put together the album gathered up all her cabinet cards to insert & protect, and some of them had become a little worn somehow. This fellow is a fresh faced young man, just on the cusp of manhood. He is not yet married I suppose, because he wears no wedding ring. He does wear a nice chain for his watch.

The photographer was Reed in Clinton, IA. I found a reference to a J. H. Reed as a photographer in Clinton, IA in 1884, and another reference to Reed as a landscape photographer. I’ll date this photo to 1885-1890. I don’t know much about men’s fashions to date it any better.

This darling baby is Selma Arndt, age 6 months. Finally a name!! She is posed somewhat precariously on a chair draped with a curtain. I suspect that her mother is behind that curtain ready to catch Selma should she fall. I found an entry on a family tree for a Selma Arndt, born 1892 to August and Caroline Arndt, who married in 1891. Little Selma grew up and married Alexander Walker, and they had one child, Robert Walker. Sadly, Robert was born in 1920 and died in 1935. There were no other children recorded for the couple. Iggy might be able to turn up more – he is incredibly tenacious!

The photography studio was the U.S. Portrait Co., incorporated August 9, 1892. They had only been in business a short time when the Arndts came in for a baby photo, it seems.

In 1885, Miss Farmar (Miss Tarmar?) sat for her portrait with Byrne & Co in Richmond. Virginia immediately comes to mind, but there are towns named Richmond in Virginia, Rhode Island, California, and Kentucky, and of course England. Was she an old maid? A woman would have been addressed as Miss as long as she was not married. If she was widowed she was referred to as Widow Smith or Mrs. Smith until she remarried. Unlike modern conventions, she would never again have been addressed as Miss.

She looks to be 60-70 years old in this photo, just a guess, but she has completely white hair and the look of years on her face. That puts her estimated date of birth around 1815-1825. She is wearing a photo brooch with a military gentleman on it. It’s difficult to ascertain anything more than that. Assuming her beau in the photo was in the military after photography became available, he was photographed after about 1860. Considering that this is probably another photograph from England, and of course Byrne & Co claim to be photographers to Her Majesty, I do wonder what sort of soldier he was, where was he stationed, did he die in action tragically leaving his lady Miss Farmar alone? She would have been possibly in her 40s by that point, but it’s possible. It’s one of the enduring mysteries that a photo album such as this leaves at our feet.

On 5-5-83 this photo was shown to Olivia. Since the photo was taken in 1885, we can easily assume the photo was reviewed by Olivia in 1983. My guess is they didn’t know who the heck was on the brooch and had no way of figuring it out either. It’s a fascinating mystery that leaves me wanting more.