More tintypes! In Mysterious Antique Photographs I shared a beautiful tintype that I own.
Yesterday I opened the box of unscanned Remine photos. I haven’t had time to scan so many photos–or to organize either–but I thought I should just start doing a few a day because when WILL I ever have the time?
And I discovered these beautiful tiny tintypes. The one on the other post is large and painted. These are only 2.25 x 3.5 inches in size–and unpainted.
Because they are in the Remine box I can guess they might be Remines. Judging by the faces, I am ready to conclude they probably are Remines.
Because these girls and women were photographed full length (standing and seated), we can examine their entire outfits to try to guess a time period.
Therese was born in 1891. Could this photo be from around 1900?
I am having trouble identifying the correct information about Therese’s sisters. When I figure it out, this might help in identifying this tintype. For instance, if there were sisters born in 1880 and 1881 as might have been, this photo could, I suppose, be those sisters. If so, one of them is Genevieve Remine Tazelaar and the tintypes would be in the early 1890s.
I suppose the hair and collars could be 1900. But what about the fitted jackets with all the buttons? I can’t find anything like that in photos of 1900. Odd, too, that it would be a tintype if it was as late as 1900.
Here is the other tintype. I’m sorry it’s kind of crooked and uneven. It was difficult to scan it.
What about these outfits? They are not leg o’mutton sleeves, so does that rule out the 1890s?
I guess I am not very good at taking the nuances of change in fashion and extrapolating to what my relatives would have worn (generally a much more conservative version of the fashion).
The woman on our left looks a lot like Mary Paak Remine, Therese’s mother. She was born in 1859. But the woman doesn’t look terribly young in this photo. And then who would the other woman be? She looks NOTHING like the Paak sisters. She is not Mary’s mother because Jacoba Bassa had passed away long before this.
Were these photos taken in the Netherlands or the United States? The Remines were from Kapelle and the Paaks were from Lexmond. Notice the wallpaper/painted background. I’m pretty sure that these photos were taken in the same studio, perhaps near the same time period.
I’m afraid I have more questions now than I did before.
The Family Kalamazoo 
Isn’t that always the way? Every question I answer sprouts five more. Beautiful finds!
Ugh, so true. And the better the find, the more questions! Thanks for stopping by!
My tintype photos are in the 1870 period.
Some maybe in the early 1880s.
Pierre, thank you so much. I actually was wondering about that period for these. Particularly the one with the two women, but then I think the two tintypes were from the same time period.
I am not an expert, but I can zero in on a time frame.
I’m so glad!
Amazing photos. I love the lavish use of materials. This sent me rushing off to look for my book on costumes… but sadly I couldn’t find it.
Hilary, if you find it, please let me know what you think. I was kind of thinking along the lines of what Pierre above says: 1870s or 80s. Aren’t the dresses great? Matching and then the voluminous fabric. Wouldn’t sisters have matching dresses? But they certainly don’t look alike and the one woman appears much older than the other . . . .
Beautiful images Luanne. What a treasure. I hope you get some good answers to your questions.
Thanks, Amberly. Me too. I was so surprised that these were in there with all the paper photos!
I wish I could help, but fashion isn’t my forte. Do you follow The Genealogy Lady’s blog? She is really good at using clothing to identify dates. She had a whole series of posts on various fashion styles by decade. https://genealogylady.net/
I do, although I haven’t seen a lot lately. I usually read through my reader, and my reading is sporadic, so if someone’s post isn’t in that batch, it usually doesn’t get read, sadly.
She actually hasn’t posted in a while, but if you haven’t looked at her Fashion posts, you might find something helpful there.
Dating fashions can be really hard as they did not spread as fast as today, and some people stuck with what they liked, so wore similar styles for most of their lives. Availability of materials could also have an impact. If a local merchant got a job lot of a certain fabric cheap, the village might all have bought it. But this might mean it had failed to sell elsewhere, so was actually unfashionable.
Thank you, Barb! That puts very neatly what I have been thinking about all this fashion identification. Most of my relatives who are in the photos on this blog were either in Kalamazoo or in Zeeland, Netherlands. This is a completely different situation from people living in a large city like Chicago or New York who are apt to be either closer to high fashion or poorer (and photos much less likely). The ones in Holland would have been very influenced by their church in what they wore. The ones in Kalamazoo still tended to be conservative in their dress. I think the Lillian Heddle Remine wedding dress I posted last week was the first photo I’ve posted of a truly fashionable outfit.
Let me just add to the confusion. Working class folk would not necessarily wear what you would see in the latest fashion books of the time. Also older clothes worn by an older generation would often be reworked into new items. That being said, it’s obvious that the 2nd photo shows the women’s in their newest finery. They probably bought enough fabric to have 2 dresses made, sewn themselves or by a seamstress. I think I see a bustle on the dress to the left. The first photo is more difficult. I know that collars and cuffs were removable so they could be washed as dresses were not cleaned as often. I’ll check my reference books. It’s nice to use my costume design theater background for a change.
Jill, I didn’t notice the bustle. Your eye is trained for costume, so thank you so much. I think that helps narrow in on the 1870s and 80s to know that she’s wearing a bustle. Although at first glance the women look different because one is has light hair and eyes and the other dark, I think they do look related. Do you think they are mother and daughter?
I wonder what your reference books have to say about the little girls’ outfits. They look a bit unusual to me.
By the way, the little girl on the left kind of creeps me out. I noticed that there is a base for a stand behind her. You don’t suppose this is one of those Victorian photos taken of posed deceases relatives, do you?
She definitely has the stand behind her, but I think it’s to help her hold still, which is why she looks so uncomfortably stiff. Imagine having to stand still for 15 minutes or more ugh. Her eyes are pretty sparkly and she looks pretty lively to me. Have you seen my Still Life After Death board on Pinterest? Most of those post mortem photos have faces that are not as clear and normal as this girl.
The first thing I noticed about the picture of the girls (especially the one who is standing) is how uncomfortable and unhappy they look. I wonder if the photographer got really carried away trying to pose them – and they are tired of the entire process by the time the photo was actually taken. I’m also intrigued by Jill-O’s suggestion – though like her, creeped out by it.
Sheryl, I responded to Jill above about the girl. I do think she’s alive and was using the stand to help her hold still. I agree they look miserable, especially that girl because we know how it’s harder to hold still standing than sitting. I feel her pain! I have a pinterest board, as I mentioned to Jill, of all post mortem photos. They are really fascinating.
I’m glad that she wasn’t deceased – though I found the pinterest board. The pictures are very sad and powerful.
Watch for my post this coming Wednesday and see what you think. I’d love to hear your opinion, Sheryl.
Don’t you just love finding old family photos and dissecting it! In trying to figure out who they were – we look into every facet of detail! These are great photos!
Thank you so much, Jeanne. Yes, I love the detective work involved in all this! And readers are so much help. Everyone sees something a little different than the next!
Hey Luanne, thanks for the “like”, you’re my first! I see that you have watermarked all you pictures, something I didn’t even think of, so thanks for that too!
I’m trying to go back and gradually watermark all of them. It takes a lot of extra time, but to be on the safe side it seems wise. Have fun with your blog!
[…] posts ago, in What I Discovered in the Box of Unscanned Remine Photos, I posted a photo of two girls circa 1870s or 1880s. One reader wondered if one of the girls could […]
I would guess these dresses to be 1880 or so. The bustle came first, and the leg o-mutton sleeve gradually became larger and larger – and then collapsed and went away completely. This is probably the beginning of the time period. You are very fortunate to have all these pictures, and it seems, as often as not, that you have names for most of them.
Thank you so much. I think that you are most likely correct. It doesn’t help me identify the women . . . yet. But the more clues I have the more likely that something will turn up that will identify them eventually. Yes, so fortunate! I just wish more of them had been labelled years ago. By the time Grandpa told me, he didn’t always know the earlier ones because he was born in 1908.