Here is an unidentified photo from a beautiful antique photo album from the family–specifically one from Uncle Don. The album is focused on the Remine side of the family, which means the DeKorn branch and includes Zuidwegs, Paaks, and Bassas.
Any input about the clothing or portrait style would be appreciated. I suspect this is a wedding portrait because good “Sunday” dresses were more in line with the wedding dresses my ancestors wore than what we think of today as white lacy wedding gowns.
I’m not impressed by Mr. Philley’s photography because of the item growing out of the lady’s head . . . .
But the name is important because it helps narrow down the time period. Several years ago, on the blog Bushwhacking Genealogy a list of early Kalamazoo photographers was listed with their approximate years of operation.
Philley, Silas (Jr.): Lived 1846-1926. In business at least 1895-1900. Shoemaker in 1887 and again in 1920.1895: 303 E. Main1899: 305 E. Main1900: in census as photographer
The Family Kalamazoo 
I hope someone can help
Thanks, Derrick. Me too!
Time consuming, but I have seen people draw timelines and add all family events to the same timeline. I am not sure if software exists that does this for you.
Thanks, Maryellen! I can see doing that if we were talking about grandparents and great greats, but there are so many collateral branches! They would be contemporaries of my great-grandparents and it is not any of their siblings. So I would need to start to look at in laws’ relatives etc. Software would be nice!
The man has a boutonniere on, the lady is holding the same flowers, they look like carnations. Significance?
It seems likely that their flowers are red carnations which symbolize love, so I think it reinforces the idea of a wedding portrait. Thanks for the tip!
The women has Zuidweg/van Liere looks the guy doesn’t at all. See if Van Liere’s had a girl among all the boy cousins.
Sent from my iPad
>
This couple was a contemporary of grandpa’s parents. So I would need to start looking at people like siblings of Marinus Van Liere etc. What is helpful is I do think this couple got married between 1895 and 1900. Maybe even closer to 1895 as the photographer seems very amateurish. Hopefully he got more experience as he went on.
Afraid I am no help but I do love seeing photo’s 🙂 You might be right on this being a wedding photo and agreed, to bad she has something growing out of her head.
LOL! I can’t imagine that they were happy with this wedding portrait. Mary had a good idea about looking at the flowers because it looks like they are red carnations which symbolizes love.
I couldn’t tell they were flowers in fact I thought at first she was holding s stuffed animal…omg I need glasses; but reading Mary’s comment I quickly switched to flowers and the matching boutonniere.
Lol!
Sorry, Luanne…no help here…any updates on Perry?
Thanks for asking, Sheila! His blood work was normal but he still needs a chest x-ray so he will have that tomorrow but I won’t get the results for a week or so.
I’m thinking Perry is a survivor. Hang in there.
Waiting for the xray right now. Thanks!
I too am not impressed with the photographers eye, he or she should have noticed the background.
It seems like there were quite a few photographers practicing in Kalamazoo around that same period but for very short periods of time. If he only practiced between 1895 and 1900 maybe this photograph was taken closer to 1895 since he seems so inexperienced.
I believe you have the era correct, judging from the lady’s clothing. A lot of people couldn’t afford – or didn’t bother with – a white wedding gown. Sunday-go-to-meeting was what many women wore. I also agree that she got heavier as she aged – a common enough problem! She doesn’t strike me as being very happy, either, for what that’s worth.
I agree with you about the wedding dresses. I can’t think of any of my relatives from the same time period Wearing white wedding dresses. Maybe she was unhappy because the photographer was so inept!
I also have wished for more ways to search my tree on Ancestry—by birth place or by birth/marriage/death date. But I don’t know any way to do that. Maybe we should ask them to develop that.
I have my tree on Family Tree Maker, but I don’t think it has that kind of search capability either.
And you know I am terrible at dating photos. But 1890s seems right. And I did laugh at your critique of the photographer!!
They should create it just because we want it, right?! haha We can’t be the only ones! Maybe we should write the program (if only). No wonder the photographer went back to shoes, right?!
Haha! Yes—do you think that this woman was pleased with having that thing growing out of her head?? I guess she didn’t mind or she wouldn’t have kept the photo.
Her mom probably kept it haha. Like my senior photo.
LOL! Yes, there are many old photos I’d like to burn. But I never do…
I have more new photos I’d like to get rid of; unfortunately, they make their way around the social media of my kids. 😉
Oh, don’t even go there…I’ve never liked photos of myself and hate them even more now that I am over a certain age.
That is me. I keep thinking I’m being too vain because obviously earlier generations dealt with looking much older than we do at our age, if that makes sense.
Yeah, well, they didn’t live in the age of “youth worship.” Women back then weren’t faced with models and actresses with perfect bodies and plastic surgery where they weren’t perfect. Nor were there thousands of photos being taken all the time. Let them try and live in OUR times!
Culture shock!
I guess I didn’t get the carnations. I thought they looked like lilacs. I don’t have any great suggestions for looking at marriage dates, either. Sorry!
Now do you think they are carnations or lilacs? It makes a difference in the language of flowers!
I am undecided!
hahaha!
I don’t have any suggestions, but I enjoyed reading about the process you’ve used so far to try to narrow it down.
Can you zoom in and see if she has a wedding ring on?
I am pretty sure there is no ring!