tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post4878453734177079271..comments2024-03-26T12:01:39.690-07:00Comments on A Family Tapestry: Meet the NewlywedsJacqi Stevenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03471698670217119444noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post-62857047776818668672018-01-04T00:14:38.564-08:002018-01-04T00:14:38.564-08:00Unless I get tempted by an irresistible picture or...Unless I get tempted by an irresistible picture or other worthwhile hint, Colleen, that requirement of a label on the reverse is my bottom line. Judging from all the photos I've sifted through in shops, now that I've had that excursion to the foothills, photos with complete labels on the reverse are a rare item, indeed.Jacqi Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471698670217119444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post-43391131216493016302018-01-04T00:12:08.900-08:002018-01-04T00:12:08.900-08:00You have examined so many of this type of photo, F...You have examined so many of this type of photo, Far Side, that I tend to go with your hunch. The couple does look older than wedding age (whatever that might be!) but it seems to me that people back then usually had an occasion in mind when they posed for their picture.<br /><br />If I have the right couple, from what I've found, your guess of 1902 would be quite accurate.Jacqi Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03471698670217119444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post-24090285304637171922018-01-03T16:51:46.088-08:002018-01-03T16:51:46.088-08:00Good luck with your search. I love it when photogr...Good luck with your search. I love it when photographs are labeled on the back! Colleen G. Brown Pasqualehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16402783115333431440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5034998384799920884.post-16158323054048693512018-01-03T06:42:40.915-08:002018-01-03T06:42:40.915-08:00I think they might be a couple, but this does not ...I think they might be a couple, but this does not look like a traditional wedding photo to me. I wanted to see the front of her blouse so bad...yet it is blacked out...was she pregnant? She looks a bit peaked:) I will guess that this photo was taken in 1902...just a guess. Far Side of Fiftyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995757632158408442noreply@blogger.com