I have several CDVs like this one. The ones I collect all have a plain front with no gold borders or photographer markings. The subject, either sitting or standing is shown full length, the props are minimal and the wall in the background plain.
I prefer a small photographer's backstamp to identify the location and a handwritten name that identifies the subject.
Needless to say I rarely get it all, but this one was so close. It didn't have the backstamp but I thought all the information written on the back more than made up for it.
On the reverse is written:
*great grandmother Holden
mother of Margaret Ann
Holden Reynolds
*Mrs. William Holden
*Sarah Elizabeth (Whiting) Holden
The section in pink is what was originally written by M. A., the writer of other notes I have.
The section in black is in a different handwriting and was added later.
It's rare to find this much information on a photograph.
It's not unusual to find a mistake or two,
but it is a bit unusual to find so many mistakes.
Early on I was disappointed to realize this could not possibly be a photograph of who it said it was, because, assuming a date of circa 1862, Elizabeth Sarah (Whiting) Holden born circa 1804 would have been in her late 50’s at the time it was taken.
That her name "Elizabeth Sarah" was turned around and written as "Sarah Elizabeth" wasn't unusual, it happens, but she also wasn't Mrs. William Holden. She was Mrs. James Holden.
My next thought was if this wasn't Elizabeth Holden than perhaps it was her daughter Margaret Holden, only Margaret, born in 1833, wasn't a good fit either because she would have been 29, married and the mother of four small children in 1862.
And this young lady simply doesn't look old enough or tired enough to be the mother of 4 young children.
So, I knew who this wasn't. She wasn't Elizabeth Holden. Margaret Holden seemed just as unlikely and a quick search of the George family didn't turn up any prospects there either, though it was interesting to note that just to really confuse things ... William's brother Charles George was married to Sarah's sister, Mary Coulter.
I tried a different tack hoping it might offer up some clues and traced the previous owners of the photos. The notes that came with them led me to believe they were handed down from Ida Pauline Swem Wible Reynolds to her daughters Maggie Reynolds Arensberg and Bertha Reynolds Wilson.
So where would Ida get this particular photo? The next generation back from her would be Sarah Catherine Coulter Wible George, the seamstress who married first Samuel Wible after the Civil War and married second, William George in 1881. The mother, (step, foster or biological) of Ida, Charles, Huge, Noble, John, Bill, Annie and Essie.
Also when Sarah and William died in 1899, their daughter's Annie, 15 and Essie, 8, were still young but Ida was 25 and married, and as the eldest female in the family it seems likely she would have had a photograph of their mother.
And with Sarah the dates do fit, born in 1844 she would have been 18 in 1862.
And so ...
If this is a relative in the direct line of descent and if some of what is written on the back is correct, (i.e. that her first name was Sarah and she married a William), than my most likely candidate is Sarah Catherine Coulter.
I did manage to find one photograph of Sarah Catherine Coulter to compare to and even though she appears older and thinner than the young lady in my photograph, I think there's a resemblance.
For now it's the best I can do but I believe there are other photographs of Sarah Coulter out there and there's always a chance I'll run across another one to compare to and be able to prove (or disprove) who this is and where she fits in the Holden / Reynolds / Wible / George families.
No comments:
Post a Comment