That's wonderful!!! What a face!
Those frames used to show up at avery household sale about 40 to 45 years ago. many people would buy themn to soak off the plaster adn have themselves a "plain pine frame"...I have af ew!
Theywere put together in pieces, so you could get several frames out of one large one. I think they date from 1880 to about 1910.
However yours looks like the inner section has been repainted....shame...
Are you sure it's a photo and not a charcoal sketch? Looks too good to be a photo....to get that foot in swing mode and the dress like that.
Watch carefully, those frames dry out and the gesso falls off...
Linda C

It could be a charcoal sketch...good point - the face is higher detail and the rest looks hand drawn. I just love the expression on his face. I want to preserve this, how should I do that so the Gesso doesn't dry up and fall off?

I wish I could tell you how to preserve it....even museums have plaster carved frames where the plaster falls off. Just save the pieces and glue them back on!
Linda C

I was told once by place that sold original art how to clean that kind of frame & it worked nicely but don't think I wrote it down. Book I have on antique refinishing says to use ammonia & water to clean gold leaf- don't think yours is gold leaf but could be as gold leaf does tarnish over the years. I know I did not use ammonia as I can't even get near it because I'm minus 2/3 of 1 lung. If you try it on an edge take it outside so you are not breathing the stuff as much(chemical pneumonia can happen quite easily) If it shines up with some ammonia & water on a rag its gold leaf. Then you would want to repair it & clean the inter frame & maybe repaint it, if you have a steady hand & small brush. The boy is adorable. I have a cute pastel of a baby that is embroidered on parts of it & signed but I can't find anything out about it.That child must have had very bad eye sight to have glasses so young! He looks like he would like to kick the photographer! So cute!

It seems that this photo has been modified in the dark room. It is probably a print made from a negative. Kodak began making roll film in the 1880s and transparent negatives came about the same time. Apparently, the edges of the print has been "dodged" while being exposed under the enlarger, a common process. A fuzzy object such as a cotton ball or frame is held above the print and moved about during the exposure of the print. This lightens the shaded area. The amount of lightening is controlled by the duration of time the area was dodged during the exposure. The process is trial and error and the results are largely due to the experience and expertise of the photo-finisher. The dodging shadow does not come to focus on the print giving a fade-out effect at the edges of the shadow.

Since it is a 16 x 20 print, it is large enough for manual touch-ups and enhancements. Charcoal and soft pencils were used to add missing definition to hair and maybe fade out a mole. Shadows caused by deep facial creases could be softened. I have such a photo (ca 1882) where a lace pattern was added to a plain white collar.

The large size of this print probably dates to after 1890. Two technologies were needed to produce such a print: An enlarger capable of this size and a light source. A controllable and steady light source would have been an electric light bulb, therefore, this print was made after electric light bulbs came into use.

Yes, I think this is after 1890 - somewhere in the 1890 - 1915 time period. I've done some research on the technique of solar enlargements and "crayon portraits" and this fits. Also the fashion dates it to around then. I just love it and I'm glad I found it! Thanks everyone for your help.

It's a fabulous find!

I believe what you have is a charcoal on paper sketch. If you can look at the paper without ruining it, you can confirm this (even the back side, because it will look like the same sort of paper that, say, paperback books are printed on--it has texture.

I recently sought to purchase a similarly sized frame for a Ph.D. diploma, and with the original glass, they are expensive. Although the one I was looking at was more elaborate & had finished wood instead of painted...it was roughly the same size and $50 in a rural Indiana antique store. I would say yours is worth at least half that.

The real question of value is the image. As you can tell from the reaction of everyone who has posted prior to me, that is a very compelling image. I think Crystal is right on with the 1890-preWW1 dating. Unfortunately there isn't much in the image that is a clue. I'm especially enamored of the child's glasses. It would be helpful to know where you obtained it (state, at least). Maybe it didn't come from there but it would help.

As a piece of art, the bottom line is, you can get what people will pay. Similar charcoals of ugly grumpy couples go for $50-$125 (I don't think they go for $125 but people put a $125 price tag on them. Decent ones actually sell for $40-$75, I would say, maybe more in urban markets or out west). HOWEVER, this is a really cool image. Anybody would want it, not just someone with a period decor--and someone with period decor would want it MORE. I suspect if you put it in the right auction you could get well over 200 for it--it has CHARM, and yet is so authentic.

And to think, that little boy may have grown up, lived a very long time, and been one of our grandfathers or great grandfathers. I would love to have an image like that of any one of my Grandpas.

There is another date clue in the photo: the clap boards on the house with corner detail. This size of siding and method of finishing the external corner was typical of houses in ca 1900 - 1920. Another date object is the high chair. We can not see the details well enough to date it, but it seems consistent with the time period of 1900 - 1920. But dating the chair is not definitve since it could be a hand-me-down from a generation or two ago and could be much older than the child. The child's hat, shoes, and clothing are the best clues. When did males wear wide brimmed hats of this style? It appears to be felt. I think the shoes are leather high top with laces, a typical shoe style for farm families.

Crystalcactus,

Let me begin by sincerely thanking you for sharing this photo. I have been an advanced amateur /semi-pro photographer since 1966 and I can tell you that this photo has without question demanded more of my attention than any other photo it has ever been my pleasure to view. I can honestly tell you that I have spent in excess of 100 hours viewing this photo and yet, every time I look at it I see something else.

What you have is a perfectly executed portrait photograph taken by a professional photographer somewhere between 1870 and 1925 and the boy is the son of a very affluent family.

Let us begin by examining the boy. While everyone has noticed the wide brimmed hat, I wonder why no one questioned why the boy is wearing a dress? During Victorian times all they had for children were cloth diapers and it was a common practice to dress boys in those little dresses to make it easier to change the diaper. They typically kept the children in diapers until they were about 4 to 5 years old. Once the boys were potty trained they would begin wearing knee britches and long stockings.

During Victorian times even the mere presence of a light suntan was considered the mark of a common fieldhand, laborer or factory worker. People of means went to great strides to maintain their lily white pallor by means of parasols, wide brimmed hats and long white gloves. (There was no sunblock in those days).

Another indication of affluence is the eyeglasses on the boy. In those days skilled tradesmen were only making $.20/hr and most factory workers and farm laborers were earning $1/day for a 10 to 12hr day. Due to the high cost, most children were not fitted with glasses until they were into the 3rd or 4th grade of school, and often not then unless they were showing exceptional academic skills.

Someone mentioned examining the high chair to try to determine a date. Although we cannot confirm a date from that chair, I noticed something very peculiar about it. Notice that the right arm of that chair is made in the typical manner for a high chair, but now look at the left arm, or more precisely, where the left arm should be, because it has no left arm. Instead it has one single wooden rod that extends about twice the height of the right arm and the boys left hand is resting on the top. Now examine the boys right hand and you can see he is clutching a piece of paper or perhaps a corner of a pocket on his garment. While we are all used to using cameras that measure there exposure time in a mere 100th 1000th of a second, in those days they exposures we often timed in full seconds. In order to insure the subject would not move during the exposure professional photographers had chairs modified to support a specific pose, such as the high rod on the left side of the chair. Although they were not visible in the photos many of those chairs had a steel rod head brace that one had to lean against while the exposure was made. (I once had a portrait studio chair that had adjustable height arms, legs and the head brace.)
The piece of paper in the right hand was to insure little fingers did not move during the exposure. Even today we commonly use the technique by having a child hold a stuffed animal or toy while we shoot the picture.

I then turned my attention to the composition and camera setup for this photo and found it to be technically perfect. The center of the lens is slightly lower than the eye of the subject and the lens is finitely focused on the eye. As you can see, the face of the child is in perfect focus, but if we examine the background it seems to be out of focus so as not to distract from the center of attention in the photo. That is done by controlling the "Depth of Field" in the photo.

When shooting portraits it can be done with a normal lens for the film format, but generally when we use a normal lens the camera has to be rather close to the subject to fill the frame with just the portrait. The preferred method is to use a "Portrait Lens" which is a short telephoto lens approximately 1.5x or 2x the focal length of the normal lens. (on a 35mm camera a portrait lens would be 75 to 110mm).

Whenever a lens is focused on a fixed point, depth of field is defined as the area in front of and behind that fixed point that remains in sharp focus. For simple point & shoot cameras they have a predefined minimal focusing distance and the lens aperture size is preset to insure that everything from the subject to infinity will remain in focus.

I am guessing that this photo was taken with a lens approximate 2x normal focal length, and they used an aperture setting of about f3.5, which would have been typical of a maximum lens opening in those days. With a 2x lens focused at 10ft from camera to the boys eye and the aperture set at f3.5 the total depth of field would be from approximately two feet in front of the boy to about 2 feet behind him. Anything in the picture that is closer or beyond those limits would begin to be out of focus, which explains why the background looks soft and almost hand drawn.

It was mentioned before that George Eastman, founder of Eastman Kodak corporation developed photographic film in 1888, which is true, Photography had been around for a number of years before that. Mathew Brady is accredited as being the worlds first "Combat News Photographer" through his achievements of photographing the American Civil War while working out of a darkroom built into a horse drawn wagon as early as 1861. What I find fascinating about Mathew Brady was that they were so impressed with his work that he was granted permission to move freely from north to south throughout the war. Imagine allowing a photographer from your enemy side in your camp today. In Mathew Brady's day the photographer had to literally make his own photographic plates and process them immediately while they were still wet.

By about 1870 they were making commercially prepared photographic plates on clear glass, but they were extremely expensive and very difficult to work with. George Eastman developed the method of putting the light sensitive emulsion of cellulose film, and from that he was able to develop roll film. The first camera that could be operated by a non professional was the "Kodak Brownie", which was a cardboard box camera with a roll of 24 exposure film inside. The camera sold for $1 and after you shot all the photos you mailed the camera to Eastman Kodak at Rochester N.Y, were they would process your prints, reload your camera and mail it all back to you. (And you thought those cheap disposable cameras that came out in the mid 90's were a new invention).

Next I checked out the darkroom technique for this photo. Notice that this photo has a full range of half tones from absolutely coal blacks to brilliant whites. From that I concluded that not only was the camera exposure correct, the negative was developed perfectly, all done about 30 years before the first light meter was invented.

Anyone who has ever had real silver jewelry, flatware or serving ware knows only to well that silver is an actinic metal, which means that silver tends to form a brownish tint as it is exposed to sunlight. Photo film is made by grinding silver into a microfine dust then suspending that dust on a piece of glass or transparent plastic material with meat gelatin. That process must be done in total darkness, and later as the film is placed in a camera and light allowed to enter, the light will harden the silver granules into silver salts. During the developing process the remaining silver on the film which was not reacted upon by light is removed and the hardened silver is left on the film forming the negative image. The actual resolution of a film, or its ability to reproduce fine detail is determined by how fine the silver granules are in the same manner as a digital produces an image by pixels. When we enlarge a negative the actual granules in the image are enlarged at the same respective rate, thus if we double the size of the negative, each respective granule is optically doubled in size and if we continue enlarging soon we the fine detail of the photo will begin to appear sandy. A condition which we call "Grain" (In digital photography as the pixels are enlarged to a noticeable point we call that "noise")

With the quality of film that they had in the late 1800's a 2x enlargement was about the best they could achieve without seeing noticeable grain, yet the post says this is a 16x20 picture. Without having additional information I can not tell if the entire frame is 16x20 with an 8x10 photo or if the photo itself it 16x20, however, even if the photo is 8x10, if we examine the detail around the eye and in the eyeglass frames there is no evidence of grain. Without seeing the actual photo up close I can not tell for certain, but based upon what I can see, it appears that this photo was taken with an 8x10 studio view camera and the negative was either directly contact printed or perhaps enlarged about 1x.

The original roll film of the day was in 127 format which produced 2-1/4x2-1/4 negatives and the largest quality enlargements they could make from that was about 5x5 prints.

I founds a price chart from a portrait studio in 1890 that listed an 8x10 portrait photo at $23.95, at a time when the national average wage was $.20 an hour, which confirms what I concluded before about this child being the son of rather affluent people.

Although I don't have a clue as to what the collectors value of that piece might be, in my humble opinion you have discovered a very valuable piece of photographic history. I would suggest you take it to a local museum and have them authenticate what I have found. They may be able to give you much more information.

Lazypup, that's a fascinating assessment & a thoroughly enjoyable history lesson in photography. Thank you for taking time to share.

I still believe this is not a photograph, but assert it is rendered by the human hand in charcoal or pastel. I also am in possession of a similar work, and can understand why it is deceiving. You can often see such work at Cracker Barrel, if there is one near you.

I think most people who commented on this image were aware of the history of children's clothing, skin protection, and the availability of glasses to the masses via sears catalog & montgomery wards' catalogs.

I doubt this child is the son of a very affluent family, but rather a not-poor, but certainly not-affluent, rural family.

There's a danger when we start to apply what we're very familiar with to what we are unfamiliar with.

When I was in Jr.High & High School I majored in art. On our first day of art class in High school the teacher saw me across the room and asked one of my fellow students what my name was. He replied, "Ah, just call him anything", which she did, and for the next 3 years of school "Anything" was my nickname, which also became my pen name.

A couple years later I began selling small drawings to a major greeting card company under that pen name. To this day, when I sell any of my ink, pencil or charcoal drawings I sell them under that pen name.

When I took up photography I began selling them photos as well, but to do so I had to submit the photos to a different publisher and due to copyright restrictions I had to use a different name, so sign my photos "Photography by Richard Rinard".

Next time you are browsing through the FINE ARTS DEPARTMENT at Cracker Barrel, Walmart, Kmart, your local bookstore in the mall or perhaps even on a greeting card rack, keep your eyes open, you probably will find some of my work. I have only been selling it since 1963.

Now to your assurance that the picture is a charcoal drawing based upon the fact that you happen to own a charcoal drawing I am submitting three photos to show the technique as it is now done with a digital camera. The technique is exactly the same with a film camera but it just takes a bit longer to do the darkroom processing.

This photo of my friend and his hunting hawk was takin with a 50mm normal lens.

This is the same photo converted to grayscale (Black & White)

This is a portrait shot of the hawk taken with the same camera at the same distance, only this time I switched to a 2x portait lens (100mm) You can easily see how the depth of field has blurred the background. In this case it is completely blurred because the background is too far behind, but if there had been anything in the background with 10 to 30ft it would have just been slightly blurred as in the photo above.

If your still not convinced, look closely at the photo of the boy. Note the bright white blemish in the center of the picture. Also note that on the upper end of that white line there is a dark area surrounding the line.

That white line is a result of a minor tear that has scraped a small portion of the photo emulsion off the paper and the dark area is caused by moisture seeping under the emulsion through the paper substrate.

Given that there is no emulsion on charcoal paper, perhaps you can explain that?

The dark surrounding the white line was part of the picture before the paper was folded/damaged.
I also believe it's a crayon and charcoal sketch.
The business about Victorian children being kept in diapers until 5 or so is totally wrong. Children were trained as soon as possible to save on washing. Both boys and girls wore dresses, boys often graduated to kilts or sailor suits with a skirt. Reasons for this practice were conjectured to be to make toileting easier...or to not invest so much in the identity of very young children because the mortality was so high.
As to the hint of tan being a sign of lower class? Only among the belles.....the beaus who rode to the hounds were not so fussy.
Likely the only way to make it obvious to all is for the OP to post a close up so we can see the sketch lines.
What the poster has is a portrait similar to this one.....even the frame is similar.
The one pictures is a charcoal drawing.

Here is a link that might be useful:

Thanks Linda. As a further comment on the children's clothing (I studied 16c, not 19c, but the same, boys got their breeches or "long pants" as a sign of their coming of age (for example, reaching the age of accountability, etc. Having your long pants meant you were expected to act like a guy--maybe not strike out on your own yet, but start taking life seriously. The conference paper I gave included a section on toileting and the children who were potty training were all very very young (younger than today's standards for sure). Long clothing was (in the 16c, I can't say why the Victorians did it, although nobody ever stopped doing it between the 16c and the 19c) a distinction between men and women/children.

It would be interesting to know where the false understanding came from about toileting in the 19c. I ran into a lot of bad scholarship from the 1920s-40s...it may be the same era that painted the 19c with a broad brush.

Lazypup-

Looking at the wonky perspective of the chairlegs, the cornerboard of the house that disappears behind the hat and fails to appear at the shoulder, I maintain that (either it's a photo in a physics-defying world or it) is a drawing. We can argue about this all day, but crystalcurtis can take this to any moderately competent antique dealer who can tell her whether it is a photograph or drawing. And I hope she will so we can all learn.

If you and I and the image were in the same place, it would take us only moments to resolve this. Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game.

Peace out. :)

great info Lazypup, I'll have to post some of the old pictures I have. My great-grandfather was an amateur photographer, and I have 100's of old family pictures.

IMO, the hat, the boy's feet and the chair legs definitely look like they were drawn.
Very charming picture!

This is a most riveting subject, and a most interesting thread. I think there is a little bit of truth in many of the posts so far and I've changed my mind on this one at least five times.

The actual print inside the frame gave me the impression of a photograph because of the fine white line like old photos get when they are damaged. That being said, one can take a photo of a drawing and parts of this picture are without a doubt hand rendered including the background and that could very well be a studio backdrop. My impression at this point is that this is likely a studio portrait and that it is in essence a composite with the facial features being the true rendering off a negative and the rest a lot of touch up and very poorly executed outright embellishment.
If you'd like to see an example of a turn of the century hand painted studio backdrop, I can show you a large portrait of my great-grandfather and his brother sitting in a real chair, but with a very fake staircase behind them. LOL

It was not an unusual practise, clear on up to the forties and fifties for some photographers to take portraits in black and white and hand tint and retouch them in the dark room. It wasn't because of the cameras not being able to, but the studios having the equipment to develop them. So seeing 'sketch marks' doesn't prove anything but the skill of the craftsman who took and developed the portrait because you're just as likely to see the editing on a real photograph as not. I have a portrait of my g'grandmother I'm inserting here because judging by her age it would have been taken about 1918-20.

It has been hand tinted, and if you look at her blouse, it has obviously been hand retouched for detail and the bottom darkened out to extend the photo as much as possible to the paper to fill it. I think this is what happened to the boy's dress......it was probably enhanced by hand and the chair by imagination and lack of artistic ability.

Even poor people scrounged up the money for portraits in the old days, God knows my ancestors weren't rich people and we have them to pass along. But they certainly were special enough not to be done on a whim. One portrait my g'parents had taken in the twenties was of my little aunt who was expected to die at birth, but lived until two years. So, they coughed up the money, even with ten kids, to have a portrait taken of her.

I'm no expert and I'm not pretending to be but before I'd blow this one off as a fake, I'd have it checked out. Regardless of how it pans out, and even if it turns out to be a Cracker Barrel nostalgia shot..........it's a Jim Dandy and worth hanging on a wall just to see the mug on that kid.

I'm not a historian, a photographer, artist, or antique appraiser, but that's a drawing.

Besides the trim on the house, why does the front chair leg seem to go in front of the seat? Why are there no other stretchers on the chair legs? The hands and feet don't look correctly proportioned, either. The only part of the whole composition that looks like a photograph to me is the child's face.

It would be intersting to see a photo of the back of the piece, frame and all.