Antique convex/bubble glass frame with 2 very old photos

[hemster922]

I put a value on this at $100. Was I wrong?

[mart]

Are you selling them ?? Does the bottom pic have a frame ??  How big are these pics ??

[hemster922]

Yes I am selling it Mart, I have it on Ebay currently.
It's overall size including the frame is 19" x 11.5"
The back of the frame had been taped to keep it together since many of the tiny nails had been missing I suppose, so when I removed the tape to replace them I discovered the contents.
The photo of the couple [I'm assuming] was original to the frame, and then at some point became the back support for the photo of the child.
I priced it at $99.00 to start the bidding tho I'm not exactly sure of it's true value. Got a lot of feedback so far..
I REALLY like it! If it doesn't sell I'm keeping it for sure

[mart]

In looking at the styles and the chair the child is sitting on I think it was taken in the 20`s,,probably later half !!   The couples pic looks like later,, in the 30`s !! Could be the childs parents although the child looks nothing like them  ?? There would be problems today if that standard was used to judge children !! So it has some historical interest !!  Let us know how it sells !!

[hemster922]

I believe earlier than that Mart, the chair is Victorian, possibly caned. [I've done plenty like it over the years] and The New York Times printed the article in 1914. A 'Rotogravure' they call it. It's the real deal too! [not a copy]
The couples photo mimics that of a 'photogravure' [which I've been doing some serious research on lately due to the Edward Steichen piece I have]
...and that poor woman...and those seriously unfashionable GLASSES!  can we date them?? haha

[mart]

True,,only read part of the article !!  I was looking at the clothing style more than anything !! Don`t remember dresses being that short for girls till the "Roaring Twenties" !!! Then everyone shortened them !!

[ghopper1924]

The adults' photos do look later than the baby.

There was quite a bit of sentimentality attached to young children in the Belle Epoch period.

[mariok54]

Fashion is not my strongest point ( and that's an understatement), but one of my 'interests' is silent movies of the 1910's and 1920's (almost a passion, and will be when I have more spare time), and the two photo could easily be from the  late teens and early 1920s (the parents' photo  could easily have been taken a little later).

[mart]

Not sure its the parents !! I see no resemblance,, do you ??  I know kids do not always look like the parents but ,,,!!!

[mariok54]

Not sure its the parents !! I see no resemblance,, do you ??  I know kids do not always look like the parents but ,,,!!!

You're right Mart .... no resemblance at all ..... could have led to some very intense scrutiny and questioning by one of them!   

[ghopper1924]

I think your price may be optimistic in this market, unfortunately. Maybe $50.00 for both, and probably not even that.

[hemster922]

You think so ghopper? Because I actually think I can do better off of Ebay [and away from dealers], so I hope you're right!

[mariok54]

You think so ghopper? Because I actually think I can do better off of Ebay [and away from dealers], so I hope you're right!

Or you hope he's wrong?
This is only my opinion, but I would say that the value for most people would be in the frame, which is quite a nice frame and a good size. It is a terrible thing to acknowledge that objects have greater value than actual people (who are probably long departed).

Having just re-read your original post I've come up with another theory about the 'couple' based upon what you've written. It may be that they are in no way connected to the child (as mart was thinking). It is possible that the photo may just have been one that had never been collected, wasn't liked by the sitters, or whatever, and so the photographer/framer just used it for a backing, waste nothing! When I was younger I was a very keen photographer and did my own developing and printing. I would frequently have prints that were below par, but I would try to use them wherever possible, rather than just bin them.

Just a thought.

[hemster922]

You may be right Mario, interesting...
Although I do believe the couples photo was original to the frame [convex in shape], like you said, it was probably discarded for one reason or another and used as a backing for the newspaper photo. [those horrid glasses are enough of a reason for me to call for a retake!  ]
still and all, I imagine theres a story here. The guy looks like he may have been important, like a gangster!

[mart]

Or  could have been some member of the family and they just framed the childs pic using their frame !!  Couldn`t toss the pic in case aunt and uncle or whatever came to visit so they just stuck it behind the other !!  That's possibly why it was taped on the back !! Easy to get out and change, re-tape and they would never know !!