Mea Culpa

 


While answering a question on my previous post, I realized I was wrong. Fortunately I said I was 99% certain the above picture was taken in the fancy house described in the newspaper article in my previous post. As it turned out, my 1% uncertainty should have been closer to 100%.

The question I was answering was about who took the photograph. I didn't know and still don't know who since the entire family group was in the picture but I wondered if it could have been a timer. The internet assured me that external triggers were around as early as 1910 and built in timers came around in the 1950's. Since my grandfather, the blurry boy on the left, was born in 1929, I figure this picture was taken somewhere near the mid 1930's and in the external trigger era. My great great grandfather on the right appears to be clutching something in his hands, perhaps a remote trigger.

That is when it hit me that this picture was taken in the mid 1930's, after my great great grandfather had his bankruptcy sale. After the sale, according to my chronologically ordered research notes, they moved to an apartment in Waterloo in 1926, three years before my grandfather was born. By 1940, they were living in a old four square building on a corner in neighboring Cedar Falls where they ran a grocery store out of an attached building behind it. I now suspect, that this picture was taken while in that house which is still standing today according to Google Streetview. Unfortunately, it now has a closed in front porch obscuring the front door and window for verification.

This new knowledge has took a bit of wind out of my sails. They still obviously had been able to retain some nice clothing and things after the bankruptcy, but this house, wasn't the one described in the previously posted article. I think I should paste a copy of the above photo in my research notes, in chronological order of course, so such a mistake doesn't happen again. 

Mea culpa.

Comments

  1. At lest you know now:) It is still a nice photo. I would think that it is a staged photo and that a photographer visited the house. Just a guess:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a good guess as well and as good as any of them.

      Delete
  2. History always gets updated based on new discoveries, Ed. Part of the process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is though in this case, I had all the facts, just not the correct processing to put them in order.

      Delete
  3. I don't need to tell you that we all make mistakes in our research; at least you figured it out and corrected it. Don't get me started on the inaccurate family trees I see on various websites. I have told several relatives who do genealogy that, according to DNA, they have the wrong Robert Grieve on their trees, thus everything back from him is wrong, wrong, wrong. Oops, I promised not to rant!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are preaching to the choir! I would guess 95% of the family trees I have ever looked at have glaring errors.

      Delete
  4. You seem so well organized with your research notes. Whatever amount of research that I did was hit and miss with spotty, soon-forgotten notes hither, thither and yon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't always like that. For me, the organization started when I went to make books for my kids on various lines of our trees. In trying to put things in some sense of order, I realized how much I didn't know, thought I knew but got confused, or did know but forgot. After watching a video about writing research notes, even about those ancestors I know a lot about, I decided that was my solution and so that has been my new goal.

      Delete
  5. Even so, your careful attention to details is admirable. You're just dealing with clues, after all, so it's something of a challenge.

    I was wondering how many place settings were at the table. Obviously, there's one at the near end, and it would be logical for that person (usually the hostess) to move to the side for a photo. But when I first saw the picture, I wondered if an unrelated guest took the photo, and later swapped places with the Mrs. for the meal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have lots of photos of my great great grandmother so I don’t think swapping occurred though it might have been an unrelated person taking the picture. I just don’t know who that person would have been. The remote trigger just seems like the easiest explanation.

      Delete
  6. The setting of the photo is still nice and I agree it could have been taken with some kind of remote trip wire for the camera. Before WW2, most of my family didn't have electric lights (that came afterwards due to Rural Electrification). I would love to see inside photos, but most of my photos I've seen were outside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s a wild fact. I have lots of inside photos taken in portrait studios back to the early 1900’s and even a few in the late 1800’s. But still, the majority taken with personal cameras were taken outside for the same reasons.

      Delete

Post a Comment