Relatives

[Chris Scott]

Richard
I appreciate your frustration
The hair is hard to judge because of the voluminous hat but I would guess that the hair had been gathered up under the hat.
The face itself I would describe as attractive rather than beautiful.
The most striking feature, in my opinion, are the eyes which are dark and wide.
I am probably just judging from what I hope the picture is but the overwhelming mood of the face I would describe as a wistful sadness.
Chris

[Robert]

One point is, the photograph could be wrong but the genealogical relationship could be right.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The only person in a position to even make a personal judgement is Chris. without giving anything away , I must ask him the obvious.
'In your opinion when you look at the picture , can you see in your minds eye any possible resemblance to MJK, hair length, possible build, attractiveness?
From a personal point of view what is your gut feeling.
I find it frustrating, its a bit like having a picture of Jack himself with no face.
Regards Richard.

[Chris Scott]

Sorry Debs
That wasn't a reply to your point nor did I think you meant me:-)
It was a general point that I personally do not subscribe to any of the Kelly survival stories
Regards
Chris

[Debra A]

I didn't mean you, Chris. I meant I hoped that was not the story the family would be proposing. We have had it before, for example with the Tottenham Mary Kelly.

[Chris Scott]

As anyone who has read my book on Kelly will know I am as convinced as one can be that the woman who died in Room 13 Millers Court was one and the same as the woman who had lived there in the preceding months and had been known to her neighbours, friends and lover as Mary Jane Kelly.
If the image that has been sent to me can be positively shown to postdate 1888 then to me it will be the death knell for its provenance and authenticity as a photo in life of Mary Kelly.
Chris

[Debra A]

Hi Debs.

Just to clarify, I don't think the photo's a "fake", I just haven't seen enough evidence at this point to be convinced it's the same Mary Jane Kelly we are all seeking. I would love for it to be her in a pre-1888 photo!! It would be nice to have a very different photo to remember her by than the dreadful crime scene photos we are all familiar with. My initial impressions are that it's a few years to late too really be her, but I could be mistaken.

I'm sure the family in touch with Chris honestly feels (or fears) that it's really her, and I'm grateful than they have shared even a portion of their family history and their old photographs with us.

I am thoroughly convinced that "our" Mary Kelly died a very cruel and horrific death in November 1888. I wish she didn't; I wish nobody did.

Best regards,
Archaic

It was the outcome some of the wiser and less gullible predicted, Bunny. Some of us never learn.

[Archaic]

My only hope is that all this dating the pic past 1890 means it's thought to be a fake, rather than it's supposedly MJK after 1888, alive and well....and some other poor girl butchered in her place.

Hi Debs.

Just to clarify, I don't think the photo's a "fake", I just haven't seen enough evidence at this point to be convinced it's the same Mary Jane Kelly we are all seeking. I would love for it to be her in a pre-1888 photo!! It would be nice to have a very different photo to remember her by than the dreadful crime scene photos we are all familiar with. My initial impressions are that it's a few years to late too really be her, but I could be mistaken.

I'm sure the family in touch with Chris honestly feels (or fears) that it's really her, and I'm grateful than they have shared even a portion of their family history and their old photographs with us.

I am thoroughly convinced that "our" Mary Kelly died a very cruel and horrific death in November 1888. I wish she didn't; I wish nobody did.

Best regards,
Archaic

[lynn cates]

convicted

Hello Bunny. Yes, sentence has already been passed.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

My only hope is that all this dating the pic past 1890 means it's thought to be a fake, rather than it's supposedly MJK after 1888, alive and well....and some other poor girl butchered in her place.

[Archaic]

Poor Lynn, sounds like you'll be spending another night on the sofa...


Archaic

[lynn cates]

antique

Hello Bunny. Glad to see you posting. Hope you are well.

Your comments may help to date the photo more precisely.

"When you're dating a piece of antique jewelry one of the first things you do is look at the clasp."

Well, I once dated a piece of "antique jewellery"--wound up marrying her. (Heh-heh) And, yes, she had quite a clasp.

Cheers.
LC

[Archaic]

re: The Jewelry

Hi Chris. Thank you for the enlargement, it's much clearer than I could get on my laptop.

I'm still puzzled by the jewelry; it almost looks like there is a broken link on the right hand side of the dangling fob-like piece. Do you see how at the end of the long rectangular stretch of the jewelry there appears to be a break, and the asymmetric piece at bottom right seems like it ought to be attached to something? I'll mull it over some more.

To my eye the oval brooch shows the kind of filagreed or "pierced" work I would associate with a somewhat later date than 1885 or so. Its very light color is also suggestive of Sterling Silver rather than Gold. White metals were very popular in the later Art Nouveau / Edwardian period, 1890's-1911, and in the 1920's. Prior to the 1890's, yellow metals such as yellow gold or the pinkish gold called 'rose gold' were more popular and much more common. However, the apparently light color of the jewelry may just be a trick of the light because the metal reflected the photographer's flash. (I'm no photography expert, so maybe someone else will know.)

A friend asked me why seeing the clasp could make a difference in dating a piece of jewelry. When you're dating a piece of antique jewelry one of the first things you do is look at the clasp. The modern "safety clasp" dates to about 1900. It has a little wheel that rotates, catches, and locks the pin securely in place so it can't open and fall off one's clothing. Prior to that, jewelry had a simple C-shaped clasp that did not lock.

19th C. Mid-Victorian jewelry is characterized by a C-clasp and a very long, very sharp shank (pin) that extends farther than the edge of the jewelry item. (If you've ever picked such a piece up, you'll know, because it's easy to accidentally stab your finger with the sharp pin!)

In the late 1890's various types of early safety clasps were tried and patented, such as the sliding Trombone Clasp. If this pin dates before the late 1890's-1900 it should have a plain C-clasp, without a safety catch. If it dates to the early-to-mid 1880's I would expects a fairly long, sharp pin.

But alas, we can't see those details!

Best regards,
Archaic

[Chris Scott]

Hi Archaic
many thanks indeed for you very helpful and detailed posting
Below which may help is the item of jewellery enlarged from the best copy of the image I have
Chris

[Archaic]

Impressions On the Purported Photo of Mary

Hi everyone. I've just come across this thread and have been reading all the posts and examining the photos with interest.

First of, congratulations and many thanks to Chris for sharing these photos with us! I'd also like to thank the family who provided them. I fully understand their reticence and I hope we can all respect it.

I have a background in antique clothing hats and jewelry, and my first impression upon looking at the photo purported to be Mary is that it dates from about 1895 to the early 1900's, as Miss Marple contends.
That said, there were some wide-brimmed ostrich plumes hats in the 1880's. They were called 'Gainsboroughs', a style which originated in the 18th C. portraits by the artist Gainsborough and which periodically reappeared in different incarnations, most famously in the "picture hats" and enormous "Merry Widow" hats of the 1905-1910 period.

Whistler painted 'Portrait of Lady Meux' in 1881, and the subject is wearing an elegant broad-brimmed hat. (Image attached) Though it must be said it is of a somewhat different style than in the photo provided- the brim is not so upswept, and it doesn't have an ostrich plume. Many hats in the 1880's did have ostrich plumes, though in general they are not suited to era's typically small-brimmed hats. Hat styles are usually composed of "variations on a theme", with many thousands of inspired milliners vying for business. In general the hats and their feathers became larger and more flamboyant as the 20th C. dawned.

The most popular hats in the 1880's were variations of the toque, a small-brimmed or brimless hat which better suited the tight restrictive clothing of the era. (I wish we could see the sleeves in this photo! As Miss Marple pointed out, the sleeves would be an enormous aid in dating this photo.)

The lady appears to be wearing 3 pieces of jewelry, starting with a necklace of very small pearls. These were popular for decades, so aren't much help in dating the photo, but they do indicate that the wearer was fairly well to do. The pearls, though small, would have been real; faux pearls came in much later, in the 1920's with Coco Chanel.

There's a filagreed oval brooch at the neckline of her blouse. The brooch looks 1895-1905 to me, but it would greatly help to date it if I could see its clasp, and whether it is gold or silver.

The piece hanging down from slightly left of center does appear to be some sort of fob as Debs suggested. If you look at the top of it you can see a T-bar. T-bars were hooked through button-holes, etc, to anchor fobs, which were originally intended to ornament pocket watches. (The watch was worn in the pocket, so it was the chain and fob that showed.)
Ladies began to wear small pendant watches, but the circular parts of the fob shown appear too small to be even a very small round pendant watch. I've seen quite small ones from the 1890's, but they are about an inch around. Also, a watch worn so high would seem rather difficult to read, and if it were to bounce upward it would hit one in the face!

Ladies' watches were usually worn on chains and later in the 1890's-1912 period on "watch-pin chatelletes" pinned to the skirt: a pre-WWI version of the wristwatch that allowed women and girls to play various sports like golf and tennis without their watch getting in the way. If the fob in the photo is attached to the oval pin at the neck via a small chain, then it is a type of chatellete that I don't recall having seen before. Perhaps the photo was a special occasion, and the young lady wished to have her pretty fob in the portrait photo, so wore it in an unusual manner?

These are just my preliminary impressions, as I haven't had time to study the photo at length, and its jewelry details are rather indistinct. I'm just sort of "thinking out loud."

What most strikes me about the photo is that everything that the lady is wearing, from clothing to hat to jewelry, would have been rather costly.

What is the time period in which Mary was believed to have been in France or in the West End and presumably in a better financial state? Prior to the year 1885 I believe. So that sets the date for the hat, clothing and jewelry back a few years more from the year 1888 in which she died.

I'll be very interested to hear what a costume expert from the Victoria & Albert Museum might have to say.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: I forgot to mention, the short frizzled bangs in the photo of Bridget are an example of what was called "the Alexandra Fringe"- a hair style characterized by short bangs popularized by Princess (later Queen) Alexander. It was styled with hot "tongs", an early type of hair-iron. Sometimes they were curled "poodle" style, other times just "frizzled". (I can almost smell the burning hair as I type that!) It was most popular in the 1880's and 1890's. I have a family photo from about 1890 that shows one of my Irish forebears wearing an 'Alexandra Fringe' at her wedding in New York.