Seed Pearl Necklace and Bracelets

[L Verge]

(06-14-2019 02:50 AM)Steve Wrote:  

I may have identified the couple in the photograph after researching the family histories of Ruth (Montgomery) Day, and her husband. Ruth's 1976 estate sale is where the daguerreotype supposedly comes from. Based on the clothing and hairstyles in the photo, I would date it to c.1857. My visual estimate would put the couple around their forties. I know that's a little younger than some of your estimates for the couple's ages. There's only one couple that matched this age guess and photo production estimate from Ruth and her husbands lineages:

Jehiel Halsey Montgomery born 15 Oct. 1815 in New York State, died 26 Jan. 1892 in Decorah, Iowa and his wife Emily Biggs born c.1818 also in New York and died 13 Jan. 1906 in Decorah. They are Ruth's paternal grandparents. Based on the c.1857 age estimate, he would be around 42 and she around 39. The couple was living in Aurora, Illinois in the 1850's and if it is indeed this couple the daguerreotype was probably made there too.

Despite being a little younger than some of you suspected, this is the only couple age wise who seems to fit with the age estimate of when the photograph was made. The second closest couple was the paternal grandfather of Ruth's husband - who would've been about 63 - and his wife who would've been about 51 in 1857. I just think 63 is too old for the man in the photo.

I haven't found any photographs of either Jehiel or Emily online, so I can't confirm this. And I guess there's always the possibility that Ruth just bought the daguerreotype somewhere because she liked the photo and it just got mixed in with her family history items.

I'm still hung up on the age question 'cause those folks look a little weathered, but I will concede that life in Iowa in the mid-1800s was a little difficult and may have beaten them down a bit. I would also hazard a guess that the woman may have suffered from consumption since she seems to be wasting away (at least from her "very expensive" lace collar down). I wish I could enlarge her portion of the dag in order to peruse her dress and accessories. There is something about her dress that, despite all the extra frills, appears to be roughly finished. I am also trying to determine if she is wearing a hoop. If not, that would definitely date the dag before 1860. MTL definitely would have been in hoops for the Inauguration.

I am also intrigued with the separate ornamentation at her waistline. It appears to be metallic, like jewelry (almost like sweater clips that some ladies wear today with open cardigans), but also with a chain that hangs down with something attached that appears to be a cross? Was it a unique watch chain? A chatelaine? I'd also like to see the brooch and earrings. My inquiring mind wants to know. Donna McCreary, where are you? We still have time to turn what has been a contentious few weeks of looking at this dag into a teachable moment on period dress - with my apologies to the men on this forum.