Help with genealogy of subject and era

It looks most like 506 to me but my second guess would be 606. Edit: seeing the zoomed in photo which is much better than my eye it looks like 506. Figured there could easily be a number before that but seeing as it’s earlier than I first thought the numbers are probably less likely to have been in the thousands then.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/albanygroup/24958244034

 

Maybe not, unless they’ve changed their label.
https://www.auctionzip.com/auction-lot/LOUIS-SAMUEL-BRUN-Signed-d-Etching_89D4DF0935

 

I think you've got it -- good work, as usual. And here I was, assuming the address was in New York City. Albany, huh....

They could easily have changed their label design, especially if in business for a long time.

 

I think you've nailed it, i n h. The fonts on each label are a match.

 

The painting is of Lucy Bridge, Helen's older sister.. who was born in 1837. Do we have a rough idea of the date of the painting?

 

More like golddigger husbands I'd think... Women with money in the family were easy to get married off. Husbands with money were/are the ones who could/can afford "trophy" wives. I also seem to recall that when marrying in years of yore all property automatically became jointly held. So if a wife was rich the husband owned half of it. And vice versa of course as long as they were married.

Ever wondered why so many European noblemen married American heiresses? The heiresses loved marrying European nobles as it gave them a title not obtainable in America. And the pennyless nobles got their castle expenses, taxes, and gambling debts paid off.

Downton Abbey [the tv series] is a perfect example. The heir married a rich American girl and her father's money saved the estate.

Winston Churchill's mother, Lady Randoph Churchill, nee Jennie Jerome in the U.S. did the same and saved her husband as well as Winston from a life of poverty; her money supported his runs for office.

Men loved the laws that gave them the fortunes of their wives upon marriage. Wives were not permitted to hold any private funds back then. You'd be surprised how long these laws were in effect. If memory serves, way into the 20th century. Nope, I won't look it up now but if someone wants to, be my guest. I'm off cooking today!

 

There was a distant (and plain looking) aunt in my wife's family in the late 1800's whose father died very wealthy and had put his fortune in trust. Her three siblings passed away as young adults. She could only inherit the bulk of the estate if she was married. So she arranged a marriage with a male friend, drawing up one of America's first prenuptial agreements, which provided her friend $100,000 and a house for his trouble. It was a sham marriage that was terminated a few years later. They were just friends before, during, and after the marriage. But by satisfying the terms of the estate (single women did not generally inherit anything more than token amounts), she became one of the most independently wealthy women in the world (some say only Queen Victoria was wealthier). She did not remarry.

 

A gal after my own heart... thanks @smallaxe for sharing!

 

Such an interesting story! Thank you for sharing.

 

Very interesting. Thank you!

 

That’s a lot to glean from a portait. I prefer to see her very differently.

But different opinions make the world go ‘round.

 

The gallery was on Broadway from 1846-1875 so sometime in there. In 1856 is when they started to advertise portraits it looks like. She looks to me like she’s in her late 20’s to later 30’s. So I would think right around 1865-1875 which would match perfectly with the galleries time at that address. Thanks INH for finding that!!! Great gallery history here:https://www.albanyinstitute.org/tl_files/pdfs/library/Library Collection Finding Aids Annesley&co. HP 81-05.pdf

 

Awesome!

 

That’s precisely what I was saying. Goldigging was often going in the opposite direction back then as compared to how it’s commonly thought of now in popular culture.