Featured Old, but how old?

Came across this recently... any ideas as to age and/or process? It doesn't look like a studio portrait, to me, but the card is CDV size. The image is only c. 1.6 x 1.4 inches, nothing on the back. Obviously not high quality! Is there a way to tell if it's original, or possibly an early copy?

 

Looks like he is wearing breeches with buttons on the side. Breeches went out of fashion ca mid-19th century.
Being old he may have worn them longer than the young fashionistas of the day.

 

Yes, he may.
We oldsters do have sartorial splendor pretty far down on our priority list, AJ...I've worn Levi Strauss button-fly denim jeans almost without exception for ~75 years. If I have my way, I'll be cremated in a pair!

 

.

 

What makes you think it doesn't look like a studio portrait?

 

It looks too informal to me, and the quality is too poor? I could be wrong of course. It could be a practice piece, or a small photographic studio. I wish there were some information on it, but here we are!

I’ll post the reverse of it tomorrow (it’s late here now and I need to scan it) because there is an ‘impression’ where the photo is. It might hold a clue as to the process?

 

I'd say definitely a studio portrait, maybe 1850-ish? If he's a really old guy, he might be someone who fought in the Revolition if it's American.

 

I’m in the UK, but that doesn’t mean it’s not American. I’m imagining all kinds of back stories to this image!

 

He may have been a Napoleonic Wars veteran in that case. It would make sense of the knee-breeches.

 

To me it looks like an albumen copy of an earlier 1840's -50's original.The pose time was so lengthy for early photography that subjects frequently moved. Some of the blurring may also be the result of using a later glass plate shifting.

 

I'd think rather early too and my guess was 1850s too. Not sure what the alternative to a studio portrait would be in early Victorian times. Clearly a humble backdrop. A chair and table with crocheted cover.

Debora

 

It's interesting to see how close the Pre-Raphaelite painters were getting to photo-realistic art around the time photography was being invented.

 

He looks really old, sure 'nuff...but back then he may have been on the clean side of 50; jest used-up!

 

You might consider whether it is a salt print...one of the main ways to print images on paper prior to the 1860s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_print

Or also maybe a calotype.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calotype

I don't know much about them, but if it is one, it would be very desirable to a collector.

The nature of the image makes me wonder about that.

 

Salt prints and calotypes were typically 8" x 10" though, weren't they?

Debora

 

Have no idea! I have not researched them and have never had one.

 

Just quickly, I found mention of other sizes, such as the one on this page.
https://rmc.library.cornell.edu/DawnsEarlyLight/exhibition/processes/salted_paper.html

But really don't know the full range.

 

Not my subject but... I think the size is important in identifying method as technology was new and limited.

Debora

 

@Batman_2000 , is the image printed directly on the card, or is it on a piece of paper that is glued to the card? As others have mentioned, it could be a reprint of an older image. But the card looks old as well.

 

@Figtree3 , thanks for all the information. The image is on very thin paper that is glued to the card, and the card itself looks worn/old.

I've taken more photos/scans. The image has a sheen in places, and there seems to be an imprint on the reverse although I can't see a dent... just discolouration. Higher resolution scans show the texture of the paper. Do his eyes look closed, or is that just me?

The ghosting is all across the image as if something shifted, so might imply it's a copy albeit an old one? Or could there be another reason for that?