SHORPY Historic Photo Archive & Fine-Art Prints
 
 
The Shorpy Archive
 
6000+ fine-art prints suitable for framing. Desk-size to sofa-size and larger, on archival paper or canvas.
 
Join and Share

 
Social Shorpy

  
Syndicate content
Syndicate content
Syndicate content
Daily e-mail updates:

 
 
 
 
Member Photos


Photos submitted by Shorpy members.

 
Colorized Photos


Colorized photos submitted by members.

 
About the Photos

Our holdings include hundreds of glass and film negatives/transparencies that we've scanned ourselves; in addition, many other photos on this site were extracted from reference images (high-resolution tiffs) in the Library of Congress research archive. (To query the database click here.) They are adjusted, restored and reworked by your webmaster in accordance with his aesthetic sensibilities before being downsized and turned into the jpegs you see here. All of these images (including "derivative works") are protected by copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions and may not be sold, reproduced or otherwise used for commercial purposes without permission.

WEB SITE & CONTENTS
© 2018 SHORPY INC.

[REV 25-NOV-2014]

 
 
JUMP TO PAGE   100  >  200  >  300  >  400  >  500  >  600
VINTAGRAPH • WPA • WWII • CRUISE THE GREAT LAKES, 1930s

Bride & Gloom: 1910

Bride & Gloom: 1910

Circa 1910. "Woman in wedding dress holding flowers." 8x10 inch dry plate glass negative, Detroit Publishing Company. View full size.

 
On Shorpy:
Today's Top 5

Miss Vanderbilt, is that you?

As I've come to learn from being a devotee of Shorpy for nigh on a decade now, one didn't have to hold a pose for hours and hours to get one's picture taken. So, the bride wasn't frowning (or at least looking downright depressed) because it would have been painful to hold a smile for a long time. Which leads me to wonder...why didn't brides smile in their wedding portraits back then? Was it not the custom? Was it supposedly bad luck or something? I've just always found it odd that most wedding pictures I've seen from the late 1800s and early 1900s all feature very severe looking brides and grooms. I'm sure they weren't *all* dragged to the altar against their will like the Duchess of Marlborough was.

[Formal posed portraits in oil rarely showed the subjects smiling - it was a centuries-old convention that photography inherited. -tterrace]

English, actually

My wife has been smocking for the past 15 years or so, and it's actually an English art. The name comes from the smocks English laborers wore until the advent of the steam engine--many horsepower and fast-moving leather belts driving machinery required more close-fitting attire to avoid being killed in factories. Prior to this, it was a way to introduce elasticity and create a garment that could be loosened for coolness in summer and then tightened for warmth in winter.

The dress in question is fairly loosely pleated--smocked garments today have much smaller pleats--and embroidered with a loose diamond pattern. It's very interesting in that the elasticity of the embroidery/smocking is over a corset. Maybe it's an act of mercy for a woman whose wedding was going to be on a very hot day, and maybe that explains her expression as well.

Either that, or she's marrying as well as Maureen O'Hara's character did in "How Green Was My Valley".

Stunning

I've never seen that type of smocking in such an elegant dress. Can someone elaborate? Is it European? French?

 
SHORPY HISTORICAL PHOTO ARCHIVE
Shorpy.com | History in HD is a vintage photo archive featuring thousands of high-definition images from the 1850s to 1960s. (Available as fine-art prints from the Shorpy Archive.) The site is named after Shorpy Higginbotham, a teenage coal miner who lived 100 years ago.

Syndicate content RSS | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Photo Use | © 2018 Shorpy Inc.
sphere