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.

© 2018 SHORPY INC.

[REV 25-NOV-2014]

JUMP TO PAGE   100  >  200  >  300  >  400  >  500  >  600

Four Generations: 1902

Four Generations: 1902

From left to right is May Meek-age 65,Ann Keeler-47, John Kline- 6 months, and Mae Kline-19. This was taken in 1902 in Shelby, Ohio. That's four generations, and May Meek looks likes she's on the older end of 65. Mae Kline looks pretty hot...for a mom. I think May is a distant grandma. View full size.

On Shorpy:
Today's Top 5

After a little research

It is amazing the these ladies look so much older than their true ages. After talking to my mom (the family historian in residence) she told me that May, the really old gal, apparently has always looked old. May also led a somewhat difficult life on a farm too. Again, I think she just aged prematurely.
As far as I know, they are not mourning. To me, they just look tired.

Age or Sadness?

Expressions of age and aging vary greatly with time and place, as seen so strikingly in this family group. For many people in 1902, 60 felt more like our 80, and, once a woman was widowed, conventional society expected her to look like it. But most women in 1902 "new baby" photos made an effort to express some level of pride and joy. It looks like these women are wearing mourning dresses, maybe not full mourning, but at least the slightly relaxed mourning worn for at least a year after a close death. In that case, the startling glumness of the two older women might be deliberate, as if they thought it improper to smile at an occasion that would otherwise be a very happy one.


I think a lot of the look of premature aging has to do with tooth care. Both of these older women look as if they have lost some (or even most) of their teeth. I can make myself look 15 years older by removing my partial dentures. Add to that no makeup and severe clothing and hairstyles, and they look ancient. I have pictures of my grandmothers in their unflattering house dresses which add years to their looks.

Shocked at the ages!

This is a fine picture, but I am totally shocked that these could be the ages of these women. Other than the baby, they all look at least 10 years older than stated, by today's standards anyhow. I don't mean to criticize; I just think it's fascinating. Perhaps they saw some rough times.

SHORPY HISTORICAL PHOTO ARCHIVE | 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.