Thomas ROOK 1784-1844 - Is this an 1840s photo of him? (General)

by admin ⌂, Forest of Dean, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 02:06 (5592 days ago)

This photograph was sent to us by Helen Best and it is believed to be of Thomas Rook 1784-1844. Is there anyone who has a knowledge of dating old photographs that would be able to verify that such a photograph coud have been taken in the early 1840s? Helen has also given us details of Thomas Rook's family which are below.

[image][image]

View larger images


This photograph is from my family album. It is likely to be Thomas Rook 1784-1844. I think he is in his working clothes, he was a blacksmith. If this is satisfactory I can send some more including a photograph of a shop which I hope someone will recognise.


Helen

If it is indeed a photo of Thomas Rook 1784-1844 it would be very unique. It depends on how one defines photography but it was not until the 1840s that photography started and it was not until the 1860s that it became commercial. Can you please send us more details about Thomas such as where he was born or lived and anything else you may know.

Please send any other photos you have and include as much information that you know about them as a photo is far more interesting if it has some background information to go with it.


David

I have tried to look at the photograph in more depth but cannot take it out of the album and I am afraid of damaging both to try any further.

However, today, for the first time, I have found that the photograph appears to have been mounted on card at some stage after it was taken rather than it being on the board which photographs tended to be mounted on. I want to be as accurate as possible and have tried to look via the Internet as well as in library books to check that this kind of photograph was being produced in his lifetime but have not managed to do so. If you think the photograph could not possibly have been taken then, we will only be able to state it was a member of the Rook family but for all of my life my mother and her relatives have always said it is a picture of Thomas Rook(e).

I have several pictures of his son Thomas (my great, great grandfather) who is much slimmer and looks decidedly different (see next photo to be sent to you). Pictures of his son are with other people making it certain that it was him.

The picture I sent to you is sepia and faded and it appears to be older than the ones of Thomas Rook junior.

Thomas Rook was born in about 1784. I do not know where he was born or the names of his parents but would love to do so. It is likely he was born in the Forest of Dean. However the rest of the dates and places are likely to be very accurate I have checked some via several sources (his marriage, death etc. are recorded in the remaining pages I have of the family Bible which he and his wife bought in 1829. I am sure that they bought it then as their names and the date have been engraved professionally on the back of the hard cover of the front of the Bible in gold lettering on a red background.) The Bible itself has gone all but a few pages but it was published in 1816.

Thomas Rook(e) was married to Elizabeth Mary Stead on 21st and 22nd February 1813. You might wonder why I say they were married on two consecutive dates?! The reason is they were of the RC faith and their RC marriage was not considered legal, so they married in the C of E as well. Their Anglican marriage was on 22nd February at Newland, Gloucestershire and the vicar was Rev. Josiah Allport. Witnesses at the wedding were Susannah Rook (I have not managed to find out who she was and would love to know!) and Thomas Bond (he crops up several times at weddings and baptisms I've noticed). At the RC wedding (Monmouth) the priest was Rev Gildart. Elizabeth Stead/Steade [sometimes wrongly referred to in records as Steele] was his wife, born 20th Jan 1786 in Hotwells, Bristol. Family oral history is that her mother was French and spoke broken English but I have found a record stating she too was born in Hotwells. Thomas died on 15th March 1844 at Lane End, Coleford. I even have the time of his death as midnight. Buried 19th March. His wife died 26th May 1866 in Coalway, Lane End, Coleford.

They had five children, that I know of: four boys and a girl. The girl was called Mary born 21/5/1816. I am not sure what happened to her but she is likely to be the Mary Rook buried in Coleford at the age of 3 years in 1819. Their sons were:

Joseph Rook, born 5/2/1814 died 23/1/1856 (Died at Lane End, Coleford)
Thomas Rook(e) my great, great, grandfather 17-6-1818 to December 1883 in Sheffield (he moved to Sheffield in the 1870s to work at Osborn Mushett's steel works).

Charles J. Rook, born 1824 died (in Poughkeepsie, New York) 1/10/1854

Paul Rook born about 1831 died 11/4/1871 (buried at Parkend Cemetery, Forest of Dean).

Note how old they were when the last two children were born. This is definitely true as my mother used to talk of how old they were (oral history connecting with written records) and how old their son Thomas was when some of his children were born.

Thanks,
Helen Best

1840s photography

by slowhands @, proud of his ancient Dean Forest roots, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 07:01 (5592 days ago) @ admin

It is possible - the earliest paper/ printed images date to about 1841

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/talbot.htm

some contempary images by Fox talbot
http://foxtalbot.dmu.ac.uk/resources/photo.html

Herschel had perfected the process of capturing images to glass plates in the 1820's.


If these artefacts can be "proved" then they would truely reflect the pioneering days of image capture and printing.

My instinct is the later - Junior Thomas ROOK, however I have an open mind :-)

--
Ἀριστοτέλης A Gloster & Hereford Boy in the Forest of Dean ><((((*>

1840s photography

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 21:45 (5591 days ago) @ slowhands

I have sent a photograph of his son Thomas which you will see he is different, much slimmer and darker haired. It is definitely not the younger Thomas Rook, of that I can be certain.
I think from the photographs you have shown that it could be original.

Thomas ROOK 1784-1844 - Is this an 1840s photo of him?

by m p griffiths @, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 07:10 (5592 days ago) @ admin

On this Forum previously..... (dating old photographs)

www.rogerco.freeserve.co.uk

Thomas ROOK 1784-1844 - Is this an 1840s photo of him?

by admin ⌂, Forest of Dean, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 09:14 (5592 days ago) @ m p griffiths

On this Forum previously..... (dating old photographs)

I did have a look at this site earlier but I was not able to conclusively determine the period in which this photograph would have been taken. However, I sent an e-mail to Roger whose site it is and asked if he could be of help. It will be interesting to have his thoughts, so I hope he replies.

Reply from Roger Vaughan

by admin ⌂, Forest of Dean, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 09:45 (5592 days ago) @ admin


First it probably is a copy, photographs on paper as a albumen print like this were not made in 1844. Photos on slivered metal called Daguerreotypes were, so this could be a re-photographed Daguerreotype, and this was often done. It does have the pose of one of those, but I am not an expert on these, only on the later photos.

The width to height is not similar to carte de visite photos (1859 0n), but more like a Daguerreotype or an ambrotype.

They were an expensive item in 1844, so unusual to have someone in working clothes, he must have been proud of his work.

So I would not rule it out, but get another opinion.

Regards

Roger

Reply from Roger Vaughan

by m p griffiths @, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 11:04 (5592 days ago) @ admin

I have in the past taken some old photographs to

The Museum of Costume and Assembly Rooms in Bath, Somerset.

www.fashionmuseum.co.uk

who dated them by their outfits/hairstyle/cravats etc - perhaps they could help via the web.

Reply from Roger Vaughan

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 21:51 (5591 days ago) @ m p griffiths

The problem is I live hundreds of miles from Bath.

Reply from Roger Vaughan

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 21:50 (5591 days ago) @ admin

Thanks for this. I also sent a copy to the Iron Mining Museum but had no response from them.
Could his employer have had the photograph taken and given him a copy? I know he was a blacksmith and I know his son, Thomas, was one of 6 men who Mr. Mushett moved to Sheffield to work at Osborn Mushett/Samuel Osborn's steel works later on.

Thomas ROOK 1784-1844 - Is this an 1840s photo of him?

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 21:47 (5591 days ago) @ admin

Yes so do I. The problem is that as he is in working clothes there's less to go at in terms of establishing the date it was taken from what he was wearing too.

ROOK/RUCK/RUCH

by m p griffiths @, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 12:09 (5591 days ago) @ admin

Looking at the 1841/1851 Census in FOD Gloucestershire, and the Parish Records, there appears to be quite a few RUCK's including

1841 Census Dean Forest, Ross, District 20, Page 2

John RUCK - age 50 not born in County
Susanna RUCK - age 40 - not born in County (born West Bromwich, Staffordshire 1851 census) and their
children

And on the 1851 Census for West Dean there is an Edward RUCK/RUCH - age 50 who is a Blacksmith - spelt REUCK on the 1861 census.

Thomas ROOK prior thread

by slowhands @, proud of his ancient Dean Forest roots, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 12:14 (5591 days ago) @ m p griffiths

http://www.forum.forest-of-dean.net/index.php?id=15208

1841 Coleford Meend
Thomas Rock abt 1791 Dean Forest Gloucestershire Blacksmith
Elizabeth Rock abt 1791 Dean Forest Gloucestershire
Charles Rock abt 1826 Dean Forest Gloucestershire
Paul Rock abt 1831 Dean Forest Gloucestershire
Joseph Rock abt 1816 Gloucestershire, England Dean Forest Gloucestershire
Thomas Rock abt 1821 Gloucestershire, England Dean Forest Gloucestershire

--
Ἀριστοτέλης A Gloster & Hereford Boy in the Forest of Dean ><((((*>

Thomas ROOK prior thread

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 22:00 (5591 days ago) @ slowhands

This is the same family but their surname is misspelt and the dates of the parents' births are less accurate than the ones I have.

ROOK/RUCK/RUCH

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 21:53 (5591 days ago) @ m p griffiths

The spellings I have are Rook and Rooke though it is possible that the others are related as well as those called Ruk.

ROOK/RUCK/RUCH

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 22:12 (5591 days ago) @ m p griffiths

I'd love to know whether these are related to my family. The only doubt I would cast is if they were not from the Forest of Dean as my family (oral) history is that they were there in the English Civil war as they were on the side of the King due to their religious persuasion. However I will keep an open mind on it as there was a Susannah at Thomas Rook (senior)'s wedding and there is an Edward Rook descended from those who were in Poughkeepsie.

Thomas ROOK 1784-1844 - Is this an 1840s photo of him?

by Roger Griffiths @, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 12:57 (5591 days ago) @ admin

No problem with this pic. being early 1840's. even if it is a copy of original. It would have been nice if he was in his Sunday best but that jacket, now downgraded to work clothes, is very likely 1830's. The whole atmosphere of it is 1835 - 1850. I'm not an expert though, despite seeking out all early photographs I can on the Net.

Roger

Thomas ROOK 1784-1844 - Is this an 1840s photo of him?

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 21:56 (5591 days ago) @ Roger Griffiths

Thank you for this, I feel happier now that what I have always been told may still be the case as I was concerned if my mother, grandmother, and her mother and her great-aunties and great-uncle had all been under a misapprehension about the identity of the person featured! Particularly as my mother has died and lived her entire life believing that this was the older of the two Thomas Rooks!

Thomas ROOK 1784-1844 - Is this an 1840s photo of him?

by AnneRafferty @, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 13:08 (5591 days ago) @ admin

I think I've found the grave of Thomas Rook (born 1818) in City Road Cemetery, Sheffield.
He was buried in grave no. 3212, section GG in the RC ground.
Thomas Rook, blacksmith age 66, died at 1 ct 1 Nursery Street buried 3 Jan 1884.
Also in same grave
David Thomas Rook, steel moulder age 64, died at 41 Montford Street buried 4 Nov 1935
Eliza Agnes Rook, widow age 57, died at Stanley Street buried 12 Jan 1897
Mary Elizabeth Rook, spinster age 61, died at 41 Montford Street buried 11 Jun 1942
Agnes Beatson, widow age 52, died at 1 Burnell Road buried 14 Dec 1921
Sheffield Indexers have quite a lot of Rook and Rooke burials.
Regards
Anne

Thomas ROOK 1784-1844 - Is this an 1840s photo of him?

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 21:59 (5591 days ago) @ AnneRafferty

The grave was never lost, I visit it every month and put flowers on it and have always visited it since I was a child. The inscription states that he was born in Coleford and I've referred to it before in an earlier posting a few months ago. You definitely have the correct family. Are you related to me, I would be interested to hear from you if you are?

Does it help to know the size of the photograph?

by rookancestrybest @, United Kingdom, Saturday, October 31, 2009, 23:12 (5591 days ago) @ admin

I've now measured the photograph and it is approximately 4 1/2 inches high and 3 1/4 inches wide. Does this help to authenticate it?


Continued → http://www.forum.forest-of-dean.net/index.php?mode=thread&id=21798

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum