Many thanks to those who have replied and responded. In particular thanks to Chris for putting the photo on the web for me. Very much appreciated. It would appear that my first thoughts were incorrect. My Gt Grandmother was born in 1853 and if the outfit was consistent with 1890's fashion then I doubt very much it is her My grandmother was born in 1883 but it definitely is not her, completely wrong facial structure. I have no record of a female sibling so I'm none the wiser. (why was the picture kept for a century, if not a family member ???) Regards Phil <snip>

On Sunday, 17 January 2016 03:25:29 UTC, Phil Hawkins wrote: <snip> > (why was the picture kept for a century, if not a family member ???) I don't think that is a problem. When my great-aunt died in the late 1960s, we inherited an 1890s photo of her childhood best friend. My father knew who it was, but none of us have got round to archiving that information. So we have kept a non-family-member photo for over 100 years, and the next generation won't have a clue who it is.

In message <fKGdnS9G6rU6lAbLnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au>, Phil Hawkins <cyclopsphil@iinet.net.au> writes: [] >1890's fashion then I doubt very much it is her >My grandmother was born in 1883 but it definitely is not her, >completely wrong facial structure. >I have no record of a female sibling so I'm none the wiser. >(why was the picture kept for a century, if not a family member ???) [] Perhaps someone unrelated, but who was of significance - someone who had been generous, either financially or otherwise, or a beloved nanny or similar? (Not necessarily formal.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf no good deed goes unpunished. This is an iron-clad rule in Netiquette.