In message <02dd7d9b-8267-45d4-a770-e1d87a266c90@googlegroups.com>, Chris Dickinson <chris@dickinson.uk.net> writes: >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. Write it on the back of the photo as soon as possible! (_Not_ with anything that will damage the photo, of course.) Or at the very least, on something that will remain with the photo - ideally attached to it, if that can be done without damage (e. g. to the backing if any). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Sarcasm: Barbed ire

On Sunday, 17 January 2016 17:18:02 UTC, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > > Write it on the back of the photo as soon as possible! (_Not_ with > anything that will damage the photo, of course.) Or at the very least, > on something that will remain with the photo - ideally attached to it, > if that can be done without damage (e. g. to the backing if any). I know, we should. And probably will. But I have a mischievous temptation to leave this cuckoo in the nest unexplained for the family historians of the next next generation. Chris