On 19/01/16 01:39, Chris Pitt Lewis via wrote: > Phil's original post referred to his having photoshopped the picture > because it was damaged and had been folded down the middle. There seem > to be clear signs of damage affecting the right side of the face (left > half on the photo). If you block out that side, and look only at the > other, she appears much younger, and could easily be about 14 to 16. You're right. That side by itself does look much younger. I'm not convinced quite as young as 14-16, but clearly much younger than 40. Richard

On 20/01/16 11:10, Richard Smith wrote: > On 19/01/16 01:39, Chris Pitt Lewis via wrote: > >> Phil's original post referred to his having photoshopped the picture >> because it was damaged and had been folded down the middle. There seem >> to be clear signs of damage affecting the right side of the face (left >> half on the photo). If you block out that side, and look only at the >> other, she appears much younger, and could easily be about 14 to 16. > > You're right. That side by itself does look much younger. I'm not > convinced quite as young as 14-16, but clearly much younger than 40. The somewhat pained expression could be due to the need to keep a rigid pose. I notice there's no wedding ring. In fact, she's wearing no jewellery of any kind which might also point to being younger but religious attitudes might come into play. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk