On 18/01/2016 17:01, Richard Smith via wrote: > > I can't argue with your logic, but I'm really struggling to see that as > a photo of a teenager. Other than the hair style, everything suggests > someone much older. If Phil's great-grandmother was born in 1853, she > might only be 40 when the photo was taken (if she were not as far behind > London fashions as we suppose). I find it easier to believe the picture > is of a youthful-looking 40-year-old than a 16-year-old. > > Richard > 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. Chris Pitt Lewis