I thought it was because at that time it wasn't "proper" to smile/laugh in a picture. But I don't know if that's true , just what I've been told, Caroline ----- Original Message ----- From: bzbee <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [TNMONTGO-L] clark > Excuse me for jumping in here, but almost all the old photos that I see are of > very stern people. Never smiling and I have always wondered why. Surely > there was some dab of happiness in their lives. I do hope so. They always look > as if they have been frightened. Any ideas why? Thanks. Jo... > > Shirley Gordon wrote: > > > Deanna, thanks. I have seen the marriage licience and her names looks like > > it could me Clark or Clarke. Another thing to add to the hunt. I do have > > all their childrens names on down to my generation. She has been a brick > > wall for me. She is a very stern lookin indian woman. > > > > At 11:46 AM 2/14/01 -0600, you wrote: > > >Shirley, > > >I am sure you have this information too, but just in case - > > >the Montgomery Marriage Book that I have shows that > > > > > >Sarah Clark married Samuel Suter on January 15, 1852. > > > > > >Here again, as with the census, it is not necessarily all the > > >information that is shown in the marriage record. Sometimes > > >the original marriage record will show the name of the bondsman > > >or security, name of minister or justice of the peace, church, etc. > > >Not always shown, but sometimes is, and this information may > > >or may not be helpful to you. > > > > > >All of these books we have available to us are good, but there is > > >nothing better than looking at the original records or a > > >microfilm of them for the most complete and accurate information. > > > > > >Deanna > > > > Shirley Gordon > > Administrative Secretary > > 324 S. Kedzie Hall > > Michigan State University > > East Lansing, MI 48823-1032 > > 517-353-3290 > > Fax 517-432-2049 >

Hi, I don't know where I read this, but I believe the reason they did not smile "back then" in pictures was because the slightest movement would have resulted in a "blur". If you will notice in some pictures of couples, families, etc. there is sometimes a slight blurring in parts of the pictures---especially if there are small children in the picture. Originally many people were posed using metal stands which held their heads and bodies straight---and motionless. I also think that people were so used to sitting still that the practice probably continued long after it was necessary. It is amazing how "sophisticated" the cameras were back then. Just a thought. Jean in TX ----- Original Message ----- From: "gildent" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [TNMONTGO-L] clark I thought it was because at that time it wasn't "proper" to smile/laugh in a picture. But I don't know if that's true , just what I've been told, Caroline ----- Original Message ----- From: bzbee <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [TNMONTGO-L] clark > Excuse me for jumping in here, but almost all the old photos that I see are of > very stern people. Never smiling and I have always wondered why. Surely > there was some dab of happiness in their lives. I do hope so. They always look > as if they have been frightened. Any ideas why? Thanks. Jo...