• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

William Baker, Birmingham Photographer

G

gingerninja

knowlegable brummie
I am researching Walter Baker photographer, I have a picture of MY GT GT Grandmother, I don't know the year it was taken but on the it is ' Walter Baker' 159 Moseley Road, can find him in 1891 in Gladstone Road. In 1901 the Holland family occupied 159 Moseley Road, the youngest daughter was a photographic assistanct.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

gingerninja
 
That link doesn't seem to work, hope this does.

dmund S. BAKER Art Studios, 82 Bristol St., Birmingham
E.S. BAKER & Son, 154 Bristol St., Birmingham, from about 1896-9
Egeston BAKER, Northlight Studios, 220 Deritend Bridge, Birmingham
L & W E BAKER 220 Deritend Birmingham
Thomas Baker 283, Sherlock Street, Birmingham.
W. BAKER, Highgate Studios 110 Moseley Road
renumbered (c.1894) to 213 Moseley Road, Birmingham - 1880-90s
BAKER and HUDSON, 118 (moved 1896-9 to 243-4) Gooch St
62 Bordesley,
 
Thanks, brilliant her address before she died was Ashley Street, which I put in Google maps and is only a few street away.

Again thanks
 
The issue is slightly complicated by the fact that Moseley Road changed its numbering system sometime between 1892 and 1895 from consecutive, to odd numbers one side, even the other. Before that Kellys shows that the W Baker at 110 moseley road was a William Baker, who is a photographer from before at least 1883. There was also a William Charles Baker, photographer, who overlapped, working at Hingeston St, so it seems a photographic family. Walter Baker is listed as living at 89 moseley road in 1892 and 159 Moseley Road in 1895-7 (the same building, but renumbered. william’s number changes to 213 moseley road), but no business is listed as being at the premises. In 1899 Walter Baker is listed as photographer at 213 and 159 moseley road. So it looks like Walter took over (his fathers?) business. Before , possibly he was working form william and doing a bit on the side for himself under his own name. In 1900 –1905 he is only at 159 moseley road. In 1908-1956 it is Baker Louisa & Walter,220 High street, Deritend, but firm has gone by 1962
mike
 
Hi ginger,

I also have a picture of my Grandmother taken by Walter Baker, 159 Mosely Road. She is wearing a wedding ring so must be after 1899, and fits in with the last email message and still looks very young.

Regards

gingerninja said:
I am researching Walter Baker photographer, I have a picture of MY GT GT Grandmother, I don't know the year it was taken but on the it is ' Walter Baker' 159 Moseley Road, can find him in 1891 in Gladstone Road. In 1901 the Holland family occupied 159 Moseley Road, the youngest daughter was a photographic assistanct.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

gingerninja
Click to expand...
 
Is this the same walter baker who worked at 220 Deritend? I have photos with L&WE Baker names printed on.
 
They worked at the same time, and the Deritend one specifically listed himself as Walter Egerton, and so i would think it unlikely that they were the same, though very possibly related
 
I have a photo of my grandmother taken around 1901 by William Baker, Highgate Studios Birmingham.
Would like to know the exact address if possible.
Rob
 
The studios were in Moseley road, . William Baker, Highgate Studios 110 Moseley Road was there from at least 1883. His son Walter Baker took over from him and during his sons time (c 1894) the road was renumbered and studios became 213 Moseley Road, Birmingham .
Mike
 
I have a lot of photos from Walter Baker and wondered if there is any website or archive where I could find out the names of people attributed to various numbers on the back of the photos?

Thanks. I feel they are the Critchley family
 
riverite said:
I have a lot of photos from Walter Baker and wondered if there is any website or archive where I could find out the names of people attributed to various numbers on the back of the photos?

Thanks. I feel they are the Critchley family
Click to expand...
Ditto Riverite,
I was wondering the same. If there are any records archived somewhere that could provide names for these old photos. We don't recognise anyone but it is either of Harold Wainmans ancestors / family or his wife Ada's family. (don't have a surname for her.
 
Doesn't answer your question but Harold Waiman married Ada Perry in 1969 - is this likely to be the one?
 
happycamper said:
Ditto Riverite,
I was wondering the same. If there are any records archived somewhere that could provide names for these old photos. We don't recognise anyone but it is either of Harold Wainmans ancestors / family or his wife Ada's family. (don't have a surname for her.
Click to expand...

The numbers on the backs of all carte de visite refer to the reference given to them by the individual photographer ...once the photographer closes down those records are all lost... i have not come across any Birmingham photographer whose records like that are still available unfortunately.
 
mikejee said:
The studios were in Moseley road, . William Baker, Highgate Studios 110 Moseley Road was there from at least 1883. His son Walter Baker took over from him and during his sons time (c 1894) the road was renumbered and studios became 213 Moseley Road, Birmingham .
Mike
Click to expand...
Finding this information has thrown a real spanner in the works to our family history. We have an old photograph taken at Highgate Studios, W.Baker, 213 Moseley Road, Birmingham.
But the person who we believe is in the photo died in 1891!
Do you think it's possible any photography did take place at #213 before 1891?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have corrected your misstype of 1981 for 1891 (I have misstyped similarly many times myself!). The situation is that th edate on the directories is the publication date, not the date that the information was determined. We normally therefore assume (allowing for the time taken to obtain information and publish it ) thta it probably refers to the year before. The 1892 directory gives 110 and we would therefore normally assume that it referred to sometime in 1891, but this is an assumption an dit could very well be very early in 1891. We have no knowledge as to exactly when the numbers were changed. The 1895 directory, which we would normally take to refer to 1894, definitely lists the firm as 213. I would think that probably the change was early in 1891 and that the person you refer to was photographed very soon before his demise. All the earlier directories
list 213 as either a commercial traveller or a private residence. Hope this helps
 
mikejee said:
I have corrected your misstype of 1981 for 1891 (I have misstyped similarly many times myself!). The situation is that th edate on the directories is the publication date, not the date that the information was determined. We normally therefore assume (allowing for the time taken to obtain information and publish it ) thta it probably refers to the year before. The 1892 directory gives 110 and we would therefore normally assume that it referred to sometime in 1891, but this is an assumption an dit could very well be very early in 1891. We have no knowledge as to exactly when the numbers were changed. The 1895 directory, which we would normally take to refer to 1894, definitely lists the firm as 213. I would think that probably the change was early in 1891 and that the person you refer to was photographed very soon before his demise. All the earlier directories
list 213 as either a commercial traveller or a private residence. Hope this helps
Click to expand...
 
This is excellent, thank you @mikejee . I have a card with the address as 110 Moseley Road on the back and my great grandmother on the front. She was born November 1873, but is a young lady in the photo, with typical late 1880s, early 1890s puffed shoulder high neck jacket, buttoned with 18 buttons, tapered at the waist, and a fairly full blown dress beneath. Her hair is taken back, almost in a bun, and she has no makeup or earlings, but does have a fob hanging from a chain poked through from the top button and she appears to be holding a folded white piece of paper, of which I can't quite work out the significance, but there must be one, as common for the period. (any guesses?) My guess would be she is 18, which would be November 1891. So it may be that the re-numbering was at the end of that year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top