William Baker, Birmingham Photographer

[mikejee]

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

 

[GrantB]

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

 

[GrantB]

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.

 

[superdad3]

This is the back of one of William Baker's prints. May be of interest?


There are two threads on the Forum: W. Baker and William Baker. They are the same person. Could they be amalgamated?

I have an interest in the history of Highgate and am confused about where Highgate and Balsall Heath begin and end? Any thoughts although this may not be the best place for the discussion?

 

[Vivienne14]

Don't know if this is the same 'Baker' photographer or even a professional photographer, but just in case. Taken from Forum Auctions site.

Photographs.- [Baker of Birmingham, photographer].Photograph album of topographical & ecclesiastical views, many of Ludlow & Shropshire, c.200 mounted albumen prints on 32 card leaves, many captioned in pencil, some a little faded, mounts spotted, contemporary ink inscription "Cecilia Baker August 1880" on front free endpaper and with note by J.Stevens Cox identifying the photographer, contemporary half morocco, g.e., rubbed and damp-stained, folio, [c.1880].

The CDV attached below gives an address for the photographer W. Baker as 110 Moseley Road

 

[mikejee]

Two threads merged