Uniform recognition

[Steven Broomfield]

28 minutes ago, reggie said:

went on to have another 7 or 8 children with him.  The five Thomas children were with Frank

 

12 or 13 children. Wonder if she ever found out what caused it.

[Tawhiri]

On 15/12/2020 at 12:21, The Inspector said:

Louisa Fletcher was born 18th Jan 1887 and baptised 28th Jan, 1887 at St.Clement Danes, Westminster.

 

Just wondering if this is perhaps meant to be 1886, rather than 1887? This looks to be Louisa's birth registration, registered in the Strand registration district, which would cover Clare Market, in the first quarter of 1886. Her mother's maiden name is Averill. This year would also be consistent with her being 21 when she married Frank Thomas in 1907.

 

FLETCHER, LOUISA    AVERILL  

GRO Reference: 1886  M Quarter in STRAND  Volume 01B  Page 690

 

Edited to add that Charles Henry Fletcher married Louisa Prudence Ann Averill on 23 October 1876 at St John the Evangelist, Westminster.

 

Further edit to add that the date of Louisa's baptism was actually 18 January 1891, her birth date is given as 28 January 1887, although I suspect on the evidence of her birth registration this should be 28 January 1886.

Edited 17 December , 2020 by Tawhiri

[Tawhiri]

On 15/12/2020 at 14:02, PRC said:

Frank Thomas also says he has been a Carman for E & J(?) Pinks(?), Jam Manufacturer, for two months

 

I think this is meant to be E & T Pinks, who were apparently one of the largest manufacturers of jam and marmalade in the world by the late nineteenth century.

 

http://letslookagain.com/2015/07/the-fruit-of-enterprise-pinks-jam/

 

Interestingly, Mary Louisa's brother can be found in the 1911 census living with their widowed mother, his occupation being carman at rival jam manufacturers Crosse and Blackwell.

[The Inspector]

2 hours ago, Tawhiri said:

 

Further edit to add that the date of Louisa's baptism was actually 18 January 1891, her birth date is given as 28 January 1887, although I suspect on the evidence of her birth registration this should be 28 January 1886.

Hi All

Yes, agree, 

Regards Barry

[Tawhiri]

Just to round things out, Mary Louisa's brother, Charles Henry Fletcher was born on 4 April 1876, and christened on 4 June 1876 at St Mary the Virgin, Charing Cross. His parent's didn't marry until October 1876 as noted above, although the parish register shows his parents as Charles Henry and Louisa Fletcher.

[Tawhiri]

According to the 1911 census Charles Henry Fletcher was born in Shaftesbury. I have just come across a short service attestation record for a Charles Fletcher born about 1877 in St Giles, Middlesex, father named as Charles Fletcher, who joined the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry in 1898 with service number 5589. His father's address is a little hard to read, but it appears to be something like 68 Eagle Street, Holborn. Somebody more experienced than I at reading service records will undoubtedly get more out of it, there appears to be a comment from 1904 that he chose to extend his service to complete eight years with colours, he was transferred to the reserves in 1906, before reengaging in 1910 for another four years, and was finally discharged on 4 July 1914. He apparently served in South Africa from 1899-1902. His occupation on enlisting in 1898 was carman, the same as in the 1911 census.

 

As Charles was the only brother that Mary Louisa had, it doesn't quite square with the photo that the OP originally posted which shows three apparent brothers, but I wonder if there is a connection?

Edited 17 December , 2020 by Tawhiri

[reggie]

2 hours ago, Tawhiri said:

According to the 1911 census Charles Henry Fletcher was born in Shaftesbury. I have just come across a short service attestation record for a Charles Fletcher born about 1877 in St Giles, Middlesex, father named as Charles Fletcher, who joined the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry in 1898 with service number 5589. His father's address is a little hard to read, but it appears to be something like 68 Eagle Street, Holborn. Somebody more experienced than I at reading service records will undoubtedly get more out of it, there appears to be a comment from 1904 that he chose to extend his service to complete eight years with colours, he was transferred to the reserves in 1906, before reengaging in 1910 for another four years, and was finally discharged on 4 July 1914. He apparently served in South Africa from 1899-1902. His occupation on enlisting in 1898 was carman, the same as in the 1911 census.

 

As Charles was the only brother that Mary Louisa had, it doesn't quite square with the photo that the OP originally posted which shows three apparent brothers, but I wonder if there is a connection?

Hi

Just to clarify.

The photo was not of the Fletcher side of the family. it was a photo of three brothers of "mystery man" Frank Thomas Stanford  also known as Frank Thomas. We don't know whether the three people included Frank Thomas Stanford or whether he had three brothers. The only comment we had with the photograph is that they were all killed in the war. But don't know which war or when the photo was taken. 

Apart from his death records, we can't trace him back at all. If we could get some of his service records, that might unravel the mystery but our simple searching hasn't found anything. It would help if we knew his true name!!!

Regards

Reg

[Tawhiri]

So can I just throw something out there? Soho is in Westminster, and a trawl through the Westminster parish records looking for Thomas births in the 1880's produces a William Stanford Thomas born on 28 March 1885 to William and Frances Thomas, living at 62 Crown Street. He was baptized on 3 May 1885 at St Mary the Virgin, Charing Cross. A younger brother, Francis Richard, was born on 7 November 1886 and baptized on 6 February 1887 at St Anne, Soho. In this case the address looks to be 63 Crown Street. Where it gets interesting is that in the 1891 census Francis has now become Stanford, and there is also a daughter Mary aged 2, so born around 1888/9. This leads to the following three birth registrations in the GRO Indexes, which seem to be somewhat at variance with the baptismal records when it comes to forenames.

 

THOMAS, WILLIAM  HENRY  JONES  

GRO Reference: 1885  J Quarter in ST GILES  Volume 01B  Page 604

 

THOMAS, FRANCIS    JONES  

GRO Reference: 1886  D Quarter in ST GILES  Volume 01B  Page 634

 

THOMAS, MARY  ANN  JONES  

GRO Reference: 1889  J Quarter in HOLBORN  Volume 01B  Page 670

 

It was the appearance of the name Stanford that caught my eye, along with the fact that the father's name was William. Unfortunately I cannot trace the family in the 1901 census, and I feel a little like I am clutching at straws here. The other issue is that the birth year of Francis doesn't square with his stated age in either 1907 when he married, or in the 1911 census, if this is the same individual, not to mention the age of the soldiers and sailor in the the photo given the year it is assumed to have been taken. There does seem to have been a third son born in 1890 looking for other Thomas/Jones births registered in St Giles/Holborn in the GRO Indexes.

Edited 18 December , 2020 by Tawhiri

[PRC]

So would this be a fair summary at what has been looked at so far. (Any additions by me are in italics)

 

There is no evidence to date for a Frank Thomas Stanford prior to him entering a recruiting office at Woolwich, most likely at some point between February 1903 and the 15th June 1903.

 

It can’t be ruled out that he had transferred in to the KOYLI during that time and was recruited at Woolwich earlier into another unit, but that starts to knock on to his liability to be mobiled as a reservist in August 1914 as his original 12 year term of engagement would have expired.

 

He stated then that his place of birth was Soho, London. On the 1911 Census as Frank Thomas he is more precise, stating No.10 Crown Court, Crown Road. Based on the Census information that he was aged 30, if correct, you’d be looking at a date of birth between the 3rd April 1880 and the 2nd April 1881 – so registrations between Q2 1880 and Q2 1881 inclusive.

 

It is very unlikely that any of his personal details would have been verified at the time of recruitment.

 

He was issued with service number 7418.

 

To the Army he is Frank Thomas Stanford but his alias is Thomas. (Soldiers Effects). He most likely served on the basis of 3 years in the colours and 9 in the reserves. It doesn’t look like he was dishonourably discharged or purchased his way out – when mobilied in August 1914 he retains his original service number.

 

After leaving the Army he then marries a Mary Louisa Fletcher at St Clement Danes, Westminster on the 19th May 1907 but uses the name Frank Thomas. He gives his father as William Thomas. The banns had been read on the 21/4, 28/4 and 5/5. He was working then as a Tallow Man. There is no guarantee that any of the details given by the groom were verified from other sources.

 

A son Frank William was born c1907 at the Endell Street Lying In Hospital. (Frank William Fletcher Thomas birth registered Q4 1907 St Giles Civil Registration District according to @Tawhiri, I’m seeing Frank William Thomas, mothers’ maiden name Fletcher.)

 

Another son George Henry Thomas was born c1908 at No.10 Neal Street, Long Acre.(George Henry Fletcher Thomas birth registered Q2 1909 St Giles Civil Registration District according to Tawhiri, I’m seeing George Henry Thomas, mothers’ maiden name Fletcher.)

 

On the 1911 Census of England and Wales Frank Thomas gives his age as 30. Again this is not verified. He had then been working for two months for E & T Pinks, Jam Manufacturer as a Carman.

 

A daughter Mary Louisa Fletcher Thomas, (Tawhiri) \ Mary L Thomas, mothers’ maiden name Fletcher (me) was registered in the St Marylebone \ Marylebone District in Q2 1911.

 

Another son Charles Fletcher Thomas (Tawhiri) \ Charles Thomas, mothers’ maiden name Fletcher (me) was registered in the St Marylebone \ Marylebone District in Q2 1913.

 

Frank Thomas Stanford landed in France on the 10th August 1914, (MiC) – most likely a clerical error for the 16th August 1914 when the 2nd Battalion KOYLI landed at Le Havre. Even though he was a mobilised reservist he was one of those chosen to bring the Battalion up to war strength for overseas deployment.

 

The Army by June 1916, (Soldiers Effects records - paying out the balance of his pay to his widow) accepted that he had died on or since the 16th September 1914. CWGC officially accept his date of death as the 25th February 1915. However he appears on a casualty list issued 17th January 1915 as missing and the other KOYLI fatalities on the same list date to September and October 1914.

 

His widow on Soldiers Effects is shown as Mary L Thomas. CWGC gives her address, (probably from the mid-1920’s) as 5F, Peabody Buildings, Wild Street, Kingsway, London. A child Frederick Stanford Thomas was born 4th February 1915, son of parents Frank and Louisa Mary Thomas of 5F, Peabody Buildings, Wild Street. (Pension record shows youngest child as Frank William Thomas Stanford)

 

The widow Mary Louisa Thomas remarries in June 1920 at St Martin, London. Her new husband is George Cook.

 

There is a pre-war studio photo of two infantry Privates and a Royal Navy Stoker 2nd Class. The studio where the picture was taken was John Pittuck, of 63 Union Street, Stonehouse, Plymouth.

 

It is possible that the brothers, (2 if Frank is present or 3 if not) died in the Great War. It doesn’t look like either of the infantry privates were serving with the KOYLI and their uniforms are pre-1902.

 

So either Francis was a much younger brother, or served prior to 1903 with another unit or potentially these three relatives are from a previous generation, possibly even his father and two brothers.

 

Regards,

Peter

[FROGSMILE]

I’d rather lost track of this thread given the deep genealogical detective work going on and on reflection of progress so far am rather kicking myself for making a careless error.  The white facings entirely preclude the KOYLI from being the regiment shown in the original photo.  Of the six English light Infantry regiments that then existed three had a Royal appellation of one sort or another and thus wore dark blue facings.  These represented the Counties of Somerset, Shropshire and Yorkshire.  Of the other three regiments, representing Cornwall, Oxfordshire, and Durham respectively, the former two retained white facings throughout their existence, but seem unlikely to fit the family connection quoted by the OP.  The latter however, being a Northern regiment, might well fit the bill.  The Durham Light Infantry (DLI) had dark green facings originally, but these were lost following the Cardwell reforms when all non-Royal English and Welsh regiments were ordered to wear white as a unified colour for the nationality’s stipulated.  Like many regiments denuded of their original facing colour the regiment lobbied over several decades to return to it’s original colour and after the 2nd Boer War permission was granted.  It seems likely then that the two soldiers in the threads opening photo were members of the DLI. 
 

NB.  The Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry (DCLI) or Oxfordshire Light Infantry (OLI) are not impossible, but seem less likely.  Given the photographic studio stamp on the image, establishing which regiments and battalions were at ‘Devonport army barracks’ (actually in Plymouth and named Raglan) just before the 2nd Boer War should help to confirm matters.
 

 

 

Edited 18 December , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Tawhiri]

2 hours ago, PRC said:

(Frank William Fletcher Thomas birth registered Q4 1907 St Giles Civil Registration District according to @Tawhiri, I’m seeing Frank William Thomas, mothers’ maiden name Fletcher.)

 

Peter

 

Your supposition is correct, unfortunately cutting and pasting from the GRO Indexes means losing the column headings. The last name is the child's mother's maiden name so Frank William Thomas, mother's maiden name Fletcher. This will be the same for all the other children.

 

 

[FROGSMILE]

Following this through I’ve been able to ascertain that neither battalion of the DLI were stationed at Devonport (Raglan Barracks) over the right timeline.  
 

However, the  2nd Battalion Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry were in Devonport for a little over a year 1898-99 before embarking for South Africa.  

The 2nd Battalion Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry then returned to Devonport for a longer period from 1902 (whence they returned from South Africa), until 1905.

 

If the family names mentioned can be compared with any census returns for this regiment (?) it might perhaps be possible to home-in further.  On balance I think that the  Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry is the most likely regiment in the photo given the overall appearance of the image and the length of time that the DCLI were at Devonport in Raglan barracks, covering both before and after the 2nd Anglo/Boer War.

 

Image with permission of uniformology.com

 

Edited 18 December , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[Tawhiri]

7 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

NB.  The Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry (DCLI) or Oxfordshire Light Infantry (OLI) are not impossible, but seem less likely.  Given the photographic studio stamp on the image, establishing which regiments and battalions were at ‘Devonport army garrison’ (actually in Plymouth) just before the 2nd Boer War should help to confirm matters.

According to these documents, which are various copies of Stations of the British Army, the 2nd battalion of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry were indeed based in Devonport between 21 September 1898 and 19 August 1899. Prior to this they had been in Newry, and by 21 October 1899 they were shown as being for South Africa.

 

Stations of the British Army - 21 September 1898

 

Stations of the British Army - 19 August 1899

 

Stations of the British Army - 21 October 1899

 

Edited to add my apologies, crossed posts with Frogsmile's latest post.

 

Edited 18 December , 2020 by Tawhiri

[FROGSMILE]

57 minutes ago, Tawhiri said:

According to these documents, which are various copies of Stations of the British Army, the 2nd battalion of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry were indeed based in Devonport between 21 September 1998 and 19 August 1899. Prior to this they had been in Newry, and by 21 October 1899 they were shown as being for South Africa.

 

Stations of the British Army - 21 September 1898

 

Stations of the British Army - 19 August 1899

 

Stations of the British Army - 21 October 1899

Yes, those documents were the source for the initial period that I mentioned.  Two more, similar documents, covered the return in 1902, the continued presence in 1904, and the departure in 1905.  I don’t believe that the photo can be any other regiment but the DCLI on account of the timeline, the white facings, and above all, woven thread shoulder title that is visible, and discernible as LI, in the photo that commenced this thread.

 

I also think that the photo dates from the earlier 1898-99 period, as photographic evidence shows that the battalion received the new pattern tunic with pointed, 'mitred' cuff upon its return from South Africa (see photo).

 

 

Edited 18 December , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

22 hours ago, reggie said:

The photo was not of the Fletcher side of the family. it was a photo of three brothers of "mystery man" Frank Thomas Stanford  also known as Frank Thomas. We don't know whether the three people included Frank Thomas Stanford or whether he had three brothers. The only comment we had with the photograph is that they were all killed in the war. But don't know which war or when the photo was taken. 

 

The original picture has these details for the photographers studio.

 

 

A site selling old photographs has dated a picture from John Pittuck to 1893 based on the individual, (a small baby).  The back of the card appears to show him trading at 63 Union Street, Stonehouse, Plymouth, (can’t get a good enough resolution to confirm).

https://ancestorville.com/products/richard-wolfe-wagner

When checking out the image note the front simply shows John Pittuck of Stonehouse, Plymouth.

 

This picture of a young soldier was also taken in the studios of James Pittuck. Google images tell me it was sourced from this site https://picclick.co.uk/Victorian-Carte-De-Visite-CDV-Gentleman-Palmer-Plymouth-273570298351.html

 

 

But I’ve just spent an hour of my life searching it and can only assume that the picture as been sold and so ownership is unclear. It does also mean there aren’t any more details available. But again note:-

-        the  styling of “John Pittuck” is different to the picture posted by Reggie and the 1893 picture of a baby,

-        there is no logo like there is for those two,

-        and again the address on the front is only shown as Stonehouse, Plymouth.

 

Of course it could be that there were several formats available.

 

On the 1891 Census of England & Wales the 44 year John Pittuck, a Photographer born Ipswich, Suffolk, was recorded as the married head of the household at 63 Union Street, East Stonehouse, Devonport. His youngest daughter Florence, 16, was born Boston Masschusetts.

 

On the 1901 Census of England & Wales John Pittuck, 53, was still recorded as the married head of the household at 63 Union Street, but as well as a Photographer he describes himself as a Factor of Sewing Machines, Musical Instruments.

 

The 1902 Kellys Directory of Devonshire & Cornwall simply records him as a Photographer at 63 Union Street, Stonehouse.

http://specialcollections.le.ac.uk/digital/collection/p16445coll4/id/277883

 

By the time of the 1911 Census of England & Wales, John Pittuck, 63 and a Photographic Artist, was recorded as the married head of the household at 11 Carfrae Terrace, Plymouth. His wife had died since the previous census and he had remarried in 1907.

The occupant of 63 Union Street is now a John Efford and his wife and son. John was a watch repairer.

 

If anyone can find the relevant electoral registers that might give a clue as to when John Pittuck moved from 63 Union Street and so probably stopped using the premises.

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

 

 

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

1 hour ago, PRC said:

His wife had died since the previous census and he had remarried in 1907.

Fanny died December quarter 1905 aged 54 in East Stonehouse.

[Muerrisch]

On 16/12/2020 at 19:50, PRC said:

 

Once he entered the Reserve he wasn't just forgotten about until needed - there were training sessions and camps to attend.

 

Continuation training was sketchy or non-existent.

 

From my articles in WFA ST!

 

The Army Reserve Class I comprised Sections A., B., and D. and the Special Reserve. There had been a C. but it was subsumed into B. On completing colour service a soldier was medically examined, issued with documentation, and entered A. or B.

Section A. was voluntary and limited, each infantry regiment being allowed about 50 men on their books, and the Army total not to exceed 6000. The Section could be called out without Proclamation. These men had to be of “Good” character or better on a scale of: “Exemplary, Very Good, Good, Fair, Indifferent, Bad and Very Bad”. They were selected from those with the best musketry qualifications, were paid full infantry basic pay of 1/- per day, and could remain in the Section for a maximum of two years. There was no provision for continuation training.

Section B. was the normal destination for the balance of the 12 years enlistment, and was on half-pay. Regarding continuation training, Haldane:  

... The Regulations for the training of the Army Reserve are issued annually. In the case of Section B. of the infantry, men enlisted for three years are required to train in the fifth, seventh, ninth, and eleventh year of their service, and those enlisted for more than three years in their tenth year of service. The training consists of one day's musketry instruction, or, if the man so prefers, six days' training with a Special Reserve unit. (Hansard 24^th August 1909). 

Many men found the 6d per day a valuable supplement in hard times, so that when it stopped they volunteered for further reserve liability in Section D, for four years only. Those leaving after 12 years colours service were also eligible. The authorities used D. as a shock absorber, opening it to enrolment subject to medical examination only when reserves were scarce. It was closed to infantry for eight months from 1^st October 1906 and for 18 months from 1^st June 1908. The quarterly payment was substantial, and, if one were so minded, paid for a great deal of beer at 3d per pint.

... In 1912 I extended my service for another four years on the Reserve. I little thought when I did so that two years later I should be called back to the Colours to rejoin my old Battalion again. Every quarter-day, or pen­sion-day as it was called, a number of us reservists and service pension wallahs would have a day off from our work to spend it together in the Castle Hotel. (Frank Richards, op cit). There was provision for one day of continuation training.

[reggie]

Hi All

Thanks for all the contributions. It has been hard to keep up with all the new findings.

Following the excellent summary by PRC and the findings of TAWHIRI we had a look at the records again.

Some of the information TAWHIRI found was originally discarded because the names were not the same. We now know that names and dates change a lot.

Francis Richard Thomas was born in 1886 but in the 1891 survey had become Stanford Thomas. 

Now I can remember a story of someone running away to join up and lied about his age. I thought it was to sea. But clearly I was too young to listen and now too old to remember.

Anyway, we think the the name evolved to Frank Thomas Stanford and he joined up in 1903 with KOYLI or another unit before.

Also, Jones was quoted as the maiden name of the mother. We followed this through to find The mother and father. The father was William Henry Thomas and he married Frances Amelia Jones on 19th. January 1885. The family lived at 62 Crown Street and his father was William and her father was Richard. (not researched this any further )

So clearly, we are descended from a Thomas not a Stanford.

Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the famous Stanford book shop is very close to all these locations.

TAWHIRI also said there was a third son born in 1890 but didn't have any details. It would be good to get further information.

Now the picture, which I am attaching is a copy of the back for FROGSMILE to look at.  FROGSMILE included a picture of a soldier and a Baby. all taken by the same studio. The number on the back of the latter picture looked like 23224 and dated 1893. The number on our photo was 28271 (I think) So maybe he took 1,000 portraits a year which would say be 5 years later. FROGSMILE may be able to put a better date on this. But it could be 1898. Therefore, we think the photo may not be the Thomas brothers but Charles Fletcher (Mary Louisa's brother) who joined the Duke of Cornwall's Light infantry in 1898 and had the service number 5589.

Regards

Reg

 

 

 

 

 

[Tawhiri]

These are the other Thomas/Jones births in and around the Soho area that I could find. Not all may be related of course, but it may provide you with a starting point for further investigations. Charles Henry Fletcher's complete service record is available on Ancestry, and presumably elsewhere as well.

 

THOMAS, HENRY    Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1890  S Quarter in HOLBORN  Volume 01B  Page 658

 

THOMAS, FRANCES    Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1890  S Quarter in HOLBORN  Volume 01B  Page 658

 

THOMAS, MARY  ANN  Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1889  J Quarter in HOLBORN  Volume 01B  Page 670

 

THOMAS, FRANCES  ELLEN  Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1892  J Quarter in ST GILES  Volume 01B  Page 620

 

THOMAS, MARY  ANN  Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1896  J Quarter in ST GILES  Volume 01B  Page 611

[reggie]

11 minutes ago, Tawhiri said:

These are the other Thomas/Jones births in and around the Soho area that I could find. Not all may be related of course, but it may provide you with a starting point for further investigations. Charles Henry Fletcher's complete service record is available on Ancestry, and presumably elsewhere as well.

 

THOMAS, HENRY    Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1890  S Quarter in HOLBORN  Volume 01B  Page 658

 

THOMAS, FRANCES    Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1890  S Quarter in HOLBORN  Volume 01B  Page 658

 

THOMAS, MARY  ANN  Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1889  J Quarter in HOLBORN  Volume 01B  Page 670

 

THOMAS, FRANCES  ELLEN  Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1892  J Quarter in ST GILES  Volume 01B  Page 620

 

THOMAS, MARY  ANN  Mother's maiden name JONES  

GRO Reference: 1896  J Quarter in ST GILES  Volume 01B  Page 611

Thanks very much.

Reg

[FROGSMILE]

It wasn’t me that made the post with photos of a baby, etc. and comments concerning different photographic studio markings, reggie.

 

The subject photo’s appearance certainly fits perfectly with the timeline of Charles Fletcher’s enlistment with the DCLI, but you will need to consider then who the sailor and fellow soldier are.

Edited 20 December , 2020 by FROGSMILE

[reggie]

On 18/12/2020 at 21:36, PRC said:

 

The original picture has these details for the photographers studio.

 

 

A site selling old photographs has dated a picture from John Pittuck to 1893 based on the individual, (a small baby).  The back of the card appears to show him trading at 63 Union Street, Stonehouse, Plymouth, (can’t get a good enough resolution to confirm).

https://ancestorville.com/products/richard-wolfe-wagner

When checking out the image note the front simply shows John Pittuck of Stonehouse, Plymouth.

 

This picture of a young soldier was also taken in the studios of James Pittuck. Google images tell me it was sourced from this site https://picclick.co.uk/Victorian-Carte-De-Visite-CDV-Gentleman-Palmer-Plymouth-273570298351.html

 

 

But I’ve just spent an hour of my life searching it and can only assume that the picture as been sold and so ownership is unclear. It does also mean there aren’t any more details available. But again note:-

-        the  styling of “John Pittuck” is different to the picture posted by Reggie and the 1893 picture of a baby,

-        there is no logo like there is for those two,

-        and again the address on the front is only shown as Stonehouse, Plymouth.

 

Of course it could be that there were several formats available.

 

On the 1891 Census of England & Wales the 44 year John Pittuck, a Photographer born Ipswich, Suffolk, was recorded as the married head of the household at 63 Union Street, East Stonehouse, Devonport. His youngest daughter Florence, 16, was born Boston Masschusetts.

 

On the 1901 Census of England & Wales John Pittuck, 53, was still recorded as the married head of the household at 63 Union Street, but as well as a Photographer he describes himself as a Factor of Sewing Machines, Musical Instruments.

 

The 1902 Kellys Directory of Devonshire & Cornwall simply records him as a Photographer at 63 Union Street, Stonehouse.

http://specialcollections.le.ac.uk/digital/collection/p16445coll4/id/277883

 

By the time of the 1911 Census of England & Wales, John Pittuck, 63 and a Photographic Artist, was recorded as the married head of the household at 11 Carfrae Terrace, Plymouth. His wife had died since the previous census and he had remarried in 1907.

The occupant of 63 Union Street is now a John Efford and his wife and son. John was a watch repairer.

 

If anyone can find the relevant electoral registers that might give a clue as to when John Pittuck moved from 63 Union Street and so probably stopped using the premises.

 

Cheers,

Peter

 

 

 

Sorry PRC. I attributed all your hard work to someone else by mistake. I did post a copy of the back of the photo for you.

Regards

Reg

[PRC]

1 hour ago, reggie said:

Sorry PRC. I attributed all your hard work to someone else by mistake. I did post a copy of the back of the photo for you.

 

No worries.

 

So I think the photograph order runs:

On 18/12/2020 at 21:36, PRC said:

 

 

It has a four digit identifier 2206 - the other two pictures have a five digit identifier. Note the back of this one shows the business as "John Pittuck (Late James Grey)".

My interpretation of that was that John had purchased the business as a going concern, acquiring both the stock, equipment and premises but also the back catalogue of negatives, customer lists, contracts etc. So for the first year or two he might have wanted to trade on the good name of the previous business.

 

When you first posted your picture I did do a internet trawl and came up with a forum post that said it had been identified from trade directories that John Pittuck started trading in the area in 1889. Unfortunately I was so confident that I'd be able to find it again if it later turned out to be necessary that I didn't save the link, and now of course I cannot find it. Browser history has long since cleared and I'd rather not go hunting through my cookies just in case anything rings a bell

 

It looks like the picture of the baby dated to 1893 is numbered 23227. So even if you assume the picture of the soldier above was taken in 1889, you are still looking at roughly 5,000 pictures a year. Which would date picture 28271 to roughly 1894/95. The later the picture of the soldier was taken, the sooner after the picture of the baby your picture of two soldiers and a sailor might have been taken.

 

Of course there is a strong element of guess work in that and the photograph business may not have been going so well - after all by 1901 he is selling sewing machines and musical instruments as well. There may also have been a gap in the numbering for some reason. Picture 2206 could also have been a reprint from when the business was in the name of James Grey.

 

So lots of speculative possibilities and none of them conclusive. A trawl through trade directories and online newspaper archives might firm up the dates John Pittock was trading from 63 Union Street, and the death certificate for his first wife might give a clue as to whether they were still living at that address. Similarly the marriage certificate for his second marriage would show the address he was living at prior to marriage.

 

Sorry I can't be more helpful,

Peter

[FROGSMILE]

Forgive me but I’ve rather lost track as to what it is that we’re trying to achieve.  I cannot help at all with the genealogical aspects but I can assure you that the photo of the two DCLI soldiers and a RN rating was almost certainly taken in 1898, and at the latest early 1899.  Assuming those dates and that unit you must surely be able to narrow down who in the family it is, and who it cannot be? 

Edited 21 December , 2020 by FROGSMILE