photograph showcase

Photograph Showcase: Hattie with Children

img052 - full edit
Hattie Margaret Cheney with two children.

Hattie Margaret Cheney is my 2nd great-grandmother.  This precious photo is very, very tiny.  It is also very, very damaged.  The original looks like this:


I was surprised by how well it cleaned up.  The back of the photo is also in bad shape:


When I first looked at it, I wondered if I would be able to figure out what it says.  After looking at the family members and their timelines, I think that it says, “Taken at Gridley CA, Apr 30, 1910”.

If I am interpreting the back of the photo correctly, I think that would mean the children are Lane Augustus Huband and Gene Ann Huband.

Lane was born 16 December 1903 in Shelley, Bingham, Idaho.

Gene was born 30 November 1908 in Gridley, Butte, California.

If my interpretation of the back of the photo is correct, and my guess at which children are in the photo is correct, that would mean that in this photo, Lane would be 6 years and four months old, and Gene would be seventeen months old.  What do you think?  Have I worked it out correctly?

My teenager thinks the baby looks closer to nine months old.  I wonder if Hattie labeled the photo sometime after it was taken and was off by one year?  If so, that would make Gene five months old in this photo.  What do you think?



Happy Thursday, tomorrow will be a GREAT day!  Tomorrow is the day we pick up our missionary from the airport!!  That means this mama gets to hug her amazing 20-year-old boy for the first time in 2 years, 1 week, and 2 days!!!!!  Best!  Day!  Ever!  <3



ps – After writing this, I checked FamilySearch.  A copy of this same photo was shared by Lane’s son and he labeled it as being Lane & Gene.  I should have checked there first!  😉



10 thoughts on “Photograph Showcase: Hattie with Children”

  1. Hi Amberly,
    I definitely remember seeing this photo before. I don’t remember uploading it to Family Search but guess I did. Yes, that’s my father, Lane and Aunt Gene. Thanks for posting this!

  2. I agree that the baby does not look 17 months old—she looks too small and is being held as if she doesn’t yet stand on her own. But maybe she was just small for her age. Nice job repairing that crack—what did you use?

  3. I think the original thoughts are correct. I definitely don’t think the baby is 9 months old. He is much younger. Wonderful what can be done with damaged photos.

    1. Thank you, Cathy!! On both counts. I watched it back on Monday and was so emotional all over again. It’s great to have him home! I’m glad he asked that we share it. What a treasure. <3

Leave a Reply