Old photograph opinions wanted?

And yes, I know the photo is extremely faded, and yes, I am making enquiries to have it professionally restored, I'm just after some well-informed opinions on the family grouping in deciding just who these people are.

My grandfather wasn't born until 1912, so it's not him, and the lady looks much older than my great grandma who I have a picture of dated 1928, which is why I think it might be 2xgt grandma taken around the turn of the century.

Guessing peoples ages is not my strong suit. That's why I'm asking for a second opinion. The lady does look a bit too old to be the babies mother, doesn't she?

And yes, I know the photo is extremely faded, and yes, I am making enquiries to have it professionally restored, I'm just after some well-informed opinions on the family grouping in deciding just who these people are.

My grandfather wasn't born until 1912, so it's not him, and the lady looks much older than my great grandma who I have a picture of dated 1928, which is why I think it might be 2xgt grandma taken around the turn of the century.

Guessing peoples ages is not my strong suit. That's why I'm asking for a second opinion. The lady does look a bit too old to be the babies mother, doesn't she?

in reply to Blu eyes:

Yes. That puzzled me as well. Why would a grandma have her photo taken with a grandchild, why not the mother?

Bearing in mind I can pin the date down to within 2 years or so either side of 1900, I think it is my grandfathers sister Hannah (1901-1979) as many of his photos in the tin are of her and from her collection. Their mother was alive until 1962 (she was born 1878 - so you can see why I think this lady is FAR older than her early twenties at the turn of the century when this would have been taken). There is almost no-one else this can be, except for my 2x gt granny (1834-1907), sitting with the first grandchild to reach infancy. It just has me puzzled a bit. I might never know for certain, but it seems a reasonable guess. I'm just not sure how common this family group shot might have been.

LOL @ copious

Middle class. Well-to-do. If only!

Merely a standard railway labourer and family I'm afraid. 2x gt granny did indeed once run a pub with her husband in the 1880s who was also a stonemason and parish clerk, but after her husband died I think she'd have seriously struggled to make ends meet during the 1890s when they moved out to West Gorton, but yes, she was probably lower middle class at one point and weren't dirt poor.

Some interesting answers though. Keep 'em coming! It's going to be tough to choose a best answer, they're all good. Thanx to all who have responded.

Hibee :

Granted, these "cabinet" style photos can date as early as the 1870s/1880s, I already know that the photographer was in business at this address only from the mid to late 1890s, so my dating is quite correct.

Itsjustme:

No nannies I don't think. Not too poor, but certainly no servants or housemaids in my family anywhere. I was thinking 60ish, which would match 2x gt granny Martha (1834-1907) in around 1900, but the condition of the photo makes it really hard to tell, as one answerer has already suggested. A professional restoration might help, but I'm not sure whether it is already too late for this one. It pre-dates all of the others in my grandads old tin by some considerable margin.

There are some interesting theories and warnings here about identifying those in the picture. As I said before, I've already done quite a bit of work as regards dating it.

(a) It came from my granddads tin. He was born in 1912. It's either from someone on his line, or someone on his wifes life. She was born in 1913.

(b) The named studio on the front of the card is "S. Williams, 118 Clowes Street, West Gorton". I did check up this address in various old directories and the census. She wasn't active in West Gorton till 1895, and is listed in 1899 and 1901. The 1905 directory has a greengrocer and this address, and post 1909 till well after WW1, it became a pawnbrokers. Mrs Williams was working out of Cheetham Hill in 1891, so I can be fairly confident of a date sometime around the turn of the century.

(c) The address is useful in itself, as it is only two streets away from where my ancestors lived back then.

(d) Great grandfather was born in 1872. Gt grandma was born in 1878. They married in 1897. Great grandmas mother and father had already died by then. The only surviving relative of my great grandfather was his mother. A lot of his other brothers and sisters died in childhood.

(e) Gt grandfathers first child in 1898 died aged just two days - their second child in 1900 died age 4 months. The first child to survive was born in 1901. About ten others followed, including my grandfather, in 1912.

Conclusions then. My great grandma in 1900 was about 22 years of age. The woman in this photo is clearly older than that. The baby is probably one of my grandfathers brothers or sisters. Because the younger ones died, this can't be any earlier than the girl born in 1901. We already know that the artists studio was active in this year, but not for long afterwards. Almost all of my gt grandfather and his wives older relatives were long dead by 1900. That only leaves his mother.

Obviously, I have to keep an open mind, and any identification will always be open to debate, but given the facts as I know them, and ruling out those people it can't be, only leaves me with one option - child and granny.

As someone above already said, there may have been a whole series of family pictures and portraits produced at the time, and this was the only one to survive. My grandfathers sister died in 1979, and most of her photos came to him. We think that the baby is probably her, around 1902, and this is the only one she had of her as a youngster and kept. The others with her parents are probably lost in the mists of time.

There's been some great answers and opinions, all helpful in their own way. I'll keep the question open a while longer and then have to choose a best answer. It's not going to be easy.