posted on September 8, 2000 08:54:31 AM
This is a great old pic I found at an antique mall some time ago. I'm trying to identify as much as I can about the picture - maybe you can help. Are these girls in communion dresses? Is the close up a priest or bishop or???? Also, the background on the original print isn't very clear - like in my pic - but the tree on the upper right looks to be a palm tree or similar. The background trees seem to be broad-leafed? I guess it's a real shot in the dark to hope one of you recongizes this building. Any help is appreciated. Also, I'm trying to decide whether to keep it or auction it - anybody with experience in vintage photo's have a guesstimate of what it might bring?
The back says H.A. Varble - Victoria & Colorado Streets - It's mounted to a nice old cardboard type frame (can't see in pic) and has "Spring of_____" written in pencil. The year has rubbed off - unfortunately.
posted on September 8, 2000 10:25:41 AM
SMW - Nineteen - WOW - I hung around and repeated a few grades and still didn't get to nineteen.
My hats off to you or should that be I genuflect to you.
Help me out here. There is/was a step in "rank" called Monsignor. I seem to remember that they wore a different color vestment/hat. Local priest/pastors were elevated to that standing but remained at their parish.
Not that I can tell from the picture but it is another possibility.
posted on September 8, 2000 10:44:58 AM
Another question - does the lace piece around his waist have a name? What does it signify - anything? I'm sure it's not called apron - which is what comes to mind when I see it.
The date on the front appears to be 1898 - can't quite read it though and that seems too old for the dress???
posted on September 8, 2000 12:06:36 PM
Ok all of you Baltimore Catechism fans....
The white garment under the cassock is called a surplice. It has evolved to be invariably white and it often has lace trim. A surplice is only worn over a cassock, never by itself, and never over an alb.
A surplice is not a waist piece. It is a blouse like garment with long sleeves that you can't see in this photo. The surplice was originally something worn over the cassock for warmth.
Ray,
This list isn't complete. There are bunches more. Depending on the Order and the function. For example, cloistered, semi cloistered, contemplative, etc.. A Monastery, Priory, or an Abby. Some Orders have Oblates, Brothers, Priests, Deacons, etc.. Discalsed Carmelites don't wear shoes, but other Carmelites do wear shoes.
The nun stuff is equally as complicated. Actually it is all very complicated and without looking up this stuff
I don't remember all of it. This is a dwindling heritage and I collect books about it.
AS for my education. 12 years with the nuns, (4 of which were in a convent school with semi cloistered nuns, and a Papal Order too). The other was for college and grad school.
Pope
Cardinal
Patriarch (Eastern Rite)
Archbishop
Bishop
Abbot
Monsignor
(lots of different Monsignors)
e.g Protonotary Apostolic Supranumerary, Prelate of Honor of His Holiness, or Chaplain of His Holiness (Monsignor)
Vicar(Anglican)
Priest
Transitional Deacon
Permanent Deacon
Deacon
Seminarian
posted on September 8, 2000 12:28:43 PM
you said Spring of ? which most likely would be Confirmation, plus how old the girls look, ages 12 or so? First Communion is in 2nd grade, at least thats what I remember.
Must have been an all girls parochial school?
The only Girls only, Boys only parochial schools round here are High School. But its different everywhere.
We had a Monsignor in our Parish. Not all do, when he died, I was in the 8th grade, and we all had to attend the funeral. After he was gone, we never had a Monsignor again, Priests only.
And I had my first 'lay' teacher in the 7th grade, about the time, the nuns started discarding their habits, and playing guitar, and participating in the 'folk Masses'
the 70's were interesting!
posted on September 8, 2000 12:34:49 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, smw, but doesn't the pectoral cross worn by the man in the biretta signify the rank of bishop (or cardinal--but let's not go there!)? I don't recall that "regular" priests or monsignors wore pectoral crosses as part of their liturgical garb.
posted on September 8, 2000 12:58:54 PM
"Off hand looks to be a Bishop. Looks like a Priest standing next to him."
I wasn't trying to say that I though the guy with the hat was anything other than a Bishop. Sorry I wasn't clear.
I don't remember all of the stuff about hats. Too many colors, shapes, tassels, ...
Pectoral crosses are easier but I don't remember the details about these either without doing some research. This isn't stuff I think about very often.
posted on September 8, 2000 01:38:42 PM
Actually, the chasuble "is the major liturgical vestment of a priest or bishop. It resembles a long, sleeveless, poncho. It matches the liturgical color, and is worn over the alb and stole." The white lace thing is called a surplice, which "...is a knee-length, white vestment worn over the choir cassock, but by priests, deacons, and seminarians rather than bishops. It is typically simple in design, but can be very fancy. It is distinct from the rochet not in the level of decoration, but in the sleeve: the sleeve of a rochet, like an alb, fits flush against the choir cassock; the sleeve of a surplice is fuller, and often bell-shaped."
I'm guessing your "guy" is a Monsignor, but here's more help:
posted on September 8, 2000 01:52:41 PM
Appears to be a Monsignor. It is definitely a picture of a First Communion class. The Bishop is the one that is present for Confirmation. First Communion is generally done on Mother's Day and the children are usually in the second grade. Confirmation is done after First Communion (mine was when I was in the sixth grade) and that is done by the Bishop. The style of the veil's are similar to those of when my sister made her First Holy Communion in the early 50's. Knew 12 years of Catholic schooling would pay off one day.
posted on September 8, 2000 02:40:17 PMHCQ Thanks for that link but it comes up as not found for me.
I think I have 3 votes for Bishop and 3 votes for Monsignor? Also, I don't think the picture is from the 50's - looks like 1898, but more likely is 1938? Does that sound right from looking at the clothing - or does everyone agree it looks like the 50's?
I have at least one vote for confirmation and one vote for first communion? Now I'm really confused! LOL
How 'bout I just use all the words in my description and let the buyer decide for themselves. As in... this could be a ____, but might be a _________.
posted on September 8, 2000 02:54:20 PM
mybiddness-that would probably be best
It probably? is that these ceremonies; Confirmation and First Communion were done at different ages in different parts of the country?
I only know that in Seattle, I went 12 years to Catholic Parochial School, and I am pretty sure First Communion here was in abouts the 2nd grade. (though I only go by memory, my mother and grandmothers are gone now, and my father wouldn't remember anything!) And Confirmation was done when we were 12 or 13, and by the Bishop. (and by the close up, some of those girls look older than 8)
On both occasions wore white 'wedding dress' type dresses and veils. Confirmation the Bishop was present. Communion was preceded by 'first confession' (have to do Confession and penance before recieving communion)
We had to choose names for ourselves at Confirmation (mine was Joan, as in Joan of Arc )
posted on September 8, 2000 02:58:40 PM
I think I'll just copy/paste of your post and put it in my ad - that'll be sure to cover every possibility! The picture is about an 11 x 14 - I thought it was around the 1930's and possibly from another country - don't know where - but, I don't get out much.
posted on September 8, 2000 03:07:06 PM
This would have to be First Communion. They don't wear veils for Confirmation. Communion took place at the "age of reason" which is around 7 or 8 and Confirmation was about 12. However, if someone were new to the faith, they could be receiving First Communion at any age. My son received his First Communion this past May and there were several teenagers in the group as well.
One reason for the absence of veils is because in Confirmation you are anointed with holy oil on your forehead. We had to wear small skullcap headpieces instead.
I would also say late 30's would be possible due to the black stockings. Were they still wearing those in the 50's?
Edited because I can!
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
[ edited by njrazd on Sep 8, 2000 03:11 PM ]
posted on September 8, 2000 04:03:26 PM
After some more research, I'm almost certain the guy with the cross is a bishop--according to the guides to liturgical vestments I've looked at, pectoral crosses are only worn by bishops, cardinals and the pope. Here's one website:
www.ghgcorp.com/shetler/catholic/vestments/cross.html
Sorry, I don't know UBB. This next website , http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04533a.htm
is most authoritative since it's the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia.
One other note: the white garment on what I think is a bishop is not a surplice; it's a rochet. A surplice has long, full sleeves and is worn by priests; a rochet does not have full sleeves and is reserved for wear by bishops. This, too, can be verified by looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
[ edited by Murph on Sep 8, 2000 04:27 PM ]
posted on September 8, 2000 04:27:12 PM
No WAY is that a First Communion picture from the 1950's--that's when I made my First Communion. Looks to me like 1930's--you can tell, because that's how BRIDES looked in the 1930's, and seems to me that First Communion dress mimics bridal dress to a certain degree. (In the 1950's we wore what looked like white lacy party dresses with poofy skirts and NONE of us wore veils like in the picture--they were essentially headbands with a veil attached--worn back at about the middle of the head.) I was a catechist for 7 years and prepared kids for First Communion, and the "dress" of the 1990's again looked more like wedding dress of the time--girls with much more eclectic dress (though white) and a greater diversity of veils and/or just a wreath of flowers in the hair.
I was Confirmed in 7th grade (First Communion 2nd grade) but we didn't wear "wedding" apparel--more like choir robes--but I have no idea what Confirmation dress would have been like in earlier times. I agree that the girls in this picture look a bit older than 7 or 8, but perhaps there were parts of the country that had First Communion at an older age.
I vote for the man being a monseignor (our parish had one, too), but I don't know.
Murph, you may be right, as the "guy's" arms can't be seen in the pic to show whether he's got lacy sleeves (surplice) or no sleeves (rochet), which would of course clarify his rank.
posted on September 8, 2000 09:34:45 PMMurph LOL - It's a wild, wild world we live in.
He doesn't have lace on his sleeves - so, that makes him definitely a bishop?
I still can't decide if I want to list it or not - I do collect old photographs of children - but usually not this large. I'd want at least $50.00 to feel o.k. about selling it. Don't know if that's realistic - I've noticed that three things always go through the roof $$$-wise on old cdvs - anything that contains in the title the words - Postmortem (can you imagine) Possible Gay Interest (I've seen this label on pics of babies - just trying to draw bidders - sick) or Civil War - (that one I can understand) I saw an old civil war general photo last week that started at $9.00 with no reserve and ended at $7,600.00. I'll bet that seller was doing a happy, happy dance!
posted on September 8, 2000 09:57:17 PM
mybiddness,
As HCQ noted, it's hard to see the sleeves on the possible bishop. I would think that if there were white sleeves, you'd be able to see a smidgen of the white on the right arm--but it very well could be hidden. The surplice arms are generally wide, and the arms of his vestments seem rather form-fitting. The strongest indication that he's a bishop, I think, is his pectoral cross--that's liturgically worn only by bishops.
One can never tell these things with 100% certainty--some priest with delusions of granduer (sp?) may have worn a pectoral cross hoping he wasn't caught by his bishop, but my feeling is that's a remote possibility.
posted on September 8, 2000 09:58:27 PM
Yep, that's a monsignor. I have an uncle who was a monsignor and we have pictures of him in the same kind of clothing.
That may be first communion. We wore white dresses and veils for first communion, although I will agree that some of those girls look older than we did in second grade. Did not wear veils for confirmation and the bishop wore a much more elaborate outfit.
The picture may still be first communion. It's possible that first communion was being made by several girls of all ages. It's possible that some of the older girls made a "second" first communion when a visiting monsignor came around. Although it wasn't necessary to have a monsignor or bishop present. A bishop performs confirmation rites, but first communion can be celebrated by any priest.
My Catholic church and school had elaborate processions and celebrations all the time. The dresses all appear to be identical which makes it seem more like a uniform. Maybe it's not first communion, but some May parade in honor of Mary. My church did things like that.
We had lots of pageantry. Lots of costumes and dressing up
But then I have five uncles that are priests, and Irish, we tend to have lots of celebrations within the Church. And the parties are noisy and fun.
posted on September 8, 2000 10:13:37 PM
Hi
I think the photo may be earlier than the 1930s. It was typical to mount pictures like that on carboard in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Like stereoview cards cabinet photos etc. I have sold quite a few old photos and at least every one I have ever had mounted like that has been pretty old
posted on September 8, 2000 11:02:14 PMsnip The cardboard frame it's mounted on has a rough - wrinkled-like texture to it. I had thought the date says 1898 - but because of the dress decided that it more likely says 1938. The more I think about the history of it - the more I'm growing attached to the idea of keeping it. Do you have any experience with this type of pic as to how much it might bring? I know that's hard to pinpoint - but a general idea. I've noticed that single communion pics generally go for around $10.00 - I've bought several dozen myself as a matter of fact.
posted on September 9, 2000 12:30:33 AM
I usually sell in bulk 10-15 cabinet photos at a time when I stumble upon some and have gotton a good price sometimes. Hard to tell sometimes which particular one strikes someones fancy. A photo has to be truly unusual for me at least to sell one at a time. Cabinet photos are generally just a family sitting on chairs not smiling at the camera. Not sure what yours is worth maybe you should just keep it. Looks like a nice photo and if it truly was 1898 it is a little unusual.
