I’ve added four more studios to the New York and three to the Philadelphia Victorian photography studios maps.
- William J. Tait, corner Greenwich & Cortlandt streets
- John C. Helme – Daguerreotype studio, 111 Bowery
- Abraham Bogardus – Daguerreotype studio (early), Greenwich & Barclay
- Mathew Brady – Daguerreotype studio (early), 205-207 Broadway
- D.C.Collins & Co. City Daguerreotype Establishment, 100 Chestnut Street
- Reimer, 612 N. 2nd Street
- Van Loan & Ennis – Daguerreotype studio, 118 Chestnut Street
Just a little more fun with the photographers maps compilation.
Here’s a quick link to the maps in case:
Some more food for thought – I think I’ve mentioned this before, about the migration over time of certain studios, moving uptown in New York as their client base moved further uptown – to better illustrate this, I’ve pulled the studio addresses for three of the most prominent portrait studios of the day, and listed them in chronological order as best possible:
- 205-207 Broadway
- 359 Broadway
- 635 Broadway
- 785 Broadway
Gurney & Sons
- 349 Broadway
- 707 Broadway
- 5th Avenue & E. 16th Street
- Greenwich & Barclay Streets
- 363 Broadway
- 872 Broadway
Also notice how close they all were to each other. While I don’t have dates per-se for each of the addresses, notice that at one point, all three were in the same block of Broadway (the 300 block), and again later, all three were in a two block span of Broadway, further uptown (700-800 block). Even early on, they were clustered close to each other in Lower Manhattan – 643 Bleecker is not far from Greenwich & Barclay, and another photographer, William J. Tait, was just a block or two away at Greenwich & Cortlandt streets.
5 thoughts on “More updates to the Victorian Photographers maps”
I would like to know about a studio named Roseti’s on 5th ave. NY in the late 1880’s. The exact address is 297, and I believe they did watercolors on glass from photos. Any info is greatly appreciated.
Hi there – sorry for the delay in responding. That’s a studio I am unfamiliar with and have not seen any examples of their work come up in my collecting efforts. I’ll be happy to add them to my map, and I’ll post anything I find about them here. The challenge with 19th century photo studios, especially in New York City, is that there were so many of them. Unless they rose to particular fame or notoriety for a specialization (like Chas Eisenmann and later George Wendt for theater and circus people, or Mathew Brady for portraiture), they often disappear into virtual anonymity.
Thank you for your answer. The reason for my interest is that I am a docent at the Frick Pgh, the family home of Henry Clay Frick whose legacy is the Frick Collection in NY. We are now doing a secondary tour about his early days of collecting, his “Pgh. Yrs,” so to speak. We have a letter from a Roseti Studio there in NY about a beautiful watercolor done on glass of Mrs. Frick and 3 of their children. My questions are how did they do those watercolors, was that a common practice back then, and was this a well-known studio? Apparently not the latter since you can’t find anything about it. Well, if you do come up with any info, please email it to me. I am doing this research on my own because my curiosity has been piqued. I refer to that watercolor in my tours. It is done so well. If ever you are in Pgh, be sure to take a tour of Clayton. Thank you, H. Chase
I’ll be happy to do some looking around, and I know a few people who might be familiar with their work. If they were doing commissions for the Frick family, I’m sure they were considered one of the finer studios of their period. Out of curiosity have you spoken to your counterparts at the Frick in New York? They might have more information on the image.
As to how it was done, there are several techniques that could have been used to accomplish this. Without examining the plate it is hard to say exactly, but it was common to coat photographic emulsions on glass at that time for use as original negatives. These could have been reversed through copying, then hand tinted.
Please don’t go to any trouble over this. I am doing this little research strictly on my own just because my curiosity was piqued, and because I love the watercolor. When I came across your website only by accident, I thought I’d give it a try. Our curator here probably knows some of the answers, but she is so busy that I don’t really want to bother her. In the whole scheme of things, I don’t think this little tidbit is that important. I’m sure the answer is somewhere in the archives. I think your research into these studios is interesting. Funny how we get caught up in something that probably most people would never even think about! It happens all the time among the docents here at the Frick Pgh. We all love the house and its history so much that I think we become a little obsessive. I hope your future research turns up all kinds of interesting things for you. Thanks again. H. Chase