CROONAERT Posted 27 September , 2004 Share Posted 27 September , 2004 When this photo was taken, this soldier was either 18 years old or 27 years old. Two different sources give these two ages. Looking at the photo, which would you say is most likely to be the true age? Thanks. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate Wills Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 I would plump for 18. It is difficult given the quality of the image, and the lack of information on skin tones, but it looks to be a face that has not quite completed its journey to maturity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 Writing as a 27 yr old (spurious reasoning, I know), I would concur that he looks more like an 18 y.o. However, given the quality of the photograph, his dour expression and the uniform, it is difficult to ascertain with any certainty. (People generally matured later in life so this further hinders contemporary observations; but when they did they tended to look older than they might today since they immediately dressed and acted like their elders.) Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 IMHO 18. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve fuller Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 Hi ya Dave Not gonna help here Im afraid mate, but his eyes look older than 18 to me. Admitedly, I cant enhance the pic and zoom in on them so cant make them out too well, but they look more 'experienced' to me ... unless hes already been in combat by the time the pic was taken? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPotter Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 I have to say my immediate reaction was 27. I've seen some photos of 18 year olds where they appear little more than school boys. But then I can barely remember being 27, let alone 18, and I haven't reached 40 yet (but not far off!) Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 (People generally matured later in life .......... I cannot let that one go! Do you have ANY evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leigh Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 Dave, What are the conflicting sources? Regards leigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 (People generally matured later in life .......... I cannot let that one go! Do you have ANY evidence? Yes; completion of puberty is delayed and/or unfulfilled by both poor nutrition and the interruption of growth patterns due to long periods or illness in childhood. It is a well known fact among the cleverest and most interesting sections of society. For example, what else would account for the significant increase in height and weight of fully developed adults in their late '20s vis-a-vis their counterparts 90 years ago (indeed, many teenagers are taller and heavier than their g-grandfathers were at that age); and the recognisable signs of puberty now occurring in children of junior school age. (Larger numbers of girls than ever are developing breasts and menstruating earlier than their forebears - and I'm not a Perv... I think!) Aside from such data that is readily available on-line, empiricism from examining many service papers from the last 200 hundred years would lead one to suggest that soldiers and sailors who enlisted as teenagers (and even in their '20s) continued to grew whilst in the services. Sure, one or two cases in a thousand could be a mismeasurement, but how would you dismiss the remainder? When you see the beanpoles coming out of school gates these days, one does wonder... must stop hanging around schools, I s'pose! Ricardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCLI Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 At the moment I think he is 108 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 There is a world of difference between pubery and maturity. Maturity is as much in the head as the loins. My generation was mature at 18, even 16, shouldering responsibility far beyond that of the youth of today. Mind you, they do seem to copulate earlier. That will be down to a poor puberty/ maturity crossover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 Yes, I was referring to physical maturity rather than mental. It does appear that whilst physical development occurs earlier, 'mental' maturity is quite the reverse given that, all in all, life is a hell of a lot easier better than it was for their ancestors. (Unless you're royalty.) And they do copulate earlier, which is why I enjoyed going school so much and so frequently. Ricardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 28 September , 2004 Share Posted 28 September , 2004 And they do copulate earlier, which is why I enjoyed going school so much and so frequently. Ricardo Naughty dirty dick! Thats a single entendre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 28 September , 2004 Author Share Posted 28 September , 2004 but his eyes look older than 18 to me. Admitedly, I cant enhance the pic and zoom in on them so cant make them out too well, but they look more 'experienced' to me ... unless hes already been in combat by the time the pic was taken? Yes he had. He'd fought through both Galipolli and the Somme. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 28 September , 2004 Author Share Posted 28 September , 2004 Dave, What are the conflicting sources? Regards leigh One is his birth certificate (which I am trying to establish whether or not it actually is his birth certificate) which would make him 18 when this photo was taken (late 1916), and the other source is a letter from his sister which states his age when he was KIA (June 1917, 6 weeks after his birthday) as being 28. I originally did lean towards him being 18 on the photo and (most of) your answers have strengthened this belief. Then again, he was from a small village in Lancashire and I can't see there being two soldiers in the same regiment, sharing the same name and 9 years difference in ages, coming from there, so I reckon the birth certificate actually is his after all. Thanks for your answers. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve fuller Posted 29 September , 2004 Share Posted 29 September , 2004 but his eyes look older than 18 to me. Admitedly, I cant enhance the pic and zoom in on them so cant make them out too well, but they look more 'experienced' to me ... unless hes already been in combat by the time the pic was taken? Yes he had. He'd fought through both Galipolli and the Somme. Dave. Gallipoli + Somme would give me those eyes too!! Personally I still go wth 27 Im afraid mate! Have you trawled census's to see if it is his BC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joy Lynch Posted 29 September , 2004 Share Posted 29 September , 2004 How about investigating mathematical, medical cum forensic approximations - like those archaeological programmes seen on TV. Now my suggestion is potentially not practial, but you never know what is available with contacts on this site. I think the soldier is 27 judging from the expression. With enlargement of the photo it might be possible to compare with identikits etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 29 September , 2004 Author Share Posted 29 September , 2004 Have you trawled census's to see if it is his BC? Not a great fan of the census, to be honest. It can give too many false leads and innacurate information. I have searched it, though, and it throws up yet another possible age! (See why I don't like it!!! ). Just using info from the 1901 census, he would have been 19 going on 20 when the photo was taken! (If, indeed the census report is about the same person - 3 lads from the village with the same name?). To be honest, reading between the lines of what I know about him and his family, I think I've got enough info on this soldier to convince me that his birth certificate actually is the accurate source after all. Thanks for all the help. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now