The one smack dab in the middle looks like trouble.”
LOL – I totally agree
About the youngest… If it had been a girl it would’ve made a funnier picture.
It’s a boy. Early 1900s. And by the way, that’s not only NOT a dress that’s actually ‘boys clothes’ see the belt? Aside from the shirt like quality of the sleeves and cut, a girl would have a higher sash more around her waist usually tied as a bow in the back. The ‘dress’ itself would be prettier and more feminine in appearance. Also the child has on boy’s shoes. It’s actually an outfit of the well-to-do and would even do for older boys.
A younger and poor child would have something like a long shirt or modern day night gown (for the diapers thing) and would get new ‘pieces’ added on the hem as they grew. And yes ‘steps and stairs’ is a really a phrase from when they had large families like that.
How do I know? Buster Brown
Great Photo – I wonder if their descendants are as awkward?
Also if that middle boy ended up in prison or congress.
I think this picture is more creepy than awkward. Especially the mother’s face/eyes. It might be something with the lighting or she could actually have something wrong about her face or eyes….not sure. This looks like something out of The Ring or would fit very well in a haunted house/halloween or horror flash game. Something like that. Heh.
I really like this photo. It’s like a snapshot of fashion of a certain era and how you “move up” from baby to boy to man clothes. If you’re going to have that many kids so close together, why not put them in order of height in the photo?
um….in comparison to some of the other ones that are displayed on this website,this isn’t as bad…. still bad though..but not so much..:) if that makes any sense…>.>
The smallest child is definitely a boy. You can’t always tell by the way they were dressed at that age, but little girls had their hair parted on the side and little boys had theirs parted right down the center. Well, they had to do something to tell them apart!
Mom is actually 4’9″ and standing on a crate to make it evenly spaced.
Actually, i really DO think she’s standing on something. Or she’s very short-waisted with extremely long legs!
Nice picture. Common back in those days for this type of picture. I would have to say the youngest is a boy. All young boys of proper families where dressed in similar fashion as above. They did not wear pants until properly potty trained. Thus the reason for th dress easier to change the cloth diapers.
See, I was just noticing how much better her figure is than mine, and with FIVE KIDS, too. The blouse all tucked into her skirt, nice waistline. Sigh. I’m freaking lazy is all.
***Any comments that are offensive to the point of being viciously personal, racist, homophobic, exceedingly profane, violent or too graphic in nature won't be posted. We want to keep this site a friendly place to be awkward. Thanks!***
afp
“Lucy says:
September 25, 2009 at 11:44 pm
The one smack dab in the middle looks like trouble.”
LOL – I totally agree
About the youngest… If it had been a girl it would’ve made a funnier picture.
It’s a boy. Early 1900s. And by the way, that’s not only NOT a dress that’s actually ‘boys clothes’ see the belt? Aside from the shirt like quality of the sleeves and cut, a girl would have a higher sash more around her waist usually tied as a bow in the back. The ‘dress’ itself would be prettier and more feminine in appearance. Also the child has on boy’s shoes. It’s actually an outfit of the well-to-do and would even do for older boys.
A younger and poor child would have something like a long shirt or modern day night gown (for the diapers thing) and would get new ‘pieces’ added on the hem as they grew. And yes ‘steps and stairs’ is a really a phrase from when they had large families like that.
How do I know? Buster Brown
Great Photo – I wonder if their descendants are as awkward?
Also if that middle boy ended up in prison or congress.
lol whats the dif prison or congress ;P
I’m so impressed with mom’s tiny waist line after five kiddos… She exercised by pushing back from the table early.
I guess they finally got their little girl.
I think this picture is more creepy than awkward. Especially the mother’s face/eyes. It might be something with the lighting or she could actually have something wrong about her face or eyes….not sure. This looks like something out of The Ring or would fit very well in a haunted house/halloween or horror flash game. Something like that. Heh.
I thought so too, at first, but I think she’s wearing glasses. If you look closely, I think you can see glasses on her ‘good’ eye, too.
Coolest picture ever
I really like this photo. It’s like a snapshot of fashion of a certain era and how you “move up” from baby to boy to man clothes. If you’re going to have that many kids so close together, why not put them in order of height in the photo?
ahahahah’ more bars in more placess:p
um….in comparison to some of the other ones that are displayed on this website,this isn’t as bad…. still bad though..but not so much..:) if that makes any sense…>.>
The coolest part is when they split into halves, and put each person inside the next largest one.
very cute. i love the concept. hahahaha
Wow, that is crazy. It’s a perfect line!
Boys would start out in dresses, work their way up to knee pants, and eventually graduate to full-length trousers.
Even our primitive ancestors realized that humans come in different heights.
ALL THAT for a girl…. finally!
I love how perfectly their heights coincide. Mom’s probably got some wicked heels on.
Talk about hand-me-downs!
I shudder to think what would have happened if they had twins or *gasp* triplets!
Hmm…two of these things are not like the other ones…
The youngest one is such a cutie!
They finally got a girl!
This is so my family. We always do awkward poses like this for our family portraits.
The smallest child is definitely a boy. You can’t always tell by the way they were dressed at that age, but little girls had their hair parted on the side and little boys had theirs parted right down the center. Well, they had to do something to tell them apart!
Wondering if any child(ren) didn’t make the shot because they were too tall/short.
Why does people in these old pictures always look insane?
More bars in more places.
They definitely all got Dad’s ears..
That was my exact thought Sarah, I was looking to see if anyone else noticed that, and you beat me to it.
The one smack dab in the middle looks like trouble.
I agree; he’s definitely committing a mortal sin in photography of that time period: he’s trying to smile.
Does anybody know the true history behind this photo?? This picture has infatuated me for some strange reason.
Has anyone seen Tom Thumb?
or…
We now present…Thing 1 and Thing 2
But, can they sing?
Before the Von Trapps was the lesser-known American family, the MacDougalls!!
OMG. I LOVE this picture!
Cingular….Raising the bars,
but with even more amp.
Ok, Rollcall!!
Gomez!? Check.
Morticia!? Check.
Pugsley? Check.
Wednesday!? Check.
Fester? Check.
Lurch!? Check.
Cousin Itt? Cousin Itt? Cousin Itt?
Cousin Itt has been dropped from the roll….
This should be the new Cingular commercial! They’re “raising the bar”!
LOL! Perfect!
they tried. they tried. they tried. they tried. ah sweet success!
these children were bred for the sole purpose of this photograph
That’s awesome.
I bet they swapped in a cousin or neighbor’s kid to make this work so well.
is it just me, or is the line a perfect diagonal until they get to the smallest child? now THAT is timing it.
way to go mom! ^^
Mom is actually 4’9″ and standing on a crate to make it evenly spaced.
Actually, i really DO think she’s standing on something. Or she’s very short-waisted with extremely long legs!
I think it’s a high-waisted skirt, otherwise her arms would be too long for the rest of her body.
I thought the same thing! That mom’s incredible.
Amazing. How are they all so equally spaced vertically. The slope doesn’t very. You could use them like stairs
stairs! ha! hilarious!!
OMG…How did they manage to grow them almost exactly 1 head-height apart?!!? Great pic though…
haha all i can see is the photographer running away.
A perfect line! They must not have lost any to childhood disease.
this picture is PERFECT! i love it
Nice picture. Common back in those days for this type of picture. I would have to say the youngest is a boy. All young boys of proper families where dressed in similar fashion as above. They did not wear pants until properly potty trained. Thus the reason for th dress easier to change the cloth diapers.
I agree with the thought process but I’m going with girl.
In those days, kids were potty trained at 2 weeks of age.
Also, the little one has its hair parted one the side — generally done for boys. Girls’ parts were usually in the center.
Wow. They all have huge feet!
Since shoes were probably pricey back in the day they probably had to wear shoes 3 sizes too big
And big frickin’ ears.
See, I was just noticing how much better her figure is than mine, and with FIVE KIDS, too. The blouse all tucked into her skirt, nice waistline. Sigh. I’m freaking lazy is all.
Don’t feel too bad. Corsets are very forgiving.
What happens when the kids grow?they’ll ruiin the picture, damn!HAHHA
nice one
There were actually six kids, but one didn’t fit. Needless to say, he was kicked out of the family.
Baaahahahaha! I didn’t fit in with my family either.
I was thinking that too! God forbid she had twins..that would mess the whole thing up!
This looks like an ad for an AT&T cellular phone.
lol more bars in more places!
Great idea!
Glad I’m not the only one who thought that. Also wondering why they line up so perfectly… @__@
Hysterical!! Get at&t on the phone!
If only my mobile had that many bars…
raising the bar
lol