Yep, even old-timey folks did it.
(submitted by Jeff)
here’s a picture that one-ups the evolution of man drawing
This family’s sense of geometric exactitude is nothing if not impressive. Obviously, Mother was required to bear children at precisely timed intervals, while the offspring’s growth rate was controlled by a tightly managed regimen of botanical nutrients, calisthenics and (where necessary) mechanical stretching. All this was strictly administered by Nanny (not pictured) who, obviously, was an expert at the top of her field.
What’s up with the youngest (daughter in pinafore/son in christening gown) though? He/she is slightly too short–did Mother and Father neglect the breeding schedule? I’m afraid it must have meant extra sessions on the rack.
Anyone notice that the man and woman are not wearing wedding rings…Odd…
Anyone notice that the man and woman are not wearing wedding rings…Odd…And I think the smallest child is a girl.
the monocle. that is all.
old pictures like this creep me out…
All the brown hair. I wonder where the milk man was when the little blond boy was concived?
Awkward, yes. But only by our standards. In order to take a picture at the time, the subjects had to stay completely still for several minutes. So, no smiling. As for the in-line pose, well they probably really liked their symmetry. Every family has to be proud of something.
Am I the only one who sees the start of the Fibonacci sequence? 1, 1, 2, 3…..
Sadly, the critics of this beauttiful picture are the ones that can’t spell. Obviously they have no appreciation for the effort it took to make that family portrait. Not to mention that they have no appreciation or respect of how rare it was to be able to take a family photo then, and that that family was an important part of American history. Lucky you (whoever posted that pic) that has the opportunity to trace back your family history. Wish all of us could do so, then maybe we’d all appreciate the effort it took for you to become the little unappreciative snot you are to think that this was an akward moment…You were only given the opportunity to become what you are due to those “akward” people. You should appreciate it more.
more bars in more time periods that is the AT&T way
ISSO É O QUE EU CHAMO DE ESCADINHA!!!
Where is that woman’s eye?!!?!?!?
The last 2 kids are the mailman’s! blondies
I’m wondering how the heck they got the 2 little ones to hold still. I can’t get my little guys to hold still for anything!
Ok,it´s a girl!Done!
ah, the good ol days of child labor. i’d have 5 too if i could put em to work.
The fact that their heights are in perfect, even increments is kind of scary…
Every 9 months – new hand-me-downs YEAAAAYYYYYYY!!!!!
That is WILD that they are so PERFECTLY spaced apart in height! Bizarro!
I’m pretty sure they actually make up a perfect slope! Let’s put a piece of plywood on their heads and do some jumps!
What you can’t see in this photo is the toboggan flying in just off camera to attempt the human ski jump world record.
uuum tobogans and skis are different things….just sayin’
That is genius! How the photographer go everyone posed so precisely is beyond my comprehension.
1.) the heights are so perfect
2.) the youngest boys are dressed like their mom
3.) they all have the same shoes
4.) they’re not smiling
5.) it seems like they’re looking right at you
6.) 1/2 the kids match one parent, 1/2 the kids match the other
7.) it looks like the child in the very center has high socks with shorts
8.) they all have a *we were forced to do this look*
9.) the kid in the very center almost smiled
10.) the backdrop doesn’t go to the very left
*and there is plenty more*
These things aren’t actually awkward, they are out dated for us, and some of your points are just nit picky for no reason. #2 Why are the two young boys dressed like their mom? Why does anyone dress alike for a family portrait? #7 The boy in the middle probably does have knee socks with shorts. Boys didn’t move into long pants until they were teenagers. #10 actually, it does go all the way to the left but the design changes. It does not go all the way to the floor.
You might actually want to focus on the awkward things rather than the unfamiliar things.
Also, I don’t understand why #5 is awkward. Why wouldn’t they appear to look right at you? It’s a freaking picture! People are supposed to look right at the camera, as if they are looking at the people…
Actually, I believe ALL the boys are in shorts and stockings, while the youngest son hasn’t been breeched yet (and probably wouldn’t be for at least another year). I think what looks like the bottom of trousers on the two older boys is the slight reflection of the leather of the high-top boots. I don’t believe any of them are old enough to be in long pants yet.
Why are the two youngest boys dressed like their mom?? *awkward thing about this photo #356*
THE FIRST THING I THINK OF IS…THEY’RE PROBLABY ALL DEAD..AND HAVE BEEN DEAD FOR YEARS.
Nah, ……. They look pretty alive to me.
Otherwise they would “domino effect”.
wait till you see HIS mom
I love the ears!!!
More Bars in more places at&t its where u wanna be
I was able to expand the photo beyond what can be seen on this site, and there’s one lanky kid off to the side that seems to be crying uncontrollably. I think he looks taller than his dad. Wassup w’ dat?
he probably couldn’t be in the photo! poor boy. =[
I’m sorry, that is just nuts… cool nuts, but nuts… The neatest thing to come out of a culture of way too many children per family…
I kinda feel like pushing the dad a little bit just to see how the domino effect works.
Is the mom wearing a monocular?
er, you mean a monocle?
More bars in more places!
Makes you wonder if smiling was invented back then
Lay a board across their heads and you have a ramp.
or a family with a board on their heads…
More bars in more places.
I like the little boy in the dress :]
I actually love this picture, not awkward at all.
I love the dad behind the mom 😉
What a joy for a follower of Phytagoras Theorem!
lol! love it..and the adopted comment. and how serious and almost angry ppl sound replying to comments. 🙂
Awkward or not, I want to know how that woman is so thin after birthing five children!
Caring for five growing children, and a husband. They didn’t have automatic dishwashers, clothes washers, vacuum cleaners, etc, either. Lots and lots of hard work, from dawn to dusk.
Was wondering why no was smiling!…
Oops… Was wondering was wonder why no ONE was smiling? Poor mom…
noone’s smiling because that’s how photos were taken until about the 1950s most of the time.
it’s just the time period.
It took too long for the exposure. they had to stand perfectly still for a long time. It was easier to have a straight face than a smile – too long to hold. My co-worker also works at a museum part time. I have asked her this question.
The kids were adopted ……….. based upon their height. ………… Thus, the straight line.
Because they didn’t have Pop-Tarts back then!!
Wow, I’m learning so much on here. To the Way Back machine….
Connect the tops of their heads and you get a perfectly straight line!
that was photoshopped!
I was wondering who would be the first to reference photoshop
They look like a statistical regression chart – seriously – what a nice straight line :-). Or it’s like one the older “Got Milk” commercials that show the kids growing up and the various stages. But what’s the likelihood that there would be a family where the heights one after the other would produce such a straight line.
before the availability of birth control. Bless her heart. Looks like she popped out a kid for every year of marriage.
and we know what he popped out
Omg They All Look alike!!!
OMG they’re all related!
the smallest one is a boy not a girl because girls around that time had to wear long skirts like the mother in the picture that didn’t show the girls shoes.
Enjoyed this one as have some photos my ancestors looking equally uncomfortable. I note someone’s ‘finally got a girl’ reference smallest child. Not necessarily so – boys were dressed in garb like that until about three in that era.
Yeah, I’d say that the littlest one is actually a boy. Granny’s right.
no, it’s a girl. Why else would she be wearing something different?
Well, as was said, “boys were dressed in garb like that until about three in that era.” That is a reason why they would be dressed differently, the next child up appears older than 3.
Maybe they just gave up on having a girl with the last one and decided to just raise “Susie” as a girl?
I believe that it is a boy. In that time frame, I believe you could tell by the way the hair is parted. All but mom parted the same side. Just a thought.
What an odd pic.
I like it, thats how they did photo’s in the olden days…
I think referenced is spelled with a “C”. Who cares if the AT&T thing has been pointed out so much. It is still funny. Lighten up and pick up a dictionary.
Typoz hapepn dued.
it’s not a typo when you spell it that way twice. “dued”
ROL? Roll on Lol?
Frickinn hillarious. I actually did laugh out loud!!
email (will not be published) (required)