This is a postcard I would have liked to buy but someone beat me to it on ebay.
The odd thing about it is the gent in the foreground , because enhancing the overall image resulted in him looking a bit out of place photographically. Not only is his image a different tone to the rest of the photo but he seems rather diminutive compared with the height of the gates and fence. Also, am I imagining it but doesn’t the man look slightly more modern in dress than the 1870s? It was not unknown for early photographers to do a bit of photo editing, in the literal pre-computer sense, and in this instance he probably felt that the scene needed a person in the foreground. The lady in middle distance indicates the fence being about her shoulder height. The following card of further along the path shows it around elbow height to the men loitering there.
As to the viewpoint of the main image, this appears to be from a westerly direction, perhaps alongside what became the High Street, or maybe a footpath from about where Hillfield Avenue now runs:
The final quirks about this card are that it is a Braddock (see Hugh’s previous feature on this photographer) but 1876 is earlier than he was so far known to have been active in Hornsey; it is a “divided back” (address and writing together on back of card) which started to be allowed in UK from 1902; and it was posted in Sussex 1945 to a Crouch End address.
There seems to be a distinct outline around parts of his legs and there is a difference in contrast between him and the background.
He casts no shadow....
I never noticed the shadow aspect. Gasps in horror at the implication !
A new line of research Hugh, The Vampires of Hornsey.
Mmm, all very odd. I'm assuming that the cut and paste on the back was done by you so as to show the Braddock stamp. I thought it couldn't possibly have been advertised like that! So, I found the original listing on eBay and have added it below.
I see from the listing that the seller didn't even mention Braddock and made no feature of the stamp. So I suppose I'm minded to accept it as the genuine article.
As to the date of the card's making and use, I assume that Braddock did a clumsy cut and paste to make the article more saleable. (Believe it or not I didn't even notice the abundantly apparent mis-scaled man when I first looked at it!).
We have no evidence to suggest that Braddock was taking photos as early as 1876 and as you say the divided back suggests that the postcard was produced in the twentieth century. One possibility is that Braddock got the date accidentally or intentionally wrong: the other is that he used someone else's photo. My money is on the first option.
I suppose the postmark may simply indicate that in the wartime spirit of make-do-and-mend, thrifty KJ (KT?) took an old postcard out of her Bognor bureau and thought it amusant to send it 'back home'.
Good fine: a fascinating piece of the puzzle.
PS Look what I found in my files. I have it named as Hornsey Church c188?. I'm assuming that's a descriptive title that I've added and not one that would have ceme with the photo. You can see where the photo's editor may have got the scale of the cut-and-pasted man from. But the small woman in the original looks right: the man looks a bit ridiculous.
The photo also explains the rather ugly and odd looking foreground. It was either added to the Braddock-stamped version or cut off the version I have. Again, I'd probably go with the first option.
Very interesting. Most perceptive of you to note the mysterious irregularities.
Sorry All, but I must comment ! The photo says Alfred Braddock Hornsey N and we know that he moved to Alexandra Rd from Hackney around 1890 (say) & in time for the 1891 Census there. As the divided back cards were allowed only from 1901, then the card has been made after this date. Why does it say 1876 ? because that is the real date of the photo ( I believe )- look at the dress of the 3 behind & I also guess it was not taken by Braddock. He had to use this old photo, because the view had changed by 1890 and he could not re photograph it ?, look at the coloured photo with the 2 postmen, the church itself has been demolished already,leaving only the tower. Finally, on Hugh's photo of the original, is that a child jumping behind the gate ? did they need longer exposure times in 1875? This might explain the addition of the "little man" on the Braddock print and also the fence and the field behind have been touched up to cover what look like 2 bobbles.
For info - Braddock was in Alexandra Road by 1890: that's a matter or record. The old church was left standing until 1927.
https://harringayonline.com/group/historyofharringay/forum/topics/a... On your excellent article above, I am showing your Fig 7 illustration from it If you look at Fig 6, you can see the metal fencing used along the new river & it seems to match the photo in discussion. Has it been re-used to fence off the field ? Also your map 12 matches the line of this walkway just N of the church and running to the west of the church. ( showing here also) On the Braddock "touch up photo, do you think he has tried to put the New River back in the foreground infront of the gate ?
All very fascinating and accompanied by usual in-depth detective work we have come to expect from HoL members. BUT.........standing aside and behind of Mister Cut-out, over his left shoulder appears to be a vision of an old lady. Wearing a darkish brimmed hat, the brim being in line with iron railing, waist length dark jacket and a light grey ballooned skirt. (Maybe helps to enlarge image). Looks quite a ghost like image, almost "witchy". Now further on from that, if that is a lady can we suppose that she has died and someone has cut out an image of her husband/whatever as a keepsake. Or visa versa ?? They are about same height taking into account he is standing slightly forward of her. AND might that be water in the foreground of photo ? It forms an irregular edge. I await torrents of abuse and humility but it is just a thought, putting it out there as one says.
Check my original unadulterated version of the photo in the comments above. The old lady isn't a cut-out,