Eight previously unknown photographs of the 1913 flood purchased on ebay portray the flood at its peak in Rochester, New York. Who was the mystery photographer?
Last November, out of the blue, one Steven
Schooler sent me this email message:
Sorry to
bother you like this, but I found your blog online and thought you might be
interested in some photos I have listed on ebay that show the aftermath of the
1913 flood in Rochester. I came across these recently in an antique store here
in my home state of Texas. They are listed under ebay #111511780776, with the
auction set to end Sunday night, Nov. 16.
Of course, I immediately jumped to ebay and beheld
eight images I’d never seen
 |
| Previously unknown image of 1913 flood in Rochester, NY, on Saturday, March 29, showing turbulent floodwaters coursing over the Court Street Dam. The original photograph - on photographic paper of an oddball size of 3.25 x 5.5 inches - was one of eight sold to me in November 2014 by Steven Schooler. Credit: Collection of Trudy E. Bell |
before of the Great Easter Flood, primarily on March
28 and 29, 1913 in Rochester, New York. Now, you’ll never find Rochester
topping the list of cities devastated by the 1913 flood, and no wonder: it’s
more than 460 miles northeast of the city that gave a human face to the
disaster and became synonymous with it: Dayton, Ohio. But Rochester—along with
Albany and other New York cities—suffered record flooding that likely would
have resulted in national headlines had Dayton (and elsewhere in Ohio and
Indiana) not suffered far worse (see “Rescuing Albany’s Water”).
 |
| Only two cameras existed in 1913 that could have taken photos of such an oddball size. The most likely one was this Kodak 3A Folding Camera. Credit: Camerapedia |
"I do like what you're doing with your blog, though -
I'm actually a professional archaeologist, so I appreciate your love of
history. I mostly sell rare/scholarly/reference books on ebay to supplement my
income, but I also enjoy poking around in antique stores and am always drawn
to the inevitable baskets of sad, cast-off photos. For the ones that have
enough clues to situate them in time or place, I enjoy doing a little research
and seeing what I can figure out about them. (These Rochester pics were
obviously pretty self-explanatory.) Anyway, by putting these wayward photos on
ebay, I figure they're at least getting a shot of winding up in the hands of
someone who'll be able to more fully appreciate them."
I bit my nails all through November 16,
crossing my fingers that the photos would not sell. The next
morning, Schooler replied to my query:
"Trudy, no bidders on the photos, which I am actually
grateful for too - I really wanted you to get them. You clearly have a
passionate interest in the topic, and you're probably the one person best
situated to extract the maximum educational / public awareness value from them.
Do you think you'll make a blog post out of them? Or maybe even incorporate
into another book? (Saw from your email you have one titled The Great Dayton
Flood of 1913.)"
 |
| The only other camera at the time taking the oddball film size was the No. 2 Stereo Brownie, a less likely possibility. Credit:Marlo Groleu |
He did not
know the identity of the photographer, although the box that contained them had
other photos of upstate New York landscape scenes with handwriting on the back
identical to the writing on the back of the flood images.
Because the prints are small and large-format film
and glass plate negatives were common a century ago, I speculated that the images
might actually be contact prints instead of enlarged. Before shipping them to
me, Schooler scanned the prints at 1600 dpi, and was excited to report “there
actually is some pretty amazing detail. Like on one, there's a billboard in the
distance and on the extreme zoom you can tell it had the image of a
roadster-style motor car. And you can actually see one of the pumper vehicles a
lot better in another.”
Schooler packed them very well and they arrived
quickly. He added:
If you do use the Rochester images in a new post, or
in a new book down the line, please do drop a line - it would be exciting
to see the photos I found used in a finished product!
The
camera and photographer
I began digging online for information about the
camera and locations noted, as well as in the photocopies of four Rochester newspapers
on microfilm (obtained several years ago during a research trip to Rochester)
for details about the flood scenes.
 |
| Mystery picture, taken of dry Water Street on Easter Sunday, March 23, before the rains began. Why? Credit: Trudy E. Bell |
Both the images and the paper prints are also an
oddball size: the images themselves are 3 by 5.25 inches, and the paper on
which they are printed is 3.25 by 5.5 inches. These sizes perplexed me until
belatedly I recalled that Rochester was the headquarters of the Kodak Co. The
fabulous British site Early Photography has a marvelous table of standard film and plate sizes for antique and vintage cameras. According to that table, the only possible candidates that could have existed
by 1913 would have been Kodak roll film size 122 introduced in 1903 or Kodak
roll film size 125 introduced in 1905, both 3.25 by 5.5 inches, sometimes also
called a “postcard” film size.
Now, according to Kodak’s own list of historical cameras, the only camera that could have existed in 1913 using that oddball 122 film
would have been one of half a dozen models of a No. 3A Folding Pocket Camera, which was on the market from 1903 to 1915. Initially, it retailed for
$78—hardly chump change in 1913, equivalent to about $1700 today—but quickly
dropped to $20.
The other possibility, for 125 film, would be a No.2 Stereo Brownie Camera, on the market from 1905 to 1910 for $12 (about $265
today).
Although the price point would be right for an amateur, the camera itself seems
unlikely unless there were an option for exposing the entire film plane for a
single image.
 |
| Men boating on Front Street. Possibly the water was too deep to allow the anonymous photographer to approach closer to his subject, which was beyond the pile of bricks. Credit: Collection of Trudy E. Bell |
My bet is on the No. 3A Folding Pocket Camera,
suggesting to me that the photographer might have been a fairly wealthy
amateur.
Easter
Sunday mystery
The least interesting image of the eight has the
most intriguing mysteries. It shows just a dry empty street with pieces of
trash along the curb and some random people at the far end, a couple of them
moving fast enough to be blurred during the exposure time. On the back the
photographer has written: “Water St. Out of the office window looking toward
Main St. Taken Easter Day 3/23/13.” Water St.—or, more precisely, North Water
St.—in Rochester is only a block long, which instantly narrows down the
location (see map).
 |
| Water from the flooded Genesee River washing into houses on March 28, 1913. Note the snow on the roof and the icicles. From sun angle, photo was taken in the morning. Credit: Collection of Trudy E. Bell |
Okay, so why was the photographer in the office on
Easter Sunday? Doesn’t sound like the behavior of an observant Catholic or
Protestant in 1913 on one of the two holiest days of the Christian year. Might
the photographer have been of another faith? (Certainly today University of
Rochester is one of the top 30 private universities in North America with a large Jewish population.) If the photographer had access to the office on a Sunday, was he (most likely
male in 1913) a senior employee with a key or did the office work 24/7? Or did he/she have living quarters there? If the
office never closed, including on Easter Sunday, what was its business?
 |
| Compare this image from the Rochester Municipal Archives (second image in the Rochester Subway's blog) of some of the same buildings with the image just above. From the sun angle, this one was taken in the afternoon. |
The biggest mystery is: why was the
photograph taken? Was it a test shot with a new camera? There is nothing obviously
noteworthy out the window. Moreover, the rains had not yet begun, as the heavy
weather moved over upstate New York at least a day later than it hit Indiana
and Ohio.
Peak
flood, March 28
There are four images from Friday, March 28—the day
the waters were receding from cities in Ohio, but were just cresting in upstate
New York. One—evidently taken from
 |
| High water under buildings on the Main St. bridge from the river flowing below. Credit: Collection of Trudy E. Bell |
an upper floor across the Genesee River—is
annotated “Water washing into the houses across the river from back of our shop
& office. Ordinarily there is dry ground about 15 feet below the balconies.
The water went right on through & came out on Front Street. 3/28/13.”
Assuming that the photos were again taken from the same office on Water Street,
that suggests that the building fronted the river on the west side of Water;
note also the mention of a “shop,” which implies a factory. The photo itself
shows snow on the roofs and huge icicles; the buildings’ east-facing walls are
in full sun, suggesting the photo was taken in the morning. A sharper image of
part of this same scene is the second photograph in the Rochester Subway’s blog
installment “Rochester’s Great Flood(s)”, which is a fast enough exposure it better shows the water’s turbulence; some
of the snow has melted and the east-facing walls are in shadow, implying that
photo was taken later in the afternoon.
Another that same date, with the notation “From back
window,” says “These buildings are on Main St. They are built right over the
river, which ordinarily runs 15 feet below, and you can see the arches. Now the
water is right up under the buildings. 3/28/13.”
 |
| Mill Street, Rochester. Trudy E. Bell |
Until the 1960s, Rochester’s
Main Street was unique in the world: despite previous floods and fires that
destroyed three predecessors in the nineteenth century, the fourth and stone Main
Street Bridge was lined with buildings on both sides, with the Genesee River
flowing underneath them. This 1913 flood view probably shows the snow-covered roofs and the backs of
the buildings on the upriver (north) side of the Main Street Bridge, judging
from the likely location of the back office window.
A third photo for the same date reads “Andrews St.,
Rochester N.Y. 3/28/13.” The fourth reads “Mill St. Rochester N.Y. 3/28/13.”
The two might be usefully considered as a pair, as in 1913 Mill and Andrews
intersected; thus, the photographer might have shot one, turned 90 degrees, and
shot the other. The water on Mill St. is clearly not very deep, and likely also
the same on Andrews, judging from the “open for business” sign on the grocery
store and the coat-covered fire hydrant. Note the hose snaking across Mill St.,
and at the far left water is gushing out of a pipe that is pumping out a
basement.
Saturday,
March 29
 |
| Andrews Street, Rochester. Collection of Trudy E. Bell |
The next day, the water was still at least knee deep
on Front Street, as can be seen from the photo annotated “Good boating on Front
Street Rochester N.Y. This is where the river dropped in the back doors and
left by the front. 3/29/13.” The camera’s focus is on the two men in the boat
in the middle distance beyond the pile of bricks.
Elsewhere, even though streets were dry, cellars
were still flooded. On the back of one image the photographer wrote, “Engines
pumping water out of cellars. Rochester, N.Y. 3/29/13.” Unfortunately, no
location is noted, but perhaps a reader familiar with Rochester history may be
able to identify this busy brick or stone street with its trolley tracks and
landmark buildings. The pumping at left appears to be being done with the aid
of a fire engine.
 |
| Engines pumping. Location? Collection of Trudy E. Bell |
The last photo (lead photo at top of this page) reads “Court St. dam Rochester, N.Y.
Ordinarily you can see all the rocks in the rapids. The ‘roll’ of water coming
over the dam is about 9 feet high. 3/29/13.” Note also the dangerous turbulence
of the floodwater.
The floodwaters had scarcely receded when Rochester’s
mayor, Hiram Edgerton, wrote a letter on April 1, 1913, urging the city council
to “immediately” consider ordinances to build a protective wall along the west
side of the Genesee River, which was completed two years later. The wall still
exists and is undergoing improvements today.
Can
you help?
I also have scanned the backs of six prints where
there is a paragraph of writing, on the outside chance that some reader may
recognize the handwriting and be able to identify the photographer.
The handwriting is quite legible with few abbreviations; indeed, the nature of the explanations suggest that the annotations were not notes to self, but explanations to a friend or relative somewhere else who may not be familiar with the Rochester. That causes me to wonder whether these images were actually mailed to someone distant from the city. And of course, the question has to be asked how they finally ended up in Texas, where Schooler purchased them.
The handwriting is quite legible with few abbreviations; indeed, the nature of the explanations suggest that the annotations were not notes to self, but explanations to a friend or relative somewhere else who may not be familiar with the Rochester. That causes me to wonder whether these images were actually mailed to someone distant from the city. And of course, the question has to be asked how they finally ended up in Texas, where Schooler purchased them.
 |
| Anyone recognize the handwriting of the anonymous photographer on the backs of the photos? Scans by Trudy E. Bell |
If you have any clue as to the identity of the
photographer from the handwriting—or if you know the history of Rochester well
enough to have a good supposition as to the “office” and “shop” from which the
photographer was shooting—please definitely contact me. I will feature any further information in a future installment.
©2015 Trudy E. Bell
Next
time: Katrina + 10
Selected
references
A selection of images that make interesting
comparisons appear in the installment “Rochester’s Great Flood(s)”
in Mike Governale’s blog Rochester
Subway.com, May 19, 2014.
A few paragraphs of interest appears in “The Flood at Rochester, N.Y.,” by E. A. Fisher, Engineering
News, v. 69, p. 741, April 10, 1913.
Tidbits about the 1913 flood in Rochester appear in this USGS reference on floods in upstate New York 1865-1989, with discussion about five notable floods including 1913.
For more about buildings on a bridge, see "Historic Main Street Bridge" by Dorothy S. Truesdale in Rochester History 3(2): , April 1941.
For more about buildings on a bridge, see "Historic Main Street Bridge" by Dorothy S. Truesdale in Rochester History 3(2): , April 1941.
Bell, Trudy
E., The Great Dayton Flood of 1913, Arcadia Publishing, 2008. Picture
book of nearly 200 images of the flood in Dayton, rescue efforts, recovery, and
the construction of the Miami Conservancy District dry dams for flood control,
including several pictures of Cox. (Author’s shameless marketing plug: Copies
are available directly from me for the cover price of $21.99 plus $4.00
shipping, complete with inscription of your choice; for details, e-mail me), or
order
from the publisher.
