This is a most riveting subject, and a most interesting thread. I think there is a little bit of truth in many of the posts so far and I've changed my mind on this one at least five times. The actual print inside the frame gave me the impression of a photograph because of the fine white line like old photos get when they are damaged. That being said, one can take a photo of a drawing and parts of this picture are without a doubt hand rendered including the background and that could very well be a studio backdrop. My impression at this point is that this is likely a studio portrait and that it is in essence a composite with the facial features being the true rendering off a negative and the rest a lot of touch up and very poorly executed outright embellishment. If you'd like to see an example of a turn of the century hand painted studio backdrop, I can show you a large portrait of my great-grandfather and his brother sitting in a real chair, but with a very fake staircase behind them. LOL It was not an unusual practise, clear on up to the forties and fifties for some photographers to take portraits in black and white and hand tint and retouch them in the dark room. It wasn't because of the cameras not being able to, but the studios having the equipment to develop them. So seeing 'sketch marks' doesn't prove anything but the skill of the craftsman who took and developed the portrait because you're just as likely to see the editing on a real photograph as not. I have a portrait of my g'grandmother I'm inserting here because judging by her age it would have been taken about 1918-20. It has been hand tinted, and if you look at her blouse, it has obviously been hand retouched for detail and the bottom darkened out to extend the photo as much as possible to the paper to fill it. I think this is what happened to the boy's dress......it was probably enhanced by hand and the chair by imagination and lack of artistic ability. Even poor people scrounged up the money for portraits in the old days, God knows my ancestors weren't rich people and we have them to pass along. But they certainly were special enough not to be done on a whim. One portrait my g'parents had taken in the twenties was of my little aunt who was expected to die at birth, but lived until two years. So, they coughed up the money, even with ten kids, to have a portrait taken of her. I'm no expert and I'm not pretending to be but before I'd blow this one off as a fake, I'd have it checked out. Regardless of how it pans out, and even if it turns out to be a Cracker Barrel nostalgia shot..........it's a Jim Dandy and worth hanging on a wall just to see the mug on that kid.

Posting picutres is easy - not quite as easy as "cut and paste" but here is how. I use TinyPic- it is part of Photobucket and is also free - but you do not have to register. The photo's will not be stored indefinately - but will be there as long as they are viewed by people. It is the ideal place to host a picture if you just want to add something to your post. If you want to keep the pictures and repost them from time to time you may want to use Photobucket. You will see a box on the TinyPic page that says "BROWSE" - this will allow you to find the picture on your computer. You do not need to add anything in the "OPTIONAL TAG" box Then you will hit the button that says "HOST" - if the file size is too large - it will automatically resize it. If you are on dial-up this may take a few moments. Then a new screen will come up - and it will have 4 lines. The one that says "TAG" is the one you need to post a picture in a post on these sites (GardenWeb, That Home Site) Click on it so it is highlighted, then "right click" and "copy". Paste that line in your message and your picture will show up when you preview your post. We love pictures in posts!! Here is a link that might be useful: TinyPic

I am not a fan of collapsing the frames because you almost always disturb the flashing and there is no way to fix it. This is especially critical if your home gets a lot of weather. My vote is for the second company. Just be sure they tie into your old flashing and use compatible materials (flashing and caulk). Follow the ASTM and AAMA Installation Masters guidelines and you wouldn't go wrong.

I don't have a picture yet (we are actually in escrow on this house, so it isn't really mine to snoop around in with a camera yet). If it helps, it is a 1950's rancher in California. Some of the windows have divided lites. Yes, they are metal frames (with the exception of two huge plate glass picture windows, which are installed right into the walls). I asked Installer #1 to explain his process more. He isn't talking about doing a tear down to the studs (as I understand it, that is how new construction windows are installed). But he does remove the frames. He said (a) that means you don't lose as much glass, and (b) you get a better fit and seal. He also said that since my windows were 50+ years old that they had a crappy seal by now anyway, so retaining the frame wouldn't help with the seal. He said he could leave the frame in if I wanted to, but that that was a chintzier way of doing it. Thanks for your input.