The Fancy Dress Studio, Attilio Lipparini and Cesare Zucchi

Address:
(dates are approximate) 17 Gerrard Street, London (1901), 34 Tottenham Court Road (1905), 42 Tottenham Court Rd (1905-1911), 49 Tottenham Court Road (c.1910-1920s), 37 Oxford Street (1917-1921), 95, 97 and 99 Oxford Street (c.1916), 79C Tottenham Court Road (1922-1940), 233 Edgware Road (c.1920s), 470/472 Holloway Road Islington (1909), 5 High Street, Shoreditch, 378 Euston Road.

Possible practitioner: The names below have many variations in the records listed. These are shown throughout as they appeared in various records and have not been corrected. LIPPARINI, Attilio (various spellings of both names) (1865-1916), self styled "Cosmopolitan Photographer", also trading as the "Cosmo Penny Photo Co" at 42 Tottenham Court Road (1909), "Cosmopolitan Studio" and "Living Photo Co" at 378 Euston Rd (1908), "The One Studio" (around 1910) and "The Fancy Dress Studio" (1915-1920s). Listed in Michael Pritchard's Directory of London Photographers as LAPPARINI, Attilio at 42 Tottenham Court Rd 1903-08.
ZUCCHI, Cesare or CESARE, Zucchi or CESARE Zucchie or LIPPARINI, Cesare (1872-1957) Trading as "The Fancy Dress Studio" or "The Original Fancy Dress Studio" (1920s-1940s)

Operating dates:
Overall c.1901-1940s

References: We are most grateful to John Place for sharing his research into this firm and providing many of the references quoted in this article.

The business overall
On 25 March 1905 Attilio Lipparini of 34 Tottenham Court Road submitted to Stationers' Hall for copyright purposes a photograph of an old carte de visite, photograph of Charles Incledon, the Cornish tenor singer, from the painting by Sir T Lawrence. Copyright owner of work: Albert George Shelley Mayne, 34 Paris Street, Lambeth Palace Road, London. Copyright author of work: Atilio Lipparini, 34 Tottenham Court Road, London. TNA Copy 1/483/509. Shortly after, the firm was operating a few doors away with a studio at 42 Tottenham Court Road. He also worked outside his studio and on 7 January 1911 the Hackney Times reported (P5) that Mr A Lipparini of 42 Tottenham Court Road had photographed members of the Victoria Social Club at their annual dinner by "the flashlight process" (thanks to Charlotte Hume for this reference). The cabinet photo below of an unknown man is from this period. Strangely all the information about the firm printed on the rear of the mount is in German, suggesting that the studio attracted a German speaking clientele. The next image below is a little later, showing a carte de visite of an unknown lady, with the firm's address "The One Studio, 49 Tottenham Court Road". The reverse of the carte shows Lipparini as a "Cosmopolitan Photographer" speaking French, German and Italian.

Cabinet Photo by A Lipparini 42 Tottenham Court Road

Carte de visite by A Lipparini The One Studio 49 Tottenham Court Road.

The next cabinet photo of three unknown men shows that Lipparini expanded the business by opening a number of branches. The mount gives four addresses for the firm: 43 Tottenham Court Road (Head Studio) and branches at 5 High Street Shoreditch, 472 Holloway Rd and 378 Euston Road.

Thereafter this firm started to specialise in cheap high volume work. In 1909 Lipparini described his business as: "Penny photographs, sixpenny cabinets, and trade enlargements". In 1909 his 42 Tottenham Court Road Studio traded as the " Cosmo Penny Photo Co" ( Daily Mirror 23 Oct 1909 p16). His fliers offered "Your photo, taken for a penny, single or group". His penny photos were midget cartes and in 1909 his manageress claimed that they could sell over a thousand of these in a single week from one of their studios, (Sunday being their busiest day). For much of its operation the firm traded as "The Fancy Dress Studio" and its main product quickly became real photo postcard portraits, supplied in sets of six (of the same image). In most of these, job numbers printed on paper were captured in the image to match the customer's ticket and negatives were not retained. After a few years the firm's unique selling point offered sitters free use of fancy dress wigs and clothing and a wide range of props, including a field artillery piece, firearms, musical instruments, a full sized stuffed horse and a wigwam. The firm also offered, by mail, cheap sets of postcards copied from a customer's original photograph. For this reason it is not unusual to find that surviving postcards can be seen from the edges of the images to be postcards which have been re-photographed. The firm may have produced prints using strip printers, printing strips of half a dozen images on photographic card with pre-printed postcard backs. However, the odd example postcard portrait has been seen with the front and back well out of register, suggesting that at some point they were using rolls of pre-printed paper rather than strips.

The development of the business.
From surviving photographs, directory entries and newspaper advertisements, the name of Attilio LIPPARINI was associated with the early days of the firm, until he died in 1916 and that of Caesar ZUCCHI or Zucchi CESARE from around 1917-1940. Beyond that no other individuals have been identified as connected. These two photographers were from Italy. They were in England from at least 1900. It is not known for certain whether they brought photographic skills and experience with them or developed them after arriving in the UK.

Seen for sale on Ebay, Feb 2022, a set of three similarly styled cabinet photographs of the same family, a couple and one child in the first, and a couple with two children in the other two, probably taken a few years later. From the content and styles of these, they appear to be from the same studio, enabling us to link studio names and addresses. These would appear to date from around 1905-10. The first, on a brown card mount, under the image has the text "The One Studio" 49 Tottenham Court Road. On the reverse in the text "Cosmopolitan Photographer, A Lipparini, 49 Tottenham Court Road London, on parle Francais, man spricht Deutsch, si parla Italiano, open on Sundays". Beneath the text is a design which appears to be of a greeting card and a dinner plate. The other two cabinets, also on brown mounts have on the face art nouveau scrolling, with text in a scrolled box beneath the image "Fancy Dress Studio 95 97 Oxford Street and 49 Tottenham Court Road". The reverse on these two is blank. These show two different presentations of the same photograph. The family group of four are first shown in front of a crudely painted backcloth, showing an archway. In the second similar photo the whole background has been greyed-out by a re-toucher. The family appear in these photographs to be in their own clothing, rather than fancy dress. These would appear to be fairly standard commercial studio offerings, although by the time of the most recent pair of photos the studio name suggests that the fancy dress concept preceded specialising in cheap postcards.

It would appear that Lipparini also ventured into movie production, but this may have been shortlived. He was advertising a "Bioscope Business", with a photo studio in a main London thoroughfare for sale in the Stage, 9 January 1908 p28.

Also in 1908 Lipparini claimed to be unique in offering the public a "marvel in photography" in the form of cabinet sized photographs for just 6d, single portrait or groups, (Advert for studios at 378 Euston Rd & 42 Tottenham Court Rd; Marylebone Mercury 15 Feb 1908 p4)

We can get a good idea of how the business operated in 1909 from a court case reported in detail in the Islington Gazette 25 November 1909 (and set out below). In this Attilio was sued after he had set up a studio on the Holloway Road (No 472), sharing an entrance and staircase with an established barber. It was alleged that the badly behaving low class clientele flocking to the successful studio for their penny likenesses had effectively killed off the barber's business.

An advertisement in the Daily Mirror on Tuesday 8 October 1912 p.15 from an un-named photographic firm at 49 Tottenham Court Road, London, offered six postcards, copied from any photo, a life size portrait or 1 coloured miniature, all for 1 shilling. From this we can see the unknown studio developing a different postcard based business model. In The Era, Wednesday 7 April 1915 p17 they advertised "Wanted to buy, ladies second-hand stage dresses in good condition, 49 Tottenham Court road, W". Then, in The Stage, Thursday 6 May 1915, "Wanted boys' tunic suits, Indian girl and cowgirl dresses; second-hand, 49 Tottenham Court Road W"

The title of "The "Fancy Dress Studio" is first encountered in the press in an article in the Luton Times and Advertiser on Friday 22 October 1915 p5, which reported on a real photo portrait postcard from the studio having been found in France by a soldier on the battlefield. The studio address was given as "Tottenham Court Road" and the Mirror wanted to re-unite the postcard with the loved ones of the soldier who had carried it.

From this point on The Fancy Dress Studio regularly advertised in The Era and local newspapers in and near London. "Photographs. 6 Postcards 1s, Fancy Dress Studio 95, 97, 99 Oxford Street and 49 Tottenham Court Rd W. Large selection of fancy costumes free. Try one now. Open 10 to 10 every day." (The Era - Wednesday 19 January 1916 p27). By February 1917 the adverts contained a similar offering with "Your photo in a fancy dress or plain. Six postcards for 1/3d, 500 different dresses to select from, supplied free. The Fancy Dress Studios 37 Oxford Street London W. Near Tube, all busses pass the Studios. Open on Sundays" (West Middlesex Gazette, Thursday 1 February 1917 p4). By June 1917 six postcards were 1/6d and by Sept 1917 were 1/9d. By 1918 the firm was advertising more widely "6 postcards copied from any photo or one pendant coloured for 2/6d. The Fancy Dress Studios 37 Oxford Street". (for example, Cornish Guardian, Friday 07 June 1918 p7).
By 1919 the firm appeared to have been still offering portraits in fancy dress. In The Stage, Thursday 9 January 1919 p21 they advertised "Wanted second hand ladies wigs also fancy dresses, Must be cheap, 37 Oxford Street." No further advertisements have been found from the studio after this. It is interesting also that no wanted advertisements for staff have been found as conscription reduced the labour force for companies continuing in business during the war years. In 1921 Hughes Business Directory of London lists the Fancy Dress Studio at 37 Oxford Street and 49 Tottenham Court Rd.

A number of postcard portraits have been seen on Ebay with the reverse printed "The Original Fancy Dress Studio 79C Tottenham Court Road W and 233 Edgware Rd W1. Phone Museum 2356 for outdoor work. Please present photo for repeat copies. Our Fancy Dresses may be hired." The 1939 Register shows master photographer ZUCCHI Cesare or CESARE Zucchi b 16.4.1872 living at 79C Tottenham Court Road. Resident at the same address was the artist singer, Ike Hatch. Also at the same address was another couple: William Beazley b 1898, caterer and his wife, Rosina E Beazley, b Lipparini 190, believed to be Lipparini's daughter and her husband.

More on the photographers behind the business.

The earliest newspaper record of Attilio Lipparini found to date is from The People 5 August 1900 p.10. This is the report of an inquest into the sad death of 5 month old Eleanor Violet Woodland. Eleanor was the illigitimate daughter of Albilio [sic] Lipparini, whose occupation was shown as a waiter. The family lived in Fitzroy Street (another report on the inquest gave their full address as 5 Fitzroy Street). Attilio had brought from abroad a packet of cantharides powder (Spanish fly), an aphrodisiac. He and his partner both consumed some of this powder in a cup of tea. Later the mother unknowingly passed on a fatal dose of the compound in her breast milk which caused the child's death within a few days. A verdict of Death By Misadventure was recorded. Given his occupation as a waiter in 1900 may suggest that it is unlikely that Attilio was a skilled photographer when he first came to Britain.

In the 1901 census, Allelio Lipparine, b 1864 in Italy, was a photographer, working for someone else from his home at 17 Gerrard Street, London (an address occupied by three households). Living with him was Cesare ZUCCI, a boarder, b 1873 in Italy, occupation - waiter. Also in the same household was Elizabeth M Woodland, a boarder, b 1873 London, Holbourn, no occupation shown.

1905 and 1910 Post Office Directories list LAPPARINI, Attilio, as a photographer at 42 Tottenham Court Road.

In the 1911 Census, Attilio LIPPARINI b 1866 Italy, a photographer and Italian National, was living at 42 Tottenham Court Road, a widower, working on his own account from home. At the same address, assisting in the business, was his younger brother Cesare LIPPARINI b 1872, also an Italian National. Attilio's 9 year old daughter, Queenie, born in London, also lived at the same address. In addition they had a boarder, a 33 year old waiter, from Luxembourg. The 1911 Census Summary Book shows 42 Tottenham Court Road as a photographers, occupied by C. LIPPARINI. In 1916 Q1, LIPPARANI, Atilio, aged 51 (b.1865) died at St Giles London.

Were Attilio and Cesare brothers, was there some misunderstanding by the census enumerator (s) or did Cesare change his name or deliberately cause confusion? Even after death there was confusion. The 1957 Probate Calendar, shows Cesare's death on 24 Jan 1957 at Nunnery Fields Hospital Canterbury, recording his name as CESARE, Zucchi or ZUCCHIE, Cesare, of 3a Beer Cart Lane Canterbury.

Islington Gazette - Thursday 25 November 1909 p2

CLERKENWELL COUNTY COURT. Yesterday, before His Honour Judge Bray.

CHEAP PHOTOGRAPHY IN HOLLOWAY.

An action was brought by James McCombie, tailor, 470 and 472, Holloway Road, Islington, against A.Lipparini, photographer, of 42, Tottenham Court Road, W.C., for £7O, as damages for an alleged nuisance and breach of agreement.

Mr. Eldridge, counsel for plaintiff, said his client had a lease of the premises 470 and 472 Holloway Road. The premises were two houses which adjoined each other. The ground floors were used as shops, and the two upper floors, approached by a common entrance and common staircase, were let out. The first floor on one side was let to the defendant, and that on the other side was let to a hairdresser named Osterman. In the covenant was a clause that Osterman should have quiet enjoyment of his occupancy.

It was on the 2nd of October last that the first floor on the other aide was let to defendant, who entered into a covenant that he would not do anything which would become a nuisance or annoyance to the landlord or his other tenants. Defendant carried on the business of a photographer, and in November Mr Osterman complained to plaintiff of the way the photography business was being carried on. Plaintiff cautioned defendant, but the nuisance still continued, as the result of the way in which defendant carried on his business. On his handbills defendant announced to the public, "Your photo, taken for a penny, single or group." The result of taking penny photographs, continued counsel, was that numbers of people, children and young men and women, congregated round the place, and blocked up the staircase. They would sit on the stairs, eating their food, or they would be playing about. The result was that Mr Osterman's customers had a difficulty in getting to his saloon. Sometimes the boys and girls would open the door of his saloon and call out "Come and have a shave" or "Get your hair cut". The result of the nuisance continuing was that Mr. Osterman's business practically disappeared, and he sued plaintiff for £115 damages. An examination of his books showed that there had been such serious diminution in his takings that when the proceedings were commenced Mr. McCombie thought it desirable to pay something into Court. He paid in £2O, and this, together with rent due him from Mr Osterman, made a total £36.18s in respect of the action. The money was taken out of Court by Mr. Osterman in satisfaction, and the action was not proceeded with. Plaintiff now claimed to recover from defendant in respect of the loss he had sustained through defendant’s breach of his tenancy agreement.

Plaintiff gave evidence in support of his case. He said that in addition to the money paid into Court in respect of Mr. Osterman’s action, he had paid his (plaintiff's) solicitor £l5 12s 8d costs in connection with that action. Defendant surrendered the premises, and he (plaintiff) had paid costs connection with that surrender amounting to £3 6s. After Mr Osterman left, the premises were empty for a month, and he had lost rent to the amount of £5.

In cross-examination, plaintiff said that before defendant took his premises, they were let to a photographer. He had no complaint whatever about that tenant. Evidence was given by plaintiff's manager of 470, Holloway Road. He said that the photographer who preceded defendant carried on a rather high-class business. (Note: The previous occupier of this studio was John Lysnar HUNTLY, who was there from 1904) Regarding defendant's business, witness used to see a number of people coming there. They were poor-class people. Sometimes he had to turn the gas off at night, because defendant’s customers would gather in front of plaintiff’s window and block it up in order to look at their photographs.

Mr. Valetta (counsel for defendant) — Did you think that people would drive up in motor-cars to have penny photographs taken? No, but I did not think they would come in egg-boxes on wheels, as some did. (Laughter.)

Mr. Osterman, in evidence, said the defendant's customers ran up and downstairs shouting and laughing. That caused witness great annoyance. He had been at the premises about eighteen months before the defendant came, and had been doing a good class of business. His charges were 2d. for a shave and 4d. for a haircut. Sometimes the boys and girls coming to defendant's place would come up the stairs in batches of nearly a dozen. They were laughing and shouting, and would sometimes call out, "Get your hair cut.” (Laughter) His customers complained. Once he saw some of defendant’s customers eating fried fish and potatoes on the stairs. (Laughter)

Replying to counsel, witness said his customers began to drop off, and his takings were less and less from week to week, and it got so bad that he was not clearing his expenses. His books showed that his takings dropped from about £7 per week to £2 10s. It was because of the difficulty they found in getting to his shop, through people being on the stairs, that his customers stayed away.

Mr. Valetta — You knew that this staircase was only three feet wide when you took these premises. Yes. Does not your complaint really come to this, that Mr. Lipparini became a very successful cheap photographer? He had a great number of customers. Supposing he had one person go up every hour of the day, would that have been objectionable to you? He could not have carried on long with that number. I quite agree, but suppose he had a business that would just keep him, would that have been objectionable? It would be objectionable from the way these customers went on. Supposing they had come to your place for a shave before being photographed. Would you then object? — They could not afford to pay 2d. for shaving and 4d. for haircutting before going to be photographed. (Laughter) Then there were a lot of girls who went be photographed. You don’t shave girls. (Laughter) Do you suggest that you had a right to say that Mr. Lipparini should cry halt at a certain stage of his success? I suggest that he should not have come here at all.

Two witnesses, who were customers to Mr. Osterman, gave evidence in support of plaintiff's case. The Judge — Did Mr. Osterman open his shop on Sundays? Mr Eldridge—No. But Sunday was a very busy day for defendant, and the consequences of so many people coming on Sundays was that they had to call in the week for their photographs.

Defendant, in evidence, said the business he carried on was that of penny photographs, sixpenny cabinets, and trade enlargements. Before be took the premises a representative from Plaintiff called upon him at his place in Tottenham Court Road, so he could have seen the class of business carried on. Mr Valetta - What sort of people are your customers? — They are a poor class of people, but they are all right. When Mr. Osterman complained, added defendant, he engaged a porter and made his light stronger. Sunday was his busiest day. People called for their photographs during the week. Replying to Mr. Eldridge, defendant said that one Sunday be took 560 midgets and two cabinets, on another Sunday 576 midgets, and on another Sunday 654. In one week, including Sunday, the total was 1,025. The total of 654 midgets would not represent that number of customers, because many would have six, eight, or a dozen photographs. The customers would come downstairs quietly unless the barber insulted them.

Do you say there was no noise? I don't call it noise. Defendant's manageress said that Mr Osterman was often rough towards the customers. Mr. Eldridge — Why should he be rough towards them? — Because the customers would stop at the top of the stairs to look at their photos. When he was rough the customers would give him a nasty answer. To get a correct number of people who called said another witness, the total number of photographs should be divided by three.

Joseph Plant, defendant's porter, said he had trouble with the barber, owing to the way he went on at people as they were leaving the studio.

In cross-examination by Mr. Eldridge, witness said that he had to "accommodate" one or two of the boys who came there. What did you accommodate them with, a stick? — No, with my hand. Mr. Valetta — During the five months, you were there you had only to roughly handle two youths? —That is so. Two customers, in evidence, said the barber abused them on the landing.

At the close, his Honour said he would reserve judgment.

Postcard portrait of two young ladies from the One Studio at 49 Tottenham Court Road. c.1910,The reverse, shown below, is clearly the same design, as well as the same address as the Fancy Dress Studio. Note the job number bottom left. The top edge suggests that this may be a copy of an original postcard.

Fancy dress postcard portrait of an exhausted soldier and a young woman posing with a field gun. This is from the Fancy Dress Studio 37 Oxford Street and has been dated in manuscript 28/8/1917. Presumably seen as a patriotic display rather than portraying the horrors of WW1. There is no job number visible in this image - so was it perhaps a promotional item rather than a customer's image?

Portrait of an unknown lady called Becky, see the job number on the base of the table. From the appearance of the top edge of this image it would appear to be a copy of another postcard. The reverse is shown below - address 37 Oxford St, possibly 1917-21. Reproduced with the kind permission of Ron Cosens www.cartedevisite.co.uk

Portrait of an unknown man seated at a piano. Note the job number on the floor. The reverse of the postcard is below, address shown is 37 Oxford Street. From the top and bottom edges this would appear to be a copy of a postcard print. Reproduced with the kind permission of Ron Cosens www.cartedevisite.co.uk

A group of three in wild west fancy dress with teepee prop. Note the job number on the floor. The reverse is shown below - address 95,97,99 Oxford Street dated around 1916. Reproduced with the kind permission of Ron Cosens www.cartedevisite.co.uk

Portrait of a man, named on reverse Emile Braus. Purchased in Spain - the studio would have been an attraction to visitors to London. The reverse is below, the studio address is 49 Tottenham Court Road, c. 1910s-1920s. The job number is on the floor, bottom left.

Top of page