Was in someone's locket. The chance of the locket still existing 80 years later is slim.

there's a reason you don't get invited to parties

to add to the bad party guests here

it was very likely in her own locket, and she put it there. If someone else got it, there is also a good chance they took her out of it, to reuse it.

Slimmer than the cut up photograph still existing?

How young does one need to be for this ancient internet zing to possibly mean something?

^ Spock's alt account caught violating the prime directive

Wh... who puts their own photo in a heart locket..?

She’s in a locket?!?? Someone has to help her!

Who else am I supposed to put in it?

So, it looks like that thread was nuked, and I only can reply to this because it was in my notifications. Weird how tripping through history is so sensitive about some light hearted stuff. Anyways...

Often someone will buy a locket, put their picture in it, then add a picture of someone they love. They either then wear it as a sign of that relationship, or gift it to the other person. Most of these lockets are not made by a third party and gifted to someone in the relationship, from someone outside of it. Sometimes there is only one person in the locket, and some sentimental writing, or something, on the other side, but the vast majority is two people, honoring some sort of relationship between the two.

Single-sided lockets were equally common, if not more, because they were usually cheaper.

I think single-sided ones were used more often for a romantic partner, while double-sided ones were used to hold photos of a person's parents or kids.

Allow me to clarify, I am speaking on the fact that it is A. a heart shaped one, and B. I am not being totally inclusive in my example which was only to demonstrate why a picture in a locket would likely have been put there by the person who's picture it is. Even in the case of a single sided locket, the picture in it would most likely be of the person who is giving the locket to another person as a gift. You would probably not wear a locket with only a picture of you in it. Exceptions apply, but they are not as common. One of the most common exceptions you brought up, a parent may put a photo, or photos, of their children in a locket they intend to wear, without a picture of themselves. However the majority of lockets are gifts. This isn't even to get into things like ones that had hair and finger nails, and shit in them, as those most of their popularity in the 20th century, which our example is from.

Ok, you are technically correct, but like, can't we have this one?

At one time, nearly everyone I knew wore one, either inherited from family or purchased for the purpose of putting a photo/memento into.

I don't think I've ever known anyone who received one, already filled, as a gift. That seems presumptuous.

I'm not doubting that it was done, but the idea that those were the majority seems unlikely to me based on my own experience.