|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:17 am: |       |
Caz,
That's an interesting idea in regards to the business cards. I don't know what the custom would have been in regards to storage of them.
I did a bit of quick searching and found a few interesting links regarding them and their usage. (I believe these links are probably referring to New York society. However they're still interesting reading.)
http://www.victoriana.com/library/ccard2.html
http://www.victoriana.com/library/ccard.html
http://jbuechel.tripod.com/informational_pages/what_is_a_calling_card.htm
Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
It would be helpful to know the orientation of the 3 1/2" x 2 1/2" rectangles in the Diary. ie., are the long edges verticle or horizontal in relationship to the spine? Or is it a mix? Also: did Baxendale give any further details of the material in the gutter that contained bone-black? I suspect this residue might be related to the items once mounted in the journal. RP |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Paul,
The impressions were found on the first existing page. But they were made by photos, cards or whatever that were mounted on the "first, now missing page". They placed pressure on the first existing page to form the impressions which are visible with ultraviolet light. As far as I know, there hasn't been any research done, or explanation made of how long it would have taken such impressions to form.
I believe that in his examination Voller felt what he believed to be glue on top of the ink. But at what point in the diary that was isn't recorded as far as I know. Nor were any additional tests performed to verify what it actually was, or from what period it was from.
Regards,
John |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Paul and Edgar,
My understanding is that the pages were cut out, but not surgically. Apparently their removal was described by a bookbinder friend of Donald Rumbelow's as being "hacked out by a barbarian."
Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Hi John (O),
I’ve only just seen Robert’s challenge (timed at 8.40 am), regarding evidence claimed on the boards but not produced. This used to be one of your pet hates. I recall vividly all those references to the sacred Kane relics, for example, that were claimed to be clear evidence by people who failed to produce them. Those references must still be around somewhere.
Incidentally, I first checked all the Maybrick posts this morning and I also happened to look at the ‘user list’, noting that you had accessed the boards at 7am. So at least you were able to go away for more than ‘a moment’ before being ‘invoked’ – three hours to be precise.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Hi John (H),
Thanks for the links. I’ll take a look in a mo as soon as I’ve posted this.
The impressions in the diary are apparently visible to the naked eye as well and have therefore always been known about, before the first tests were conducted.
Hi RJ,
Wasn’t it Dr. Eastaugh who found the material that contained bone-black? Anyway, I think you’ll find more details in Inside Story.
I don’t know why I didn’t think to check this out before, but my late mum left me a beautiful old album of family photos, with a mother-of-pearl cover. I have it in front of me now. It measures approximately 6 by 4 and a half inches and contains 50 photos, mostly taken in the 1860s, 70s and 80s. They all measure approximately 3 and a half inches by 2 and a half inches.
If anyone would like to nominate a trustworthy witness who will be at the next main C&D meeting in April, I’ll be glad to take the album along and show them its impeccable provenance.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Precision might be important. I believe the true size of the mid 19th Century cart de visite photograph (before mounting) was 3 1/2 by 2 1/4, sometimes misreported as 2 1/2". The later Brownie photographs were slightly wider. Tell me, if anyone knows, does the corner discovered by Dr. Baxendale still exist? As Mr. Smith noted, I think an expert in early photography would be helpful here. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Robert,
I'd glad to help in any way I can as always. I prefer a productive discussion.
John O.,
I really hate to say it, but you brought this one on yourself when you offered to provide the names initially. Robert is well within his rights to do so after you made the offer.
As far "adventures with lawyers and lawsuits" go, I would think anyone simply offering a professional (or non-professional) opinion regarding the diary should be quite safe from such worries. I know that you had an... er... unpleasant experience, however that wasn't related to your opinions of the diary but of the personalities involved. That's one of the reasons I preferred to move the discussion back onto the diary itself. There are many experts who've rung in against the diary (Rendell, Nickell, Iremonger, Douglas, etc) and they seem to go on living fairly normal lives. (At least I hope they do.)
I'm bringing this up primarily, because I wouldn't want any of our new posters to think that they should have to fear any legal danger from simply voicing their opinion on the diary itself, pro or con. As I am sure Caz will attest to, I've been flapping my jaw about the diary for some years now and I've never had any such unpleasantness.
Have fun grading papers and we'll be here when you get back.
Regards,
John |
Robert Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
John Omlor,
To state the obvious:
1. My only challenge is for you to offer the “clear evidence”, which you claimed to possess in a post on 3rd February 2004, and which, you say, has been supported by about ten PhDs.
2. You ignored my proposal, that you pass the names and credentials of the PhDs to John Hacker, and to Chris George, who kindly confirmed he would be happy to receive them from you. So there is no need for you to issue your dire warnings about me to the PhDs.
3. There was no lawsuit, either actual or threatened, not even a lawyer’s letter from me. I did express my concerns to you and Stephen Ryder over a number of unfortunate comments you had made about me on the boards. Stephen dealt with my complaint in a professional and gentlemanly manner, and that was the end of the matter, as far as I was concerned.
Why is this so difficult for you? Just provide the “clear evidence” and the details of the PhDs, who support it.
If there is no “clear evidence”, but you are simply referring to your opinions already expressed on the boards over the last two years or so, then just say so, and depart in peace.
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 195
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 5:45 pm: | |
Sigh.
More e-mail in my box.
More silliness here.
So let's just go one at a time, noticing how quickly the level of rational discourse concerning all of this has disintegrated around here.
Caz, I'm not the only one who uses this account -- so nice job of spying, but it means nothing, especially since my office-mate at work often reads this stuff on my dime as well. I did not know of any of Robert's little challenges until I got e-mail about them and I posted my response.
John, first of all, I said, the very first time I ever mentioned giving Robert or anyone else involved the names of my colleagues, that I would do so only with their permission. Go back and check. I don't see that as "setting myself up" for anything since that is still my position.
As far as lawsuits go, I am certainly not going to detail my own unfortunate experience here on the boards (if for no other reason than I certainly don't want poor Stephen to get yet another threatening letter about legal action). Suffice to say, I know exactly what happened to me and exactly what I'm talking about and I know exactly what I'll tell my colleagues about the person they would be dealing with eventually and his past habits, not only with me but with others.
Robert -- Once again, to begin with, I refer you to the information I posted on Crashaw and the canon which can be found on the archive CD in some detail. It itself certainly offers clear historical evidence about the place of Crashaw, his readerhsip at the time, his rediscovery in the 20th Century by Eliot and others, and a number of other sound historical and literary reasons why the real James Maybrick was not citing him in this book or any other.
As to what you might think constitutes "clear evidence," that's an entirely different matter, and one that I have little or no doubts about. And, to be very frank, I don't particularly care what constitutes "clear evidence" for you, since I have no doubt whatsoever about your own desires. Nothing I might write here, now or in the future is likely to qualify. I am at least sure of that, based on past and present experience.
And I'm certainly not going to cite publicly the legal language that was used to threaten and intimidate me in the past about the diary issue and my statements concerning it. Those interested can send me private e-mail and I will be more than happy to forward to them all of the relevant messages complete with all the relevant legal threats. Many people have already received these mails and have seen the language for themselves. They can, if they choose, spread the posts and the history.
Finally, these people I am citing are my colleagues, and in many cases, my friends, and I certainly feel some responsibility to tell them, before they are named within what is certainly not their fight, my own estimation of how their work might be treated, what they might be in for, and the character of the person they might be dealing with as I have experienced it first hand. Anything less would be irresponsible on my part.
Conclude from that whatever you'd like, Robert. If they still have no problems with what I tell them and they want to get involved, you'll get their names from me or e-mails from them. If they decide this is something they are not interested in going through, I will respect their decision. I don't know how I can be any more fair than that to them.
Why this is still a question, when I have already said clearly and repeatedly that I would speak to them and get their response, remains a mystery.
In any case, I'm sure I'll get called back here, since this is clearly not about the diary anymore but about something else, something much less pleasant.
Until then, all the best to you all,
--John
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2958
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
J. Omlor and R. Smith -
You've each had your say, now take it to email.
John Hacker and others have worked very hard to keep the diary threads subject-oriented and civilized. Discuss the diary. If you want to take stabs at each other, do it in email or at another site.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 8:24 am: | |
Hi Caz
Going back to your question about business cards, there would indeed have been standard sizes, the following is quoted from a book published by the National Association of Paper Merchants in 1955, but I dare say sizes would not have altered much.
"VISTING AND BUSINESS CARDS
Ivory board should be used for the production of visiting cards and the method of reproduction will, in general, be determined by the purpose of the card.
Visiting cards are produced in a variety of sizes, each with a distinctive name:
Large...3 x 4.1/2inches Town...2 x 3 inches
Small...2.3/8 x 3.5/8 Extra Thirds...1.3/4 x 3 inches. Thirds...1.1/2 x 3 inches"
With regard to photographic sizes, these would most probably be as follows;
Whole Plate...6.1/2 x 8.1/2
Half Plate...4.1/4 x 6.1/2
Quarter Plate...3.1/4 x 4.1/4.
These sizes refer to the glass plates commonly used at the time, paper prints being the same size as the glass negative; enlargements did not come in until about the 1890's. Also it might be worth remembering that George Eastman produced the first roll film in 1888 so some time after that, other sizes would become more common.
Sorry for boring you.
John Savage
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Dear Caz, Robert and anyone else interested.
I found this photograph amongst my family possessions. Its my Great great great Grandmother, Mary Kernick, who lived quite close to where Florrie stayed on her release from prison.
The picture was taken in the 1880s I believe, and is 3 1/2" by 2 1/2" excluding the mount.
This would appear to show that the impressions in the diary are OK for an 1888 date.
Anyhow, you can judge for yourselves, but the "Aesthetic" style of the mount seems to be about right for the 1880s too.
Regards
Paul Stephen
  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 4:36 am: | |
Hi RJ, Paul, John Savage, Robert Smith, John Hacker,
I do agree that precision is important regarding the impressions left in the diary.
All we have from Baxendale, I believe, is that the rectangular impressions are ‘approximately’ 2 and a half by 3 and a half inches, which turns out not to be too helpful, so perhaps Robert Smith would be able to measure them more precisely for us.
The majority of my mum’s old photos (from the 1860s and 70s) are pretty much exactly like the one Paul has kindly shown us (only not nearly as pretty  ).
Over the weekend I had a look at all my old family photos and the majority taken between 1918 and 1939 (ie between the wars) measured exactly 2 and a quarter by 3 and a quarter inches. One at most during this period was the apparently ‘popular’ size of 2 and a half by 3 and a half, but I’ll check again later to make sure.
Love,
Caz
PS RJ, I meant to add, Baxendale found a fragment of paper lodged in the binding of the diary, reporting that it had straight edges and was 'similar' in length (yes, frustrating, isn't it?) to one dimension of the rectangular stains, and was coated in the glue-type material. 'It could well be the torn edge of a small photograph'.
I don't know where 'corner' came in, and the fragment, I believe, was unfortunately lost.
(Message edited by caz on February 16, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Mr. Stephen---Excuse me, here, but, assuming that the 'Victorian' photograph that you've posted above is in scale, it has a length of 4" (or probably 4 1/4" which was the standard length). How is it 3 1/2 by 2 1/2 at any rate, since, regarless of the scale it doesn't conform to these dimensions? I don't know what we'll find. We might find, in the end, that the rectangles are consistant with either a Victorian scrapbook or with the 1920s. But the starting point must be a precise description of what Baxendale found. All the best, RP |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Paul,
Thanks for posting the photos, but I have to agree with R.J. that if the aspect ratio is right, they can't be 3 1/2 by 2 1/2. It's more like 3 1/2 by 2 1/5 including the mount. (So it's actually slightly narrower than 2 1/5)
The pictures could certainly date to the 1880s though. Here's an entry in the 1891 census for the photographer and his family:
96,32 River St,1,Edwin J Ellery,Head,M,36,,Photographer,Employer,Plymouth Devon,
,,,Sarah Ellery,Wife,M,,37,,,Truro Cornwall,
,,,B. Mary Ellery,Dau,,,10,Scholar,,Truro Cornwall,
,,,Flossie M. Ellery,Dau,,,8,Scholar,,Truro Cornwall,
,,,May C. Ellery,Dau,,,5,Scholar,,Truro Cornwall,
,,,Edwin G. Ellery,Son,,3,,,,Truro Cornwall,
,,,Claude S Ellery,Son,,1,,,,Truro Cornwall,
,River St,n,,,, ,,,, ,
It can be found at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~kayhin/1829c.html
Regards,
John
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
Blimey RJ and John H……
I didn’t actually expect anyone to measure the darned thing. I did that bit myself without much problem. The answer is simple. My first attempt to post the jpeg failed so I had to trim it down and repost. In doing so I didn’t keep the aspect ratio as I should have done.
Should have known better with you chaps on the look out shouldn’t I? ...… ...Sorry!
It is 2 ½” X 3 ½” excluding the mount, no doubt about it.
Something else that occurred to me whilst looking through old photos, is that between the wars, some but not all, had a white narrow border all around where the paper was held in the enlarger. But I suppose if the fragment from the diary is now lost we will never know if that was the case with the torn corner that was once there.
Regards
Paul
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:28 pm: | |
Paul--Sorry to persist here, but I have to confirm John's statement and say that the ratio is wrong. I took your jpeg and reduced it until the long edge of the photo was 3 1/2". This made the width of the photo 2 1/4". It also made the mount 4" x 2 1/2". So, in otherwords, what we are looking at is a carte-de-visite, a popular photograph since the mid-1850s. (See the link to "Dating Photography" under my post on Tuesday, Feb 10th. above.) Unfortunately, an album full of carte-de-visite shots similar to the one you have kindly posted couldn't explain the rectangle impressions found by Baxendale--- as those impressions would be--quite naturally--4" x 2.5". RP |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
Paul,
I'm certainly not going to dispute you if you say that you reduced the pictures and lost the aspect ratio, but I must confess I'm curious as to how you did it and what tool was used?
When I checked the size, I didn't measure them, reduce them, or anything like that. I simply loaded them into Microsoft Photodraw which reads that information independently of the pixel count. It's stored in the original .JPG image.
The first picture showed up as:
Inches - 2.21 Wide X 3.53 High (AR of 1:1.597)
Pixels - 212 X 339
The second picture showed up as:
Inches - 3.65 Wide X 2.33 High (AR of 1.566:1)
Pixels - 350 X 224
The ratios of the 2 pictures remain almost identical. (The differences being explicable by the extra framing in pic 2)
For purposes of example I also checked a photo I took with my digital camera it came out as:
Inches - 4.27 Wide X 3.20 High (AR of 1.33:1)
Pixels - 1280 X 960
I'm sure if you originally measured the photo physically, your measurements were correct. But I've played with scanners, cameras, and digital photo editing tools for a while now and haven't seen one that will lose the AR and still update the internal size info like that before. So I'm just a bit curious as to the tools used to obtain and scale the image because usually the information stored in the .JPG is a reliable indicator of it's proper size.
Warm regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 8:12 am: | |
Thought this might be helpful. "The carte de visite image and card stock were both made to a standard size. The dimensions of the standard carte de visite mounting card were 2 1/2 x 4 inches. The standard dimensions of the carte de visite photograph (the image or print itself) were 2 1/8 x 3 1/2 inches and determined by the method used to create the negative. Once commercial suppliers began producing cards, the image had to be trimmed to the card size. Most cartes de visite photographs were carelessly trimmed when separated from the master print, so individual images often vary from the standard dimensions. You'll see cards with prints mounted at a slight angle or an angled cut on the bottom or top of the print. Because the cards were manufactured their dimensions are relatively uniform compared to the images. However, an examination of surviving cartes suggests that dimensions varied slightly for various reasons." ---City Gallery website.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 740
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Hi All,
If Baxendale was only able to ascertain the approximate dimensions of the missing photos or cards from the rectangular impressions they left, we are still at square one.
We have RJ’s info that the dimensions of these older images and cards could vary slightly for various reasons. And I have my between-the-wars shots (from both my mum and dad’s individual family collections, taken before they met), most of which measure a regular 2 and a quarter by 3 and a quarter inches.
If the diary did contain photos of this size, Baxendale nevertheless failed to come up with a more precise measurement than approximately 2 and a half by 3 and a half inches, which reasonably describes the dimensions of the images in my mum’s old album, which were taken between 1860 and 1890.
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:06 am: | |
Caz,
I don't see that we're necessarily at square one. The impressions still exist, and can still be accurately measured with precision.
As they are apparently visible on the first existing page, Robert Smith should be able to do the job with a ruler. That should eliminate the "approximately" all-together.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Dear RJ, John and Co.
I'm sorry, but I can use a ruler, and to be absolutely precise it's 2 7/16" wide to the edge of the photo itself.
The card mount is just under 2 5/8" X 4 1/8".
I have two other prints obviously from the same negative and they are both different sizes to this one, and have both clearly been trimmed. One is in an oval mount, and the other has been glued into an album at some time and is therefore not mounted.
I too have checked the site you visited RJ, and the Antiques roadshow site as well. It seems this mount is of a non typical size, probably being Cornish, (Joke), as is the photograph. The standard for a Carte de visite is given there as 2 1/8" wide.
Just to confuse things a bit further, my photo has clearly been trimmed if you look closely, as the sides aren't entirely true, so it was a little bigger still at some point.
As Caz has confirmed, she too has photos of the same period or earlier which broadly fit Baxendale's "approximate" measurements.
Perhaps it would now be best to wait and find out what the exact measurements of the impressions in the diary are, and then get measuring our family photo collections again.
Incidentally, I have several hundred photos from between the wars, and those that I can date accurately to the 1920s are all 2 3/8" X 3 3/8" exactly, except for two.
regards
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Paul,
As I said, I have no doubt in your ability to use a ruler. I was just curious as to the software tools used.
However your further posting clarifies the issue completely. You were measuring the photographic portion, and the .jpg image represents the photo plus the mount.
A mount of 2.625 Wide X 4.125 High gives an AR of 1:1.57 which is what my original calculations gave me. I had assumed (obviously incorrectly) that the mount was a separate (un-pictured) piece which locked the photo in by using "corner covers", which are what I've always used. Sorry for the confusion.
However this does raise an interesting issue in that the the impressions of approx 2.5 X 3.5 in the diary would include the mount if any. I don't know enough about photography of that era to know if photographs were typically mounted when taken and sold.
The edge that Baxendale found in the binding was similar in length to one of the dimensions of the impressions, so it's certainly a pity that it has been lost, because it could probably tell us if it were the edge of a photograph or of mounting material.
Regards,
John
(Message edited by jhacker on February 17, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 742
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
Hi John H,
I hope you are right to be optimistic, but I got the impression (no pun intended) from Robert Smith that the precise dimensions of the original items the diary contained would not necessarily be ascertained from trying to measure, more precisely than Baxendale managed, the apparently very old-looking, bit-fuzzy-round-the-edges but broadly rectangular-shaped impressions that have survived. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, we may be at square one and one eighth now.
Anyway, let’s wait until we hear more from Robert about these impressions and what they may accurately tell us about the nature of the missing items.
We only appear to have vague impressions at best at the moment – possibly literally.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on February 17, 2004) |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
