|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:54 am: |       |
Hi Paul, John,
Calm down you two. This has been an enlightening and interesting discussion so far. I would get far more tetchy than Paul if I had 25 years experience in a trade and was being told by someone who didn’t that I was wrong and they were right. C’mon John. Surely you can imagine how this must feel. I think Paul has stayed amazingly cool, considering how everyone has just been ignoring some of his observations, like it being a man’s watch for example.
Thanks, John, by the way, for explaining about the top layer of copper oxide taking 45 minutes to etch away before the zinc oxide was finally revealed. I think I get the idea now. So you reckon a forger knew the brass tool he used just for the ‘M.K’ might leave particles behind, so he used vinegar to artificially age any such particles? What about all the other tools he used for the other scratches? They apparently didn't leave any detectable particles behind, but presumably the forger used vinegar just in case?
Incidentally, I keep hearing about the scratches being made in gold, but I was under the impression that the inner surface with the scratches is not solid gold, but gold-coated silver, and that the scratches went through the top layer of gold and right into the silver.
Am I wrong? And would it make any difference if I’m right?
Thanks again.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on February 25, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi again Paul,
Actually, yes, it is the end of the world for many people if they have to admit the scratches could have been made decades ago. They might then be forced to reassess their theory that the diary is a modern hoax, brilliant or shabby.
I sense people reaching for the smelling salts already. 
Love,
Caz
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
Caz,
I am not disputing Paul's experience in any way, shape, or form. He's contributing some valuable information to the thread and seems to be a good guy.
I'm sorry if he feels people are ignoring his observations. I haven't been. Particularly in regards to the "sex" of the watch. I've heard differing opinions on it from various investigators and people who have seen the watch throughout the years and the general consensus I've heard suggested it was a ladies watch.
Additionally, from period photographs I have it looks more consistent with it being a ladies watch than a mans. This is not an expert opinion, just an observation I made years ago. And it's been lurking in my mind for years that it probably was a ladies watch.
However since Paul has started posting regarding the "sex" of the watch, I've been trying to research the specific watchmakers with no luck thus far to see if I could verify it. I don't accept any expert opinions at face value I fear, but I attempt to understand and independently confirm the claims. It's actually a fair measure of the respect I have for him that I've been devoting my time to looking into it.
Paul may be an expert in clock repair, but I've looked into the mechanics of forgery for several years now, and while I may not be an "expert" I do know what I am talking about. And incidentally, I've NEVER said that my suggested hoaxing method was fact. I've simply said it was possible, and I've got no beef with anyone who doesn't agree with me. That's cool with me.
But when Paul was complaining that John Omlor was preaching at him (and rightly so), I went to bat for the side of politeness. I somewhat resent being preached at, and being accused of spreading "misinformation" under the circumstances. I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just trying to point out that it's a two way street. That's all. If we're going to maintain a polite discussion here, we all need to pitch in.
Maybe I phrased it a bit strongly, but "misinformation" has a nasty ring to it in my opinion.
I've said my piece, and I'll let it rest there.
So onto the interesting bits!
"So you reckon a forger knew the brass tool he used just for the ‘M.K’ might leave particles behind, so he used vinegar to artificially age any such particles?"
Yep. Tools often leave pieces of themselves behind. On several PBS specials, I've seen scientists talking about artifacts they've dug up and getting all excited about traces of the original tools used to make it turning up in it. Anyone who works with metal working tools in particular would be familiar with the idea that pieces come off the tools.
As far as the vinegar goes, that's only one possibility. It's certainly the simplest, but as Paul points out, there are more exotic ways to hurry the oxidation along.
"Incidentally, I keep hearing about the scratches being made in gold, but I was under the impression that the inner surface with the scratches is not solid gold, but gold-coated silver, and that the scratches went through the top layer of gold and right into the silver."
I don't know offhand Caz. This is the first I have heard about scratches going through the gold into a silver base. Weather it would make a difference or not would probably depend on the condition of the silver.
As the watch was polished, any tarnish on the silver would probably have been removed but if the scratches were heavily tarnished it might be an indicator of age. (Or that back was handled while wearing latex gloves which contain enough sulfur to tarnish it quickly.)
Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Actually, yes, it is the end of the world for many people if they have to admit the scratches could have been made decades ago. They might then be forced to reassess their theory that the diary is a modern hoax, brilliant or shabby.
I find it very hard to see any logic in this statement.
As the scratches haven't been dated accurately, and are perhaps impossible to date accurately, relying on the scientific evidence alone we have to say they could have been made decades ago.
The same, apparently, is true of the diary itself, as the results of the scientific tests so far are in conflict, and there doesn't seem to be any prospect of further tests to resolve the conflict.
Except for those with a fixation on scientific testing to the exclusion of all other criteria, that doesn't mean that we have to believe that these artefacts were created decades ago, or that Maybrick was the Ripper.
Thankfully, the contents of the diary contain enough evidence to settle those questions to most people's satisfaction, even if the materials can't be dated scientifically.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Hi John
I apologise if the tone of my post upsets you. I wrote the whole thing with a pleasant smile on my cheeks, believe me!
A few more facts and then I’m out of here. I know how Dr O feels now, when some of us rubbish his “costly intercourse” argument.
I am well aware of, and have read the reports on the watch. The evidence presented produces only one remotely plausible answer, and that is that the scratches are at least several decades old.
There are light surface scratches on the inside of this watch. The majority of them are said to be ON TOP of the “Maybrick” scratches.
Someone did put those scratches there obviously. They didn’t do it with a brass nail, even worse a screw. You need to get hold of a small English lever pocket watch and try it yourself to appreciate fully how awkward this would be. That is, if you could even buy a brass nail in the UK, as such a thing doesn’t exist. Tacks and pins yes, even screws, but nails NO!
Brass is soft. Gold is softer still. If any transfer of one to the other took place then it is from the softer gold to the harder brass implement, and not the other way around. The change in colour of the brass nail you used was almost certainly due to the burnishing effect, and not the transfer of metal. In any case, it was a BRASS PARTICLE that was found, not a brass residue from the tool used.
Of course it COULD be possible to replicate these scratches, given hindsight, a fair wind, and a good deal of luck. It’s just that the explanations put forward are so unlikely, that they produce something that’s so far-fetched they beggar belief.
No hard feelings intended John. This has been my living for 25 years, and I’m not trying to preach to the unconvertible. I’m sticking firmly with the experts, plus a healthy dose of common sense on this one.
All the best
Paul
 |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Paul,
It's your choice if you want to flee or not. I rather wish you wouldn't, but in the end that choice is up to you.
"There are light surface scratches on the inside of this watch. The majority of them are said to be ON TOP of the “Maybrick” scratches."
That's what I said in my previous post. Polish, add incidental scratches, repeat. This would simulate what would actually happen.
"In any case, it was a BRASS PARTICLE that was found, not a brass residue from the tool used."
As far as what specific tool was used to make I can't rightly say. However according to Wild's report "The particles embedded in the base of the engraving are brass from the engraving tool."
If Caz is correct that the back of the watch is silver covered with gold, then that could explain it. I don't know offhand what the relative hardness of silver compared to brass is.
"Of course it COULD be possible to replicate these scratches, given hindsight, a fair wind, and a good deal of luck. It’s just that the explanations put forward are so unlikely, that they produce something that’s so far-fetched they beggar belief."
Most of what I've suggested is based on Turgoose's explanation which he apparently found plausible enough. He had no doubt that they could have been forged. Both he and Wild called for more tests, and neither was willing to swear to their age. Under the circumstances that's not a particularly ringing endorsement in my opinion.
"No hard feelings intended John. This has been my living for 25 years, and I’m not trying to preach to the unconvertible."
That's where you're quite wrong Paul. I am convertible, but it takes a bit more than saying "I'm an expert" to convince me. I look into the facts, science, and history of all things diary related. I've read books on the forgery of artifacts, and talked with antiquarians, a metallurgist, and others in the formation of my thoughts on the matter.
If it is ever proven that the scratches are old, I'll cheerfully admit that this speculation was a waste of my time. You see, I don't actually care if they are old or new. I'm just starting at the beginning and trying to work my way back to an origin. I want the real answer, and I'm not willing to throw away the possibility of a modern origin on the basis of the evidence so far. An old origin would be much more interesting than a modern hoax, but there's a way to go before that can be proven in my opinion.
Regards,
John |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 5:08 pm: | |
1. "Stanley Dangar appeared from North Eastern Spain. He was a watch expert, a former member of the British Horological Society... He also believed the watch to be a lady's watch." --Shirley Harrison, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, (Blake) p. 247-248.
2. Richard Nicholas (a solicitor hired by Albert and Robbie Johnson) "had made enquiries with a number of laboratories which had reported that they did not believe that scatches in metal could be dated accurately, if at all." Linder, Morris, Skinner, Ripper Diary., p. 42.
3. "Timothy Dundas, the horologist who cleaned and repaired this watch in 1992, has sworn an affidavit which states that the 'Ripper scratches’ were not in that watch when he worked on it. And in working on it he used the standard watchmaker's magnifying loupes, which show up every scratch and abrasion.
"How does Feldman get around this problem? He asserts that there are TWO watches; the one handled by Dundas and the 'Ripper' one owned by Albert Johnson. But Albert swears that he bought this watch in July 1992, from Stewart's jeweller's shop in Wallasey. The owner of that shop confirms that he had it overhauled by Dundas before selling it to Albert, and that should be the end of the matter for any reasonable person...” Melvin Harris, The Maybrick Hoax: A Guide through the Labyrinth.
4. Mr. Stephen states above: "The brass particle found in the scratches was EMBEDDED there." Dr. Wild's actual word, however, was not "scratches" but engravings. As there are scratches, engravings, and jeweler's marks on the back of the watch, I have pondered exactly which "engravings" Dr. Wild was referring to. I've asked this question in the public forum on & off for upwards of four years now, and still haven't received an answer--and, frankly, I'm under the impression that no one knows. All appropriate salutations &tc., RP |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Indeed, there are certainly enough odd conflicts of evidence connected with the watch that Paul Stephen's statement - If these scratches didn’t say what they do, the darned things would be accepted for just what they are……old! - is certainly an over-simplification.
According to Shirley Harrison, "The Murphys" (who sold the watch to Albert Johnson) implied that Tim Dundas was lying about the absence of scratches.
Ron Murphy said that he later "noticed the scratches in the back" himself when cleaning the watch.
But he is also quoted as claiming that Dundas "would not have noticed the scratches, anyway. After all, we tried to clean them and simply because they were so faint we didn't realise what they were!".
Yet in the small photo of the watch reproduced in Harrison's book, the scratches - and in particular the word "Maybrick" - are anything but "faint" - they leap out at the reader like a charging elephant!
Even if it wasn't for the amazing coincidence of the watch surfacing so soon after the diary, Murphy's contradictory statements should surely give the impartial observer serious cause for doubt.
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 7:35 pm: | |
Caz--In reviewing the above, I see now what I earlier missed: you're stating that Dr. Wild places one of the two brass particles in the markings "M.K." I'm delighted that I'm finally making some headway after all this time. Does this mean you have access to the full report? Is there any chance of posting a copy? RP
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Dear RJ.,
Ah, yes, the question of "scratching" vs "engraving"...most interesting. Since the demise of the Victorian engraver craftwork, one can only offer the simple solution of a "scratch" technique which may include a problemmatic particle... or two!
Indeed, it is not really forgery...look at the manuscript of the 'Diary'...it is rather a species of 'fraudulent belief'invented by yours truly. My late friend Mr Wilson of Sotheby's International believes 85% of the past is fake... business as usual.
Rosey :-) |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
Hi Caz and John
Sorry about the last explanation on the watch. I was late for hockey practice, and I was rushing. I'm going to try it again. I think if James Maybrick owned a pocket watch, it would be a man's watch. If a forger had the watch, maybe he didn't know it was a ladies watch and put the scratches in it.The thing that mixes me up is Mr. Feldman trying to expalin that Mr. Johnson really had two watches.
Regards,
Anthony |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Hi again Chaps (and Caz of course)
Ok.... I’ll hang around a little while longer, as this watch business fascinates me a lot for obvious reasons. I've also just done my application to become a proper poster here too, which I'll send off tomorrow.
It's late here, but if I can answer just one thing before I retire.
I'm also a bit puzzled by the comment about the "...enrichment of silver..." mentioned by Wild. I presume this is the bit you are querying Caz?
The inner back case of the watch is clearly shown in one of the photographs, and has a hallmark of the Crown plus an 18 carat stamping. It would be illegal to stamp this on anything but solid gold. Some quite genuine gold watches have their case backs reinforced with brass, and I wondered if this was the case here, as it may explain our little corroded particle. Sadly it isn’t and it doesn’t.
John.
I would be pleased to help with any queries you have concerning British nineteenth century watches and their origins, and point you in the direction of books that will corroborate matters to your satisfaction. Just ask!
Goodnight all
Paul
P.S. I’ve recently turned up some dateable old writing with letter formations and shapes amazingly close to those in the diary, but I’ll save that for another day.
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 10:00 pm: | |
Greetings all,
Lot's of activity today...
R.J.,
Thanks for the Dagnar reference. That was one I had forgotten offhand. Melvin Harris also referred to it as a ladies watch. Additionally several people who saw it at the British conference that I have spoken to came away with the impression that it was indeed a ladies watch.
Also, thanks for the information from Richard Nicholas, which bears out what I've found in my own research. I missed that in my reading of "Ripper Diary". (I read much of it at night when the wife and child are asleep. A big plus on one hand, but I'm sleepy, so a big minus on the other hand.)
Chris,
My understanding is that the scratches are indeed barely visible. Which makes Ron Murphy's identification somewhat suspect. I would assume he could truthfully attest to some scratches, but I doubt that he could have identified them as the ones present now. It's a pity that he wasn't asked to describe what he saw before being shown the watch in it's current state.
I completely agree regarding the amazing coincidence of their appearance. It's pretty damaging from a provenance point of view. Not conclusive, but it is certainly suggestive. Particularly when looked at in light of the circumstantial evidence for a modern diary origin.
Anthony,
I don't think you're alone in finding Feldman's explanation mixed up. I don't buy his 2 watches tale for a second. I believe that the watch Albert bought is the one he produced with the scratches. The only question is when they were put there, and by whom.
Paul,
I'm really glad you've decided to stick with us.
I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that it was a man's watch though. Have you actually seen the watch in person? I haven't been so lucky myself, and have only the pictures of the back and second hand accounts of it's appearance to work from.
I would appreciate any books you could point me towards regarding the "style" of men's vs. ladies watches in the late 1900's. Particularly ones that go into detail regarding the style of chain used to hold them. (It's a VERY heavy chain Maybrick is pictured with.)
Also, any information you could provide in regards to the retailer (Henry Verity) or the case maker (Ralph Samuel, a partner in Jacob Lewis Samuel, and Co.) would be also be GREATLY appreciated.
I haven't been able to dig up any info on the casemakers yet, and the only reference I've found to Henry Verity showed him being a 20 year old watchmaker living in the Hest Bank Inn in Lancaster in 1861 which I have to assume is a son if the watch was made in 1848.
Here's a link to the history of the Inn:
http://members.aol.com/MavisFOS/HBInn.pdf
So there's more research to do on that front I guess.
Please understand Paul, that it's not a question of doubting your expertise as one of wanting to understand the subject as fully as possible to come to an informed conclusion. That's one of the greatest joys of Ripperology in my opinion, the various new subjects it opens to investigation. :-)
I'll be looking forward to your examples of letter formations!
Warm regards and a good night to all,
John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 4:30 am: | |
John Hacker wrote:
My understanding is that the scratches are indeed barely visible.
They certainly stand out in the photo in Shirley Harrison's book.
Is that just the result of clever lighting, or has the photo been enhanced in some way?
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Dear John, Caz and all
I think we all need to slow down here a bit now, and take one thing at a time. I can and will respond to the various points raised here yesterday, but it would be a very lengthy post, and very boring to many. Also several good points would be in danger of getting lost in the bulk!….here goes then:
HOW TO SEX A VICTORIAN WATCH…!
There are basically two main types of 19C English watch. A pocket watch as worn by a man, and a fob watch as worn by a woman.
The main difference between the two being size, although there are also some minor technical and cosmetic differences too.
A pocket watch is made to be worn in the waistcoat pocket, and the fob watch is made to be worn either on a fob, pinned to the lapel of the lady’s jacket or dress, or sometimes worn on a chain around the neck. Ladies of the period, (apart from Whitechapel prostitutes!), having no pockets as such.
Generally, but not always, the backs of pocket watches are plain, as they are not normally seen, but the backs of fob watches are highly decorated and feminine looking. The lady’s watch would be worn with the decorative back facing outwards like a piece of jewellery.
Normally the difference between the two is obvious due to their relative sizes, but when you get a very small example as we are dealing with here, then other things must be considered too.
Men’s English watches of this period have a type of movement known as an “English fusee lever”. Women’s watches of the period tend to have a movement known as a “Swiss Cylinder”. There are of course exceptions to this rule but they are few in number. The English lever is quite heavy, and the cylinder comparatively light. The English fusee could not be made in particularly small sizes either, whereas the simpler cylinder could go very small.
Both types of watch were being mass produced by the 1840s.
THE “MAYBRICK” WATCH
I must first correct an earlier post of mine, where I quoted an error from one of the books I had read that this was a “Hunter” watch. It is clear from the photographs that this is of a type known as an “Open face”, and this can be found on either sex of watch. This watch is a mass produced example, and was almost certainly not even made by a Verity, but by a machine in a steam powered factory!
This watch is of the “English fusee” type, and not a “Cylinder”. It is in a plain man’s style case. It has a highly decorative gold dial, very typical of the period on either sex of watch.
Judging from the photograph of Mr Johnson holding his watch, it does appear to be very small in size when compared to many average sized men’s watches of the time, which would be about 2” in diameter. However, it is also rather too large to be used as a fob watch. In other words it’s in an “in between” size.
So we have an unusually small MAN’S STYLE watch with a FUSEE movement usually only found in a man’s pocket watch. This watch, although small would be heavy when compared to a lady’s fob watch, and it would be quite impractical to wear either around the neck, or on a pin attached to a dress.
The most likely use for this watch would have been as a Sunday best item. It would be worn in a man’s fancy silk waistcoat, where a bulkier full sized watch would stretch and spoil the pocket and the line of his outfit.
I can fully understand why it has been claimed to be a woman’s watch in the past by people who aren’t used to handling Victorian watches in any quantity. Of course there was nothing to stop a woman buying such a watch, but the fashions of the day would make it quite impractical for her to wear it.
I hope this explains my absolute certainty as to the sex of the watch….!
Gold watch chains of any size can be found attached to gold watches of any size. There are no rules here. The chain being visible all the time would mean that a prosperous businessman would want a good ‘un to show off with. The watch, being in the pocket would be of less importance, although we do know that these boys toys were often taken out and compared when the gentlemen “frequented their clubs”…!
Well that’s it for now. I’m not ignoring your other points John, but my fingers now ache. I’ll see if I can dig you out a few useful book illustrations to illustrate the point when I have the time.
Regards
Paul
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
Rosey--Only 85%? Your friend from Sotheby's was generous, or, perhaps, an optimist. In Ye Olde Times every pilgrim carried home a piece of the Holy Rood, no? I read somewhere there were several tons of it on your island alone. "The history of the present age will never be written---we know too much about it." I think Lytton Strachey wrote that. What a rotten thing for a historian to say... Cheers &tc. RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I saw the watch at the Bournemouth Conference and I couldn’t see the scratches even when Val Johnson kindly held up a magnifying glass for me!
Hi RJ,
Both Turgoose and Wild refer to brass particles (plural) in the bases (plural) of the scratches, both alternating between the words ‘scratches’ and ‘engravings’ when referring to the embedded particles. It is clear that they were investigating all the marks, and Turgoose made observations about the variety of implements used on the various words, numbers and initials.
Permission from the copyright owners would have to be obtained if anyone wanted to quote extensively from the reports here.
Hi Paul,
Would it be possible for you to drop me a quick email sometime please?
Thanks.
Hi All,
I still don’t see why it matters whether the watch was made for a lady, a man or a monkey.
Why should it be a man’s watch?
I really don’t get this. The ‘diary’ was not written in a diary. But Maybrick, like many other Victorians, may have owned a regular diary at some point. The scratches needn’t have been made in a watch bought specifically for the purpose of carrying it around and telling the time.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 9:32 am: | |
Hi Paul,
Dr. Wild reported that the watch has a diameter of approximately 4.5cm.
Love,
Caz
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Caz--Ah, I see, copyright regulations. Of course. No need to quote verbatum, though. Can you at least confirm (whisper, whisper) exactly which 'engravings' the two particles were found in? Were they both found in the "M.K." , for instance? Also did Dr. Wild write that the particles were 'darkened with age", or is this term Shirley Harrisons? Thanking you, RP
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Chris,
My understanding is that Caz is correct. Several people I have spoken to who had the opportunity to examine the watch at the Bournesmouth conference echoed her sentiments that they were extremely difficult to see even with magnification.
I have no idea how the picture was produced. Indeed, until "Ripper Diaries" came out, I could never see all of the scratches particularly clearly in any of the published diary books.
Paul,
Thanks for the information. There's a lot to digest there, so I will mull it around in my head. Many thanks! I'll probably have some more questions for you later though. :-)
Caz,
"I still don’t see why it matters whether the watch was made for a lady, a man or a monkey."
From my point of view it matters on at least 2 fronts.
The most significant issue to me is the one of provenance.
Knowing EXACTLY what we're dealing with might make it easier to track the watch backwards from the Murphy's or forward from the maker. In the same vein, if it was a watch that Maybrick would have worn then that might help track it if it WAS in his possession and might help support Paul's "John Over" idea, which might give us another avenue to look at. Without a provenance the watch isn't evidence.
Secondly, if it were a woman's watch as opposed to a man's AND it could be proved to be a genuine artifact of Maybrick the Ripper (Which I don't think is likely, but it's possible) then there might psychological implications that would help us better understand it's meaning to him. I.E. Could it have been stolen from Florrie? A mistress?
I try and pop in occasionally through the day, but for the most part I will be having a cooking day and up to my armpits in onions, garlic, tomatoes, meat, etc. So I might not be able to respond to posts until tomorrow. Have a good one all.
Regards,
John
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
Hi Caz
It looks smaller than that in Mr Johnson's hands. He must have fairly large hands! It's too big for a fob watch at 4.5cm. I'll e mail you tonight.
Thanks
Paul |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 11:30 am: | |
I stand corrected on the faintness of the scratches. The photo must have been somehow cleverly contrived to make at least some of them visible.
The story is certainly an odd one.
Chris Phillips
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Dear All.
I have an unexpected spare half hour so here’s a bit more.
ENGRAVING
This is done by hand with a specially shaped ‘graver. It is a V shaped tool when viewed in cross section, and cuts a V shaped groove into the metal. The width of the groove varies according to the amount of pressure used. They tend NOT to be made of brass.
The ONLY ENGRAVING on the Maybrick watch is on the OUTSIDE of the back of the case, and is the initials JO.
SCRATCHING
This can be intentional or unintentional. Minute scratches are left after polishing metal with a compound such as jewellers rouge.
The “I am Jack” and everything else on the inside of the case, (with exception of the hallmark and makers mark which have been punched in), has been SCRATCHED with a sharp implement or implements. This is much cruder than engraving, and is never as deep or crisp looking. Very little metal is removed by scratching, whereas engraving actually cuts metal away from the surface leaving a very clear impression.
Scratches are often only really visible by holding the piece at a certain angle to the light.
There are two types of intentional scratches on this watch, and they are all on the inside back of the case, beneath the movement when the case is closed. There are obvious repairers marks. These are put there to record when a watch is cleaned and are for future reference by the watchmaker. Just occasionally these can be pawnbrokers marks as well.
The other SCRATCHES are the “Maybrick” ones plus all the initials. These appear to have been polished out to some extent, more in some places than in others. This area of the case will not get particularly dirty, and is not visible during normal day to day use, so it won’t have been polished very much during it’s lifetime. It’s a very “secret” part of the watch.
It looks to me as though someone has made a deliberate attempt to polish these scratches out at some time, in other words to get rid of them. Watches with initials of other people on them never make as much money as one without. It’s human nature to go for one that hasn’t been personalised by someone else.
It is clear from the tests done so far that there are superficial scratches ON TOP of the Maybrick scratches, indicating that the latter are older. How much older it’s impossible to say.
I hope this will clear up some of the obvious confusion here concerning which is what…!
I think science has probably given us all it can for the time being regarding a date.
Regards
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Paul,
Thanks for the additional info. A lot of what you've said bears out what I've found in my own research.
However I'd like to make a quick comment/question. You said:
"It looks to me as though someone has made a deliberate attempt to polish these scratches out at some time, in other words to get rid of them. Watches with initials of other people on them never make as much money as one without. It’s human nature to go for one that hasn’t been personalized by someone else."
It has always seemed to me that the "polishing out" of the scratches is strong circumstantial evidence that an attempt *was* made to artificially age the scratches.
I don't understand why anyone would attempt to remove them from an area that you describe as a '“secret” part of the watch.' And one that is used by jewelers and repair folk as an apparent scratch pad. Especially with the JO cartouche on the back.
Also, I doubt that most people purchasing such a watch would open the back to inspect it... Am I wrong here?
"It is clear from the tests done so far that there are superficial scratches ON TOP of the Maybrick scratches, indicating that the latter are older. How much older it’s impossible to say."
*IF* an attempt was made to artificially age the scratches, I would assume that the person doing so polished for a moment, scratched it with a key, polished for a bit more, scratched it with a rock, polished for a moment, and scratched it with a whatever, etc. This is what would happen in real life. But it seems to me that the inside of that case saw quite a lot of activity for something that wouldn't be opened very often.
A few years back when I was first looking at the watch, I carried a xeroxed copy of the watch photo around in my wallet. Every time I was at a mall that had a jeweler or did watch repair, I made it a point to stop in, show them the picture and ask if they would have made an attempt to remove the scratches were they preparing the item for sale, and none of them said they would. I also asked if customers would typically look inside the back, and they all answered no. (Hardly a scientific study, I know. But it's something to do while my wife shops at the other stores.)
Is it that practices are different in the U.K.? Or are you suggesting that a previous owner wanted to get rid of them?
If so, why not the JO? Or could the back engraving NOT be removed? (Admittedly JO could have been the one attempting the removal.)
Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated!
Regards,
John |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi, all
Playing devil's advocate here, I could see how a jeweller would want to polish out scratches made in a piece of jewelry that he intends to sell. The selling price is bound to be higher if the piece is thought to have less imperfections. I am making the assumption here that the buyer might be another person in the jewelry trade who would open up the back of the watch to inspect the insides. Having said this, I agree that more likely the polishing was done to make the scratches appear old.
I have to express a bit of amazement at Caz's statement that "I still don’t see why it matters whether the watch was made for a lady, a man or a monkey." You don't think it unusual that Maybrick, if it was his watch, was carrying round a lady's watch? I should think it might be akin to him wearing lady's underwear. That surely would be unusual, wouldn't it?
All the best
Chris |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
