Author: Rotter
Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 10:21 pm |        |
I have been going through the various witness accounts of men seen with the victims and I can't quite visualize the mens clothing. I found an interesting bit on the "billycock hat" in one book:
The 'billycock' worn by the fish porters in London's Billingsgate was considered the most macho hat of the English hat business. Most were bought from Edward Spink, of, Love Lane, in London's East End, and they were bought for life. Weighing about five pounds and constructed for durability, they did, literally, last for a working life..."
(HATS,Status, Style, and Glamour, by Colin McDowell)
So the blotchy faced man with Kelly is obviously a fish porter. But we have another man seen by Elizabeth Long with a billycock hat and a morning suit. Isn't a morning suit formal wear? Is the combination of suit and hat a little incongruous, or am I misunderstanding something? I would appreciate any instruction here. |
Author: Rotter
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 04:53 am | |
With a little more digging I have answered my own question. A billycock is also:
bil|ly|•••• (bil'i käk) n. [Old Brit. Colloq.] a type of felt hat with a low, round crown, as a derby.
The fish porters billycock can still be seen at the new Billingsgate, a flat topped leather hat that is used to support large packages carried on top of the head. |
Author: Edana
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 01:09 pm | |
Rotter, nice work! I'm interested in the clothing aspect also. I'll have to see if I can find an illustration of a billycock hat. (Oops, did I just use the c word?)
Edana |
Author: Anonymous
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 01:24 pm | |
The billycock hat was the good old English Bowler hat, as worn by John Steed in 'The Avengers,' (for those who know the TV series).
You may be interested to know that Abberline and most of the detectives wore billycocks. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 02:24 pm | |
Hey, All!
Edana, you should tell Rotter where you put your illustrations for the cutaway coat and the other men's apparel you've provided the Casebook. I would but I forgot where they are.
Yaz |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 02:39 pm | |
I am going to try to make a graphic representation of the Berner Street crime scene to include with my article. I believe I have got most of the clothing worn by the dramatis personae figured out well enough (Schwartz ought to have a dramatic theatrical cape and glass-doorknob walking stick, wouldn't you think?), but I believe I need a little more information on the kind of hat the Pipe Man was wearing. I believe this was termed a Wide-Awake hat. What does this kind of hat look like? Thanks, gang!
David |
Author: Rotter
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 03:40 pm | |
Thanks for your comments everyone. Here is the only picture I found of a wide-awake hat:
I don't know if it is correct for the period, but it should be right in the general shape. |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 09:08 am | |
Awesome on the wide-awake hat Rotter! Um, I don't remember where I put the drawings of the coats. If needed, I can repost them. Thanks Anonymous. I know exactly the hat design now. I was quite in love with John Steed and just a bit attracted, in spite of my estrogen levels, to Emma Peel.
Edana |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 12:05 pm | |
Off the top of my billy •••• (I love doing that) hat, I remember being envious of your coats, Edana, and I think they are to be found on a Victims board, most likely Stride, when we were discussing 'Lipski' or 'Lizzie'. A few weeks are a lifetime on this web site.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 02:20 am | |
I can't find any references to the "diagonal coat" anywhere in reference materials. Am I correct in assuming this is someone's description of the morning or cutaway coat? The one that looks like this:
This gives us sightings if a few people wearing the morning coat. This is not the outfit I would expect in a slum, even from slummers (who were often told to dress down for the occasion). I am aware that not a scrap of clothing went to waste before modern times. Anything that could not be sold as secondhand went to the ragpickers. Would the poor use the morning coat as secondhand wear or was they too class conscious to dress in such a bourgeois fashion? |
Author: Rotter
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 02:22 am | |
I can't find any references to the "diagonal coat" anywhere in reference materials. Am I correct in assuming this is someone's description of the morning or cutaway coat? The one that looks like this:
This gives us sightings of a few people wearing the morning coat. This is not the outfit I would expect in a slum, even from slummers (who were often told to dress down for the occasion). I am aware that not a scrap of clothing went to waste before modern times. Anything that could not be sold as secondhand went to the ragpickers. Would the poor use the morning coat as secondhand wear or were they too class conscious to dress in such a bourgeois fashion? |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 08:35 am | |
Yes, I do believe that the pic you included in your message is a morning (or cutaway) coat, Rotter, nice one too. I think most of the lower classes would be wearing second hand clothing, so anything goes, actually. I think I read somewhere that the morning coat was the most popular coat during the latter half of the nineteenth century. In America, the 'sack coat' was quite popular, it was a plain straight cut coat. (I hate having to respond and write messages away from my library of books at home. I could do a much better job with actual reference materials) sigh.
Edana |
Author: Rotter
Thursday, 04 March 1999 - 05:19 am | |
| Thanks Edana. Do you know if there was such a garment as a diagonal coat, or if it was an inarticulate guess at describing the cutaway coat? |
Author: Rona
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 12:22 pm | |
Hi !,
I am new here so I don`t really know everything about JTR but I have alway been interested in the case.I love this web page and I love reading different people`s theories etc.About the Billycock hat that witnesses say JTR/man was wearing, has any witnesses ever reported seeing a man with a top hat ?.I don`t know, but over the years I`ve always imagined Jack The Ripper wearing a top hat and cloak or was that just a myth created by moderen society over the years?
Regards,
Rona |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 06:31 pm | |
Alas Rona, the truth is no, not a top hat, nor a cape.
A story turned stage play at the time of the Ripper murders was Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde.
In this we have the villian, the evil Mr Hyde, in top hat & cape, this story has always influenced the image of Jack the Ripper.
Also the theories that would have us believe that Jack was one of 'society's pillar', a toff, or even a surgeon all help to promote the fictional image of Jack stealing thru the foggy cobbled streets of Whitechapel in top hat, cape & carrying a Gladstone bag.
Image is everything :-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 05:23 am | |
Hi all,
Noting the abilty of people to gaily mix fact and fiction as if both were the same (see the contents of another running topic), it is no wonder that JtR and some non-existant space world be brought together. I wonder if the limit of human credibility could ever be reached (See as example the Y2K-nonsense of late.) I assume not.
Now, Jack in topper, cape and with Gladstone bag is really no bad stage figure, but not any more certain than his wearing a fireman's helmet, ballet dress and fisherman's boots. The truth is that nobody knows what he looked like for sure. I tip on the 'sunbrowned face (sailor?), fair moustache, black jacket, light trousers and wide-awake hat', but that is pure supposition, not more. (Schwartz's man could answer this description as well as the earlier Ada Wilson). Other witness descriptions could apply.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Rona
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 01:30 pm | |
Hi,
Thank you Jon and Bob for your info as to whether the top hat and cloak was a myth or otherwise.I suppose that it is true that over the years people tend to "Stretch the truth" about a persons apparel,appearence etc. to create an atmosphere of mystery and horror or whatever.In museams etc, JTR is portrayed as a Jekyll and Hyde character ,a monster.Whereas in realty although his mind is indeed the mind of a monster his apperance could be that of a sweet,nice ordinary looking man .I suppose if some people came face to face with the real JTR they would probobly be dissapointed at what they see!
[P.S. I am still only new to this you see, so please forgive me if I haven`t got all the facts or whatever right!]
Thanks for your help!.
Regards,
Rona. |
Author: Bob_C
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 04:02 am | |
Hi Rona,
I was also a beginner a year or so ago, and am still slowly learning. Don't forget that there are no silly questions, just silly answers.
About this picture of Jack with cloak etc., false pictures are available about almost anything in this world. Take the American Indian of the last century. The long feathered bonnet, the indelible mark of any Indian Chief, is a fiction. The 'Walla-Walla! Indian war-cry in every cowboy film.. is a fiction. That every Indian called his housing a wigwam and his wife 'squaw' is ... a fiction. There are many other cases in this world of complete falsehood. Flemming, the discoverer of penicillin, didn't discover it. His assistants did. Flemming even pooh-poohed their findings at first. Columbus didn't discover America... etc. etc.
It is still fun trying.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: JackisBack
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 02:46 pm | |
| "Hands off the Tooth Fairy" |
Author: Diana
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 08:51 pm | |
| Maybe we ought to start a new conversation about Jack myths. By listing them in one place, we could throw them out once and for all. |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 04:33 am | |
Hi Diana,
Wonderful idea. Sadly not practicable, at least not for your intended purpose. Long years of expirience have shown that to repeat some fairytale, even in the context of proving it to be nonsense, only strengthens it.
Maybe for board purposes, as ready reference the easier to refute the new appearance of some old, long since disproven, story, it could have some value, however. What do others think?
Best regards
Bob |
