My weird thought while reading the purported Maybrick Diary

[DracIsBack]

It's been a few years since I've read the diary or even delved into the pros and cons regarding it's authenticity.

Weirdly, when I was reading the diary when it came out, I was also reading Bram Stoker's "Dracula", which is told by way of 'diary entries' and 'letters'. At the time I first read the Maybrick, I couldn't help but think it was a ficticious book written in the same fashion. Whether new fiction or old fiction or deliberate hoax or not, I look forward to reading more about.

Just wanted to share my little vibe from back in the day.

[ChainzCooper]

What do you think about the watch? Everyone seems to forget about it, but I think it may even be more important than the Diary. The late Albert Johnson never waivered in his story of how he found it, and I always believed him. To me, the scratches in it seem airtight. As far as I know it would be near impossible to insert aged brass into scratches. So I think it is an interesting and overlooked piece of the puzzle.
Jordan

[The Grave Maurice]

Johnson always seemed like an honest bloke to me too, and the scientific dating of the scratches appears strong. But the major question still remains: why would Maybrick buy and carry a watch designed for women? That one, I can't get over.

[ChainzCooper]

Everything I've read says its a men's pocket watch from the correct time period. But you're right, the first two points seem strong
Jordan

[The Grave Maurice]

Everything I've read says its a men's pocket watch from the correct time period.

This isn't an area to which I pay a lot of attention; however, I can't recall a source that supports your statement. If you'd present it, I'd be grateful, and contrite.

[ChainzCooper]

Hey Maurice,
Sorry I took so long I was browsing through my copies of The Diary of Jack the Ripper,Ripper Diary,and Jack the Ripper :The Final Chapter and from my quick scanning the books do not mention if the watch is a men's or women's watch. However, the scientific evidence and unwaivering story of Albert Johnson I think are two points that override whether some think the watch is for women. (Maybe Caz can chime in and offer her expertise as she knows more than me on this subject.) So to sum it up I think it may be a moot point if everything else seems to check out.
Jordan

[Errata]

Everything I've read says its a men's pocket watch from the correct time period. But you're right, the first two points seem strong
Jordan

Most women's watches would have been Chatelaine watches, worn around the neck. I have the watches of all my great grandparents, all from that time period. If the neck chain is replaced with a waist chain there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. Mostly you can tell the difference by the metals used and the designs of the faces and cases. I have never seen a picture of the watch showing either the case or the face. But I'm pretty sure the motifs would be telling.

[ChainzCooper]

Well found one, Chris Jones on his website JamesMaybrick.org states that its a gentlemen's pocket watch. So theres one guy that knows a lot on the subject (and has a cool website by the way)
Jordan

[The Grave Maurice]

Let's see if I have this straight. You spent time looking for a source to support your statement and you came up with a website writer who, in passing and without supporting authority, calls it a gentleman's watch so, in your view, that settles the issue? Is that right? Yikes. I hope you're not planning to go to law school.

[ChainzCooper]

We don't have to turn this into an argument. I'm not a watch expert. The point I was trying to make is that some have said its a gentlemen's watch and some haven't. If there were doubts about if it were a men's or women's watch I really think it would have been mentioned in the 3 books I looked in but theres nothing there about it. I can't really comment fully about watches from the 1800's, someone like Caz can fill us in on the full scientific details. And besides I think we were in agreement on the two major points of the watch which make a strong case for it.
Jordan

[Errata]

By the by, metallurgically speaking, the way you insert aged brass in a modern scratch is through using an aged brass instrument to make the scratches.

I have no idea if that happened, but that is one way to do it.

I can say with absolute surety that I have been a jeweler and working with jewelry and watches for 15 years, and that report on the watch is absolutely impenetrable. I have no idea what they are talking about. They talk about glass protecting the back, but the back of the watch could be the outside of the back casing, the inside of the back casing, the movement... and I don't know which it is from their description. And thats actually kind of important as to how a watch ages. All I can do is look at their summation and say that without more information, all I can do is assume that since they are experts, they are giving their honest opinion as to the age of the scratches. But there is little in there I can look at and see how they came to that conclusion. It's kind of irritating.

[The Grave Maurice]

Fair enough, Jordan. I'm no watch expert either. I've assumed it was a lady's watch since 1995 when a horologist said it was. I have the watches of my grandfather and grandmother and have no difficulty knowing which is which from the size, weight, and design. I can't see why a watch expert would have problems either. Although, I noticed this afternoon that the new A-Z says that its being a lady's watch has been disputed---although, annoyingly, it doesn't say why or by whom.

You make a good point, Errata. But, if all that was needed to make the scratches convincing was an old brass tool, wouldn't the experts have mentioned that?

I don't know. The watch has stood up to scrutiny better than the diary. If the diary is an old fake, maybe the watch is as well.

[ChainzCooper]

By the by, metallurgically speaking, the way you insert aged brass in a modern scratch is through using an aged brass instrument to make the scratches.

I have no idea if that happened, but that is one way to do it.

I can say with absolute surety that I have been a jeweler and working with jewelry and watches for 15 years, and that report on the watch is absolutely impenetrable. I have no idea what they are talking about. They talk about glass protecting the back, but the back of the watch could be the outside of the back casing, the inside of the back casing, the movement... and I don't know which it is from their description. And thats actually kind of important as to how a watch ages. All I can do is look at their summation and say that without more information, all I can do is assume that since they are experts, they are giving their honest opinion as to the age of the scratches. But there is little in there I can look at and see how they came to that conclusion. It's kind of irritating.

Which report are you speaking of? Dr. Turgoose's?
Jordan

[ChainzCooper]

Fair enough, Jordan. I'm no watch expert either. I've assumed it was a lady's watch since 1995 when a horologist said it was. I have the watches of my grandfather and grandmother and have no difficulty knowing which is which from the size, weight, and design. I can't see why a watch expert would have problems either. Although, I noticed this afternoon that the new A-Z says that its being a lady's watch has been disputed---although, annoyingly, it doesn't say why or by whom.

You make a good point, Errata. But, if all that was needed to make the scratches convincing was an old brass tool, wouldn't the experts have mentioned that?

I don't know. The watch has stood up to scrutiny better than the diary. If the diary is an old fake, maybe the watch is as well.

Hey Maurice,
Good to hear back from you. Its been an interesting thread on the watch. Yeah, I just don't see how anybody could insert aged brass particles into old scratch marks, its like James Bond stuff.
Jordan

[Errata]

Which report are you speaking of? Dr. Turgoose's?
Jordan

Both of the ones posted here actually. And it makes sense, given that the reports were written for the owner of the watch, who is in theory familiar with it.

I am surprised that there was no mention of gold particles in any of the scratches. 18k is quite soft, and when the scratches were made there would have been little curls of gold that should have gotten sort of wedged into the terminus of each scratch. It certainly happens in every engraving (not done with a laser). And I don't think it would be possible to clean the gold particles out but leave the brass particles in. That's a mystery.