Parcel or papers

[curious4]

Got it!

Hello c.d.

Very unlike me to miss something like that! Especially when I have been very carefully wording my posts to avoid the double entendre(s). Not easy when you are comparing sizes :-D

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

[c.d.]

Hello Curious,

You might want to read my post again. I think you missed the joke. That's ok though.

c.d.

[curious4]

Trying things out

Hello Gwyneth. Good work. Nothing like empirical experience.

I think Tom measured his Arbeter Fraint's to 18"--but I may be mistaken.

Wish more of us would try to reproduce things.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

You mean like hiding in dark alleys and jumping out on ladies of the night with sharp knives? No seriously, thank you, I was curious to see what it would look like in real life.

All good wishes,
Gwyneth

P.S. As to size see my reply to c.d. Could well be wrong, of course. Came across a collector of such journals on the web, could double-check with him, perhaps, if it is possible.

[curious4]

Broadsheet

Hello cd,

I used this http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadsheet
for estimating newspaper size. I am presuming that standard sizing would facilitate printing.

Best wishes,
C4

Hello Wickerman,

Thank you for your kind words. I suppose it all depends on how good you are at calculating size. Just tried to estimate a foot, but was out by four inches. Would a policeman be better at this than others?

Best wishes,
C4

[c.d.]

I think Tom measured his Arbeter Fraint's to 18"--but I may be mistaken.

Wow! I have a lot more respect for Tom now.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

My oh my, who has been a busy Bee..

So, my conclusion: a bundle of newspapers could not be made to form a packet 18" long and 6-8" wide.

We must also allow for the fact that PC Smith was estimating the size. I do agree with your conclusion, but at the same time the actual parcel may not have been exactly 18 x 6-8 inch. So any theory that relies on those dimensions is also relying on guesswork.

To my eyes it is unlikely that anyone could mistake parcel for rolled up or folded newspapers,

Yes, and as the couple seen by Smith were standing still, it is very likely that Smith walked passed them, so saw this item up close.

[lynn cates]

good work

Hello Gwyneth. Good work. Nothing like empirical experience.

I think Tom measured his Arbeter Fraint's to 18"--but I may be mistaken.

Wish more of us would try to reproduce things.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Hello all,

In a very unscientific experiment I have tried to reproduce parcel and rolled up newspapers. Having scoured the city unsuccessfully for a newspaper in broadsheet format, I had to improvise. I am reliably (I hope)informed that a broadsheet is twice the size of a tabloid, so stapled together two tabloids and then piled up more until there were 32 pages (equals eight copies of AF if they had four pages each. I then folded the bundle horizontally and rolled it up (also horizontally), flattening the bundle a little to get some width. I measured length and breadth and found the bundle to be 22" long and about four and a half inches wide. I thought this way of folding would be the most natural. Had the newspaper been a tabloid, there would have been no way to fold/roll it to get the right length of 18". So, my conclusion: a bundle of newspapers could not be made to form a packet 18" long and 6-8" wide.

For comparison I made up a newspaper parcel 18" long ang 8" wide. Thinking that a parcel of this size and shape was likely to contain either clothes or bedlinen (just my guess, this,), I folded an old single duvet cover (my leather apron etc being at the cleaner´s) and wrapped it in newspaper. To my eyes it is unlikely that anyone could mistake parcel for rolled up or folded newspapers,

Photos with measurements attached - hopefully! Please feel free to prove me wrong!

Best wishes,
C4