Signed William Gull letter - thoughts?

[AdamWalsh]

I dont know if you guys are into this sort of thing or not but I know a guy who runs an autograph/oddities site and has a few Ripper items for sale - most interestingly a supposed letter from Sir William Gull:


"Medical Prescription, written by Gull, and signed by him with his initials, 16 June 1865. 6" x 4½", laid down. Miscellaneous mounted signatures to reverse. Ideal for framing."

£145 - not bad - the question of course is - is it real? And the other question of course is will one of you bastards buy it before I decide if its worth buying

Anyway, some interesting items on there to look at - more Ripper things amongst others - http://www.cloudcuckooland.biz/criminology.htm

[AdamWalsh]

p.s - just wanted to make it clear I am not here to sell things! I dont care if he sells anything - just think its interesting that someone is selling a Gull letter as I was impressed with the theories involving him put forward in "From Hell".

[joelhall]

do you have any details of any actual items relating to the ripper?

[George Hutchinson]

Adam, I've got a signed Gull piece and I think this is authentic.

£145 is top whack, though. I got mine for about £50, though it's not a complete letter. I'd hold on to your cash, to be honest.

PHILIP

[AdamWalsh]

do you have any details of any actual items relating to the ripper?

like what? a lock of his hair?

[Sam Flynn]

Adam, I've got a signed Gull piece and I think this is authentic.

Did he habitually append "Sir William Gull" to his prescriptions? I'll make a note of that: "humility not a strong point"

[joelhall]

like what? a lock of his hair?

well anything that ties in a little more than a prescription dated 23 years earlier, by someone who probably had nothing to do with the case, for someone else who didnt...

like maybe a police memorandum, missing photos or papers old newspapers... er, something actually related to the case?

[AdamWalsh]

well anything that ties in a little more than a prescription dated 23 years earlier, by someone who probably had nothing to do with the case, for someone else who didnt...

like maybe a police memorandum, missing photos or papers old newspapers... er, something actually related to the case?

surely anything like that is in police archives, i think you miss the point of collecting items - ANY items related to suspects. all the good stuff is with the police.

[joelhall]

surely anything like that is in police archives,

youd think so. not being cheeky but what books have you read exactly?

[ChrisGeorge]

Did he habitually append "Sir William Gull" to his prescriptions? I'll make a note of that: "humility not a strong point"

Hello Sam

Maybe you are being facetious but the name "Sir William Gull" written in pencil at lower right is the document seller's notation, or written by a previous seller. Gull's signature is that scribble above it. I am used to dealing with physician's handwriting in my job and this looks authentic for a prescription though not a letter. I wonder if the embossing at top is Gull's seal or of the institution whose notepaper this was written on?

Chris

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe you are being facetious but the name "Sir William Gull" written in pencil at lower right is the document seller's notation, or written by a previous seller. Gull's signature is that scribble above it.

Hi Chris,

I wasn't being facetious - for once! On the contrary, I took the scribble to be Gull's initials (it does only say "WG", after all) and the pencil at the to be Gull's signature proper. The pencilled lettering looks a little bit "olde worlde" to me, although it might also be a later caption added by an owner/seller, as you suggest.

[AdamWalsh]

youd think so. not being cheeky but what books have you read exactly?

what crime are we talking about again?

[AdamWalsh]

what crime are we talking about again?

this is sarcasm by the way

[joelhall]

this is sarcasm by the way

amusing. though i think you could have done better

just thought it was a matter of record that the files held are notable for their sheer absence of material. alot was seemingly stolen and some had resurfaced but the majority are still at large. thats why i wondered what you had read.

joel

[Chris George]

Hi Chris,

I wasn't being facetious - for once! On the contrary, I took the scribble to be Gull's initials (it does only say "WG", after all) and the pencil at the to be Gull's signature proper. The pencilled lettering looks a little bit "olde worlde" to me, although it might also be a later caption added by an owner/seller, as you suggest.

Hi Sam

Yes I agree that the pencilled "Sir William Gull" looks old or at least written by someone in old style handwriting. It could be though that the prescription was acquired early on by a collector or documents dealer who made that notation. I should think though that the seller's characterization of the document is correct: "signed by him with his initials" and that Gull's contribution in terms of signing it is only in the penned initials. Why would he need to put his full name on a prescription anyway? I may be wrong about this but unless a knighted personage is conceited, it would be unusual for him to sign his own name with the designation "Sir." I once received a letter from Sir John Gielgud in reply to a request from me to interview him, which he gracefully declined. This was in Spring 1984 at the time of his 80th birthday. I had to sell the letter but as I recall the note was just signed "John Gielgud" or else "JG" -- certainly the notepaper was embossed "JG" at the top.

Below is the photograph of Gull at Wikipedia showing his signature which is consistent with the penned initials on the prescription but not with the pencilled name "Sir William Gull" showing that the initials are by Gull but the name at bottom is not.

All the best

Chris