Chalk users

[moonbegger]

At last Bunny,

Someone who considers the peripherals.

Indeed, Victorian chalk compound meant it was far 'crumblier' than today.

Which begs the question, where was the residue?


Monty

Hi Monty

Could it not have been Washed away by the rain ?

Moonbegger

[Monty]

At last Bunny,

Someone who considers the peripherals.

Indeed, Victorian chalk compound meant it was far 'crumblier' than today.

Which begs the question, where was the residue?


Monty

[Beowulf]

Quite. When this case is finally settled, I think that it will have been so done WITHOUT any help from the GSG--pro or contra.

Cheers.
LC

Now THAT is an optimistic thing to say. You think one day it may be settled? I would love to think that!

[Archaic]

Victorian Chalk vs. Modern Chalk

Hi everyone.

After reading various threads regarding the Goulston St. graffito, it has occurred to me that people might be assuming that modern writing chalk and 1880's chalk are identical.

Victorian chalk was cheaply made from soft natural chalk (calcium carbonate); it was typically used for writing on slate and was easier to rub off than modern chalks.

Modern "chalk" is called "dustless chalk"; it's made of mineral composites which make it purer, smoother and less dusty. Old-fashioned chalk tended to release a large quantity of powdery particles and to raise huge clouds of chalk-dust, which can be harmful to the respiratory system and can trigger allergies. Many modern chalks contain emollients to make them "creamier" so they write more smoothly and don't rub off so easily.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Hunter]

Thanks for the photo Rob.

The Call at and O'clock are in 'schoolboy hand', which simply meant that it was written in cursive as opposed to print.(And this is by no means directed at you, Rob) Didn't mean a schoolboy necessarily wrote.

Hey Neil,

Got a spare Guinness?

[robhouse]

Here is a photo showing some chalk writing on the shutter of what I am guessing is some sort of shop, perhaps a tailor shop.

According to the 1888 Booth survey of tailors, this building (#11 Greenfield St) was the shop of a tailor named Miller who made coats. So there is evidence of tailors using chalk.

Would that handwriting be called a "schoolboy hand"?

[Bridewell]

Blurring

Here is a photo showing some chalk writing on the shutter of what I am guessing is some sort of shop, perhaps a tailor shop. This is a photo of the White Hart pub on Greenfield St (just a few houses north of Kozminski's brother's and sister's houses.) The photo is circa 1880s I believe.

It seems that the chalk writing says "Call at 5 oclock." So I am guessing that shop owners may have written messages like this on their shutters to indicate when they would be open, or other similar messages.

Rob H

Hi, Rob,

Your photo (for which many thanks) is an example of another possible explanation for any blurring in the GSG. If an error is made in chalk writing and then partially erased, there are tell-tale signs of this process. In your photo it looks as though the "Call at" & "o'clock" are a semi-permanent presence, and the "5" has been used to replace a previous entry. The only way to completely erase chalk writing is to wash it off, as was done with the GSG. Perhaps the blurring reportedly present in the GSG was the result of the author (JtR or otherwise) amending the text in some way.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PhiltheBear]

Mmm. I used Halse, just like you did when assesing the height of the dado.

The best,
Fisherman

Halse said "about three lines..."

[robhouse]

Here is a photo showing some chalk writing on the shutter of what I am guessing is some sort of shop, perhaps a tailor shop. This is a photo of the White Hart pub on Greenfield St (just a few houses north of Kozminski's brother's and sister's houses.) The photo is circa 1880s I believe.

It seems that the chalk writing says "Call at 5 oclock." So I am guessing that shop owners may have written messages like this on their shutters to indicate when they would be open, or other similar messages.

Rob H

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"Depends on the height of the person.... "

Well, obviously, yes.

"Even if the dado was higher it's still likely that the writing would be within 'reach' of a passerby's clothing."

Quite possibly.

"As to 3 lines - according to the Home Office report (A49301C/8c f183) the writing was on 5 lines."

Mmm. I used Halse, just like you did when assesing the height of the dado.

The best,
Fisherman

[PhiltheBear]

Yes, Halse did say that the writing was on the black surface, reaching to around four feet, above which the bricks were painted white. But if the black area was only 4 feet (121 centimeters), then the text as such would have been placed lower than that, and it was written in three lines ...
Thatīs not shoulder height, is it?

Depends on the height of the person.... I would think when they said shoulder what they meant was upper arm which is roughly 2/3 to 5/6 of a person's height. For someone 5' 6" tall that would be 3' 8" to 4' 7". For someone 5ft tall it would be 3' 4" to 4' 2". So, if it was written on a 4ft dado the top lines, at least, would be caught by an upper arm. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would drag just their shoulder along a wall but more likely that someone would move to one side in a small passageway and rub the wall with their arm.

Even if the dado was higher it's still likely that the writing would be within 'reach' of a passerby's clothing.

As to 3 lines - according to the Home Office report (A49301C/8c f183) the writing was on 5 lines.

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Dave.

"When I stop and reflect on it, I just can't get THAT excited about the GSG and in the absence of anything more likely I'd quite happily settle for it being a schoolboy effort"

Quite. When this case is finally settled, I think that it will have been so done WITHOUT any help from the GSG--pro or contra.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Come on Monty - the writing was on the Dado of the wall and the Dado was 4ft high (it's all in the evidence). Look up GSG in the Begg, Fido & Skinner A to Z.

Not like you to miss that!

Phil

Phil,

Cut the attitude. Doesn't endear one.

I know exactly the height because I have seen it myself. Didn't rely on Begg, Skinner, Fido, Rumbelow, Evans or any modern author.

I also have a hi res Whittington-Egan kindly donated to me by Stewart Evans. Its clear on that also.

I've also easily written on the entrance towards Aldage, as it matches almost exactly the description and Richards photo.

So, with that in mind, I ask again, where does it state exactly the heigh of the writing?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Yeah, but my thinking is IN the box. I mean this ain't no namby-pamby Scandinavian Nisse family of elves we're talking about. The Juwes clan were the real deal."

Ugh! You wouldnīt blame that lot for nothing, would you? Thanks for straightening that out, Mike!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"The Dado was 4ft high - the writing was on it. The shoulder height thing seems to have come from the idea that the blurriness could be caused by someone's shoulder brushing past it."

Yes, Halse did say that the writing was on the black surface, reaching to around four feet, above which the bricks were painted white. But if the black area was only 4 feet (121 centimeters), then the text as such would have been placed lower than that, and it was written in three lines ...
Thatīs not shoulder height, is it?

The five feet I was referring to was the height of the black bricks that are visible on photos of Wentworths model buildings - I have seen them described as reaching to five feet in height, I believe, thus the misunderstanding.

The best,
Fisherman