Saucy Jack Postcard

i am reviewing a number of aspects of the ripper case and have come across an issue with regards to the saucy jack postcard.

From what has been written suggests that the postcard was received at the central newsagency on October 1st. Is there any definate proof that this was the case.

The envelope is clearly postmarked October 1st so I do not beleive it could have been posted and deleiverd on the same day.

In this day and age the postal service are not that good and i am sure in 1888 they were very basic.

If this be true then this must add more weight to the fact that it was a
hoax.

Trevor, i have one disagreement, the Victorian's pride themselves on good quality/service in any job area, there were several posting times on the same day and i'll bet they did start very early in the morning, so i would think that anyone having heard about Eddowes death, and it has been mentioned before that members of the public did see Eddowes body in the square before she was moved to the mortuary, so easy for someone to have scrawled that postcard and popped it in the post, the public would have known about Liz Stride as well, so anyone could write down ' Double event ' in any case, it is probability and a need to search for improbability/ impossibility adds the weight. I agree with you that it was a hoax, as i believe all the letters/postcards are.

[Bailey]

I'm sorry to be cryptic,

Then don't!

but if I spelled it out you and everyone else would probably dismiss it out of hand as absurd.

I tend to dismiss a lot of what I read or hear about the Ripper as absurd...

The purpose of Saucy Jacky is something you have to arrive at under your own steam, but I solemnly promise that once you "get it" there will be no turning back. Jack will never be the same.

I should add that "getting it" will also present you with a brand new set of problems to solve.

Aw, you're just being mean! Please let us in on your big secret!

In all seriousness, I would really like to know what you're getting at here, Simon. I won't promise not to think it absurd, but I will consider it seriously.

Cheers,
B.

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

I'm sorry to be cryptic, but if I spelled it out you and everyone else would probably dismiss it out of hand as absurd.

The purpose of Saucy Jacky is something you have to arrive at under your own steam, but I solemnly promise that once you "get it" there will be no turning back. Jack will never be the same.

I should add that "getting it" will also present you with a brand new set of problems to solve.

I'm still grappling with them.

Ain't Ripperology fun?

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Well I'm sorry to say that I don't "get it." Could you spell it out for me? Thanks.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Thanks.

I'm pleased you "got it".

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

Simon, I guess that you and me only get into contact once or twice a year, but I have to say everytime we do, you always have a damn good thing to discuss.
This is nice and neat. I like it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Not much more to tell really, but if you believe [as I do] that the person who killed Eddowes did not kill Stride it kicks the Saucy Jacky postcard into a whole new ball park.

Somebody was laying claim to a coincidental and wholly unexpected murder. And that person could only have been someone with knowledge of Dear Boss, which was not public knowledge at the time the postcard was allegedly mailed.

Somebody was thinking on their feet on Sunday, September 30th.

And the very next day Jack the Ripper was born.

I'll leave you to work out the who and why.

Hope you're well.

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

OK. I'm completely lost here...postmarks, stamps, Victorian efficiency...is the damn thing real or a hoax?

c.d.

[Cap'n Jack]

I like this, Simon, tell me more.

[Stewart P Evans]

Different Postmarks

Hi Stewart,
Here's the two Saucy Jacky postmarks, superimposed to their best fit.

[ATTACH]3518[/ATTACH]

The fonts plus the general orientation of the characters are completely different, and nothing matches or lines up.
Both look like they were made with a John Bull printing outfit [Whoops! That's given my age away].
Regards,
Simon

Simon, all I think that means is that two different rubber postmark stamps were used. When it was noticed the stamp had been applied on the wrong side it was stamped by a different operator. I don't think that there is anything else to be read into this. The cancelling postmarks did vary quite a bit.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Here's the two Saucy Jacky postmarks, superimposed to their best fit.



The fonts plus the general orientation of the characters are completely different, and nothing matches or lines up.

Both look like they were made with a John Bull printing outfit [Whoops! That's given my age away].

Regards,

Simon

[Bailey]

Hey folks

I've on occasion wondered about the process by which the facsimilies of the letter / postcard were made. Does anyone have a link to an article, thread or other info on this process, or can someone shed some light? Many thanks.

Bailey

[Stewart P Evans]

Image

Here is an image of the postmark on the wrong side of the 'saucy Jacky' postcard -

[Stewart P Evans]

Stamps

Hi Stewart, ...
There was therefore no technical reason for the stamp not to have reproduced...
There has to be another explanation.
I would respectfully suggest that it had something to do with the passing-off of a rather clumsy attempt at a postmark—a postmark, incidentally, which bears no resemblance to its counterpart on the opposite side of the postcard.
Simon

I think that the technical reason may be that where black was superimposed over the stamp it was only possible to use one of the colours and black was preferred as it showed the posting details.

An indicator of this is that the date stamp that was used on the reverse of the postcard comes out in the same red as the rest of the card when it should be black. The rubber date stamps were applied by hand and it would appear that the first date stamp had been erroneously placed on the wrong side. When this was noticed it would have been stamped properly over the stamp. These 'stamping clerks' would rush through bundles of dozens of cards or letters and if one had been placed the wrong way round it could easily get stamped on the wrong side.

[Stewart P Evans]

Printing

Hi Stewart,
The only problem with your explanation for the missing postcard stamp is that the words "POST CARD", "THE ADDRESS ONLY TO BE WRITTEN ON THIS SIDE", the Royal Insignia and stamp were all printed in the same colour—described in various philatelic books as 'brick red'.
There was therefore no technical reason for the stamp not to have reproduced.
The penny stamp on the Dear Boss envelope was lilac—Queen Victoria's favourite colour—and having a reduced red content did not reproduce as well, though its outline is faintly visible.
Simon

There is, I would suggest, no reason to think that there was not a printed stamp on the original postcard. I am no expert on screen printing, or whatever process was used, but I think that the printing process is the reason for the omission of the image of the stamp. It is probably to do with the heavy date stamp that covers the stamp image, or the complexity of the stamp image. Or was it because it was not allowed to print the Queen's image on anything but a valid postcard? I don't know, but I'm sure that there is nothing sinister to be read into it.