PC Amos Simpson

[Amanda]

Morning guys,

https://www.aquamodesta.com

Image number 5.

Amanda

[mickreed]

Patience Mick,

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Keith has some records on Simpson which he is trawling through, which I'm not prepared to reveal without his permission. However, Keith also has regular work, which takes priority, meaning he cannot look through these records until he has a spare 5 minutes.

I'm going through what I have, and shall also be investigating other leads, and I know Ed is also conducting his research also. This, coupled with Amanda and everyone else's work here, should gleam more info as time goes on.

If there is an answer, its not going to be a quick one.

Monty

That's great Neil. Cheers.

[Monty]

Patience Mick,

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Keith has some records on Simpson which he is trawling through, which I'm not prepared to reveal without his permission. However, Keith also has regular work, which takes priority, meaning he cannot look through these records until he has a spare 5 minutes.

I'm going through what I have, and shall also be investigating other leads, and I know Ed is also conducting his research also. This, coupled with Amanda and everyone else's work here, should gleam more info as time goes on.

If there is an answer, its not going to be a quick one.

Monty

[mickreed]

Hi Mick,

Put the question to Keith Skinner this morning.

The photo of Amos Simpson belonged to Andy & Sue Parlour.

Amanda

No, I mean the questions we are raising, he has raised.

Monty

That's all fine, but it doesn't help us determine whether the pic is really of Amos. I'm sure Keith would have raised the questions. I've read enough of his work to know he is one of the best workers in this business. He may have spelled out the answers somewhere, it's just that I don't know where.

So, one more go. Was the Parlour's photo an original or a modern copy? If it was an original, was it a cabinet card as I suspect, and, like most cabinet cards and cdvs of the period, did it contain info about the photographer? If so, what was that information? Did it contain any contemporary annotations to help confirm that the subject really is Amos? If it was a modern copy, where's the original?

Why is this important? Well, it's not, if we don't really care who is in the photo. But if people are trying to pin Amos's career down, then the apparent discrepancy between the collar numbers and (possibly) the helmet plate, from what we know from other sources, becomes significant and tells us something we need to get to the bottom of.

At least, I think so.

[Monty]

Well, I do know that. That's why I asked the question, hoping someone would know

No, I mean the questions we are raising, he has raised.

Monty

[Amanda]

Amos's Photo

Well, I do know that. That's why I asked the question, hoping someone would know

Hi Mick,

Put the question to Keith Skinner this morning.

The photo of Amos Simpson belonged to Andy & Sue Parlour.

Amanda

[mickreed]

Mick,

Keith Skinner knows his onions mate.

Monty

Well, I do know that. That's why I asked the question, hoping someone would know

[Monty]

Mick,

Keith Skinner knows his onions mate.

Monty

[mickreed]

I'm sure it is 89.
It is worth checking Simpson's records to get his collar number.
If it isn't him, and the photo came from the family, then it puts more doubt on the rest of their story.
But it seems unlikely that too many photos of an Acting Sergeant are knocking around.

Hi

If it really did come from the family, then as you say, it's unlikely they'd have got hold of an image of just any old Acting Sergeant, so likelihood would have to be:

1. Amos

2. Another family member

3. A friend of Amos's

Did Keith Skinner see the original photo, or was it just a copy? The original was probably a card photo, either a carte-de-visite, or a cabinet card - probably the latter, from the proportions of the image). If it is a Cabinet then, probably it's late-1880s onwards and it would almost certainly have had the photographer's details on the foot of the card, or on the back. That info could be vital for dating and of course, for knowing where the image was taken.

[mickreed]

I don't think we need to over analyse the crap out of this.

Well, it depends what we're trying to achieve. If it is Amos, then either he had a number at some point other than what is known OR he was in a different force at some point. I'd have thought that was relevant, in fact quite possibly very much so.

The other possibility is that it's another Simpson - could the following fit?(posted by Paddy earlier):

Just out of interest to get a feel for Amos, he had an uncle Joe Simpson , a bricklayer and his wife Caroline and family living in Mile End Old Town West
from 1861 census 1 Church Road
1871 .. 33 Diggon Street
1881 .. 9 Wilson Street Limehouse
1891 .. Grays Thurrock, Essex

It also looks like his brother Charles was a police constable in Greenwich area in 1881. (needs checking but looks like him)
Brother Joe was a publican in Paddington and brother George lived in st Pancras.

All seemed to have moved out of London to the suburbs by 1891

Pat.....................

[Lechmere]

I'm sure it is 89.
It is worth checking Simpson's records to get his collar number.
If it isn't him, and the photo came from the family, then it puts more doubt on the rest of their story.
But it seems unlikely that too many photos of an Acting Sergeant are knocking around.

[Monty]

Well, it's not relevant if it isn't Amos. We will just have shown a misidentification in an otherwise superb book.

But if it really is Amos then another lot of problems kick in, and it becomes very relevant.

So my question, why did Paul Begg et al think it was Amos? In other words what's the photos provenance?

I don't think we need to over analyse the crap out of this.

The photo, I believe, appeared in the Parlours book, who had it from Simpsons descendants, so its provenance is actually good. It would be unfair to state it is not Simpson without sound evidence, which my opinions certainly are not.

Monty


I have just had contact with Keith Skinner, who confirmed the photo in the A-Z came from Andy Parlour.

Monty

[mickreed]

PS Not that the photo has any relevance really.

Well, it's not relevant if it isn't Amos. We will just have shown a misidentification in an otherwise superb book.

But if it really is Amos then another lot of problems kick in, and it becomes very relevant.

So my question, why did Paul Begg et al think it was Amos? In other words what's the photos provenance?

[GUT]

The part that really has me thinking Hertfordshire is the point at the bottom of the plate [do you think I can think of the right term].

On MET it is very small on Hertfordshire it extends a fair way down. To me that cannot be an optical illusion however the appearance of an opening in the top of the crown could be an optical illusion due to the lighting.

[Monty]

G'day Monty

For I am really on the fence on this one.

To me the bottom of the emblem looks more like Hertfordshire plate.

But the top of the crown looks open like the MET plate.

The difference is in the Brunswick star, which is smaller than the Mets, and the larger garter in the Herts plate, making it look rounder.

As I said, to me the photo doesn't sit right. I may be wrong.

Monty


PS Not that the photo has any relevance really.