Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Ash]

Hi Alan,
I would accept your explanation of how the wall appears to be jutting out if it were not for the shadows.Its a sunny day.The building on the left is in dark
shadow but the white building is sunlit.However it is not sunlit at the point where it appears to end and "recede" .That part is definitely not sunlit or illuminated in the same way.What is the explanation for this do you think?

Hi Norma

As the photo is now gone I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word for this, but I am looking at the high-res version here, and the shadow does indeed, as you say, seem to stop at the plastered section, except that it doesn't. It actually extends a very short way onto it, with no break in the line of shadow. This is because this shadow is of the buildings at the front, lining Berner Street. At the rear of this the cottages were not so high, and I believe also receded a little, hence their shadow does not extend so far.

But in all fairness to Philip I did point out that the jutting-out building, although not shown on ordnance survey or Goad's fire plan, is shown on one of the Furniss drawings, though it isn't quite as pronounced.

I think I'm looking at the Furniss drawing you refer to. Is it the one in the circular frame. If so, it does give that same illusion of jutting out because there are two downward lines in the same way and they disappear out of view at the top, but if you look at ground level you will see that all the walls run backwards in a dead straight line.

[Sam Flynn]

that does not really address how the left side of her face had mud on it and how her hair was matted with mud, Khanada.It had been raining for half an hour and her head was next to the mudded wheel rut.Mud doesnt come from brick or asphalt.

...but, as I hinted to AP, things come and go over the years, Nats. The condition of the terrain in 1900 was almost certainly different to that which prevailed in 1888, and this is as true for cobbles or mud as it is for blood, dung-heaps and corpses.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ash,

I just took another look at Philip's photograph.

Regarding the jutty-out building, are you sure you're not confusing perspective with the 8 x 4 ft. piece of plywood [or whatever] Apron Man by the gate is steadying under his left arm?

Regards,

Simon

Can you remember the sunlight on the walls Simon-why do you think it was brighter at the front than at what looked like the side of the jutty out part?The picture was removed just now so I wonder if you know what I am referring to here.I am being serious -not larking about.

[Ash]

Hi Ash,

I just took another look at Philip's photograph.

Regarding the jutty-out building, are you sure you're not confusing perspective with the 8 x 4 ft. piece of plywood [or whatever] Apron Man by the gate is steadying under his left arm?

Regards,

Simon

?????

Unless you are referring to the gate, I think what you are calling plywood is the building shadow that Norma was referring to. There is no piece of plywood present.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Ash.That explanation seems fine.[the posts crossed back then].I am actually not wanting to pick holes in this-I was being playful before but in all seriousness the shadows had me confused there.
Best
Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ash,

This is the Furniss pic I was referring to—



Shadow? So what's that rectangular thing under Apron Man's left arm?

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

'Shadow? So what's that rectangular thing under Apron Man's left arm?'

A Samsonite briefcase that clunks with a very unsatisfactory clunk?

[Natalie Severn]

?????

Unless you are referring to the gate, I think what you are calling plywood is the building shadow that Norma was referring to. There is no piece of plywood present.

Ash,
I am just wanting to be sure we are talking about the same shadow.Looking at the picture,there is on the right,a man holding a board of some kind.Behind him is a section of the white building at right angles to a brighter white sunlit front wall of the building.It is an explanation as to why this should be so in a wall that we are told in inquest reports,is flush all the way to the annexe.It didnt look flush because of the way this faint shadow fell.on that section of wall in the picture.

[Ash]

Simon

Yes, that's the picture I meant, but it originally had a circular frame round it. If you look at the ground and line up the grating, the bottom of the "jutty out" bit and the door of the club, you will see they form a straight line. Hence, no jutting out.

As to the left arm thing, he is not holding anything under his left arm. As before, I can only assume you are referring to the shadow which runs along the wall at just above his waist height and extends back almost as far as the side door of the club.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can see that Apron Man is steadying a "board" of some kind under his left arm.

Ash, you have driven me to drink. So I raise a glass of Californian Chardonnay to you while I take my leave of this 'argument'.

Catch you next time.

Regards,

Simon

[Ash]

Ash,
I am just wanting to be sure we are talking about the same shadow.Looking at the picture,there is on the right,a man holding a board of some kind.Behind him is a section of the white building at right angles to a brighter white sunlit front wall of the building.It is an explanation as to why this should be so in a wall that we are told in inquest reports,is flush all the way to the annexe.It didnt look flush because of the way this faint shadow fell.on that section of wall in the picture.

Aaargh! There is no person holding a board of any kind!

All I can say is that in the high-res version, it is very clear that the wall is flush all the way back, albeit as said at first glance I thought otherwise (but that was a year ago.) The plastered/whitewashed frontage at the rear is in direct sunlight. The bare wall towards the front has a line of shadow running along it around three to three and a half feet from the ground, cast by the buildings opposite. And without posting the photo and causing Phil to fly back across the Atlantic brandishing a machete in my direction, I can't really explain it any better than that.

[Rob Clack]

After a long day at work I didn't expect to come home and read some of the tripe that's been posted on this thread today. I've come to expect it from AP but some of the rubbish Trevor has spouted is amazing.
Anyway I'm more than happy with the research I did on the photo and if anyone wants to disagree with me than that's fine as long they can explain why I'm wrong wrong and exactly what research they have done.

This is the Goads Map of Dutfields Yard from May 1899 (not 1889 as Philip has said). I've marked the approximate spot in red where the photo was taken. I've turned it into black and White as I'm buggered if I'm going to put the colour version up which cost me 6 times more than what Philip paid for the photo.



And I am quite happy to answer questions about the photo.

Simon, the aproned man hasn't got anything under his left arm.

Rob

[Natalie Severn]

No worries Ash,lets leave it for now.I can quite see the board bit solved but not the difference in brightness-all the way up that wall that "looks"like its a side section of wall at "right angles" to the main sunlit front wall of the house on the right hand side.
Thanks very much for trying and being so helpful,
Cheers
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Rob,that map is really really helpful.
But,chill man! There really isnt any need to be so bloody rude.It was really quite all good humoured until you came on.

[Rob Clack]

In any event, as it seems that Rob Clack did a crapload of work in establishing the provenance of this photo, I wanted to extend a good job to him also. He should also be congratulated on the work he's put in. Good job Rob.

Thanks Ally, that's probably the nicest thing you've said about anyone on these boards. I'm getting all misty eyed now.

Rob X