Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Cap'n Jack]

As you say, Natalie, some serious research needs to be employed in regard to the cobbles in the yard. Like you I can't see the owners going to all the expense of cobbling the yard only to knock the whole lot down a few years later.
As I said a few years ago I did find a report concerning the resurfacing of Berner Street, but it got lost in the Great Crash, though I'm sure George and his mates, who have so carefully researched this photo would have the date of that resurfacing work... wouldn't they?

Mac, you are almost certainly right in that the other photos in the album can justify a 1900 dating, but we do not discuss those, we discuss a photo - if my understanding is correct - that was obtained apart from the album, and then later matched to the album.

[caz]

There's no doubt about who the sad case is. Maybe we should pity him for his cantankerous blindness.

PHILIP

Ooh I didn't realise AP's blindness was caused by cantankeracts. I'd play devil's advocaat here and suggest we all club together and get him operated on toot sweet, except that I fear we would never agree on what sort of procedure he most richly deserves .

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Ally - so, how would you have gone about it, then? Leave it to someone else to announce it, as they no doubt would, and then have everyone having a go because the person who had it 'didn't want anyone to know'?

You know I'd typed up a whole long reply to this, then realized your question was probably rhetorical and you really didn't want me to answer it.

[George Hutchinson]

Thanks, Mac.

Just popping in in a cafe in Iceland having been off-line and still not being home for the rest of this week. Hi to most of you.

Ally - so, how would you have gone about it, then? Leave it to someone else to announce it, as they no doubt would, and then have everyone having a go because the person who had it 'didn't want anyone to know'?

As for the rest, everyone you don't need to waste your time defending the photo to that berk in Guernsey. It's clear he's just a bitter old drunk who can have every valid criticism he throws out chucked back at him in spades.

Who was it that suggested I 'announce' his photo on Casebook in 2005 with a big run-up? Who was it who wanted to get me to do a special presentation at the 2005 Conference to a certain Natalie Severn, who didn't even turn up? Who is it who thinks he's so important that we lesser mortals can't even know his name, though he seems to write little chapbooks on animals under his real name?

There's no doubt about who the sad case is. Maybe we should pity him for his cantankerous blindness.

PHILIP

[mac-the-kipper]

I have to say, that as I have seen another photogaph from this album, there is no way they could have been taken any later than 1901. That is an undisputed fact peeps. The Horse Guard picture shows a Mounted Trooper at Horse Guards carrying a rifle (carried on parade during the Boer war) and a pre 1902 sword and scabbard. If 1900 is the claimed date of this album then I'm quite happy with that.

[John Bennett]

I go, I come back in again...

I saw the image, once and briefly, before it went back into his purse;

You are kidding. Once and briefly? Obviously that's all one needs to give this watermarked, low-res image the full attention demanded of such an assured demolition job.

[Bailey]

What a load of old cobbles is what I say.

Louis Diemschutz at inquest:
'In the yard were a few paving stones, which were very irregularly fixed.'

Now that is not what we see in George's photo.

Just playing Devil's Avocado here, but that could also be a transcription or comprehension issue - "There were a few paving stones which very irregularly fixed." - as opposed to all the others, which were fine. Obviously the quote is out of context so I'm almost certainly barking up the wrong tree here.

B.

[Chris]

Louis Diemschutz at inquest:
'In the yard were a few paving stones, which were very irregularly fixed.'

Now that is not what we see in George's photo.

No, but this is one aspect of the evidence that is differently reported by different newspapers.

The quotation above is from the Times.

But the Morning Advertiser, 2 October, has:
The gutter of the yard passage is made of paving stones, the centre being of irregular boulders. The body was lying half on the paving stones.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881002.html

And the Daily Telegraph, 2 October, has:
The gutter of the yard is paved with large stones, and the centre with smaller irregular stones.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881002.html

That doesn't sound dissimilar to what's shown in the photograph. But as always, those with access to a clear copy of it will naturally be able to judge better.

[caz]

Have a nice weekend

Thanks Stan. I did have a very nice weekend and am only sorry to see the nonsense continuing here.

Incidentally, I wasn't 'attacking' you at all. I was agreeing with what you said about people who are 'qualified' in whatever capacity not having a monopoly over clear writing and useful insights on this particular topic. I just couldn't quite figure out what had triggered your observation in the first place.

As you were, chaps and chapesses.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

The question of the cobbles definitely needs careful investigating.If ,shortly after this photograph was taken,the section of road was pulled down,its very unlikely anyone would have gone to the astronomical cost of surfacing a yard like that .On the other hand,its possible that if, in 1892 ,significant "building works" took place in Dutfields Yard,as Phillip wrote, then the person responsible may have surfaced the yard as a gesture of goodwill to the other occupants-but it would have cost him or her a small fortune and such an expensive procedure was very, very rare in those days.
I know this from researching a small road through from 1790 to 1925.The access road had been a short narrow lane for horses and carriages to reach a busy forge, several cottages and a large detached house at the end of the lane.Neither the access road or the passage/yard that led to our cottage was ever resurfaced, though wealthy people had owned the mansion at the end of the lane,and successive occupants of it had had to put up with muddy wheel ruts until 1925. The access road was first surfaced in 1925,the cottages had to wait until the 1980"s.

[Cap'n Jack]

What a load of old cobbles is what I say.

Louis Diemschutz at inquest:
'In the yard were a few paving stones, which were very irregularly fixed.'

Now that is not what we see in George's photo.

[Ally]

I saw the image, once and briefly, before it went back into his purse; and my initial reaction was 'no ******* way!'
It hasn't changed a bit.
The background and clothing are entirely wrong.

Are you joking? Are you telling me that this entire time you are arguing based on an image your drenched brain is attempting to recollect based on a one time viewing? You didn't even copy the photo while it was up??!! I was expecting your arguments to have at the very least been based on you actually having the photograph in front of you and studying it like the rest of us who are arguing on here.

Jesus. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously. Next time copy the stupid photo and EXAMINE it before you shoot your mouth off.

[Magpie]

This is not the first comment on this thread that implicates that working class people have lower standards than the middle or upper class; and I think truly reflects the incredible snobbery amongst many of the posters here, who appear to believe that it was part of the East Ender's take on the fashion of the age to send their female children out onto the streets in clothing that exposed their lower legs, supposedly because they couldn't care less and were too busy drinking gin, because they were lower class scum.

It has nothing to do with "standards" but of simple economy--a knee length skirt requires half the fabric of an ankle length one, will last far longer, and require less cleaning.

[Cap'n Jack]

Well you kind folks, George was good enough awhile back to put up a section of the photo for Suzi to show her a cat; I'm sure he could offer us the same courtesy?
I saw the image, once and briefly, before it went back into his purse; and my initial reaction was 'no ******* way!'
It hasn't changed a bit.
The background and clothing are entirely wrong.

[Natalie Severn]

...what !where! bump