George Hitchinson: a simple question

[joelhall]

Hi Guys,
The fact is Abberline at least initially believed Gh, which included the fact that whilst his story may have seemed too good to be true, it surely had to have been possible with the lighting present to have been plausible, otherwise it would have not been taken as seriously as it originaly was.
We were not there folks,neither can we ask people that were, so lets just assume that 'Topping' [ oops Sorry Ben] was being truthful, and go from there....
Regards Richard.

with little to go on though, he simply wouldnt be doing his job if he didnt follow up the lead.

another point is we simply dont know why he later disregarded the statement.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"There's no indication that they did in the long run, Fish, and that is what matters"

If we had been talking about something of a more etheric nature, I would have been a lot more inclined to agree on this, Ben. But we are discussing whether the police would or would not have realized that the lighting conditions under which Hutchīs observations were made were crucial to the verdict given on Hutchīs veracity, and I really see no space to believe that they would have slipped up on such a thing.

On the issue of the varnish, Ben, it is not as if there will appear blemishes and such. The varnish will grow darker with time, so the overall effect will be one of the motive seemingly having been painted under darker conditions. It will take a very long time before contours are blurred and such - normally much, much longer than the time these pictures have existed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Joel!

"for obvious reasons, galleries & print makers make their copies under the best possible conditions to give the best images, such as these here, so this should not be an issue"

Perhaps not. Thing is, we donīt really know. We donīt know when the photos were taken, for example. Sometimes when you get to see a painting that you have only seen in pictures before, you are disappointed by the lack of lustre in the real thing. In such cases the painting has often not been restored, whereas the pictures were taken before the decay set in. It happens, you know.
And much as you are correct in saying that the varnish will turn yellowish with time, it is just as correct to say that as time passes by, that yellow tone will darken into brownish nuances. If nothing is done, a painting may turn very, very dark brown. And when such paintings are washed and restored, it is like turning on a light, or like swopping night for day.
This, however, would not be applicable in the case of "your" paintings, since they are relatively new. Really badly darkened paintings will be two- threehundred years old, at least.
But the fact of the matter is that if these paintings have not been cleaned, and if the photos are relatively recent, varnish darkening will have had an effect. How much is impossible to say, though - it depends on the varnish and the conditions under which the paintings have hung.
This discussion, though, is of very little value, since nobody has ever doubted that gas lamps could be extremely poor in light strength. The more interesting side of things is that it can be shown that there were quite light-intensive lamps around back in 1888, such as the Bray lamp, and THAT is what has to be weighed in before passing judgement on Hutch.
The points I have challenged here are as follows:

1. The gas lamps in Commercial and Dorset Street could not have shone bright enough to allow for Hutchsīm testimony to be true.
Answer: There were powerful gas lamps around many a decade before 1888, and we donīt know the light intensity of the ones we are interested in, just as we donīt know how many lamps there were, or whether the lamps of commercial enterprises shone more brightly than the others. One poster even remebered that Dorset Street had a reputation of being well lit.
Conclusion: Leaves room for reasonable doubt.

2. The time Hutch had at hand to observe Astrakhan man closely would have been very short, perhaps just a second.
Answer: We have the papers saying that Astrakhan man and Mary Kelly were walking slowly. If we combine that with what has already been shown - that there were powerful gaslamps available in 1888 - we realize that the slower the couple walked and the stronger the light was, the longer a time we must accept for the observation on Hutchīs behalf.
Conclusion: Leaves room for reasonable doubt.

3. Nobody can remember so many details in so short a space of time.
Answer: We have Cazīpost, that shows us an example of this being done. And there is every possibility that the witness Caz mentions had significantly SHORTER time to make her observations. Hutch was afforded a calm situation, whereas the witness Caz speaks of must have been close to panick. Plus Hutch obviously put a lot of effort into his observation, intentionally doing as best as he could to get a good look at his man.
Conclusion: Leaves room for reasonable doubt.

There are no other points to challenge here. There is no other way to challenge them, but by proving that reasonable doubt can be cast on each of them. And in all three cases, this can be achieved. Therefore there is of course ample reason to question the wiews held by those saying that Hutchīs description of Astrakhan man was an impossibility.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

First,
This thread should be moved to the Hutchinson folder.

Next, here's a snippet from a Lloyd's Weekly article posted by Chris Scott. The article is from February 1891 and refers to the questioning of a witness.
First, the policeman tries to trick him regarding the victim's hat, which I found interesting. Then, this is said: I think it was was someone from Scotland Yard who said to me, "It's a pity you did not have a better look at him; you would not have had to have done any work for a little while."

This must imply that there was money to be had for a good witness, mustn't it? It could mean that the witness would be tied up in court and exempt from work, but I don't think so. It sounds as if a common laborer would make enough money to take some time off. If so, why can't this be applied to Hutchinson and 1888?

Cheers,

Mike

[Varqm]

do we have any more evidence about Mr Hutch other than the rubbish in the ripper and the royals?

none.thats where it belongs

[harry]

Probably most of you have been outdoors at night around a large bonfire,and close up around the fire the light is good.If however one member walks away from the fire,that person is soon swallowed up in he darkness beyond.To him/her however , the fire and those around it are visible from quite a distance off.Now compare a large bonfire with a flame from a small pipe emitting a single flame.How much light do you think that would cast.
Is it relevent.Well consider Hutchinson as the person under that single flame,and Kelly and companion as the one's in the darkness beyond.He would see hardly anything of them,except for the few seconds they passed on the perimiter,but he would be visible to them from a distance.So why should Astrakan,if he was the ripper(andwho else if Hutchinson is truthful)choose to walk by that one spot where he too was visible when he had the whole width of the street that was in darkness?
Because Kelly was guiding him?Hardly,since he had the money and could have guided her anywhere he wanted.
As to colours in darkness here is a test.Stand in a large open space on a cloudy night and look around.Do you see green trees and hedges.Yes and no.You know they are green,but in poor light they appear black,as do the grass beneath the feet.If painters were to paint that scene,would they paint the actual colours seen,shades of black and greys.?
It's no wonder the witnesses speak of dark bundles around Whitechapel It,s a wonder they saw anything at all.

[joelhall]

Hi Joel!

"for obvious reasons, galleries & print makers make their copies under the best possible conditions to give the best images, such as these here, so this should not be an issue"

Perhaps not. Thing is, we donīt really know. We donīt know when the photos were taken, for example. Sometimes when you get to see a painting that you have only seen in pictures before, you are disappointed by the lack of lustre in the real thing. In such cases the painting has often not been restored, whereas the pictures were taken before the decay set in. It happens, you know.
And much as you are correct in saying that the varnish will turn yellowish with time, it is just as correct to say that as time passes by, that yellow tone will darken into brownish nuances. If nothing is done, a painting may turn very, very dark brown. And when such paintings are washed and restored, it is like turning on a light, or like swopping night for day.
This, however, would not be applicable in the case of "your" paintings, since they are relatively new. Really badly darkened paintings will be two- threehundred years old, at least.
But the fact of the matter is that if these paintings have not been cleaned, and if the photos are relatively recent, varnish darkening will have had an effect. How much is impossible to say, though - it depends on the varnish and the conditions under which the paintings have hung.
This discussion, though, is of very little value, since nobody has ever doubted that gas lamps could be extremely poor in light strength. The more interesting side of things is that it can be shown that there were quite light-intensive lamps around back in 1888, such as the Bray lamp, and THAT is what has to be weighed in before passing judgement on Hutch.

i believe these are actually prints, rather than photos.. they would have been made under the best possible conditions. as to the varnish yellowing, this actually affects the light to the picture, rather than the colour. i think when you talk of the drastic effect above, however, it is tempera, rather than oil paint which reacts so badly. however, this would not cause the painting to seem 'more at night' or the lights different. it is colour used to cause this effect, not light itself.

1. The gas lamps in Commercial and Dorset Street could not have shone bright enough to allow for Hutchsīm testimony to be true.
Answer: There were powerful gas lamps around many a decade before 1888, and we donīt know the light intensity of the ones we are interested in, just as we donīt know how many lamps there were, or whether the lamps of commercial enterprises shone more brightly than the others. One poster even remebered that Dorset Street had a reputation of being well lit.
Conclusion: Leaves room for reasonable doubt.

we dont know of course. that is precisely what this thread is aiming to look at by examining relevant information. we dont have a time machine of course, but we have good probabilities, and the weighing of evidence often comes to balancing the probabilities. remembering here is useless unless we back it up with credible sources.

2. The time Hutch had at hand to observe Astrakhan man closely would have been very short, perhaps just a second.
Answer: We have the papers saying that Astrakhan man and Mary Kelly were walking slowly. If we combine that with what has already been shown - that there were powerful gaslamps available in 1888 - we realize that the slower the couple walked and the stronger the light was, the longer a time we must accept for the observation on Hutchīs behalf.
Conclusion: Leaves room for reasonable doubt.

no argument here. we know that they stopped, and he followed them from flower & dean, to dorset street whilst observing them. he unfortunately does not give the time scale.

3. Nobody can remember so many details in so short a space of time.
Answer: We have Cazīpost, that shows us an example of this being done. And there is every possibility that the witness Caz mentions had significantly SHORTER time to make her observations. Hutch was afforded a calm situation, whereas the witness Caz speaks of must have been close to panick. Plus Hutch obviously put a lot of effort into his observation, intentionally doing as best as he could to get a good look at his man.
Conclusion: Leaves room for reasonable doubt.

this is the worst part to look at, as the one thing hutch does not state (other than for his not having money) are his reasons. to say it is not possible, is silly, as i can remember for example, what my fiance was wearing on our first date. i can remember small things my sons have done in good detail.

why? because i either felt a need to remember them, or they were such events that stand out (such as ashtrakan).

hutch stooped to look at the man, he followed, he waited, he searched. we know from his statement that he went out of his way to view the fellow.

sadly, we never heard why. if he wanted to remember the man he probably could have. but if the information that is desperately lacking had been asked for, many questions could have been answered. unless we get very lucky they never will be.

its been said that it took time to check out his statement before they disregarded it (its only common sense to), such as checking to see if he could see in the light.

however, we are told that abberline was brought back from scotland yard, not only due to his meticulous methods, but because he knew the area so well.

[Ben]

Just a quick reminder to everyone:

Fisherman still believes Hutchinson's statement and description to be a fabrication.

There were powerful gas lamps around many a decade before 1888, and we donīt know the light intensity of the ones we are interested in, just as we donīt know how many lamps there were, or whether the lamps of commercial enterprises shone more brightly than the others. One poster even remebered that Dorset Street had a reputation of being well lit.

- They were not powerful.

They were open flames, not the gas mantles that appeared from the 1890s onwards. It doesn't matter how great the light intensity was. Positing the existance of "powerful" gas lamps when we know there were no such thing in 188 renders you at best forgetful and at worst a wilful liar. It still would have been sufficient to notice horseshoe tie-pins, white buttons over button boots, red handkerchiefs, and the other accessorial details in the time availalable, especially if he stated himself that he concentrated on the man's upper body at the same time as the man's lower body.

You can't concentrate on the tiny physical particulars of a man's face at the same time as the tiny physical particulars of a man's upper body at the same time as the tiny physical particulars of a man's lower body.

That cannot be done.

Absolutely impossible.

We have the papers saying that Astrakhan man and Mary Kelly were walking slowly. If we combine that with what has already been shown - that there were powerful gaslamps available in 1888

No. you're talking nonsense again.

Nobody has ever claimed there were powerful lamps available in 1888, certainly not in Commercial Street and Dorset Street. That is complete invention on your part. They were open flames, and therefore served the primary function of beacons, not the sort of torches you were envisaging earlier. We've also learned from people with actual experience of later, more advanced, gas mantles, that even they were incredibly dim, and could not have facillitated anywhere near the level of recollection Hutchinson alleged.

we realize that the slower the couple walked and the stronger the light was, the longer a time we must accept for the observation on Hutchīs behalf.

There's walking slowly and there's walking at an implausible glacier's pace.

There's Victorian gas lamps, and there are absurdly powerful torches that definitely didn't exist at that time. You can only "accept a longer" time if you stretch the existing evidence to a ridiculous degree, consistently failing to appreciate that we have all this on the dubious authority of Hutchinson and nobody else.

Caz did not provide a comparable example. The attack happened in broad day light and good conditions. She had time to observe the physical particulars of the truck as it approached in broad daylight and good conditions. The attack took appreciable more than the flash being suggested earlier. The witness - who was the actual victim of the attack - observed appreicably less details than Hutchinson...in broad daylight and good conditions.

Plus Hutch obviously put a lot of effort into his observation, intentionally doing as best as he could to get a good look at his man

What do you mean "obviously"? You believe he lied, so it isn't "obvious" at all. For all you know, Hutchinson may have added the "gas lamp" and "walking slowly" detail purely to make an implausible account appear less so?

And can we, please, highlight the folly of the following: Fisherman tried to get away with using Van Gogh and pictures of a scene in Paris in effort to prove the validity of the Astrakhan sighting, and yet here he is, trying to prevent others from using paintings of London - London - in the late evening to infer otherwise.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ease off, Ben!

I am not trying to prevent anybody to use paintings of London to infer anything. These paintings are representative, Iīm sure. Nor have I inferred otherwise at any time.

The trouble is, however, that what we need to question your assertion that Hutchīs description could not have been true, is not paintings with bad lighting, is it? Of course not - we need to prove that there were gas lamps existing that could shine quite brightly, and that has been done by now, the Bray lamp being a good example of such a lamp.
There is of course no way to prove that there were light-intensive lamps in Dorset Street and Commercial Street, just as there is no way to prove that there was not. Therefore, to assess if there was any possibility that Hutch came clean, the one thing we have to do is to prove that there were powerful gas lamps around at the time.
Itīs all very simple, Ben. And it has nothing at all to do with the fact that I am saying that paintings darken over time. I will happily retract that statement if it makes you feel better, since it has nothing to do with the core issue: There were powerful lamps available.

Your argument that "Nobody has ever claimed there were powerful lamps available in 1888" is a miserable one, Ben. I have claimed it, remember? And if you take a renewed look at the Bray lamp performance I posted from Youtube, you will realize that the real world also claims it. Fact claims it. It helps little to put your thumb in your mouth, stamp your feet on the ground and say "No! I wonīt have it!".

Then again, I have not had very much hope to convince you from the beginning, Ben. My purpose has been to show anybody interested that you are making a deduction from preconceived suppositions that have no bolstering in reality. It is another thing altogether that you MAY be right, that the lights in them streets MAY have been bad, that Astrakhan man MAY have walked faster than I believe he did. These are all viable suppositions, but the key word here is not "viable" - itīs suppositions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The more interesting side of things is that it can be shown that there were quite light-intensive lamps around back in 1888, such as the Bray lamp, and THAT is what has to be weighed in before passing judgement on Hutch.

You do pass judgement on Hutch - you believe he lied. I wish you wouldn't keep forgetting that. I don't know whether you're embarrassed about arguing a position you don't actually subscribe to, or what, but the fact is you have passed judgement; you've arrived at a reasonable conclusion based on factors.

The more interesting side of things is that it can be shown that there were quite light-intensive lamps around back in 1888, such as the Bray lamp, and THAT is what has to be weighed in before passing judgement on Hutch

That's not the most interesting thing about it.

If we're going on the basis of what the painting "shows", it's disgustingly obvious that despite the presence of gas lamps on a street littered with them (which Commerical Street wasn't) the human forms below are largely ensconsed in shadow, leaving a general impression of acute dimness at ground level. If it's that dim at ground level, on a street populated with gas lamps at dusk when there's still some blue sky above, it must have been infinitely more so on a street in the East End, with fewer gas lamps, at 2:30 am in the morning.

Hi Joel,

we know that they stopped, and he followed them from flower & dean, to dorset street whilst observing them. he unfortunately does not give the time scale

Actually, they were behind him at that stage according to the statement. Kelly allegedly acountered the man between Flower and Dean Street and Thrawl Street, with Hutchinson ahead the whole time. With no gas lamps in that vicinity to speak of, he was very much reduced to forming general impressions based on shadows and shapes at that time.

to say it is not possible, is silly, as i can remember for example, what my fiance was wearing on our first date

Well, I'd expect that, Joel.

You were with her the whole time.

You didn't see her in a fleeting moment as she passed under an open-flame gaslamp in dark, small-hours Victorian London in poor weather conditions, and therein lies the crucial difference. He could only have formed a general impression, coupled with one or two "stand-out" details. He even specifies "dark eyelashes". Good grief.

I realize that your version of events is somewhat different to my own, and that you believe - quite rightly - that we don't have to remove Astrakhan from the equation for Hutchinson to appear suspicious, but it really is worth bearing in mind the "coincidence" that he just happened to describe a blinged-up, peacock-like suspect who allies very well indeed with an amalgamation of all the media and public-generated scaremongering:

Jewish, surly, conspicuous, well-dressed (by virtue of his medical profession), black parcel that was tightly-grasped, pointy moustache.

It's a complete bogeyman, and it's laid on with a thick trowel.

It's worth bearing that in mind before we even consider stretching the evidence to fit an utterly implausible mould; "Yes, yes, it's incredibly unlikely and he's probably, lying, but let's see if we can force-fit the evidence to make it appear even slightly less ludicrous".

Not that I'm suggesting you're guilty of that mindset yourself.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Of course not - we need to prove that there were gas lamps existing that could shine quite brightly, and that has been done by now, the Bray lamp being a good example of such a lamp.

That wasn't a powerful lamp, Fish.

It might have been considered ok by the standards of the day, but powerful it certainly wasn't. Stick it high up in the air in a dark Victorian Street in the small hours, in shyte weather conditions, and its power is reduced immeasurably. You say you need to "question my assertion", and you have done, but I stand by my assertion, and it appears you stand by yours. I'm personally a little frustrated that I don't seem to be able to convince you on that score, but you're certainly "questioned my assertion".

What you mustn't do, though, is keep raising the original objection as though it were never addressed. It just sours the atmosphere a little bit, and breeds repetition. If I see the original objection repeated more than once, I don't have the wilpower to just dismiss it with an "Oh, I'd responded to that already, Fish". Heck no, I'm just going to repeat the counter-objections again.

And around we will go.

Therefore, to assess if there was any possibility that Hutch came clean, the one thing we have to do is to prove that there were powerful gas lamps around at the time

There were not powerful lamps available at that time.

Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful. No naked open flame can be described as "powerful". Some many be more powerful than others, but none of them can be considered powerful in isolation.

There were not powerful lamps available.

You need to revise your terminology.

If the painting in question just happened to have darkened over time, it's actually pretty convenient if you think about it. The paintings depicted the dusk in reasonable weather. "Darken" it a little bit - through ageing or whatever - and you have a closer approximation of the lighting conditions available on Dorset Street in 1888 at that time; lighting conditions that couldn't possibly have facillitated the observation and recollection that allegedly took place.

Ben. I have claimed it, remember? And if you take a renewed look at the Bray lamp performance I posted from Youtube, you will realize that the real world also claims it.

You may have claimed it, but to describe it as powerful is completely nonsensical. For the majority of that youtube video, it was impossible to see more than two feet away. It flared up brighter towards the end, but even then it bathed the room in a very, very, very, dim light. Try sticking that up a pole in 1888 Dorset Street and see what happens. By all means, let's see it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

That is not a "powerful light" by any nightmarish stretch of the imagination.

that Astrakhan man MAY have walked faster than I believe he did

But, but...

You don't believe he walked fast at all, I thought.

I thought you believed that Mr. Astrakhan didn't exist, and so didn't walk anywhere, slow or otherwise?

No?

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"You do pass judgement on Hutch - you believe he lied. I wish you wouldn't keep forgetting that. I don't know whether you're embarrassed about arguing a position you don't actually subscribe to, or what, but the fact is you have passed judgement; you've arrived at a reasonable conclusion based on factors."

How, Ben, am I to make this understandable to you? How?

I DONīT pass judgement on Hutch, Ben. I have not the evidence to do so. If I had the guy in court, I would have to let him go, although I would do so with a gnawing feeling that I was letting a guilty man loose.
I have suspicions against him. I THINK he was a liar. But that does not mean that I must be right, and therefore I hold a door open for the opposite.

I have said many a time on these threads, that if we look away from possibilities that we interpret as far-fetched, we will statistically go wrong sooner or later. It is not a risk - it is a law of nature. It is inevitable. Whenever there is room for reasonable doubt, admit it!

You say that I have arrived at a reasonable conclusion based on factors when I opt for a guess that Hutch lied. I believe that is a correct description.
And the same goes for you: you have equally arrived at a reasonable conclusion, basing it on knowledge and experience.

But that is as far as we can go, Ben. To take on step further and say that the description was an impossible one is something that cannot be done.

And the paintings, Ben, the paintings...! Are you really - after having emphatically laughed me off the boards for trying to use paintings as evidence - having a go at the very same thing yourself?
Any painting that shows a badly lit street scene is a valuable indicator, no doubt about it. But the crux is - as I have already pointed out - that as we are looking into the possibility that Hutch may not have lied, paintings of lamps with low or bad light are of no interest. If we only had such paintings and if we only had evidence of gas lamps with low light performance, we would still be in a situation where your thesis had not been disproven. But the minute we find examples of lamps that DO shine brightly - like the Bray lamp - and paintings that depict well lit-up streets, then we have the means to cast reasonable doubt over your assertions. And since I have done so in all three instances where you have claimed that it could not have been done, the matter is closed as far as Iīm concerned.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I have suspicions against him. I THINK he was a liar. But that does not mean that I must be right, and therefore I hold a door open for the opposite.

Fair enough, but I just don't understand why you would argue so aggressively for something you don't personally believe. I only have the time to argue against that which I don't believe to be true. If I had the time to disagree with someone who argues the same "belief" as me but wanted to keep niggling away with a "Yes, yes, I agree, but I don't go quite as far as you do", I'd have square eyes by now.

I have said many a time on these threads, that if we look away from possibilities that we interpret as far-fetched, we will statistically go wrong sooner or later.

An admirable philosophy, Fish, but this is about the least likely to be a case in point. I concede the room for reasonable doubt about most things. I do, however, draw the line at the claim that Hutchinson observed and remembered all he could in those conditions. That I regard as impossibe - totally and demonstrably beyond reasonable doubt. There are many other aspects of his account that are just plain unlikely and illogical, but the description crosses the line, in my view.

To take on step further and say that the description was an impossible one is something that cannot be done.

I absolutely disagree.

And the paintings, Ben, the paintings...! Are you really - after having emphatically laughed me off the boards for trying to use paintings as evidence - having a go at the very same thing yourself?

No, I'm saying if you want to use paintings for comparison purposes, it's better to use the ones Joel used of Victorian London, rather than Van Gogh. Why do you say that paintings with weak or bad light are of "no interest" to people trying to ascertain whether he lied or not, but that brightly lit scenes are of interest? Surely that's just cherry-picking to suit an agenda? In that situation, it's much better to assess the applicability of the paintings in question, and Joel's paintings are demonstrably more applicable than Van Gogh.

But the minute we find examples of lamps that DO shine brightly - like the Bray lamp

The Bray lamp does not shine brightly. It would have been reasonable by the standards of the day. Stick it on a pole in Dorset Street, and you can make out shadows and occasional details that stand out.

paintings that depict well lit-up

The streets in the paintings certainly had more lights that Commercial Street could have boasted, but even then the figues below are encased in shadow at street level. That's if you're using paintings for comparison purporses.

And since I have done so in all three instances where you have claimed that it could not have been done

Uhhh...good one.

That would be your "powerful" Bray lamp (see youtube video), and an Impressionist painting by Van Gogh of a continetal cafe.

I'm sorry, Fish, but as far as I'm concerned your efforts have borne out by observations in every respect.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Oh, and on the Bray lamp that is such a weak lamp, Ben, I have actually found a description measuring itīs lighting powers:

"British gas companies responded to the threat from electric lighting by developing a number of brighter gas lamps, such as Sugg's lamp of 80 c.p., Siemen's regenerative gas lamp of 130 to 400 c.p., and Bray's lamp of 500 c.p. While this helped recapture the streets, in London a test using these lamps to replace the rejected electric lighting systems was also in turn rejected, because it cost 3-4 times more, despite the much brighter light obtained [7, X, pp. 380, 507]. The well-lit London of 1881-82 became dark again, such that one traveller commented in 1884 "I know nothing more dismal than to be transplanted from the brilliantly illuminated avenues of New York to the dull and dark streets of London"
(From "Explaining the collapse of the British Electrical supply industry in the 1880:s" by Daniel R Shiman)

So, Ben, the lamps were tested for the purpose of competing with electrical lamps in the early 1880:s, but were rejected since they were too expensive. The Sugg lamp was described as shining brightly, offering 80 c.p, and how bright was the Bray lamp again... letīs see... Ah, there we are: 500 c.p!

And what is c.p? Itīs candle power, Ben, and here is the definition:
The term candlepower was originally defined in England by the Metropolitan Gas Act of 1860 as the light produced by a pure spermaceti candle weighing one sixth of a pound and burning at a rate of 120 grains per hour. Spermaceti is found in the head of sperm whales, and once was used to make high quality candles.

So, what we have here is a lamp that had lighting powers equalling the light from 500 spermaceti candles.

Are you still claiming, Ben, that there were no bright gas lamps around in 1888? Or can we consider that question answered by now?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Candle-power!

Boy that'll knock the shyte off your shovel. Time to retrieve the sunglasses and sun cream.

But let's read on:

"The well-lit London of 1881-82 became dark again, such that one traveller commented in 1884 "I know nothing more dismal than to be transplanted from the brilliantly illuminated avenues of New York to the dull and dark streets of London""

The "dull and dark streets on London". Not much fun for Van Gogh then. This was after 1881-82.

how bright was the Bray lamp again... letīs see:

Yes, let's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA

That was Fisherman's "powerful lamp". "Powerful"

And it's a Bray Burner, just as described in the article.

You speak of people in the 1880s enthusiam for "bright light" as though it carries weight. What may be considered "bright" back then would certainly not be so considered today.

Oh, and about those lights you mentioned. Here's what the article said:

While this helped recapture the streets, in London a test using these lamps to replace the rejected electric lighting systems was also in turn rejected, because it cost 3-4 times more

So those 500 candle power lamps were tried and rejected before 1882! After which the streets "become dark again".

Fascinating stuff, Fish. Thanks.