Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I'm afraid you missed my point (though you got it last time, and answered it, imo, with irrelevant arguments).
What we have to compare is the witness' "G" (all of them being penned in the same manner, shape, style, etc) and Toppy's various "G" in 1898 - all of them being also penned in the same manner, shape, style, etc).

And that gives the strange case of Toppy "Benjamin Button" Hutchinson."

Can´t say that I missed anything, David. What you say is that Toppy seems to have grown backwards in maturity and style, and what I suggested is that it perhaps may owe to the hard manual labour he would have done. Maybe that made his hand less steady, and less bold. Not that I myself can see any such immediate traits, but perhaps there may be a little something like it hidden in his writing abilities.

If you are specifically referring to the alteration of the capital G and nothing else, David, then we are dealing with a minor problem - changes in elements of style are quite common.

The best, David,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi again, Fish,
a minor problem? It depends on the way we can solve it. And when it's about handwriting, I can't call a striking difference in a CAPITAL letter a minor problem.

In the previous page, your argument was that the later "G" (from Toppy) were ALSO "nice and swift".
And now your argument is about "manual labour", that would have caused his hand to be "less steady and less bold".
I hope you see the contradiction.
In any case, none of these arguments are relevant, imo.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Ben]

Nor can we conclude that Toppys thirteen-year consistency means that we may prolong it to a 23-year consistency.

Not with any degree of certainty, Fish, but his remarkable consistency over a 13-year period naturally increases the probability that he was equally consistent elsewhere, in my view. It may not constitute ironclad proof, but it's a logical inference.

But these examples, Ben, involve my own handwriting, and as I have told you it has the same traits as the ones we are discussing - I was very consistent in my thirties and forties, but not in my twenties.

But with respect, I haven't seen any evidence to demonstrate this, and as such, it would be irresponsible for me to accept it as an "example" of something that demonstrates your point, and the same goes for anyone else seeking to use themselves as examples purely on their say-so. Crystal also pointed out that a modern writer's susceptiblity towards change cannot be compared to that of their Victorian counterparts which, given her greater experience to yours and mine, ought to be taken very seriously as an observation.

What you say is that Toppy seems to have grown backwards in maturity and style, and what I suggested is that it perhaps may owe to the hard manual labour he would have done.

I'm struggling a bit to envisage what "hard manual labour" Toppy would have undertaken during the course of his lifetime in order for his signature to be negatively affected. It would doubtless have taken some serious daily hand-related toil over a long period of time for his actual writing to suffer, and I'd question that plumbing qualifies particularly well on that score.

If you are specifically referring to the alteration of the capital G and nothing else, David, then we are dealing with a minor problem - changes in elements of style are quite common

No, we're not dealing with a "minor problem". We're dealing with an eminently significant one, since Toppy retained that consistent element over a 13-year period. The loop is closed in 1898 and 1911. The closed G-loop is evidently one of those "elements of style" (I want to headbutt that expression now, I'm so sick of it! ) that remained constant. And that consistently closed G-loop is in stark contrast to the open G-loop in all three statement signatures. With respect, I think you may be straying back into "trivialise the differences, exaggerate the similarities" mode.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"when it's about handwriting, I can't call a striking difference in a CAPITAL letter a minor problem"

I can, David - it does not take too much digging in this kind of material to realize that people do change the looks of their capital letters. Some do it often, some do it seldom, some don´t do it at all - but weighing it together, it is something that can quite easily be overcome. Remember Sams post showing us a man who changed HIS capital H from one page to another in a diary or something like that!

"In the previous post, your argument was that the later "G" (from Toppy) were ALSO "nice and swift".
And now your argument is about "manual labour", that would have caused his hand to be "less steady and less bold"."

I was hoping that YOU would see something quite different - that I offered you an explanation for something that you think you are seeing, but that I can´t say that I see - a more "childish" way of writing in later years on Toppys account.
I am not contradicting myself in the slightest, David. I am saying that if the sense you feel that you (NOT me) are picking up is correct, then maybe we are dealing with a slight tremble or something like this that disenabled Toppy to some extent to keep up his bold writing style from earlier days to 100 per cent. Maybe you see some slight difference that I am not seeing.

Myself - once again - think that I cannot pick up on the thing you are suggesting. I think Toppy was just about the same slightly sloppy writer in later years as he was in 1888 (if he wrote them signatures). In consequence with this, when you made your suggestion, I pointed to that G as a good example on Toppy being able to write as swiftly and boldly as ever 23 years after the police report.

So, David, I am not the one seeing the difference you mention - you are. And what I did was to open up for the possibility that you may be right, and offer an explanation to the phenomenon I cannot see myself.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It may constitute ironclas proof, but it's certainly a logical inference."

But it would be equally logical for me to assign Toppy to "my" group, Ben - the one where we put people that wrote differently in their twenties! Since we do not give ourselves away in the way we write in out thirties and forties, he would fit THAT pattern too.
In the end, though, quibbling over this (is there a 59 per cent chance that he did not change? Is it even odds that he DID? Or are we looking at a 4 to 10 bet that this happened?) is completely and absolutely futile. We cannot place him in any group until we see that signature from 1888, and therefore we should refrain from doing so. You admit that the chance that he did change is there. I also think that this is an obvious possibility. And that is as far as we can allow ourselves to go, unless we need to speculate.

"with respect, I haven't seen any evidence to demonstrate this, and as such, it would be irresponsible for me to accept it as an "example" of something that demonstrates your point"

And with the same respect, Ben; ask yourself how many of the Victorians that may potentially have altered their handstyles inbetween their twenties and their thirties. The answer can only be one - onehundred per cent of them. Nobody can claim immunity on behalf of any single witer unless we have written evidence to go along with such a claim. Until that time, once again - and I must repeat myself - it can be either way. Which you recognize!

"I'm struggling a bit to envisage what "hard manual labour" Toppy would have undertaken during the course of his lifetime in order for his signature to be negatively affected. It would doubtless have taken some serious daily hand-related toil over a long period of time for his actual writing to suffer, and I'd question that plumbing qualifies particularly well on that score."

Ben, my father was a wielder who had his own establishment (true, I swear). He made oil cisterns for heating houses. To this task, he also joined new pipings and disassembled old ones. I worked with him as a young man for a couple of summers (also true), and I know what it takes to disassemble old, corroded pipes with a large piping plier (or whatever you Brits call it). It is VERY tough on your wrists, let me assure you.
This aside, I do hope that you realize that I was in no way contradicting myself, which you seemed to believe?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I can, David - it does not take too much digging in this kind of material to realize that people do change the looks of their capital letters. Some do it often, some do it seldom, some don´t do it at all - but weighing it together, it is something that can quite easily be overcome. Remember Sams post showing us a man who changed HIS capital H from one page to another in a diary or something like that!
Fisherman

Oh Fish,
have I said ONE time that people don't change the looks of their capital letters???
Not one time, Fish, never.

I even expressed my opinion with the "Benjamin Button" expression, hoping that it would make my point clear.
Everyone changes within a lifetime, but the direction of BB's evolution is an impossible one. That's why BB is a character created by a novelist, and not a real man.

Now, once more, have a look at pages 3 and 57.

In 1888, Hutch shapes his G skilfully, and in a rather "personal manner".
10 years later, he shapes them like a laborious schoolboy. Just like Lambeth GH, btw.
That's simply unthinkable.

You can say it's a minor problem. You can say you don't care, my friend. But I sincerely think you should.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

a little more about the capital G

I, just like Toppy, have learnt to shape capital letters in school.
Those "flourished" capital letters, I mean.
But soon, maybe at the age of 12/13, if not before, I stopped shaping them like that, of course.
And I even didn't remember how to shape them.
And I still don't remember.
Tell me that a plumber, at the age of 32, could have come back to his old "schoolstyle", while at the age of 22 he was shaping his G like we can see on page 3 of this thread...
And looking at the flourished G, page 57, as penned by Toppy, everydody would have to accept that it's not the easiest letter to remember and shape.
Conclusion? Toppy must have always penned his G like that.

[Ben]

But it would be equally logical for me to assign Toppy to "my" group, Ben - the one where we put people that wrote differently in their twenties!

That wouldn't be the most parsimonious explanation though, Fisherman, since you'd be having him change not only when you wanted to have changed, but also how. Thus far, we only have evidence of consistent signatures, which means that it would be "safer", at the very least, to envisage him being equally consistent elsewhere, in my view. As you know, I'm personally very dubious over the suggestion that an uncertain style in one's twenties gives way to a more rigid and fixed style in later years. I believe that teens are more commonly associated with one's formative years, and that, by one's 20s, most people's signatures are more or less established.

But you're quite right to highlight the futility of continued debating over this topic, since we cannot possibly know for certain on current evidence.

And with the same respect, Ben; ask yourself how many of the Victorians that may potentially have altered their handstyles inbetween their twenties and their thirties. The answer can only be one - onehundred per cent of them.

I'd hazard a guess that they'd be in the minority, Fish.

I worked with him as a young man for a couple of summers (also true), and I know what it takes to disassemble old, corroded pipes with a large piping plier (or whatever you Brits call it). It is VERY tough on your wrists, let me assure you.

Toppy wasn't a welder, though. He was a plumber, which meant that he installed the finsished products (pipe's and wot-not) once they'd been welded. It would be the former profession that would have proved most taxing in the hands.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Conclusion? Toppy must have always penned his G like that."

I am sorry, David, but you must keep in mind that you are following a VERY personal route here. I have gone back and made the comparison you ask for, and I really do not see the difficulty you are struggling with. Nor do I see how we can arrive at the conclusion that Toppy was returning to his schoolboy style in 1911 - since we don´t know what that style would have looked like, we are not at liberty to draw such a conclusion.
I think it would be a very risky way to choose if we were somehow to lock ourselves to any idea of how Toppy "must" have written in 1888. I prefer to keep all possibilities open, even though I of course believe that we know how he wrote.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Thus far, we only have evidence of consistent signatures, which means that it would be "safer" to envisage him being equally consistent elsewhere, in my view."

Thanks for the "in my wiew", Ben - it was much needed here. For what is safe and what is not safe is written in the stars - and in Toppys 1888 handwriting of which we have no (certified) samples.
It was bright here in Sweden at two o´clock PM today. It was also bright at five o´clock PM. But if we were to suggestthat this consistency would keep the sky bright and blue at midnight, we would be disappointed.
Bad comparison? In a sense, since we know that it gets dark at nighttime. But if we had not known it? Then it´s another thing altogether. And just as we in such a situation would be lacking measurements of the light at midninght, we are lacking Toppys 1888 signature - or so I´m told.
There is no safety at all involved in betting on Toppy not having changed, Ben. Such an assertion is grounded on us taking a look at the light of his text at two o´clock and five ó clock - and trying to start weighing things that we do not physically hold in our hands.

I remain very steadfast by my suggestion to work with an open mind here - what we know, we know, and what we don´t know ... well, you get my drift!

"I'd hazard a guess that they'd be in the minority, Fish."

A guess, yes. And you may be right. But HOW MUCH in minority? 49 per cent? 37? 1 per cent? In a city of London´s size in them days, we would still be left with thousands of people, even if we narrowed it down that much.
And in reality, there is no statistical material that allows us to narrow it down by one person. We are left with guessing.

"Toppy wasn't a welder, though. He was a plumber, which meant that he installed the finsished products (pipe's and wot-not) once they'd been welded. It would be the former profession that would have proved most taxing in the hands."

Oh no - welding is not a hard job! It requires a very light and exact hand, and taxes your strength ever so slightly.
No, I did mean the plumbing, Ben - and disassembling corroded pipes do belong to the plumbers work. And that is very strenuous for the wrists - you have to turn the wrists and underarms, using full strength - often to no avail. In such cases, you add a length of pipe to the piping pliers, increasing the leverage, and have another go. If that don´t work, you use a club or a hammerto bang on the leverage piece of pipe.
Welding - easy and light. Plumbing - often very tough on the wrists. Trust me - I have done a lot of it.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Nor do I see how we can arrive at the conclusion that Toppy was returning to his schoolboy style in 1911 - since we don´t know what that style would have looked like, we are not at liberty to draw such a conclusion.
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
you're simply wrong.

Wrong, 'cause I'm talking of Toppy's 1898 signatures.

Wrong, 'cause in 1898 Toppy penned his G OBVIOUSLY like he had learnt in school (would you tell me he has learnt these "flourished G" in the Victoria Home ?).
And as further evidence, Lambeth GH's "G" is exactly like Toppy's 1898. Both were not used in writing, and they penned their capital G as they've learnt when boys.
Simple. Clear.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

David writes:
"Conclusion? Toppy must have always penned his G like that."
Fisherman

Yes Fish,
And I'm right here, it's simply the most likely conclusion one can draw.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

Ps: Fish, I'm sad...I'd have thought you were reading my posts a bit more carefully. 1898. 1898. 1898!

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"would you tell me he has learnt these "flourished G" in the Victoria Home?"

I would be extremely cautious of making any suggestion about where he learnt it - in school, in his twenties, as a result of a whim, as a result of his wife telling him she did not like his old "G":s - I would never make any suggestion at all about it, and the reason why should be pretty obvious: I am painfully aware that I do not KNOW.

"And as further evidence, Lambeth GH's "G" is exactly like Toppy's 1898. Both were not used in writing, and they penned their capital G as they've learnt when boys."

But they are not "exactly" the same - they are written in the same general fashion, and that is another thing. I write a curlied H myself at times - but I learnt to do that by looking at my mothers signature.

"Simple."

No, it is not, David.

"Clear."

It is even less so, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I'm right here"

I would be the first to congratulate you, David, if it was not for the annoying fact that it would make me wrong. And, you see, I don´t think that I am. So we shall have to disagree here.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I would be extremely cautious of making any suggestion about where he learnt it - in school, in his twenties, as a result of a whim, as a result of his wife telling him she did not like his old "G":s - I would never make any suggestion at all about it, and the reason why should be pretty obvious: I am painfully aware that I do not KNOW.

Fisherman

Fish,
I'm sincerely sorry.
What are you suggesting, here?
That a grown-up man, struggling to survive, would have taken time to learn how to write a capital G in a "schoolboy manner", in his twenties? And in any case after he signed his testimony at the police station???
That's pure nonsense.
And the man who signed the police statement really doesn't need to learn how to shape a G.

Amitiés mon cher,
David