Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Could you, Crystal, perhaps elaborate on exactly what it is in the construction of the "tch" you find incomparable? Do people who loop their "h":s never leave that habit or what?

As you know, I am a firm believer in anybodys ability to establish a likeness inbetween signatures (which is why bank people and such have always employed the method dealing with their customers). And I would hate to think that the details you find hard to swallow are of such an etherical nature that they will not let themselves be clad in words.

Is it a case of a professionally generated feeling on your behalf, or can you describe the pertinent details and what makes you feel that they "clinch it" for you?

Sorry to keep the pressure up, but I really feel we must do so!

Best regards,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Yes, Fisherman

I promise to do just that, but unfortunately, it will have to wait a while, as I have other commitments for the next few days. I will get back to you, as soon as I have time.

Best wishes

Crystal

[Fisherman]

Sounds good, Crystal. Meanwhile, I would like to direct all those who reads this thread to the site

http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.elvispresleynews.com/images/ElvisHandwriting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.elvispresleynews.com/Elvis-Autograph-Tips.html&usg=__zdc7m6NWGFV-RffBFlzoRkV7OQ8=&h=300&w=317&sz=35&hl=sv&start=197&um=1&tbnid=TYwi5c512oB6nM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522elvis%25C2%25B4%2Bsignature%2522%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Dsv%26sa%3DN%26start%3D180%26um%3D1

It is a long address, but rewarding. It leads to a collection of authenticated Elvis Presley autographs, and it teaches us a valuable lesson or two.
To begin with, I would like to point to the tail of the y in Presley. We have been having a long discussion on the thread about whether a man who end his n:s with a tail that points upwards would leave that habit. Have a look at Elvis´signatures. In most cases, he makes a huge anti-clockwise loop as he signs off the y - but in one case he travels straight down to the southeast instead! In most cases he leaves the loop open - but in two cases he closes it! It is simply a question of how long he allows the line to travel.
The "l" in Presley is looped in all cases - but one! The "l" is sometimes just as high as the "P", whereas it at other occasions only reaches halfway up.

These are elements that tally very well with the discussions we are having out here - for these are major changes to a signature that STILL remains very easily recognizable. When we look at the different signatures in the picture, we immediately realize that they have very, very much in common in spite of these deviations. The overall tilt, the fast, bold, sweeping lines, the roundness, the distinctive "E" in Elvis, the strange fact that he obviously never lifted the pen, not even when leaving his Christian name, travelling into his surname, all tells us that the commonalities are abundant.

All in all, a very nice parallel to the Hutchinsonian signatures we are discussing!

The best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Follow the tail backwards to its highest point on the n, and you will see that it represents a counter-clockwise bend.

How can desperate can you get? The Hutchinson witness signature number three slopes off in a horizontal line, which both Toppy signatures don't. They curl dramatically upwards, which is completely different to anything we see in the three witness signatures and in Lambeth. "If it had been prolonged..." is an argument to nowhere. It isn't prolonged, which is why it's different. If my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle.

As for the so-called missing stem in Lambeth, some people are in the habit of crossing their t's after they have written a couple of words or sentences. Lambeth George could well have been such a person, but one who simply forgot to do so. More plausible, I'd suggest, that someone who writes the letter "l" is substitution for an "t", or someone who seriously believed his name was Hultchinson, and that he lived in Lambelh.

Lambeth man never lifts the pen from the paper as he produces his "t".

On what possible grounds do you expect me to take that seriously? How do you know?

This is a major difference, and one that firmly establishes that these signatures were not written by the same man, unless he varied his way of writing his t:s in a very striking fashion.

I couldn't care less what you consider to be "firmly established". You are not an expert, so you're assertions as to what has been "firmly established" carry no weight whatsoever. Nor, indicentally, does your critique of the second expert's views. If you acknowledge that yours are amateur's views, why feel the need the post in criticism at all? Are you seriously suggesting that the expert neglected to anaylyze the aspects you mentioned, and that she'd simply respond with "Oh yeah! NOW I see it" when presented with your observations? Here was my analysis a while back, just to offset yours, and ready to be churned out whenever Fish decides he wants to repeat his analysis:

"George" - The loop is closed on the capital "G" of both Toppy signatures, in contrast to all three witness signatures. All three witness "o"s have a join coming out of the middle of the letter before connecting to "r" whereas in Toppy's, the join commences from the top. The "r" is completely different. The "g" and "e" aren't as problematic, but there are only so many ways of connecting the two letters anyway.

Capital "H" - Only so many many ways of writing a capital "H"'s. The best that can be said is that they're not markedly dissimilar.

"u" - Very conspicuous in its dissimilarity from all three witness signatues which are connected to the H from beneath, rather than the top in Toppy's.

"t" - Unusually small and short in all three witness signatures, in direct contrast to Toppy's, and conected to the preceding letter from beneath, rather than the join from the "u" striking the "t" in the middle (blimey, noticing these things isn't half the bother of describing them ). I see what you mean about the cross occuring at the top of the stem, but not so much in Toppy's.

"chin" - Little to no similarity here, and some crucial differences. The witness "h"s are unusually tall, double-stemmed affair with a small base, whereas Toppy's are the opposite on all three counts: a short "h", with a single stem and a large base.

Lowercase "i" - Dot appears over the s in two witness sigs, and over the n in the other. Toppy's over the n.

"son" - Again I'm seeing no obvious congruity, but some clear differences. The anti-clockwise "n" is quite distinctive in Toppy's, and conspicuously absent from all witness signatures.

A more generalized observation would be that the witness makes a much clearer differentation between small letters and tall ones than Toppy does. The H/h's tower above the contrastingly small letters in a manner most dissimilar to Toppy's.

That was my hobbyist analysis. Pity we had to bring this up again, since we all had a bash at conducting our own analysis when this thread was young.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"some people are in the habit of crossing their t's after they have written a couple of words or sentences"

Yes. And some people will cook up any implausibility to try and pick a lost face up from the floor.
Lambeth man wrote t´s without lifting the pen to add any other stem than the one that is hinted at as the pen leaves the t:s. The rest of the world knows it by now - it´s only you left, Ben. What a sad, sad figure you become when proven wrong!

"On what possible grounds do you expect me to take that seriously? How do you know?"

By looking at the signature. You should try it sometimes.

The best, Ben! Or should I write The besl?

Fisherman

PS. Look into Elvis´signatures on the link I provide. Then you can start refreshing your work on the signatures....

[Ben]

The rest of the world knows it by now - it´s only you left, Ben. What a sad, sad figure you become when proven wrong

So we're to conclude that our Lambeth gent went through life writing "l"s wherever he was supposed to write "t"s just because he couldn't ever be arsed to cross those pesky time-consuming "t"s?

PS. Look into Elvis´signatures on the link I provide. Then you can start refreshing your work on the signatures....

Thanks for the offer, Fish. But I think I'll listen to the actual experts in document examination, whose insights Crystal has kindly shared with us.

Mmmmm....

[DVV]

The best, Ben! Or should I write The besl?

Excellent, Fish!
Though I rather agree with Ben about Toppy...

Have a nice day gentlemen,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:
"So we're to conclude that our Lambeth gent went through life writing "l"s wherever he was supposed to write "t"s just because he couldn't ever be arsed to cross those pesky time-consuming "t"s?"

Not at all, Ben. Just like you write t:s the way you choose to do, so did he. And it is a little more apparent in "Lambeth" how he did it: He came in from the left, let the pen travel to the top of his "t", only to to move it downwards again along the trunk. As he hit the bottom, he once again started up, and one third of the length of the trunk of his "t", he stopped short and travelled eastwards in a ninety-degree angle to reach for the next letter. It is quite a common way of doing it. Some people add a little loop to represent the stem.
So, in fact, he wrote LambeTh and not LambeLh, just as he wrote HuTchinson and no HuLchinson.
When he needed to do an "l", he proceeded from the bottom of the trunk instead, just as you can see in "Russell" - it is another letter, much softer in it´s composition.
It is actually a fact, Ben, no matter what you think of it. And it is also a fact that Lambeth man´s way of doing his t:s makes him a very poor choice as a candidate for the police report signatures, together with a hoard of other discouraging features in that respect.

Now, do have a look at Presleys signatures, because they blow a good deal of your points to Kingdom come. You owe it to the thread and the posters out here to take part of the evidence offered, even if you suspect it will not run in your favour. Incidentally it doesn´t.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Not at all, Ben. Just like you write t:s the way you choose to do, so did he

And that way in which you're suggesting the Lambeth habitually wrote his "t"s - without ever bothering to cross them - is nothing short of preposterous.

He came in from the left, let the pen travel to the top of his "t", only to to move it downwards again along the trunk. As he hit the bottom, he once again started up, and one third of the length of the trunk of his "t", he stopped short and travelled eastwards in a ninety-degree angle to reach for the next letter. It is quite a common way of doing it.

Of course it is, but it certainly isn't a "t" in the absent of a horizontal cross-bar, is it? A t without a horizontal cross bar is basically an l, irrespective of how you form the vertical part of the letter. Are you seriously suggesting that a failure to complete the letter by crossing the horizontal bar of the t is a "common way of doing it"?

And it is also a fact that Lambeth man´s way of doing his t:s makes him a very poor choice as a candidate for the police report signatures

So you really believe he was in the habit of failing to cross his "t"s? If you don't cross the letter it's not a "t". It's perfectly simple. It is therefore more plausible that his failure to cross them was due to an oversight on his part. In other respects, he's a much better bet for the witness than Toppy, not that I'm particularly convinced about Lambeth man either, and there certainly aren't a "hoard of discouraging features" as there are with Toppy.

Now, do have a look at Presleys signatures, because they blow a good deal of your points to Kingdom come.

Please don't embarrass yourself, Fisherman. They do nothing of the sort. Learn to accept that actual expertise in the field of document exmination "blow a good deal of your points to Kingdom come" irrespective of your laughable "critique" of some of them. Don't you dare start lecturing me on what I "owe posters". We've had expert opinion that very clearly doesn't run in your favour, but you've never had the good grace to accept it.

[Fisherman]

Ben, struggling, writes:

"And that way in which you're suggesting the Lambeth habitually wrote his "t"s - without ever bothering to cross them - is nothing short of preposterous."

Take a look at Lambeth mans "t":s, Ben. Then take a look at his "l":s. Can you see a difference? No?

Don´t tell me that I am preposterous when I am correct, Ben. Does not look good. Reeks of bad loser. Bad big time loser, even.

In cases like this, when you realize (and oh, yes, you do!) that you have gone completely wrong, the best way to deal with it is to say: Ah, I see what you mean! Missed that earlier. Thanks for poining it out!

Copy and paste, Ben! It´s on me, just as that beer!

"Of course it is, but it certainly isn't a "t" in the absent of a horizontal cross-bar, is it?"

Actually, yes. And it would be two out of a million "T":s he wrote the exact same way. If you feel the need, I wil surely be able to dig out numerous people, famous, infamous and unknown, who have made the same sort of "t". They will be there in abundance on the net.
My guess is that the main reason for those who write their "t: s like this is a wish to hold their pen against the paper as much as possible. Writing signatures is a "flowing" art, and to keep the flow you don´t want to lift the pen too many times. Doing it this way allows you to rid youself of the "t" without lifting the pen.
A parallel can be seen in the curlied capital "H" we have in Lambeth mans "Hutchinson". The "H" in the police signature on page three, just as the ones from 1898 and 1911 by Toppy, may well have called for a lifted pen. Tha curlied one seems more elaborate and harder to do, but it actually is easier (My surname is Holmgren, and I know from experience!). This owes to the fact that you can do it without lifting the pen. It resembles a slalom run on skis - the less time you spend in the air, the faster and safer you travel.

See what I mean? Sure you do! Once again I ask: Is there a difference inbetween the "t":s and the "l":s in Lambeth mans signature? The key to the riddle lies in you recognizing this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes, about the Presley signatures:

"They do nothing of the sort."

Of course they do! They show us that the last letter can tail off in more than one direction, something you have found hard to accept. Plus they show that the "l" in Presley is sometimes small, sometimes big, something you have found very hard to accept about the "t". Plus a number of other things.
So don´t despair - if you look hard for it, you will find it eventually!

But you do not wish to look hard, do you?

"We've had expert opinion that very clearly doesn't run in your favour, but you've never had the good grace to accept it." Plus we do not need expert opinion to see that the likeness is there - but that´s another matter.

...and we have had expert opinion that clearly runs in my favour. What do you want me to do? Accept both, "gracefully"? I don´t think so!

Fisherman

(who will give you a rest now - I´m off to take care of a number of Friday errands. If it goes half as well as this, I´ll be pleased...)

[Ben]

Take a look at Lambeth mans "t":s, Ben. Then take a look at his "l":s. Can you see a difference? No?

Struggling to see the even vague significance of this. It doesn't matter if he writes his "t"s and "l"s differently. What matters is whether he was in the lifelong habit of failing to cross his "t"s. I say no, that is preposterous, irrespective of the fact that he may differentiate the t stems from his l stems. It is still infinitely more likely that he neglected to cross his "t"s. If a t lacks a horizontal cross-bar, it's not a t. It's that simple.

Don't talk to me about winners and losers. It's indicative of your pathetically confrontational dogma that never avails you anyway. This is not a battle-zone. It's a discussion on a historical message board. Treat it like one immediately. Don't you even consider telling we what I've "realized" either.

Ah, I see what you mean! Missed that earlier. Thanks for poining it out!

Yes, that would be an appropriate response to my observation about a "t" not being a "t" if it lacks a horizontal stem.

My guess is that the main rason for those who write their "t: s like this is a wish to hold their pen against the paper as much as possible.

Right, and then once you've finished with the beautifully flowing signature, during which you never lift pen from paper, all the writer needs to do is cross the t. Simple. It's the last thing he does. There's no mutuall exclusivity whatsoever between a desire to be as flowing as possible, and a propensity to write a basic letter properly. You simply do it last.

[Ben]

They show us that the last letter can tail off in more than one direction, something you have found hard to accept.

Except the comparison is not apt in this case, since we know that Toppy adopted the same distinctive northwards pointing tail on the end of both signatures despite their being penned over a decade apart, which tells us immeditaly that this was a unique trait that he resorted to consistently, and it is conspicuously absent from the three witness signatures and the Lambeth one. That is the significant tell-tale factor with the Toppy signatures; they evince a great deal of similarity over a significant period on time. It is not a case of him being "sometimes small, sometimes big". Toppy's uniformity is one of the key points, to my mind, that seperates him from the witness three.

...and we have had expert opinion that clearly runs in my favour.

Two in mine.

You've been frantically posting all day. About time you got some sort of exercise.

If it goes half as well as this, I´ll be pleased

Hilarious.

Gosh, Fisherman, with your debating prowess, the world is your oyster...or rather your rotting deep-sea cucumber washed up at Newhaven.

[Fisherman]

Ben, amazingly, writes:

"It doesn't matter if he writes his "t"s and "l"s differently"

Right, Ben, I will say it: By now you are apparently wilfully obstructing any progress on this thread, and I cannot interpret it in any other way than this being because you cannot find it in your power to utter the three words "I was wrong". You are doing yourself no service at all, and my belief is that there will be quite a few people out there shaking there heads in disbelief - that is, if they have not laughed them off already.

OF COURSE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE IF HE WRITES THE L:S AND THE T:S DIFFERENTLY!!! That is what the whole ******* argument is about!
He writes his t:s without lifting his pen, therefore underlining their status as T:s by doing that 90 degree turn! If you look at the "Lambeth" t, you will see that the line stretches a bit in over the trunk of the t and out on its left side - THAT IS THE STEM HE USES! How on earth can you think that anybody - ANYBODY - would believe your garbling about "forgetting" BOTH stems??? It is as beyond belief as it is ridiculous. If he had used Toppy-type stems, THEN his t:s would have looked like l:s. But they do not do so now, and the reason is that THIS IS THE WAY HE WRITES HIS T:S!

Am I getting through to you? Should I find you further examples from the net of other writers that do similar "stemless" t:s? Just give me the word, I assure you it will be a piece of cake - or accept that I am right!

"It's a discussion on a historical message board. Treat it like one immediately."

Like you do, you mean? By simply denying whatever proof any other poster presents?
No, Ben, I won´t lower me to that. And I have the right to say that I am correct and you are wrong in this matter. It is not a question of interpretations or differing opinions - it´s a case of you not being able to admit your shortcomings on the issue. I am in no way gloating or misusing the boards - infact I am trying to provide some sanity by pointing to your pathetic ramblings. My statement that I am right and you are wrong on this issue of the t:s is not a suggestion, it is a FACT.

"Right, and then once you've finished with the beautifully flowing signature, during which you never lift pen from paper, all the writer needs to do is cross the t."

No, he does not have to finish his t - it IS already finished, and his own stem IS there. And that is a beautiful thing, for it provides us with the insight that he was another sort of writer altogether than was Toppy and Hutch. They did not mind lifting the pen. They (well, "he", actually) did so in the capital H, and they did so to provide the stem of the t. That points to a different type of writer. And that, too, is a FACT.

"Except the comparison is not apt in this case, since we know that Toppy adopted the same distinctive northwards pointing tail on the end of both signatures despite their being penned over a decade apart, which tells us immeditaly that this was a unique trait that he resorted to consistently, and it is conspicuously absent from the three witness signatures and the Lambeth one"

Don´t be daft. You cannot say anything about "unique traits that he kept to consistently! He wrote it once and kept to it one more time - and that is all we know. The Presley signatures show us that HE wrote in a similar fashion a number of times - and deviated wildly at other occasions. If we had only had two Presley signatures, with the same tail on the y, it would be stupid and WRONG to say that it showed us that the consistency was unbreakable. We KNOW this since we have more signatures of his hand, showing that great deviations in tails and such will occur, although the general outline of the signature leaves us in no doubt as to who wrote it.

I will give you one piece of advice that is quite useful, Ben. Pack it in now, before you have thrown all credibility on the scrapheap.

Wait a minute - what am I saying? It is already there...

"It doesn't matter if he writes his "t"s and "l"s differently"

Hilarious, Ben, absolutely hilarious...!


The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just to show you what I mean, Ben, these four signatures took five minutes to find.

The first one, made by Swedish singer Stefan Sundström has exactly the same t in Stefan:

http://www.hola.se/hant_pa_hola/bilder/stefan_s/autograf.jpg

And here is Paul McCartney (compare him to Ringo - Ringo is a Hutch type writer!):

http://www.beatlebay.com/images/2008/AutographAT003.jpg

Author Victor Hugo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Autograph-VictorHugo.png

And the Russian tsar Peter the great:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Autograf,_Peter_den_store,_Nordisk_familjebok.png

None of them write their T:s with stems on them - unless they simply "forgot" to add the stems...?

Please tell me that these examples are enough, Ben! If not, I can always find other testicle-crushing preposterous signatures. The world is full of them.

The best,
Fisherman