Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

and I cannot interpret in any oter way than this is because you cannot find it in your power to utter the three words "I was wrong".

Wrong about what?

I never denied that he wrote "l"s and "t"s differently. That doesn't invalidate the observation that a "t" is not a "t" until it is given a horizontal crossbar, and that the Lambeth George was very unlikely to have been in the lifelong habit of writing uncrossed t's for that reason. Honestly, no wonder more than one contributor to this forum has called you out on launching stalkerish creepy vendettas against people. You use every opportunity to follow me around and insist that I "admit" that you're "right" despite the fact that I've never been given a good reason to think so - ever.

This obsessive "admit I'm right!" dogma continues to make you look foolish, but it seems to some egocentric, urgent, desperate obsession of yours. What am I wrong about? My assertion that a "t" is not a proper t until its given a horizontal crossbar? You're saying that's wrong? Who raises people like you, Fisherman?

He writes his t:s without lifting his pen, therefore underlining their status as T:s by doing that 90 degree turn!

But you don't underline their status as "t"s by doing a 90 degree turn. You do it by crossing the "t", thus cementing the letter'a status as a "t". Otherwise, it isn't a "t", and the most logical conclusion is that, like most temporary non-t-crossers, he simply neglected to cross them. Some people like to cross their t's once they've completed a sentence. It's that simple.

But they do not do so now, and the reason is that THIS IS THE WAY HE WRITES HIS T:S!

But they're not "t"s unless they have horizontal bars, are they? Claim they're not "l"s if you like, but whatever they are, they're certainly not "t"s.

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.

And I have the right not to take that, or you, seriously.

It's not as if I haven't heard your hysterical "I'm right, you're wrong" horseplop puked out with abandon on every thread you've followed me onto. It's old, it's tired, and it's as indicative of obsession as it is of outright wrongness. You still haven't told me what I'm supposed to be "wrong" about in this case, so your hysteria is premature.

No, he does not have to finish his t - it is already finished

Well, no, because a "t" is not finished until it has a horizontal crossbar, is it?

That points to a different type of writer. And that, too, is a fact

No, it isn't - fact.

I utterly reject what you assert to be "factually" indicative of a different writer. You're opinion alone is laughable and worthless, so I'm gaffawing at your attemps to mutate it into fact. Obviously he had to take his precious pen off the paper at some stage, and he might well have used that stage to dot his "i"s and cross his "t"s. In this case, it seems plausible that he did the former, but forget the latter.

The Presley signatures show us that HE wrote in a similar fashion a number of times - and deviated wildly at other occasions.

But my guess is that you know next to nothing about the passage of time that elapsed between the Presley signatures being penned. In the Toppy cases, we have a "gap" of over a decade, and yet Toppy still shows a great uniformity in the way in which he pens his signature, which effectively eradicates the argument that the differences with the witness signatures can be explained away by the passage of time.

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.

I completely disregard your views on my credibility as the inarticulate and hysterical fillibustering of some sad little man with a fixation on certain posters. In fact, having an opposing viewpoint to yours is tantamount to the most ringing endorsement I can imagine.

As for those examples, what the blazes are you talking about? All the t's included therein have horizontal bars. They simply exit the "t" on the right and join the next small letter. Look at this compurerized "t". If you slice off the left hand part of the horizontal bar, you're still left with the remainder of it on the righthand side, and in that respect, it's still a "t". It only ceases to be a "t" if it lacks any sort of bar at all.

Oh, and while we're at it, what the blazes are you talking about when you say that Lambeth George forgot to cross the "t" of Lambeth? Of course he crossed the "t". Anyone can see it. Everyone who hasn't lost the will to live, please go to page #1 of this thread!

[Sam Flynn]

In the Toppy cases, we have a "gap" of over a decade, and yet Toppy still shows a great uniformity in the way in which he pens his signature, which effectively eradicates the argument that the differences with the witness signatures can be explained away by the passage of time.

The witness signatures themselves show differences in execution, Ben - and the passage of time there would have been mere minutes. As I've said previously, there are arguably more minor inconsistencies within those three 1888 signatures than there are between them and the 1898/1911 ones. Equally, there are subtle differences between the 1898 signature and the 1911 one - but nobody's denying that they are both by George Topping Hutchinson.

By the way, the "t"s in 1888p1-3 and 1898 are wrought in a very similar manner, but the "t" in the 1911 signature differs from all four, in that its stem is much more open. Compare these "utc"s from each, with 1888p1-3 topmost, 1911 at the bottom:

[Ben]

The witness signatures themselves show differences in execution, Ben - and the passage of time there would have been mere minutes.

Precisely, Gareth. This is a crucial point, and one that to my mind lends superficial weight to the notion that Toppy and the witness were not the same man. Whereas the witness reveals a great deal of inconsistency within the space of a few minutes, as you correctly note, Toppy's signatures reveal a great deal more consistency with eachother within the space of well over a decade!

Thanks, as always, for those useful immediate visual comparisons, though I'd quibble somewhat with the suggestion the "t"s in 1888p1-3 and 1898 are wrought in a very similar manner. On the contrary, the moment I say the above "utc"'s, I was able to recognise instantly which two were the Toppys on account of the height of the "t", i.e. conspicuously taller than the other letters. One thing to note about our 1888 witness is that he wrote extremely short and dumpy "t"s, which are most unlike both Lambeth and Toppy.

There's no denying, of course, that Toppy'89 and Toppy'11 are extremely similar, as the above column illustrates very well.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

I think you would do yourself a favour if you do not suggest that I am hysterical and "following you around". It is awful tedious. I am perfectly cool, calm and collected.

Besides, it does in no way change the factual matters. They remain the same, and you remain wrong. Lambeth man did not "forget" to add stems.

Moreover, the examples I have provided, especially number one, have no more crossbars than Lambeth George. For some reason you are trying to get away with not being honest about this, and I won´t let that pass. You have obscured, hindered and willingly misled this thread long enough. That is my honest wiew, and I am willing to defend it for as long as it takes.

So stop talking about me, and start facing the facts. It really does not hurt all that much.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

It is awful tedious. I am perfectly cool, calm and collected.

Which is presumably why you swore at me, used ALL CAPS and excessive exclamation marks...

Thanks for calming down, but no, I reject utterly the suggestion that I'm wrong on this issue. I didn't say that Lambeth George forgot to add "stems". I suggested that he may have forgot to add a horizontal bar. I don't see how any alternative explanation is realistic, but if you're prepared to agree to disagree - as opposed to joining me in burying this thread in long posts and foul-tempered fisty-cuffs - that's fine.

You have obscured, hindered and willingly misled this thread long enough. That is my honest wiew, and I am willing to defend it for as long as it takes

Which goes back to my earlier observation about your inability to cultivate a stalemate awareness, which I consider to be immature. I mean, come on, what you're essentially saying is that you'll post and post and post (scream and scream and scream) until I change my opinion, and you can't be surprised if that doesn't fly. The examples you provided all included cross-bars, and most of them used the cross bar to join the next letter. It fulfills two purposes, as you often find in the world of joined-up handwriting...

[Sam Flynn]

One thing to note about our 1888 witness is that he wrote extremely short and dumpy "t"s, which are most unlike both Lambeth and Toppy.

A more relevant thing to notice is that the 1888 witness consistently "launches" his crossbar from very top of his "t"s, and carries the crossbar waaaay over to the right - precisely like Toppy 1898 and 1911, and unlike Lambeth, who doesn't have a crossbar on his "t" at all.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I didn't say that Lambeth George forgot to add "stems". I suggested that he may have forgot to add a horizontal bar. "

Which is what I meant too - sometimes the gaps in my english show. But it does not change the fact that he DID add a bar. Just like you said yourself, even if you take away the part of the bar to the left of the stem and leave the part to the right, you have a stem. And THAT is wht Lambeth George does. When he makes the 90 degree turn and carries on to the right from the stem, he adds half a bar.
And - like I have already said - people who add bars afterwards, like Toppy/Hutch, they add the bar to a letter that would look like an l if the bar was not added. And as you have admitted, lambeth mans t:s look nothing like his l:s, and that is because he has already made it a t with the help of half a crossbar, protruding from the right side of the stem. It is perfectly easy and logical.
What is NOT logical is to claim that the more credible thing to believe is that he was aiming to add the bars afterwards, but forgot to do so in BOTH instances. It does not come even close to reality.
Are you seriously suggesting that somebody would write a number of lines of text, only to return to them afterwards, looking for the places to add bars to the t:s? Keeping in mind that there would be a lot of l:s about, it would be a very strange thing to do, and one that would invite errors.

This suggestion of yours is NOT the "more credible one". In fact, it is not credible at all. It is utterly incredible. Are you suggesting that people do the same with their i:s too? Write a letter, and dot away afterwards...?
Maybe it has been done some time by somebody, who knows. It´s a weird world. But it is not as weird as to allow for you or anybody else to suggest that this is a more credible explanation than the simple and obvious one.

"...my earlier observation about your inability to cultivate a stalemate awareness, which I consider to be immature"

I am not hysterical. I am not immature. I am not following you around.

This all belongs to your ordinary if-you-have-no-sane-arguments-paint-your-opponent-out-as-the-insane-one-tactics. By all means, Ben, be my guest and try and shift the focus from the real issue to my mental capacities and shortcomings. But please, please realize that these antics of yours have nothing whatsoever to do with the core of the matter we are discussing here. If I AM hysterical, that does not change that your suggestion that Lambeth man "forgot" to write his bars is an outlandish one. If I AM immature, you are still the one who claimed that "it does not matter if Lambeth man writes his t:s and l:s differently", and if I AM following you around, that has no bearing on the fact that you are being dishonest about the lack of the bars in the four signatures I provided. A fact is a fact is a fact. It can´t be foulmouthed away, Ben. Not even by you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"A more relevant thing to notice is that the 1888 witness consistently "launches" his crossbar from very top of his "t"s, and carries the crossbar waaaay over to the right - precisely like Toppy 1898 and 1911, and unlike Lambeth, who doesn't have a crossbar on his "t" at all"

plus, Sam, the bar points spot onto the dot over the "i", implicating that the two elements were added in one stroke, more or less.

By the bye - Ben asserts us that the missing Toppy-type crossbar is due to the probability that Lambeth man forgot to add it - not only on the first line, but also on the second. He (Ben) tells us that many a writer finishes a couple of lines first and then add the bars afterwards - but Lambeth George "forgot". Ben also asserts us that this is by far the more credible reason for the lacking bars.
My take on it is that Lambeth George simply wrote his t:s like we see in TWO instances (in Hutchinson and Lambeth), with half a bar protruding from the right side of the stem of his t:s. So far, this suggestion of mine has earned me three titles: immature, hysterical and compulsively following Ben around the boards.

Any ideas? Or would you rather leave it?

The best
Fisherman

[Ben]

But it does not change the fact that he DID add a bar.

I do wish you'd make your mind up.

Previously, you were saying that Lambeth man didn't include a crossbar, and provided several examples of what you erroneously believed to be other people failing to cross their "t"s, but now you're saying that Lambeth man included a cross bar after all! What a topsy-turvy world you seem hell-bent on inhabiting. Nonsense, of course, since I've never heard of a cross bar that commences from the bottom of the "t", which you now appear to be claiming with Lambeth George. Get googling and see if you can find one of those - off you trot! When I stated "it certainly isn't a "t" in the absent of a horizontal cross-bar, is it?", you responded with, "Actually, yes."

And as you have admitted, lambeth mans t:s look nothing like his l:s, and that is because he has already made it a t with the help of half a crossbar

You wouldn't have entertained the prospect of "half a crossbar" if I hadn't drawn your attention to it, after correcting your hideously mistaken impression that none of the examples (McCartney, Victor Hugo etc) included one. Of course, none of them compare remotely to the Lamebth Signature, which looks a great deal more like an absent crossbar.

What is NOT logical is to claim that the more credible thing to believe is that he was aiming to add the bars afterwards, but forgot to do so in BOTH instances.

Oh indeed. Having studied the signatures, I've no doubt whatsoever that the Lambeth individual crossed the t in Lambeth, so no, I don't believe that he neglected to cross the "t"s in both instances, only the first one.

Are you seriously suggesting that somebody would write a number of lines of text, only to return to them afterwards, looking for the places to add bars to the t:s?

No. I'm simply suggesting that he neglected to cross the "t" in one instance, and that's in the absence of any other level-headed reason for the admittedly unusual appearance of the letter. I reject as ludicrous the suggestion that anyone commences a crossbar from the botton of the "t". That would make it an entirely difference letter altogether; an "l", basically.

This suggestion of yours is NOT the "more credible one". In fact, it is not credible at all. It is utterly incredible.

It means nothing to me that you think so.

I don't value your opinion.

I certainly don't value your opinion when you try to mutate it into a fact when it isn't anything of the sort. It's worthy only of contempt, I'm afraid.

I am not hysterical. I am not immature. I am not following you around.

Well, sorry, but based on your behaviour in this thread and pretty much every other thread you've followed me onto, you've done a bloody good job of hiding it.

If I AM hysterical, that does not change that your suggestion that Lambeth man "forgot" to write his bars is an outlandish one.

You're half right; you are hysterical, yes, that much is obvious, but no, you've given me no reason to believe that my opinion is outlandish. I consider that to be true of your opinion. Your hectoring verbose style just makes it worse.

and if I AM following you around, that has no bearing on the fact that you are being dishonest about the lack of the bars in the four signatures I provided.

You're half right; you are following me around, yes, that much is obvious, but the only one who has behaved in an unacceptably dishonest fashion is you, most notably by drastically altering your opinion concerning the presence of a "crossbar" in the Lambeth signatures.

Ben asserts us that the missing Toppy-type crossbar is due to the probability that Lambeth man forgot to add it - not only on the first line, but also on the second.

No, not the second. It is fairly obvious that he crossed the t in the word Lambeth. That much is now stinkingly obvious. What you refer to as a "Toppy-like" crossbar is, of course, nothing of the sort. That is a false and misleading construct. A great many people, especially Victorians, used long cross-bars - just look at Sgt. Badham for one, to say nothing of the Maybrick diary.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

A more relevant thing to notice is that the 1888 witness consistently "launches" his crossbar from very top of his "t"s, and carries the crossbar waaaay over to the right - precisely like Toppy 1898 and 1911

I wouldn't say that's a "more" relevant thing to notice; certainly no more relevant than my observation. As I mentioned, the crossbar was apparently absent from the Lambeth signature. The "Lambeth" t suggests that this individual may not have been in the habit of making long crosses, but in most other respects, Lambeth is an otherwise better bet for the witness three as far as I'm concerned. I'd still file them both under "probably not", however. Toppy's t's are conspicuously taller, and the cross bar does not consistently commence from right of the stem, unlike the witness three.

Come on, chaps, keep posting.

We're catching up with Druitt!

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Previously, you were saying that he didn't write a crossbar, and provided several examples of what you erroneously believed to be other people failing to cross their "t"s, but now you're saying that Lambeth man included a cross bar after all! What a topsy-turvy world you seem bent on inhabiting. Nonsense, of course, since I've never heard off a cross bar that commences from the bottom of the "t" which you now appear to be claiming with Lambeth George"

Let´s get this very clear. You say that there is no bar in Lambeth mans signature. You now add that "I've never heard off a cross bar that commences from the bottom of the "t" which you now appear to be claiming with Lambeth George."

It is, of course and as usual, nonsense. In Lambeth mans case, we have a man who does not lift the tip of his pen as he makes his t. Therefore, we cannot speak of where the bar "commences" in the way we can with Toppys ditto. Toppy lifts the pen, and then puts it to the paper again, and therefore the bar "commences" at the point where the pen hits the paper.
Lambeth man - different thing. He comes in from the left, travels to the top of the t, turns straight down, letting the stem grow down to the "bottom" of the signature, and then he turns up again. This time he travels along the stem, up to a point about one third of the way from the bottom, and there he makes a sharp ninety degree turn. After that turn, one can say that the bar "commences" - but the whole t is in fact one long line with a few bends on it.
If you look at "Lambeth" again, you will see that he accomplishes this nicely and the half bar protrudes from the stem of the t. In "Hutchinson", he does not follow the stem upwards. Intead he slants away to the right before he turns eastwards. Therefore we are left with the impression that he starts the bar from the lower end of the t. If he had written slow and meticulously, he would have followed the stem upwards each time, but the moment of speed lifts the line out slightly to the right.
This is how he makes his t:s. If you can ever find more writing of his, you will find no bars made by lifting the pen - his writing was a type of writing that maximized the contact between pen and paper, and that does not hold true for Toppy/Hutch. This is why I say that the difference is very telling.

"You wouldn't have entertained the prospect of "half a crossbar" if I hadn't drawn your attention to it"

Why do you think that? It is a perfectly useful graphic description of something that is there. Are you sulking, Ben?

"Having studied the signatures, I've no doubt whatsoever that the Lambeth individual crossed the t in Lambeth, so no, I don't believe that he neglected to cross the "t"s in both instances, only the first one."

Wrong again, I´m afraid. They are the same types of t:s, with a deviation sideways in the first case. Notice how the angle down at the foot of the t is a sharp one, in no way resembling the l:s he makes. He did not lift the pen in the second t, and therefore he did not "add a crossbar" like Toppy does. He simply made a more clear ninety -degree turn in that instance. Nothing forgotten there, Ben.

What you refer to as a "Toppy-like" crossbar is, of course, nothing of the sort.

Aha. But if Toppys crossbars are not Toppy-like - then what are they???

"I don't value your opinion"

Sorry to hear that. It would do you a world of good if you did. And I would very much like to value your opinion, since you don´t lack intelligence and insights in the case. Put to an honest use, you could make a valuable point here and there. As it stands, though, you prefer to run away and hide when proven wrong, shouting insults as you scamper away. Pity.

The rest of your post is horse manure, as expected. It deserves very little attention, save by those who have not yet found you out for what you are. But like I said, there is no foulmouthing you out of this one. You remain wrong.

Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

comeon guys this is enough, both of you are as bad as each other... no we wont post in, because this thread is totally stupid

WE NEED A PROFESSIONAL OPINION

[Ben]

Therefore, we cannot speak of where the bar "commences" in the way we can with Toppys ditto.

But if the cross bar commences from the bottom of the so-called "t", the letter ceases to become a "t" and turns into a completely different letter, doesn't it? It turns into an "l". It's very well known that the appearance of cross-bars vary from hand to hand, with some crossbars crossing the letter on both sides, others starting from the right-side only, and with some cross-bars being situated higher up the stem than others. That's all well and good, but if you join the t and the next letter along from the botton without including a seperate stem, you've got yourself an "l", not a t.

Lambeth man - different thing. He comes in from the left, travels to the top of the t, turns straight down, letting the stem grow down to the "bottom" of the signature, and then he turns up again.

Yes, from the botton. What happened to the cross bar that characterizes a conventional t?

What you've actually described is the formation of a letter "l". It has nothing to do with the formation of a "t".

After that turn, one can say that the bar "commences" - but the whole t is in fact one long line with a few bends on it.

But that's not a t. You can't form a t just by drawing a bendy line. That doesn't happen in any signature I've ever seen, including the examples you provided.

If you look at "Lambeth" again, you will see that he accomplishes this nicely and the half bar protrudes from the stem of the t

...From the bottom. But you don't draw the cross bar of the "t" at the very bottom of the letter unless:

A) You're intending to add in the cross bar once you're done with the body of the signature as most people do, or

B) You're not writing a "t" at all, but a standard "l".

This is how he makes his t:s. If you can ever find more writing of his, you will find no bars made by lifting the pen

How do you know what I'll find if I discover more examples of his writings? Have you see other examples of his writings, or are you making ironclad pronouncements with no evidence to back them up?

Why do you think that? It is a perfectly useful graphic description of something that is there. Are you sulking, Ben?

Why would I be sulking? All I did was acquaint you with a concept that you were clearly unaware of, which is why we're seeing "half bars" suddenly creeping into your vocabulary. But you said nothing about half-bars when you first mistakenly attempted to foist those signatures off as examples of absent cross-bars.

Wrong again, I´m afraid. They are the same types of t:s, with a deviation sideways in the first case.

No, Fisherman.

Hopelessly incorrect, Fisherman.

Look at the word Lambeth as written by that particular George You'll notice that the cross bar of the t is situated in the conventional location for connecting it to the next letter along. He is not, for example, attempting to join the t to the h from the bottom. Because if he didn, it wouldn't be a t anymore.

Aha. But if Toppys crossbars are not Toppy-like - then what are they???

They're like loads and loads and loads of examples of Victorian handwriting. A-ha!

As it stands, though, you prefer to run away and hide when proven wrong, shouting insults as you scamper away.

Sorry, you've inculcated some terrible delusional state, obviously. You know full well that I don't "hide" or "scamper away". That's what you'd like me to do, and that's why you dislike me so much. You're frustrated that I don't succumb to verbosity and long-winded aggression. In reality, it's fairly obvious by now that I'm prepared to argue to perdition's flames if necessary, and you've got another thing coming if you think I'm going anywhere.

In the meantime, please continue to alienate posters by trying to engage me in "battles" to appropriate your agenda-betraying term, despite the fact that they've consistently proved to be a disasterous strategy against me. You say my posts "deserve little attention", but here you still are, and here I remain, essentially consuming your attention of a friday evening. Regular as boringly-predictable clockwork, Fish.

[Sam Flynn]

WE NEED A PROFESSIONAL OPINION

With respect, Mal, it's the (in my view, misplaced) weighting given to "professional opinion" in this context that seems to be short-circuiting the ability to compare some very basic visual data here.

We need a professional opinion on those signatures as much as we'd need the services of Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst to confirm that both these images were of the Mona Lisa:



I salute your attempt at keeping the peace, however

[Ben]

Nah, Gareth. The witness and Toppy are more analogous with the Mona Lisa and Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans respectively.

Hi Mal,

Sorry for the continuing acrimony. The desire to do "battle" with me is an urgent pressing desire for some, which is why my presence in any discussion tends to engender some of the more prolific and interminable debates around, and is also why I make light-hearted if semi-serious references to "hypnotism" occasionally.

I agree entirely that professional expertise is invaluable here.

Best regards,
Ben