Kosminski and Victim DNA Match on Shawl

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi, Jeff.
Yes Lino and woodblock are similar in effect. With some of the blocks I had in my collection (before I sold them to raise cash for my move to the USA), I had three blocks that were clearly intended to be printed upon each other - that is to say one after the other but placed in the same position upon the material - producing a mutli-colour print by hand, as it were. Sadly they weren't Golden Lily and Michaelmas Daisies, just early takes on the still familiar Paisley pattern.
As far as regionalising the design of the shawl, all I can say is I have lived in eastern Europe ( Poland and the Czech republic) for a few years and this looks like nothing I'd expect from there - I also traveled in western and southern Europe and to me, it has an more of an Anglicised Italian look to it than anything else. But then that would place it in the 1860's which is probably too late for the basic form it takes ( 2x8ft ).
Over to you.

I can't add much to that. I am aware that Lyno printing can be quite sophisticated if you get the registration correct. In fact I've seen Lyno Prints and you won't be able to tell by site they weren't screen prints.

Also I've got a guy creating some large cavarses for our new front room (we were flooded at Xmas) He's using a simple projection process… and given some of the TV programs on the Shraud of Turnin I presume projection was possible.. He projects an image making it larger and paints over the top..pretty neat.

Also there was another method at college called Litho -printing

And if my Prince Rupert History serves me well he invented a process called Mizo-tyne printing (May have spelling wrong) This was an etching process using metal and acid I believe. But that would post-date 1645 probably reformation. But this process as far as I'm aware was used for painted prints.

Don't know if any of that adds anything. What I'd really like to know is what the previous experts quoted in the A to Z believed.

Yours Jeff

[Theagenes]

Hi, Theagenes.
I can only say that when i and other dealers used the term 'Spitafields' when referring to material, we were meaning that it was woven design, rather than printed and that it is a higher quality of item. At least that's what we meant 15 years ago. I haven't been involved much in the trade since then.
Sometime in the late 1820's, in England, the law was changed to allow for French imports of material and clothing. In reply to that change and so as to remain viable in competition to such imports, the methods of manufacture previously adhered to by major cotten and silk centers in England changed and allowed this for a significant decrease in the overall quality of middle class clothing goods.
So sometimes when a dealer states that a shawl is a 'Spitafields shawl' he or she is referring to the quality and date of manufacture as well as the process. It is not necessarily that the item in question can provably be placed in that particular location for manufacture, just that it conforms to the criteria in terms of quality, date and country of manufacture.

Got you and thanks again for contributing this information. So you're thinking then that this probably dates to that period just after the change in the law, when the quality started to decline?

And I guess it's safe to assume that feel pretty confident that this is in fact a 19th century shawl and not a table runner or some other object?

[PaulB]

Hey Jeff

Normally, your plea to 'cut the man some slack' would fall on fertile ground with me. After all, it's only by following up idea and formulating theories that progress is made in any field of research.

But... RE has gone out on such a limb of utter certainty, saying in effect, 'this cannot be gainsaid; there is nothing further to add to what I/we have discovered; the case is solved, no ifs, no buts'.

Given such outrageous arrogance, then slack should not be offered.

Either he really believes his own publicity, in which case, an 'I believe this to be true' might - just - earn a bit of slack; or he doesn't believe it in which case he's a money-grubbing charlatan and deserves all he gets.

Now, I believe he's probably the former and actually believes this stuff, but he still needs to tone it down a bit.

He's not the first to make claims of this kind, Cornwell, and quite a few more. I didn't notice them getting a lot of slack cut.

Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have been.

Actually, I don't think it is arrogant to have faith in what one believes. I don't actually see much wrong in being totally convinced of something and saying so as loudly as one likes. Providing, of course, one is sincere in that conviction. But just because someone thinks he's wrong or premature in what he's said then I have to say that I don't think attacking his business, or libelling him as a hoaxer, fraud, charlatan, or whatever, or attributing to him motives there is no evidence that he has, or rubbishing his work and book without having read it, comes within sniffing distance of justifiable criticism.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Well, if he had REALLY studied the case, perhaps he'd know the details better?

Be that as it may, none of us ought to over egg--as he has clearly done.

Cheers.LC

Um.. The problem is Lynn I know lots of people who have studied the case. And many of them don't agree about a hell of a lot…

Its all a matter of personal perspective to some extent.

Its great when people bring personal expertise in specific areas but as I said ripperology is a Jack trade.

I run off topic... sorry

Jeff

[Caligo Umbrator]

Actually I got in quite a lot of stick on these boards for suggesting exactly that and understand Patricia has another book due for release next year.

If your saying 'Caseclosed' based on what we currently seem to know is 'a little premature'. I'm vary much in agreement with you.

Re: Caligo. Many thanks for the information you are supplying which answers many of my questions. Before screen printing we have Roller printing (Not that I understand this process even though I did a A level in Printing many years ago….and my family were fleet street printers.

And we have woodblock printing. Presumably this would be a similar to a process I did at A level called 'Lyno' printing but in wood?

Many thanks

Jeff

Hi, Jeff.
Yes Lino and woodblock are similar in effect. With some of the blocks I had in my collection (before I sold them to raise cash for my move to the USA), I had three blocks that were clearly intended to be printed upon each other - that is to say one after the other but placed in the same position upon the material - producing a mutli-colour print by hand, as it were. Sadly they weren't Golden Lily and Michaelmas Daisies, just early takes on the still familiar Paisley pattern.
As far as regionalising the design of the shawl, all I can say is I have lived in eastern Europe ( Poland and the Czech republic) for a few years and this looks like nothing I'd expect from there - I also traveled in western and southern Europe and to me, it has an more of an Anglicised Italian look to it than anything else. But then that would place it in the 1860's which is probably too late for the basic form it takes ( 2x8ft ).
Over to you.

[lynn cates]

study

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

Well, if he had REALLY studied the case, perhaps he'd know the details better?

Be that as it may, none of us ought to over egg--as he has clearly done.

Cheers.
LC

[Caligo Umbrator]

Thanks for this. It's refreshing to get a take on this object from someone who has some knowledge in the area. Do you have any thoughts on where it might have been produced? According to Edwards the experts he spoke to didn't seem to think it was English but possibly Continental, but in looking online I've seen some Spit aliens shawls from that period that are very similar to this one in design.

Edit: "Spit aliens" = "Spitalfields" -- best auto correct laugh I've had in a while.

Hi, Theagenes.
I can only say that when i and other dealers used the term 'Spitafields' when referring to material, we were meaning that it was woven design, rather than printed and that it is a higher quality of item. At least that's what we meant 15 years ago. I haven't been involved much in the trade since then.
Sometime in the late 1820's, in England, the law was changed to allow for French imports of material and clothing. In reply to that change and so as to remain viable in competition to such imports, the methods of manufacture previously adhered to by major cotten and silk centers in England changed and allowed this for a significant decrease in the overall quality of middle class clothing goods.
So sometimes when a dealer states that a shawl is a 'Spitafields shawl' he or she is referring to the quality and date of manufacture as well as the process. It is not necessarily that the item in question can provably be placed in that particular location for manufacture, just that it conforms to the criteria in terms of quality, date and country of manufacture.

[Jeff Leahy]

He's not the first to make claims of this kind, Cornwell, and quite a few more. I didn't notice them getting a lot of slack cut.

Actually I got in quite a lot of stick on these boards for suggesting exactly that and understand Patricia has another book due for release next year.

If your saying 'Caseclosed' based on what we currently seem to know is 'a little premature'. I'm vary much in agreement with you.

Re: Caligo. Many thanks for the information you are supplying which answers many of my questions. Before screen printing we have Roller printing (Not that I understand this process even though I did a A level in Printing many years ago….and my family were fleet street printers.

And we have woodblock printing. Presumably this would be a similar to a process I did at A level called 'Lyno' printing but in wood?

Many thanks

Jeff

[Chris]

I should state, just to be clear and before anyone gets carried away, I'm not stating that it was produced using wooden block for the printing - just that such a production was in use at the time that I believe the item was manufactured.

Yes, I can see you're not saying that.

But in the book, the argument seems to be that because the two dyes had different solubilities, that suggested the dye had been applied by hand, not by machine. That's the argument I still don't follow.

[mickreed]

And in my opinion it is often suspect ripperologist who drive the case forward so please cut the man some slac. I don't believe we are looking at any 'untoward' if some understandable over enthusiasm.

Yours Jeff

Hey Jeff

Normally, your plea to 'cut the man some slack' would fall on fertile ground with me. After all, it's only by following up idea and formulating theories that progress is made in any field of research.

But... RE has gone out on such a limb of utter certainty, saying in effect, 'this cannot be gainsaid; there is nothing further to add to what I/we have discovered; the case is solved, no ifs, no buts'.

Given such outrageous arrogance, then slack should not be offered.

Either he really believes his own publicity, in which case, an 'I believe this to be true' might - just - earn a bit of slack; or he doesn't believe it in which case he's a money-grubbing charlatan and deserves all he gets.

Now, I believe he's probably the former and actually believes this stuff, but he still needs to tone it down a bit.

He's not the first to make claims of this kind, Cornwell, and quite a few more. I didn't notice them getting a lot of slack cut.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Thanks for this explanation. So it could have been printed using blocks that were applied by hand rather than by machine? I suppose what I was really trying to say is that it couldn't have been just hand-painted - but that's not what the book says anyway.

What I still don't follow, though, is why the fact that the blue and brown dyes have different solubilities should indicate hand printing rather than machine printing.

Hi, Chris.
I should state, just to be clear and before anyone gets carried away, I'm not stating that it was produced using wooden block for the printing - just that such a production was in use at the time that I believe the item was manufactured. It could conceivably have been produced using roller printing but generally, for this type of item, that wasn't something in major commercial use until nearly 1850 or so due to the restriction in colour palates that the technical aspect of the process required. If roller print was used on the shawl then that would tend to date the item sometime past 1860, by which time the technique had become more advanced and could offer more colours in production.

[Theagenes]

Hi, Chris
Before I moved to America I was an antique dealer.
I owned and sold many Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian artifacts. As I've stated elsewhere on this forum I'd date the shawl to around the early 1820's-1840's and, as I've not handled it or seen it with my own eyes, give a margin of around 5 years either side.
The way that designs were applied to textiles varied considerably in the 19th C. From the images I've seen I'd agree that the design is unlikely to be woven in to the fabric. Machine printing is not the only method of determining a uniform pattern. I owned and sold many hard wood block print patterns that where designed to be overlaid upon material in repetitive ways.
So to fulfill a pattern there could be one block for every colour. One for green leaves, one for red petals, etc. All carved to match up to a full design and all laid upon the material separately in succession, by the persons producing the item.

Thanks for this. It's refreshing to get a take on this object from someone who has some knowledge in the area. Do you have any thoughts on where it might have been produced? According to Edwards the experts he spoke to didn't seem to think it was English but possibly Continental, but in looking online I've seen some Spit aliens shawls from that period that are very similar to this one in design.

Edit: "Spit aliens" = "Spitalfields" -- best auto correct laugh I've had in a while.

[Chris]

Machine printing is not the only method of determining a uniform pattern. I owned and sold many hard wood block print patterns that where designed to be overlaid upon material in repetitive ways.
So to fulfill a pattern there could be one block for every colour. One for green leaves, one for red petals, etc. All carved to match up to a full design and all laid upon the material separately in succession, by the persons producing the item.

Thanks for this explanation. So it could have been printed using blocks that were applied by hand rather than by machine? I suppose what I was really trying to say is that it couldn't have been just hand-painted - but that's not what the book says anyway.

What I still don't follow, though, is why the fact that the blue and brown dyes have different solubilities should indicate hand printing rather than machine printing.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Well, it does say in the book:
"The difference [in solubility] between the two [blue and brown] dyes also suggested that the shawl was not machine printed, but that the dye was hand-applied."

And later on an absorption test using a spectrophotometer shows that there is only one pigment in the blue areas, from which they conclude that it was "definitely not screen printed".

But looking at the pattern, it was surely machine printed in some way.

Hi, Chris
Before I moved to America I was an antique dealer.
I owned and sold many Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian artifacts. As I've stated elsewhere on this forum I'd date the shawl to around the early 1820's-1840's and, as I've not handled it or seen it with my own eyes, give a margin of around 5 years either side.
The way that designs were applied to textiles varied considerably in the 19th C. From the images I've seen I'd agree that the design is unlikely to be woven in to the fabric. Machine printing is not the only method of determining a uniform pattern. I owned and sold many hard wood block print patterns that where designed to be overlaid upon material in repetitive ways.
So to fulfill a pattern there could be one block for every colour. One for green leaves, one for red petals, etc. All carved to match up to a full design and all laid upon the material separately in succession, by the persons producing the item.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Mick.

"He's not a good writer."

Or researcher? Or criminologist?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

If your referring to Russell Edwards then these charges could be levelled at all of us. We are after all largely struggling ripperologists trying to understand lots of fields that seem relevant to one area or another we are examining..

Indeed it might be argued that becoming a ripperologist you condemn yourself to being the 'Jack' of all trades, if you'll excuse the pun.

My conversation with Russell suggested a genuine chap with an interest in the case trying to follow a lead he believes in. And that accusation might be laid at many 'Suspect' ripperologist on these boards.

And in my opinion it is often suspect ripperologist who drive the case forward so please cut the man some slac. I don't believe we are looking at any 'untoward' if some understandable over enthusiasm.

Yours Jeff