Patricia Cornwell

[John Savage]

Watermark Dates

Hi Dan,

Can I make a suggestion as to how watermarks of a different year might have come to be included in the same quire of cut paper.

Firstly, not all papers had a year of manufacture in their watermark, those that did were usually made for a specific purpose where security was of importance. For instance a will dated 1885 would clearly be seen as a forgery if it were on paper dated 1886.

Any stocks that a paper merchant had left at the end of the year would of course be of little value for the security paper market. Therefore the manufacturer of these notepapers (were year of manufacture would not be important) may well have bought old stock at a discount, it would not matter to him what dates were in the watermarks, he would simply collect a quantity of paper together and guillotine it to the required size.

I am not asserting that this actually happened, just offering it as a possibility, but how Mr. Bower can tell that a paper comes from the same quire simply by the guillotine marks is beyond me.

Rgds
John

[Ally]

These fine distinctions may be relevant to people who live in the States but, believe me, in the rest of the world, "Yankee" or "Yank" is used to refer to all inhabitants of the U. S. of A., no matter where they happen to reside in that great republic.

Yup. And the fine distinctions of Scottish, Irish and Welsh might be relevant to the people who live in the UK, but to the rest of the world, they're all just English.

[jmenges]

Do you happen to have a complete image of the watermark? I'm just curious if it was all letters and numbers, or if it included a symbol like earlier watermarks.

The watermark of this company was


A. PIRIE & SONS
1886

or whatever the date of production. There was no symbol.

JM

[The Grave Maurice]

Yankee

Good luck finding a definition that will fit all the various things people mean by it, though.

These fine distinctions may be relevant to people who live in the States but, believe me, in the rest of the world, "Yankee" or "Yank" is used to refer to all inhabitants of the U. S. of A., no matter where they happen to reside in that great republic.

[Dan Norder]

BDo you happen to have a complete image of the watermark? I'm just curious if it was all letters and numbers, or if it included a symbol like earlier watermarks.

Unfortunately the only images I have access to are the ones Cornwell provided in the hardback version of her book. Other than a small section that was trimmed off while doing my quick scans, those are the only parts of the watermarks that her images show.

I may be mistaken, but I think at some time in the past someone else had posted a better image of the Openshaw letter watermark, but I don't have that. Perhaps someone else might provide that.

[JSchmidt]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3867853.ece

Well if Dans correct about Bower this throws the cat amoung the pigeons

What exactly are you trying to say? That if he proved one thing a forgery he surely must be right about the other?

I could see sense in Mr. Bowers argument if he said the paper was cut in a very similar way regarding mechanical wear during the cutting process with the conclusion that the paper has the same origin/is from the same factory.
Or that he found paper fibres which fit together rather neatly.
Both papers are not pristine sheets, so the edge of the sheets was subject to at least some tear and wear. So the structure may have changed in the timespan between the cutting and our times which makes that method of comparison less reliable.
But to say that paper from two different years marked with a watermark that allows us to date it are from the same batch is hardly believable.
Even if we account for the turn of the year during a production run, refitting the wire frames to make paper would be a top priority as it is both trademark and advertisement for the paper manufacturer. So how would that work?

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

I admire Stewart, greatly, but I have also seen him make untoward attacks on subjects that don't suit his purpose or situation, as in the 17th September letter fiasco, and I see no difference in Cornwell's attitude as discussed here.

I stick to my opinion A P. I saw and read the '17th Sept 1888' letter years ago whilst working on a project with the PRO. As an artefact it has, and had, no relevance whatsoever to any 'purpose or situation' of mine. I thought it was a modern (c. 1988) fake then and I still do now. I don't know anyone who has seen it who believes it to be genuine. Debate about it appears to be fruitless, divisive and unproductive and I'd rather not debate it. I gave my opinion on it when asked and anyone else is free to agree or disagree - I couldn't care less, it's up to them. I also thank you for your kind comments and hope that, perhaps, we may return to a more productive relationship.

[JSchmidt]

Bad case of oops on my part, I somehow managed to completely overlook Dan's post with the watermarks. No idea why but it was not on purpose.
Sorry Mr. Norder.
And thanks for providing the watermarks. Do you happen to have a complete image of the watermark? I'm just curious if it was all letters and numbers, or if it included a symbol like earlier watermarks.

[Jeff Leahy]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3867853.ece

Well if Dans correct about Bower this throws the cat amoung the pigeons

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, Dan, there are are several ways to Skin a Pat.

[Dan Norder]

But maybe, Dan, in 14 years time Cornwell will be doing the same thing as Stewart does now, delivering us first class information and material that is totally factual and unconnected to any suspect based publication.

It's certainly possible. I was honestly surprised that she even bothered to hire Keith Skinner to do any fact checking based upon her previous history. I do consider that to be a great step forward, and I've said as much on these boards in the past and at the Whitechapel Society meeting I was at last October. But it's certainly not enough to undo all of her past actions yet, especially not when we have yet to know what the end result will be. I doubt she has him trying to find evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt he was in France on the night of a key Ripper murder.

[Tom_Wescott]

Schmidt,

It's a few pages back on this thread, a post of Dan Norder's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[JSchmidt]

Photos of the watermarks? Seems like I missed them. Were/Are they online?
I am quite interested in them, not just from the ripper angle but also from pure curiosity about the watermarks themselves.

[Jeff Leahy]

No Tom we need to know precisely what it is we are looking at. So please allow me the same courtesy of time..

either Dan or Peter has clearly made a major mistake

[Tom_Wescott]

How can you still believe Dan is incorrect? He showed you the photos. Did Bower show you photographic proof or were his word and paycheck enough? I think you're just being stubborn now because you didn't think Dan had the goods when he did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott