Handwriting questions

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:53 Thu 12 Feb 2015

Glenn E. wrote:
djewesbury wrote:They were already planning for the Millennium Bug. Those Victorians eh?
I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

Cemetery & Parks Committee?

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 23:35 Thu 12 Feb 2015

djewesbury wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:
djewesbury wrote:They were already planning for the Millennium Bug. Those Victorians eh?
I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.
Cemetery & Parks Committee?

Could be, yes. Perhaps also organizational meeting?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:47 Wed 11 Mar 2015

This time the handwriting is mine. The third word. I have no idea. Dark, treacly.. Conterish?? Clear rim, some reddishness.
It was a G10YO.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:51 Wed 11 Mar 2015

That’s not a TN sheet from my software. Heresy!

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:52 Wed 11 Mar 2015

It's one produced by Graham's / Fell's. In fact rather old. I was just refreshing my memory as I wrote a talk for my introductory tasting tomorrow.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 06:51 Thu 12 Mar 2015

Dark, treacly, coutrérish. A rim. Poivre radish.

Have I helped?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 08:26 Thu 12 Mar 2015

JWEW · Post by **JWEW** » 11:19 Thu 12 Mar 2015

Colheiterish

Only guessing based on the context of tasting a wood aged port

Post by **PhilW** » 11:39 Thu 12 Mar 2015

Couterish; Clearly you felt it was dark, treacly, and useful for defending your elbows when being attacked by sword or pike.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:19 Thu 12 Mar 2015

None of the above. But thanks to JWEW who was the only person making a serious suggestion!

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:35 Tue 09 Jun 2015

Please help with another Christie’s annotation, this one from the auction on 4^th July 1974.

Post by **DRT** » 21:38 Tue 09 Jun 2015

Very rare parcel?

Post by **PhilW** » 21:41 Tue 09 Jun 2015

DRT wrote:Very rare parcel?

+1. Not completely sure about parcel, but seems likely and viable.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:59 Tue 09 Jun 2015

PhilW wrote:
DRT wrote:Very rare parcel?
+1.

Parcel! Thank you.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:08 Fri 12 Jun 2015

Please kind sirs, what was the price of the last of these lots? £24? £29?

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 22:16 Fri 12 Jun 2015

I would say 29 as the bottom line doesn't extend to the right past the vertical part as the other examples do. But the "2" is very different in the bottom example than the top ones. So I would assume these were written in by different people. As such it could be a 24. Though it appears the top was meant to touch but the ink is very light and the vertical part is very long, something not usually done when writing 4.

So I would still stick with it being a "29"

Post by **PhilW** » 22:36 Fri 12 Jun 2015

Very ambiguous. I read it naturally as 24, but agree that on analysis 29 is more likely; it does appear to be a different had to the preceding examples, are there any following examples in the same hand to compare?

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 04:46 Mon 15 Jun 2015

Andy Velebil wrote:I would say 29 as the bottom line doesn't extend to the right past the vertical part as the other examples do. But the "2" is very different in the bottom example than the top ones. So I would assume these were written in by different people. As such it could be a 24. Though it appears the top was meant to touch but the ink is very light and the vertical part is very long, something not usually done when writing 4.

So I would still stick with it being a "29"

Agreed.

Also, the vertical stroke is at an angle which is more common in a 9 than in a 4.

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:52 Mon 20 Jul 2015

In the following list of shipper names, the fifth begins “Mart”.

Do you agree that the word is written “ Martniez’ ”?

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:00 Mon 20 Jul 2015

jdaw1 wrote:In the following list of shipper names, the fifth begins “Mart”.

Do you agree that the word is written “ Martniez’ ”?

I can see either " Martniez' " or " Martuiez' ".

Post by **flash_uk** » 16:07 Mon 20 Jul 2015

I would say it is Martinez with a clumsy effort for an 'n', and the dot over the 'i' very poorly positioned.

DaveRL · Post by **DaveRL** » 16:43 Mon 20 Jul 2015

I agree: Martinez with the dot poorly positioned.

Post by **PhilW** » 20:25 Mon 20 Jul 2015

Could be Martinez or Martniez, no other examples of "i" usage for dot offset distance comparison; I would assume Martinez.

uncle tom · Post by **uncle tom** » 16:10 Tue 04 Aug 2015

Do you agree that the word is written “ Martniez’ ”?

Lysdexia, I suspect..

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 19:39 Tue 04 Aug 2015

uncle tom wrote:
Do you agree that the word is written “ Martniez’ ”?
Lysdexia, I suspect..

I was thinking maybe Portdexia??

Post by **jdaw1** » 14:25 Mon 17 Aug 2015

On what date did the wine merchant deliver this Port?

Is it “4 Jan 1911” (which was a Wednesday)?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 14:37 Mon 17 Aug 2015

Are there any immediately preceding or subsequent dates in the ledger?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 14:37 Mon 17 Aug 2015

And is this definitely a date?
Is it possible to include more of the surrounding text as context?

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:57 Mon 17 Aug 2015

Reload previous image. And

Yes, definitely a date.

Post by **PhilW** » 16:13 Mon 17 Aug 2015

Agree on "4 Jan 1911"

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:16 Mon 17 Aug 2015

Yes. Seeing his looped Js and the rounded nature of his other characters confirms this.

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:22 Mon 17 Aug 2015

Thank you team.

Post by **flash_uk** » 16:31 Mon 17 Aug 2015

And Jan makes sense given the chronological sequencing - it immediately follows 1914, and is then followed by date entries which look like March and April.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 16:42 Mon 17 Aug 2015

flash_uk wrote:And Jan makes sense given the chronological sequencing - it immediately follows 1914, and is then followed by date entries which look like March and April.

You're looking at the wrong image.

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:49 Thu 27 Aug 2015

Who is the second partner in the wine merchant selling the Martinez 1904?

Not scaled, brightened, added contrast:

Could it be (a surprisingly French) “frère”? Or “friere”, with lower-case ‘f’?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:54 Thu 27 Aug 2015

& Grieve.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 17:54 Thu 27 Aug 2015

Look at the similarity of the start of the unknown word to the two occurrences of "the" earlier in the photo. I would see the unknown word as being something such as THRIEVE

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:56 Thu 27 Aug 2015

St. James's St.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:58 Thu 27 Aug 2015

Thrieve? Are you smoking crack? That's an 'and' sign (reduced ampersand) and a G.

Post by **jdaw1** » 18:01 Thu 27 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:& Grieve.

Interesting.

A [url=http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD/GBR/2938/CCCC02/S/CCCC02/S/53a/21]reference in a Cambridge library entitled “Memorandum re Hamilton & Grieve of St James St”[/url] wrote:'Grieve is a Trinity man, friend of Bullough). Basil Arthur Firebrace Grieve, d. 1917.

And this picture came from Trinity College.

Edit: your researching the name was faster.

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 20:16 Thu 27 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:Thrieve? Are you smoking crack? That's an 'and' sign (reduced ampersand) and a G.

No. Skunk. Goes better with Dow '91.

Post by **DRT** » 20:39 Thu 27 Aug 2015

AHB wrote:
djewesbury wrote:Thrieve? Are you smoking crack? That's an 'and' sign (reduced ampersand) and a G.
No. Skunk. Goes better with Dow '91.

I completely agree.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:06 Thu 27 Aug 2015

I should point out that it was my keen, orthographic detective's eye which revealed the answer. Google followed after, as corroboration.

Post by **DRT** » 22:27 Thu 27 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:I should point out that it was my keen, orthographic detective's eye which revealed the answer. Google followed after, as corroboration.

I knew that. You are clearly feeling insecure in needing to point it out. Man up.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 22:39 Thu 27 Aug 2015

I just thought I should advertise my good points. Like the Americans do.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:50 Tue 01 Sep 2015

Small image:

Link to large image, with original colouration.

“Sealed G. B. Clarke & Co”? “… & Son”? Other?

(Nothing else in this hand: no further clues.)

Post by **DRT** » 22:05 Tue 01 Sep 2015

& Co.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:47 Fri 11 Sep 2015

Whence comes this Croft 1834?

(Second picture has added brightness and contrast, and colour completely de-saturated.)

Post by **PhilW** » 06:15 Sat 12 Sep 2015

Bin No. 58 Port
1875 April 13 Bought by ?. C. ???? Esq
of ?? ?????? "1834"
Thompson and Crofts at 75/-
cost with expenses 100/-

I can't decipher the buyer's name or seller's name properly, the latter looks something like "Wm. Tilliffe" (shortened Wilhelm?) but I have no confidence in that reading. Does look like purchase of "1834 Thompson & Crofts" though, not just Croft.

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:21 Sat 12 Sep 2015

My question asked “whence”. You have answered everything else (though I think the no-expenses cost was 95/-). And Croft was formerly known as Thompson & Croft.