ThePortForum.com

Is there a graphologists forum where we could ask if "No, no, you are all wrong and I'm right because he writes the same as me" is admissible evidence?

I am struggling to see the word soft.

The "f" in "soft" is rather scribbled but that's what it is. I am telling you, no other explanation is even credible.
It's like arguing with the Flat Earth Society.

Mg60: “fwd” or “good”? Though I prefer the first, my preference is very slight, so trumped by the passion of the Daniel-Rob opinion. It must be “good”.

DRT wrote:I am struggling to see the word soft.

Agreed. But I can see it after a struggle, but I can’t see anything better, with or without struggle.

djewesbury wrote:The "f" in "soft" is rather scribbled but that's what it is. I am telling you, no other explanation is even credible.
It's like arguing with the Flat Earth Society.

Ah, I see. So if something is scribbled beyond recognition we can just make it up and declare it unchallengeable. Got it.

In which case, I think the last line says "& with an extremely long finish which hints of baked Alaska". It's rather scribbled, but that is what it says.

(Aside: don’t make too much of an off-topic, or it’ll be moved. Warbucks’ favourite dinner was “Texas grapefruit, Virginia ham, Idaho potatoes, Wisconsin cheese, Washington apples and baked Alaska.”)

jdaw1 wrote:Thank you. It seems people generally read it as I did. Next up, from a catalogue of 22 July 1976, Morgan 1950:


and Morgan 1960:

DRT wrote:In which case, I think the last line says "& with an extremely long finish which hints of baked Alaska". It's rather scribbled, but that is what it says.

Can you make a useful suggestion for the last line that you think more plausible than “soft”?

jdaw1 wrote:Mg60: “fwd” or “good”? Though I prefer the first, my preference is very slight, so trumped by the passion of the Daniel-Rob opinion. It must be “good”.

Ignoring the PhilW post? - definitely "good" (not "fwd"). Also note extremely similar "good" (uncontested) in first comment vs "good" in second (contested).
I'm unconvinced by "& straw" as there appears to be a definite period after the (not)"&", so "q. strong" looks more likely to me, though unlikely given the preceeding line; the second "col" does look different to the first, since the tail from the (maybe)'o' comes from a different place, clearly written differently, between first and second lines, which is odd for the same word; I don't have a better suggestion for alternative on the second "col" however (only thing I can think of would be "rich, q. strong od" (odour) but I'm unconvinced myself).
I'm persuaded by "fiery" I think;
I think the earlier word is "murky" (rather than "musky" or "mucky"), but agree it is unclear.

PhilW wrote:Ignoring the PhilW post? - definitely "good" (not "fwd"). Also note extremely similar "good" (uncontested) in first comment vs "good" in second (contested).

Bad post by me, for which I apologise. Not for any offence possibly caused — shrugs — but because I rewarded the loudest and the most recent, ignoring he who spoke more quietly and earlier.

Other views on “q[uite] strong”?

The word strong just doesn't fit with the other words. Could it be "q strange col"?

It cannot be strange. This person does not leave letters out.
It cannot be fiery. It is going.
JDAW, please post another example of this person's handwriting that shows this person's initial f.

It cannot be strange. This person does not leave letters out.
It cannot be fiery. It is going.
JDAW, please post another example of this person's handwriting that shows this person's initial f.

I think the second one goes:

Med (medium) pale col (colour)
Rich q. (quite) strong ... (can't make out the last word but I don't think it's colour again).
Slight (this is a wild guess)
V ford (forward?) classy (feel quite confident about this word).
Strong (?)

Or what I have suggested as 'slight' could be 'depth'.

LGTrotter wrote:classy

I can’t see that. Maybe because I’m drinking Croft LBV 2004, but I can’t see classy.

It's a capital 'c' with a long looping 'l' after it. A bit of a squiggle with an 's' in it and finish with a 'y'.

LGTrotter wrote:It's a capital 'c' with a long looping 'l' after it. A bit of a squiggle with an 's' in it and finish with a 'y'.

Some of that is plausible,. but you have squeezed an ‘ass’ out of an ‘s’.

And, damn!, I now have to re-read the Hitch-hikers’ Guide to find the quotation I need.

I have given you the correct answer. Please carry on discussing this for as long as you like.

djewesbury wrote:I have given you the correct answer. Please carry on discussing this for as long as you like.

Boo-hiss, gerroff! Away with determinists.

jdaw1 wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:It's a capital 'c' with a long looping 'l' after it. A bit of a squiggle with an 's' in it and finish with a 'y'.

Some of that is plausible,. but you have squeezed an ‘ass’ out of an ‘s’.

And, damn!, I now have to re-read the Hitch-hikers’ Guide to find the quotation I need.

As I say it is a squiggle, in a margin, probably without anything solid under the paper, of course it is less than clear. Except to those who can still see clearly even after Daniel has muddied the well of truth with the stick of uncertainty.

After 'rich q. strong ...' I think the missing word could be id. Rare indeed to find such a psychologically minded port taster.

I think all the words could be 'rubbish'. Are you lot still arguing about this? I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer I have some hours ago.

Only turning up to this discussion now. Goodness me there has been a lot of huffing and puffing! Daniel is correct, those are "g"s. For the second "col", how about "ol." for olfactory.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I have given you the correct answer. Please carry on discussing this for as long as you like.

Boo-hiss, gerroff!

+1

Mike, don't spoil the fun, let the boys have their guessing games. This could go on for weeks. Sit back and enjoy it.
For the record, I now think it says, "Noval Nacional 31, tired and fizzy, calendula in frost pockets".

jdaw1 wrote:Having read the suggestions my new best understandings are:
• Mg50 — “V pale col. Musty. Spirity rather hot. Fiery one but good”.
• Mg60 — “Med pale col. Rich & straw col. Light. V fwd easy & soft”. Of this, the word I think most open to challenge is the “soft”.

Mg50 seems reasonable.
Mg60 reads (to me) "Med pale col. Rich q. strong col. xxxxx. v good easy & xxxx" and I assume "q." stands for "quite."

I really can't decipher the words I've represented using x other than the number of letters. Unless h[i|e]p[n|h]r and fo[?]v make sense to someone else. The ? in the second word simply doesn't follow proper strokes for any letter that I can recall, cursive or print.

Still going? Excellent. I think I can see the words "hopelessness" and "impenetrable darkness".
Julian, had I you and the entries in front of me I could convince you of my reading by tracing over it and reproducing it with a pen, thus demonstrating the plausibility (nay, incontrovertibility) of the penstrokes that I can clearly see. Not fiery, not fwd, none of the other imaginative wrong things that various deludees have advocated here.

Weird. There's an entire page of debate that wasn't here last night when I posted. Now that I can see it...

I agree with Daniel's reading of Mg50. "Going over but good" is clear as day now that it has been suggested. "Fiery" was a somewhat uncomfortable best fit for me. It worked, but just barely.

"light" and "soft" in the Mg60 notes both still feel that way to me. Yeah, okay, I can see those words, but it's an uncomfortable fit. The 'l' in "light" has an additional and entirely unnecessary hump. I can rationalize the 'g' in "light" but the penmanship is abysmal. The 'f' in "soft" is not any letter I've ever seen. The author uses two different variations on 't' but at least the 't' in "soft" is one of them.

jdaw1 wrote:Thank you. It seems people generally read it as I did. Next up, from a catalogue of 22 July 1976, Morgan 1950:


and Morgan 1960:

Just to keep the image on the page.

jdaw1 wrote:Another reading problem. The camera failed to focus properly on a page — my responsibility is not denied.

Several photographs follow. The first is as-original. Subsequent pictures have had brightness and contrast changed, in the hope that might help.

The line probably starts “Three Dozen Bottles of”, mostly in small capitals. But what’s the Port?

Re-photographed:

jdaw1 wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Another reading problem. The camera failed to focus properly on a page — my responsibility is not denied.

Several photographs follow. The first is as-original. Subsequent pictures have had brightness and contrast changed, in the hope that might help.

The line probably starts “Three Dozen Bottles of”, mostly in small capitals. But what’s the Port?

Re-photographed:

I will defer my prize, please, and let it accumulate.

Handwriting experts please:

jdaw1 wrote:Handwriting experts please:

v. pale colour
green nose. spirity
green & hot. spirity

this one seems pretty straightforward to me.

djewesbury wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:Handwriting experts please:

v. pale colour
green nose. spirity
green & hot. spirity

this one seems pretty straightforward to me.

+1

Double green: thank you.

V. Pele colour.
Queer wine. Spirity.
Helm and hot. Spirity.

LGTrotter wrote:V. Pele colour.
Queer wine. Spirity.
Helm and hot. Spirity.

V. Pele was a relative of the Brazilian footballing genius. Quite a dark wine, and a rather racist note.
But no surprise when we discover the Wagnerian overtones in the next line.
You're a genius Owen.

Julian's auction catalogues are of a different order to the hieroglyphs used by the proprietor of the Belfast News Letter and Mayor of Belfast James Alexander Henderson, in his tablet diary of 1873.

Do you need these deciphered?

Office
???
Will Mc (or Mr) Hewitt


Office
? Memorial of
? Of Ballyma??
???
? Meeting of ?
Magistrates for Monday

Actually I have this one, more or less: office, forwarded memorial of inhabitants of Ballymacarrett to Inspector ??? of Constabulary. Then something about organising a meeting of the magistrates for Monday.
This is not the worst.

Hewitt is a solicitor.

Looks very much like "Inspector Jew? of Constabulary" to me.

Yes I thought so too. I have some more:

On the 12th of July (anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne), he met with Major General Warre and his staff. Clearly some kind of euphemism or code.

Indecipherable.

Custody court.. Discharged.??? Meeting

Was the disappointment mutual? Next stop St. Petersburg to consult the Tsar's diary.
(Larne namechecked there, Flash!)
Then Mark Gatiss turned up and they spent the afternoon filming Who Do You Think You Are? which ruined my concentration.

djewesbury wrote:Was the disappointment mutual? Next stop St. Petersburg to consult the Tsar's diary.
(Larne namechecked there, Flash!)

Well that one seems easy... until the end, anyway.

"Went to Windsor to see Emporer of Russia but was disappointed as he did not arrive till 10 at night. Left London for home of ?? ??? for Belfast via Araurae & Larne."

Oh sorry I know that one. Left London for home at 9 o'clock for Belfast via Stranraer and Larne.

djewesbury wrote:Indecipherable.

Custody court.. Discharged.??? Meeting

11.30 Office
1.30 Custody Court
Charged old O.D. "ild" gross ????????
= night blah blah of justice.
2.0 Cemetery & Y2K Committee. (informational meeting)

They were already planning for the Millennium Bug. Those Victorians eh?

djewesbury wrote:Oh sorry I know that one. Left London for home at 9 o'clock for Belfast via Stranraer and Larne.

Ah yes, I can see that now. Old style S.

djewesbury wrote:They were already planning for the Millennium Bug. Those Victorians eh?

I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.