|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 1:41 pm: |       |
John Hacker wrote:
I don't understand why anyone would attempt to remove them from an area that you describe as a '“secret” part of the watch.'
The odd thing is that Ron Murphy, who sold the watch to Johnson, did say that he'd tried to remove the scratches, didn't he?
Yet it would be very odd if he did this in order to age the scratches, and having gone to all that trouble, simply sold the watch. Unless he was part of a vast conspiracy ...
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Chris George,
"Playing devil's advocate here, I could see how a jeweller would want to polish out scratches made in a piece of jewelry that he intends to sell. The selling price is bound to be higher if the piece is thought to have less imperfections. I am making the assumption here that the buyer might be another person in the jewelry trade who would open up the back of the watch to inspect the insides."
You won't get any argument from me. It's certainly a possibility. It's always seemed strange to me though. (And to the few mall jewellers I've polled, but they are certainly not high class folks for the most part. Not to mention that pocketwatches aren't as big on this side of the pond.)
Chris Phillips,
Ron Murphy did say he tried to remove some scratches yes. At the time he tried to remove them he apparently couldn't make out what they said, so I don't know what to make of his testimony.
We also have Tim Dundas who swore an affidavit that the scratches weren't there when he cleaned it in 1992, and he claimed to have carefully observed the area with a jewellers loupe.
I certainly don't think he's a member of a vast conspiracy. But the idea has crossed my mind on occasion that somewhere out there is a jeweler with an unusual sense of humour producing watches with novelty scratches for their own amusement. Charlie Chaplin's watch, Churchill's watch, Jack the Ripper's watch etc.
Regards,
John |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Looking back on the old boards, I see that the consensus was that Murphy's polishing, with jewellers' rouge, would not have produced the "scouring" marks visible on the case.
There's also the interesting evidence that Dr Wild (in early 1994) was told that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. Presumably this referred to Murphy's cleaning, which was actually in 1992.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:49 am: | |
Continuing to muse on the scratch marks, having looked at the old boards.
Perhaps the significant thing is the number and variety of "superficial scratch marks" on the case.
Turgoose's report, as quoted by Shirley Harrison, discusses the possibility of the marks having been artificially aged, and comments, this would have been a complex multi-stage process using a variety of different tools, with intermediate polishing of artifical wearing stages.
I can't quite parse the last bit, but he seems to be speaking of the appearance of visible scratches made by different tools, alternated with a finer "wearing" process.
If it's granted that Murphy's attempt to polish the case would have had only a mild effect, the obvious question is, who was responsible for all the other scratches made by different tools?
Remembering that all this is on the inside of the case, it follows that all these assaults on the watch would have been carried out deliberately for some reason, on a part of the watch that wasn't normally visible.
It all seems a bit difficult to swallow.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 7:30 am: | |
Hi RJ, Paul, All,
Right – here we go.
Dr. Turgoose reports that ‘particles were seen in the bases of the scratches’ of the letters ‘a’ and ‘k’. It’s not clear from the documentation I have which ‘a’ and ‘k’ he is talking about. He says the particles were very similar in appearance, and later says the implement used for the ‘ac’ and ‘mk’ was ‘different again’ (ie from the implement used for ‘I am Jack’ and ‘J Maybrick’, the one used for the ‘1275’, and the one used for the ‘H 9/3’), but ‘could have been the same for the two cases' (ie the ‘ac’ and the ‘mk’).
One very interesting observation is that the ‘9/3’ was apparently ‘written after the horizontal line’ that is part of the large ‘J’ (presumably of ‘Jack’). I have no idea what the implications of this would be if Turgoose is correct.
Both particles gave only copper and zinc in X-ray analysis, so Turgoose was of the opinion that they were brass and appeared to have come from the inscribing tool.
As far as I can gather, the metal of the watch is 18 parts gold (ie 18 carat) and 6 parts alloy, made up of silver and copper. And I’m now even more confused over the copper oxide layer that John (H) says we would expect from the particles themselves if they were indeed brass, but which Dr. Wild doesn’t appear to have found in the particle he included in his 43 minutes of etching.
Dr. Wild talks about the amount of corrosion on ‘the brass particles embedded in the engraved areas’, if that helps. I can’t immediately see any references to the particles being ‘darkened’ with age, but he does say that the particle he investigated ‘is very heavily contaminated and appears to have been considerably corroded’, and that, in his opinion, ‘it is unlikely that anyone would have sufficient expertise to implant aged brass particles into the base of the engraving’.
Hi John,
Will coincidences never cease? I too was up to my armpits in onions, garlic, tomatoes, meat etc last night. 
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the Murphys may have been telling the truth when they claimed to have noticed scratches, and tried to polish them out before putting the watch in their window. If you were getting a watch ready for flogging (and everyone keeps ignoring the coincidence that the Murphys suddenly decided to do just that in 1992, at the same time that Mike was trying to flog the diary, although the Murphys claimed the watch had originally been sold to Mrs. M’s father by a furtive-looking stranger, and had been kept unsold ‘in the family’ for some years. Why would a jeweller not sell a watch like this as soon as possible? And where have we heard an ‘in the family’ claim like this before, involving a wife and father-in-law? ), and if you did happen to see some scratches in it (as the Murphy’s say they did, but Dundas says he didn’t), the first thing you would think of doing, and probably the only thing, would be to try to polish out those scratches for your prospective buyers. You would have little interest in looking any closer at them, and it might never occur to you that if you did you might find they actually meant something worth investigating further.
On the other hand, once the watch found its way into private hands, which this one did in July 1992, I think it’s highly likely that its owner would be sufficiently interested in his purchase to inspect it at some point as closely as he could. I don’t therefore regard it as a huge coincidence that Albert did exactly that, found the scratches and deciphered them, after it had been in his possession for some ten months.
In short, the coincidental timing is there regardless of when the scratches were made. But the 1993 coincidence is only ‘too much’ if we assume the scratches were made and then discovered within a short time of the breaking news about the diary. Just imagine for one moment that the scratches were already there in 1992, when the Murphys put the watch in their window. Can you then imagine how staggering it would have been if Albert had announced he had found them shortly after buying the watch, and before anyone but a handful of people knew about the existence of the diary, and that the name Maybrick was already being associated with JtR?
I am quite sure a lot more questions would have been asked of Mike Barrett, Albert and Robbie and the Murphys if that had been the case. But of course, it can’t be – can it?
Hi Chris (G),
I keep saying, but it keeps being missed – why would Maybrick, or the ripper, have to be ‘carrying round’ a lady’s watch? Why couldn’t any man carry round his own watch and keep a lady’s watch, with secret scratchings (or an erotic scene perhaps - there are many watches containing secret erotic scenes in one of hubby’s many watch books), in a secret place somewhere?
As with a lady’s underwear, I’ve known some men who like wearing it, and some who like keeping some stashed around the house – not all that unusual, certainly not as unusual as serial killers and their penchants, in any case.  The fact that any of this amazes you suggests you have lived a very sheltered life.
Anyway, and finally for now, last night hubby produced his 1993 book by Tony Curtis (I’m sure not the one of Boston Strangler fame ) called the Lyle Price Guide – Clocks & Watches. It looks like Albert may have been given an absolute steal (if you’ll pardon the expression) when he knocked the price down to £225. Page after page of 19th century 18 carat gold men’s pocket watches appeared before my very eyes, ranging from dead plain to highly ornate dress watches – the vast majority between 43 and 55mm in diameter, and nearly every one priced at way over the £500 mark. The few ladies’ watches featured are significantly smaller, well under 40 mm, and are, as Paul has observed, mostly pendant watches.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
PS Haven’t heard from you by email yet, Paul. Your expertise is in demand.
(Message edited by Caz on February 27, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 8:42 am: | |
Hi, Caz
Well, again to play the devil's advocate, a friend pointed out to me that in terms of Maybrick possibly inscribing the scratches in the watch, "You are here assuming that the watch belonged to James, whereas it could have been Florence's. Don’t you think a sick-minded, wife-hating, sadistic bastard would find some sort of perverse pleasure in scratching that stuff inside his wife’s watch, knowing that every day she would handle and look at something that contained the initials of those who had been ritualistically murdered in her name?"
The friend added, "I haven’t noticed anyone connecting the scratches in the watch with the Maybrick ‘time reveals all’ motto yet."
Of course I could counter this argument with, why would either James Maybrick or Florence Maybrick have a watch that is inscribed on the cover with the initials "J.O."? 
All the best
Chris |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
John and all
“It has always seemed to me that the "polishing out" of the scratches is strong circumstantial evidence that an attempt *was* made to artificially age the scratches.
I don't understand why anyone would attempt to remove them from an area that you describe as a '“secret” part of the watch.' And one that is used by jewellers and repair folk as an apparent scratch pad. Especially with the JO cartouche on the back.”
I think this has now been covered by Chris P. Ron Murphy DID try and remove the scratches. They are clearly not so visible now as verified by Caz and others, and we can safely assume that they were a lot more visible BEFORE he had a go at removing them.
This part of the watch is typically covered with repairers marks, but these are almost always neatly done and fairly presentable. The Maybrick scratchings are far from that, and if I owned this watch I would certainly try to remove them before resale.
“Also, I doubt that most people purchasing such a watch would open the back to inspect it... Am I wrong here?”
Yes John, you are. An English lever movement of this date is a wonderful sight to behold. The back plate is often engraved and gilded. There is a large ruby inset into the balance c**k as a top bearing for the balance. It’s a marvel to watch it all working and that is why they are made to hinge out for all round visibility. We are talking about a superb piece of Victorian mini engineering here, in an era when English watches were the world leaders in craftsmanship and quality. Men were very proud of their watches in those days, and they were still something of a luxury item. In the 1840s many homes in England may still not even own a clock!
A modern purchaser will always want to see what is inside. It’s almost the best part.
“*IF* an attempt was made to artificially age the scratches, I would assume that the person doing so polished for a moment, scratched it with a key, polished for a bit more, scratched it with a rock, polished for a moment, and scratched it with a whatever, etc. This is what would happen in real life. But it seems to me that the inside of that case saw quite a lot of activity for something that wouldn't be opened very often.”
You could be right here John. A method as you describe would certainly work. I don’t personally think that happened, and my view is that a jeweller who knew nothing of JTR and it’s significance simply tried to get rid of the scratches as they looked bad from a resale point of view. If this is the work of a faker, then I think he overdid it a bit.
“A few years back when I was first looking at the watch, I carried a xeroxed copy of the watch photo around in my wallet. Every time I was at a mall that had a jeweller or did watch repair, I made it a point to stop in, show them the picture and ask if they would have made an attempt to remove the scratches were they preparing the item for sale, and none of them said they would. I also asked if customers would typically look inside the back, and they all answered no. (Hardly a scientific study, I know. But it's something to do while my wife shops at the other stores.)
Is it that practices are different in the U.K.? Or are you suggesting that a previous owner wanted to get rid of them?”
I don’t think that it is practices that are much different between US and UK cultures here. It has a lot more to do with American watches being a rather different kettle of fish to an English lever.
An American pocket watch doesn’t have a hinged out movement and has an airtight back that needs tools to open it. An owner in The States is therefore much less likely to be ABLE to look inside.
“If so, why not the JO? Or could the back engraving NOT be removed? (Admittedly JO could have been the one attempting the removal.)”
You are right here John. These gold cases are paper thin, and you would never be able to get rid of ENGRAVINGS, but you might try and get rid of SCRATCHES. This of course, is exactly what it appears DID happen.
I hope this all makes sense. It does to me at least!
And finally……….
Caz.
The casebook won’t let me e mail you until I’ve registered, (unless I’m doing something wrong). I’m on the case. I've put my e mail on this posting. Can you try e mailing me?
That’s all folks
Paul
P.S. Would you believe that the casebook wouldn’t let me use the correct word for a certain part of a watch movement? Hence the asterisks!
|
Pippa Moran
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 12:36 am: | |
Very sad and anal question about the watch... Which scratches were the brass particles found in? And does that mean that *only* those specific scratches can be dated this way?
For example, if they were in the "M.K." then maybe the watch's original Victorian owner had a crush on someone called "Mike Keynes" or "Milton Kennedy" or whatever, and decided to scratch his initials inside the watch. (As Paul said, this is a secret and private part of the watch, exactly the sort of place where you'd scratch something like that.) And then following the publicity of the Maybrick Diary, maybe the watch's modern owner noticed the coincidence of "M.K." and Mary Kelly and decided to add the other scratches for the hoax.
OTOH if the particles were all found in scratches from different sets of initials, that makes this suggestion less likely.
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 6:28 am: | |
Chris P.
Something that must be considered when thinking about these scratches, is that we are talking about the very inside surface of the case.
The standard of finish deep inside was never as high as the visible outside of a watch when the case was manufactured. Some of these "unintentional" scratchings will almost certainly be tool marks dating from the 1840s.
It is also highly unlikely that the inside of the back would have been polished to a mirror finish like the outside. Even in those days, if it wasn’t necessary, they didn’t do it.
Regards
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
Chris Phillips,
Where did you read the bit about "There's also the interesting evidence that Dr Wild (in early 1994) was told that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. Presumably this referred to Murphy's cleaning, which was actually in 1992."? I don't remember that offhand. Is it from Feldman's book?
"I can't quite parse the last bit, but he seems to be speaking of the appearance of visible scratches made by different tools, alternated with a finer "wearing" process."
I think he's simply talking about polishing the inside between scratchings... That would wear down the edges of the scratches.
Caz,
That some interesting info you've posted! I wonder why different implements would be used, and how he was able to tell? Presumably whatever tool was used had an extremely fine point and perhaps it wore down and had to be replaced? That's something to ponder.
"One very interesting observation is that the ‘9/3’ was apparently ‘written after the horizontal line’ that is part of the large ‘J’ (presumably of ‘Jack’)."
You're right, that's a really interesting observation and I am not sure what to make of it. I guess it would depend on what the 9/3 represents and how he made that determination. If it's based on the degree of "wearing" on the scratches, then it could simply be due to the fact that the 9/3 was closer to the center and received more polishing than the upper J line which is closer to the edge. If there was a scratch that passed under the 9/3 but over the J, that would be pretty strong evidence that it was written after the J.
As far as the rest goes, I have to reason to doubt Murphy's story of trying to polish out some scratches that he didn't take a close look at. However Tim Dundas apparently examined that area under high magnification and swears that the "Maybrick" scratches were not there when he examined the watch. It's a puzzler.
While I agree that it's not entirely unlikely that a new owner might examine their watch more closely than a jeweler, I have to admit I find the timing troubling. Both because of the recent revelation of Maybrick as suspect, and the fact that he discovered them while surrounded by witnesses in a place where there was a microscope to examine them closely with. It's absolutely possible that it was a coincidence, and I certainly wouldn't accuse Albert of complicity or knowledge of the hoaxing, if hoax it was.
And yes, IF the scratches were there in 1992 and Albert had announced his find prior to the public revelation of the diary, that would have been quite a remarkable find and would make it's support of the diary far stronger in my eyes.
And of course it's completely possible that they WERE there in 1992, and somehow Tim Dundas missed them. (Based on his testimony it seems unlikely but it's possible.) Unfortunately with the testimony we have so far, we cannot confirm their existence prior Albert's discovery.
Chris George,
"Of course I could counter this argument with, why would either James Maybrick or Florence Maybrick have a watch that is inscribed on the cover with the initials "J.O."?"
To play devil's advocate myself, the J.O. could have been added later. :-)
While we're on the subject of the J.O...
It's been brought to my attention that the full name of John Over, whom Feldman has tried to suggest might be the owner of the watch at one point, was John Charles Over. He also signed his wedding certificate as John C Over, so it seems possible that if he were to put his initials there, that it might read J.C.O.
Regards,
John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Paul Stephen
Thanks for those thoughts.
However, what I was getting at was really this:
(1) In the discussion on the old boards, the consensus seemed to be that Murphy's cleaning with the jewellers' rouge would not have been abrasive enough to produce the "superficial scratches" described by Turgoose.
(2) Turgoose's description appears to imply scratches more recent than the initials, made with a variety of tools - therefore more recent than marks made by the manufacturer.
If that's correct the question would be: if the superficial scratches weren't made by Murphy, who did make them, and why?
Chris Phillips
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Paul,
Many thanks for clearing up my confusion regarding the difference between U.S. and U.K. watches! After your description, I'd almost like one of my own. :-) That resolves several of the issues I had.
"I think this has now been covered by Chris P. Ron Murphy DID try and remove the scratches. They are clearly not so visible now as verified by Caz and others, and we can safely assume that they were a lot more visible BEFORE he had a go at removing them."
I don't necessarily agree here. We know that Ron Murphy tried to remove some scratches, not that he tried to remove the scratches. Tim Dundas examined the watch carefully with a jewellers loupe, and if they were a "lot more visible" then, it seems very likely that he would have seen them. Instead he swore they weren't there when he examined the watch prior to Ron Murphy's removal attempt.
"If this is the work of a faker, then I think he overdid it a bit."
Here I completely agree. A more subtle approach and I wouldn't be as suspicious of it as I am.
And in regards to something you said to Chris Phillips...
"The standard of finish deep inside was never as high as the visible outside of a watch when the case was manufactured. Some of these "unintentional" scratchings will almost certainly be tool marks dating from the 1840s."
A large part of the reason that age was assumed as that the incidental scratches passed OVER the "Maybrick" scratches, so I think that rules out the original tool marks as the source of at least some of them.
From Turgoose's report "On the basis of the evidence... especially the order in which the markings were made, it is clear that the engravings pre-date the vast majority of superficial scratch marks (all of those examined.)"
Thanks again for the clarification regarding U.K. watch practices. I can see now why an attempt might have been made to remove scratches from the inside back.
Regards,
John
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Paul Stephen--Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you assume that the watch would have come from the manufacturer with the ornate 'cartouche' already existing on the back? Thanks. RP |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
John Hacker wrote:
Where did you read the bit about "There's also the interesting evidence that Dr Wild (in early 1994) was told that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. Presumably this referred to Murphy's cleaning, which was actually in 1992."? I don't remember that offhand. Is it from Feldman's book?
This was posted on the old boards by Melvin Harris on 4 February 2001, and confirmed in a post by Shirley Harrison on 6 February, quoting an email from Dr Wild.
Apparently there were two drafts. The earlier one said:
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This would suggest that the silver profile does form in a short period of time and that little can be said about the age of the scratches from this.
But the final report read:
I understand that the watch surface was polished some six to ten years ago in an attempt to remove some of the scratches on the inside surface of the watch casing. This would have had the effect of removing some of the surface layers from the original surface but not from the base of the scratch. This could explain why the silver enrichment at the base of the engraving is greater than on the original watch surface and would indicate that the engraving was made before the watch surface was polished. This would indicate that the engraving was certainly older than ten years.
(My emphasis.)
Dr Wild said that nevertheless the conclusion was the same in both drafts, but actually it was also strengthened slightly.
In the earlier draft:
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is probably greater than several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
In the final report:
From the limited amount of evidence that has been acquired it would appear that the engraving on the back of the watch has not been done recently and is at least several tens of years old but it is not possible to be more accurate without considerably more work.
(My emphasis again.)
I find it quite disturbing that Wild was given incorrect information about the crucial question of when the watch had been polished.
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
Hi, RJ
A person's initials can be engraved on a watch at any particular point in a pocket watch's lifetime, they don't necessarily come from the manufacturer that way. That is, if you or I were to buy such a watch now we could go to a jeweller and have "R.J.P." or "C.T.G" engraved on the cover of the watch.
Hi, John:
Good point that if the watch had been owned by John Over who called himself John C. Over, the intitials "J.C.O." would have been more likely. However could John C. Over have been a cover for another name, ha ha. 
Chris |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:30 am: | |
Very important point, Chris. (Well done) $40,000 question: does Dr. Wild's original statement of 'certainly older than ten years' only really reflect when he thought the surface scratches were added? |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Chris (George)--No, no, my friend. You get me wrong. I'm referring only to the ornate 'cartouche.' You see, I once bought a pocket watch (new). The ornate engraving on the back came that way from the manufacturer. It had a blank spot in the middle of the engraving for initials to be added. (This is, I think, standard) My point ? The watch was manufactured in 1847. Is it not a wee bit odd that (according to Feldy's theory) no initials were added for 42 years?
You come from Liverpool, I believe. Lots of Irish in Lancashire, no? O'Neill. O'Flaherty. O'Connell. Considering the fact that John and James are the most common names in the English language, how many "J.O."s do you think you'd find in the County in the 1840s?
To my mind, John Over is merely a name Feldy grabbed from a hat. If you recall, he also speculated that a 15 year old Southern Belle related to a Supreme Court Justice snuck off to Hartlepool, UK and had a bastard child by a married blacksmith. Cheers, RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on February 27, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 12:56 pm: | |
Hi, RJ:
Okay, I understand what you mean now, that the cartouche was probably already on the watch when it came from the manufacturer even if the initials were added later. Good point. Having scrutinized census reports and finding a number of people with the same name I should think there would have been a large number of men with the initials "J.O." in Lancashire in the 1840's, probably dozens.
All the best
Chris |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Chris Phillips,
Thanks for that bit of history! It's much appreciated!
It is indeed disturbing that he was provided incorrect information that apparently influenced his opinion. I will need to so more digging into the matter.
Again, many thanks!
R.J.,
"To my mind, John Over is merely a name Feldy grabbed from a hat. If you recall, he also speculated that a 15 year old Southern Belle related to a Supreme Court Justice snuck off to Hartlepool, UK and had a bastard child by a married blacksmith."
I agree completely, but it seemed worth bringing up the middle initial for the sake of completeness.
Regards,
John |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hi John, Caz and all
Of the entire story and various reports on this watch, the only bit I don’t really believe is Mr Dundas’ statement that he looked for the scratches and that they weren’t there.
I read the relevant chapter in Feldman again last night, and it’s fairly clear that not only Paul Feldman, but Melvin Harris and a PI of all people were pestering these poor folks about the watch and it’s markings at different times. If it were me I’d say anything to get this lot off my back.
Mr Dundas has clearly got this watch and another Verity with a plain enamelled dial mixed up in his mind. He talks about having about 100 watches a week going through his hands. It is a total impossibility to repair that many watches in a week. Half of that number would still be amazing! If he did somehow manage to live up to his claims, then to remember details of them all would be a feat of incredible proportions.
Now don’t think I buy into Mr Feldman’s conspiracy theories one bit, because I don’t. I firmly believe that all parties are telling the truth, except for Mr Dundas who was simply mistaken. The poor chap had been backed into a corner and had to say something, but his memory let him down.
I’ve restored very many antique clocks in my time and there’s no way I can remember what I did to each of them. I do not believe for a moment that Mr Dundas could either.
I’ve personally handled probably a hundred or so pocket watches, some with markings and some without. I couldn’t tell you now what any of them said. Not one. The reason being that they are of no interest. The only reason the Maybrick scratches were partly removed was to improve the saleability of the watch, as they were clearly very disfiguring as they were.
There is one more illogical aspect to the fake scenario here. You need to ask yourself why a faker with a bit of knowledge tried to “age” these scratches. Deep inside the watch they would not be subject to much normal wear, if any. If they were made in 1888 they would still be just as crisp today as the day they were done.
The only logical scenario is still that these scratches were partially removed and polished out, exactly as stated by an honest, decent and upright Jeweller who had absolutely nothing to gain or lose. To suggest that this jeweller had some other agenda is getting into Feldman fantasy territory and I don’t want to go there.
Jeweller’s rouge is a very mild abrasive and you would have to use something a bit stronger first to get the worst of the scratching out. This would explain the scouring marks. Rouge would then be used to bring up the shine.
From my own experience of the trade, and having handled a great many antique items of this sort over a good many years, this whole episode has a distinct ring of truth to it.
As for the engravings on the back. My initials are PSJB. My cygnet ring has just PB. The watch has a small cartouche for initials, and it’s about the same size in diameter as my ring. JO is fine. Anything more would look a bit silly.
The mark 1275 is almost certainly a repair date. Either 1/2/1875 or just Dec 1875, probably the former. The other mark H 9/3 is almost certainly a repair date also, Sept 1903. This is very common. A watchmaker has an interest in recording the date of his repair to prevent people fraudulently claiming under a guarantee that has expired. These “secret” codes are his guarantee against that. It is worth noting that Mr Dundas had no written record of his repair to this watch.
It is very interesting that H 9/3 goes over the top of the Maybrick scratchings. This is easy to tell with a glass, as the later scratch will break through the “wall” of the previous scratch. Try drawing a line in some sand with your finger, and then cross it through to see how clear this can be.
Well that’s enough for another day....
Caz
The prices in the Lyle guide are way over the top. Mr Johnson’s watch is worth about £600 today if you ignore the notoriety value. Still a good investment though, as watches like this still are. Nice to see you’ve found a bit of independent proof that we have a male watch here!
Regards
Paul
|
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi again John.
I only just read today’s batch of posts and I think that we may have come up against another interesting example of US/UK cultural differences here.
We Brits aren’t half as bothered about our middle initials as our American cousins..!
We don’t tend to have John F Kennedy’s and George Dubbya Bush’s here.
The fact that John C Over signed his full initials and put his full name on his marriage certificate means nothing. So did I..! I have four names but I NEVER use the middle two. Most other people don’t either, so I don’t think you can really safely infer anything there.
I’m not saying it’s any more than a possibility that JO stands for said gentleman, Irish or not, but it’s well worth a look in my book.
The Irish, “O’Brien”, “O’Shea” idea occurred to me too. I don’t know for sure, but I would have thought that all three initials would be used in that instance. I know I said there wasn’t room on the cartouche, but just JO’ seems a bit anonymous sounding to me.
“From Turgoose's report "On the basis of the evidence... especially the order in which the markings were made, it is clear that the engravings pre-date the vast majority of superficial scratch marks (all of those examined.)"
John. The vital part here is the word “superficial”. SOME superficial marks will be inevitable in taking the movement out for cleaning, opening the movement for adjustment etc. Just rubbing a dirty finger over gold can leave a permanent mark. These are nearly all later than the Maybrick scratches. That is a VERY good indication of their age.
RJ
Yes the cartouche was there from the start. All it is on this watch seems to be a blank area surrounded by some engine turning as was very common on watches for many years. These are nearly always left empty, but it is not uncommon for them to be engraved at a later date. Victorian watches are often bought as gifts for special occasions even today, and engraved with the new owners initials in an appropriate looking style.
Just to conclude now for the weekend, can I take from what I see in today’s posts that it looks like we are all at least tacitly in agreement that we have a male watch here? It would be nice to think that we had made at least a little headway in what has been a very stimulating week in a previously dead area of the casebook.
G’night all
Paul
|
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 9:40 pm: | |
Paul,
Personally I don't think that Tim Dundas's testimony can be so casually discarded. Particularly not based on Feldman's characterizations of Harris. Feldman made some fairly wild accusations.
Weather Tim Dundas had the watch mixed up with another or not (And I have no reason to think he did), the markings inside the watch are unique enough that if you're inspecting the inner workings with magnification you're going to notice them. It's as simple as that. (Especially as you describe them as "clearly disfiguring".) He was also shown a photograph of the watch when asked to swear his affidavit.
And if Tim could be confused in regards to the specific watch, then why not Mr. Murphy, who according to Feldman "possessed quite a few of them in his time"?
"You need to ask yourself why a faker with a bit of knowledge tried to “age” these scratches. Deep inside the watch they would not be subject to much normal wear, if any. If they were made in 1888 they would still be just as crisp today as the day they were done."
Then how do we explain all of the incidental scratching with "wearing" between them? I'm sorry. It still seems to stink to me.
"It is very interesting that H 9/3 goes over the top of the Maybrick scratchings. This is easy to tell with a glass, as the later scratch will break through the “wall” of the previous scratch. Try drawing a line in some sand with your finger, and then cross it through to see how clear this can be."
I understand what you're saying (That's what the incidental scratches are probably there for), but that isn't the case here. Look at the positioning of the 9/3 in regards to either of the J's on the watch. It's not near either one. Read my post again.
I respect your opinion Paul, but I don't necessarily think you're on solid ground disregarding Tim's testimony quite so cavalierly.
(That's just my opinion of course, I could be wrong.)
In regards to the middle initial, you said "We Brits aren’t half as bothered about our middle initials as our American cousins..!"
Well, I'm not too fond of my middle initial myself... But I was asked to pass that information along by a very British gentleman who felt it was in fact relevant to the discussion. :-)
"The vital part here is the word “superficial”. SOME superficial marks will be inevitable in taking the movement out for cleaning, opening the movement for adjustment etc. Just rubbing a dirty finger over gold can leave a permanent mark. These are nearly all later than the Maybrick scratches. That is a VERY good indication of their age."
Yes, and they were made with a variety of implements with intermediate wearing between them. It still sounds pretty artificial to me. In addition, if the watch dated to 1848, and the "Maybrick" marks dated to 1888, there should still be 40 years worth of "superficial" scratches underneath them. And yet there weren't.
For the moment I am willing to accept on faith that it's a man's watch. At least until more contrary testimony comes to light. :-) And the watch board wasn't dead, just asleep. :-)
G'night Paul.
Regards,
John
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 4:07 am: | |
Paul Stephen wrote:
The only logical scenario is still that these scratches were partially removed and polished out, exactly as stated by an honest, decent and upright Jeweller who had absolutely nothing to gain or lose. To suggest that this jeweller had some other agenda is getting into Feldman fantasy territory and I don’t want to go there.
Jeweller’s rouge is a very mild abrasive and you would have to use something a bit stronger first to get the worst of the scratching out. This would explain the scouring marks. Rouge would then be used to bring up the shine.
I think this needs to be taken a bit more slowly, one step at a time.
The problem with this is that according to Shirley Harrison's book, Ron Murphy spoke only of jeweller's rouge:
Later [after Dundas saw the watch], before it was finally placed in their shop window, Ron himself cleaned the watch and it was then that he noticed the scratches in the back. 'I tried to buff them out with jeweller's rouge', he recalls ruefully.
Later on he is quoted as saying:
He [Dundas]would not have noticed the scratches, anyway. After all, we tried to clean them and simply because they were so faint we didn't realise what they were!
Of course, this is also why Johnson wasn't able to be sure that the scratches he tried to remove were the "Maybrick" scratches.
Murphy's description of "trying to buff them out with jeweller's rouge" doesn't seem consistent with your idea of first using something stronger, which left scouring marks, then giving the surface a final polish with jeweller's rouge.
If you are arguing genuineness, I think you would do better to argue that there was an attempt (or probably several attempts) decades earlier to remove the scratches using something pretty abrasive.
Of course, the alternative is that neither the Maybrick scratches nor the scouring were present when Murphy saw the watch, only the repairers' marks.
Either way, I don't think anyone is suggesting Murphy produced the Maybrick scratches himself. Why should he go to all that trouble and then sell the watch?
But I suspect he was later "pestered", as you put it, with a view to proving that the Maybrick scratches were already on the watch in 1992.
Chris Phillips
|
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
Hi All
Now I can see how testing the age of the scratches would be very difficult as Mr. Hacker mentioned. I have a pocket watch passed down to me from my Great Grandfather. He was in the Army during WWI so it is very old. There are scratches inside the cover with dates and initials. I guess they are the dates that the watch was repaired and who repaired them. Anyway, the scratches look like they could have been put there yesterday, because this watch was put away and not used for many years. Thisis probably the fourth orfifth time I ever looked at it and opened it up. By, the way, I did have my Dad wind it up and it is working !!
Regards,
Anthony |
Paul Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
Hi John, RJ, Chris P
"To my mind, John Over is merely a name Feldy grabbed from a hat. If you recall, he also speculated that a 15 year old Southern Belle related to a Supreme Court Justice snuck off to Hartlepool, UK and had a bastard child by a married blacksmith."
What are you getting at here RJ? And shame on you John for “completely” agreeing with it.
John Over was the husband of Emma Parker, the first Maybrick nurse, who was replaced by Alice Yapp. This is a matter of record, and is also confirmed by Florrie herslf in a letter from prison written on 21st July 1889.
Let’s stick to the facts here.
John. Why do you have no reason to think Dundas got his watches confused? If you’re going to stand by that you must also believe that the telephone interview Feldman had with Mr Dundas in 1994 was a total fabrication of Feldman’s, as Mr Dundas is clearly NOT describing the Maybrick watch?
“I understand what you're saying (That's what the incidental scratches are probably there for), but that isn't the case here. Look at the positioning of the 9/3 in regards to either of the J's on the watch. It's not near either one. Read my post again.”
John. It’s not me alleging this. Caz is quoting from Turgoose here. Do any of you chaps have a decent photograph of these scratches other than those in the books? You can’t make a lot of this out in the photos I have. It’s no use you saying these marks don’t go near either of the J’s if Turgoose, who actually had the watch, says they do.
I’ve stared at that photo for hours. H9/3 could also be interpreted as H913 if you look closely. The / being skewed a bit to get it out of the way of the 7 below.
“I respect your opinion Paul, but I don't necessarily think you're on solid ground disregarding Tim's testimony quite so cavalierly.”
John. I’m not disregarding anything, cavalierly or otherwise. I’ve pondered this for a long time too. I’m looking at the facts and trying to sort wheat from chaff the same as you are. I am just interpreting them into the simplest and most logical scenario I can, based on my own experience in these things. In my experience, the simplest and most logical explanation is usually the right one as well.
“If you are arguing genuineness, I think you would do better to argue that there was an attempt (or probably several attempts) decades earlier to remove the scratches using something pretty abrasive.”
Chris P. Who says I’m arguing genuineness? I have certainly NEVER claimed that! All I am saying is that the scratches are more than a few decades old. That’s all I’m saying, and nothing more.
According to a few jeweller friends of mine, the practice of disfiguring watches with repair marks died out several decades ago. If there are repair marks on top of the Maybrick scratchings, then there is good circumstantial evidence to support that view.
Wouldn’t it have been great if, when the diary and the watch appeared, a lot of hot-headed and over zealous people hadn’t suddenly descended and started arguing amongst themselves? If only this could have been discussed in a civilised way back then without the needlessly bitter and personal recriminations between Feldman, Harris and Co. If only this could have been calmly debated at the time, then we would probably be a lot further on than we are now. It might have even been sorted out once and for all…..if only
Sorry, I was dreaming there….!
Regards
Paul
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
