Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

Think he may have been the Landlord .. shows licences being issued in newspaper article of 1/1/1916. There again mentions a Thomas Doyle too.. (but not in what capacity) would have actually go and look at the article to confirm. And, dang, doesn't mention the address ...just the pub...grrr.

I just can't get my head around the fact that the council of the time changed all the numbers all the way up that long road !! Letters would be whizzing all over the place for years .. :confused:

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

There is no shame in admitting you're wrong you know. If you prove my findings wrong, I can promise you I'll be the first to come on here, holding my hands up and admit I'm wrong. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
I have no need to admit to being wrong, especially one who relies on Kelly's & Barretts trade directories for evidence, which are full of errors.
The numbers are there on the doors in question, plain for them with unblinkered eyes to see, they have had the same numbers for well over 100 years, go and look and see for your self, go in and ask the present day residents, you will get the same answers I did.
Why would the local authority bother changes the numbers on established properties, some of which have had the same address since property started to be built on Whalley Rd in 1810, & compulsory property numbering came in at the of the 1850's, even today when some of these properties have become double fronted the same numbers still apply.
Propably Nostrodmus made a prediction in anticipation of your silly argument ?
Retlaw

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

Don't worry about it Medusa, I went this afternoon, the numbers are on the doors, still there for all to see, and no one has any knowledge of them ever being any different, the only person who changed the property numbers is yon blegburnlad.
Retlaw.

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

One thing that made me titter ... that according to the Barret's Directory ... No.13 was the Slaters (rightly or wrongly), and No. 15 was a Temperance Bar ! .. :D:D

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

Firstly Retlaw, can I request that you stop editing my posts. Taking the odd line out of context isn't fair.

Let's look at this logically. You ridicule the trade directories as being prone to errors. My copy of the 1925 Barratt's contains over a thousand pages, so there is bound to be the odd error, but in no way are they full of errors as you say. Barratt's, as I mentioned previously were producing their directories for the better part of a century and are respected by most researchers I have dealt with. On average, they appeared / were published once every three years. They were not rushed, they had a team of people collecting the information for 6 days a week, 50 weeks of the year over a 3 year period. When a house or any type of premises changed hands, they amended accordingly. Of course if they went to press, say on a Wednesday afternoon in August and Mr Jones the butcher sold his shop a fortnight later to Mrs Smith the confectioner, Mrs Smith wouldn't be listed until the next edition. But by and large they are very accurate.

Now like I say, all the copies I looked at in the library, between 1900 and 1938 had the Slater's Arms at No 13 and the other properties, including the Hope & Anchor at their respective numbers. The only changes were to the names of the occupants or when a business changed (for instance if a furniture shop changed to a newsagent, not that that happened, it's just an example).

Now compare the meticulous compilations of Barratt's to the one evening per decade gathering of the census returns that you value so much. No contest sir, give me the directories every time.

Your numbering doesn't even correspond to the Army Record that Andrew posted. Are you telling us that when Edward Marshall Crook (RIP) enlisted he gave them the wrong address for his home, the Hope & Anchor? I can just see the cleric saying to him ''Are you sure it is 21 -23 Whalley Rd Edward?, I don't want to be getting it in the ear 90 years from now from Walter, because you've given me the wrong number of your home''

My (estimated) numbering from the map and the Barratt's directories numbering correspond with Edward Marshall Crook's numbering !

You say they have had the same numbers for well over 100 years, so was young Edward lying or mistaken back in 1917 (or whenever he enlisted, it could have been earlier). No, I think the lad would have known his address, I think it's you that is mistaken.

We are discussing the premises and their numbering circa 1930 (give or take 3 years), ie the photo of the Slater's Arms. All you have given us so far is evidence that pre-dates that period by 40 - 60 years and evidence that post dates it by 80 years or more.

And as for your daft suggestion in an earlier comment that Whalley Road started at number 3, all I can ask is WHY? Almost every other street, road, lane, avenue, crescent in this land of ours starts at number 1. Why would Whalley Road in Accrington be any different?

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

No not just me Walter, the Barratt's directories, Edward Marshall Crook's service record and more than likely the annual electoral registers of the time too.

You rely on your scribbled and rushed census return of 1871 and your even older licensing report. I'll rely on the well respected Barratt's of Preston and the well respected Ordnance Survey map of the period in question, as well as the service record of Edward Marshall Crook which was only 13 years prior to the photograph.

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

By the way, I haven't changed the numbering at any point throughout this discussion, I have maintained since I started that No 1 whalley Road was at the corner of Peel Street and that No 13 was the Slaters Arms.

It is yourself Walter (and katex) who have moved the properties. Between you you have had the Hope & Anchor at 19,21,23,25 and 27 Whalley Road. My conclusion is, you are clueless.

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

Amendment - Between the two of you, you have had the Hope & Anchor at 19 -31 Whalley Rd

Comment number 279 (Retlaw) says it is 21 -23

Comment number 289 (katex) says both 19 and then 27 -31

Comment number 299 (Retlaw) says 27 -29

Well I cant contest the number of the Hope & Anchor, though you have me and I'm sure everyone else baffled by the above, but I will maintain, as I have done so from the start, the Slaters was at number 13 Whalley Rd at the time of the photograph.

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

Every day this saga gets nearer to becoming.....
....waterpistols behind the bike sheds at dawn ;)

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

nah its all in the interests of accuracy, and both parties think they are.:D

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

What I said was that the 1911 census had the Hope and Anchor down as No. 19 (no mention of 21-23). The Hope and Anchor is now listed as 27-31. Actually, Walter was slightly wrong on the modern numbers. If you go onto Google streetview, you will see quite clearly that the main entrance 'burgundy' coloured door has the number 31 on it.

Mind you, had to laugh at the entry for No.19 in 1911 census ... had the Licensed Vitualler down as being 35 years old, his wife 29 and their daughter 52 !
They are recorded as being married for 62 years !! Work that one out .. LOL

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

By the way, you can search by place on the 1911 census ...sure you know this. Strange doesn't mention no's 1 and 3 ?

Welcome to the official 1911 Census website

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

[quote=katex;882788]What I said was that the 1911 census had the Hope and Anchor down as No. 19 (no mention of 21-23). The Hope and Anchor is now listed as 27-31. Actually, Walter was slightly wrong on the modern numbers. If you go onto Google streetview, you will see quite clearly that the main entrance 'burgundy' coloured door has the number 31 on it.
I don't know about the goggle (sic) view, but when I looked at those doors yesterday they looked black, not burgundy whatever colour that is, this is the one numbered 29.
Go and have a look.

Retlaw.

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

Read my comment again katex. I didn't say it was you who said it was 21-23, I said Retlaw said it was those numbers. Look inside the brackets. I said between the two of you, you have it anywhere between 19 - 31. And you do, I stand by my comment.

It's not strange that your census has no mention of numbers 1 & 3. If the properties were vacant at the time of the census, they wouldn't list them. It's a collection of information with regards the people, not the properties. Well that's what I've always been led to believe. I may be wrong?

Not really about accuracy Cashman (though accuracy is important). It's more about making a point to Walter and anyone else that might read this thread, that he isn't always right, as he seems to think he is and more importantly, he shouldn't dismiss others comments, nor ridicule them on this or any other thread just because they offer a suggestion that might differ from his own.

He could have read my initial comment and answered with a polite explanation as to why he believed I was wrong. Instead he chose to belittle me and ridicule my use of trade directories (''Two directories doesn't make you an historian'' I think he said, even though I made no claims to being an historian).

Re: Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album
 

You quoted the use of the 1909 map in placing those numberss on the properties, Nu 1 had been long gone before that 1909 map was printed, the first property was Nu 3, then the last property on that block was Nu 19, still is. As for adresses in service records, thats another great source or errors, found one bloke yesterday discharged to Pickle St, Church. During WW1 there were 1000's of clerks filling in forms, men from all over the country having to make sense of regional accents. Also we have the 1918 Absent Voters lists, men with wrong service numbers, wrong addresses, even men who had been dead for over two years.
I think you've jumped in on something you have little knowledge of, showing off, and your now trying to extricate your self and save face, by creating confusion.
Retlaw