Stuart0742 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Ukelele Lady mentioned this property in the Date-Stones topic Does anybody know anything about it. It was next to the Britannia Theatre ( Now West Bar Motors) The thing both Ukelele lady and myself have noticed is the Date Stone, or is it a Date Stone? Any comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HughW Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 From Historical Directories.org: White's 1879 117-9 West Bar Popplewell John R. carrier White's 1901 117 West Bar Barlow Miss Mary Ann saddler 119 West Bar Wright Marshall & Co curriers from Sheffield Indexers: White's 1911 315 London Road & 117 & 119 West Bar. Wright, E. (leather merchants (& Sons)). Hugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart0742 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 From Historical Directories.org: White's 1879 117-9 West Bar Popplewell John R. carrier White's 1901 117 West Bar Barlow Miss Mary Ann saddler 119 West Bar Wright Marshall & Co curriers from Sheffield Indexers: White's 1911 315 London Road & 117 & 119 West Bar. Wright, E. (leather merchants (& Sons)). Hugh Hugh What do think of the date stone, is it 1794, what is the significance of the "j" Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HughW Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 My feeling is that it is a '1', with a curl in the 'tail' like the 9. Hugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart0742 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 My feeling is that it is a '1', with a curl in the 'tail' like the 9. Hugh The "j" or "1" is the same size as the "4", I see it know so 1794 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 The "j" or "1" is the same size as the "4", I see it know so 1794 If it is a date stone then the J can only possibly be the number 1 to give a sensible date, but somehow it still doesn't look right. even given that the 1(J) and 4 are the same size at either end and the &( are bigger in the centre it still looks like a J to me. "Curling is usually only done on certain digits, with a 1 curling would normally done to an elongated upstroke to the top of the figure, the bottom being straight, - like the French do their 1's like our 7's. One thought, in 1752 we changed our calendar from Julian to Gregorian which caused much protest and upset due to the loss of certain days in that year and because the newer, more accurate Gregorian calendar had come from the church of Rome (Pope Gregory). As Britain was not a Catholic country at this time many devout Protestants refused to accept it for many years. Could the year be 1794 writen without the one as '794 and being given a leading J to indicate defiantly sticking to the Julian calendar, ie, does it mean "1794 on the old Julian calendar"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike142sl Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 The stone is a curious shape as well, why the drop ends? It also doesn't look as if it is in its original position and I'm wondering if it related to something else like 'yard J bin 794' ??? if you get my drift, or could it have been a registration mark of some trade such as the leather merchant or the couriers mentioned above as previous occupants - it could have been found inside the building and added to the front as part of someone's refurbishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike142sl Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Could the year be 1794 writen without the one as '794 and being given a leading J to indicate defiantly sticking to the Julian calendar, ie, does it mean "1794 on the old Julian calendar"?Not out of the question, but the Gregorian calendar only jumped about 11 days during the autumn of 1752 so it's not as if it was several years out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukelele lady Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 If it is a date stone then the J can only possibly be the number 1 to give a sensible date, but somehow it still doesn't look right. even given that the 1(J) and 4 are the same size at either end and the &( are bigger in the centre it still looks like a J to me. "Curling is usually only done on certain digits, with a 1 curling would normally done to an elongated upstroke to the top of the figure, the bottom being straight, - like the French do their 1's like our 7's. One thought, in 1752 we changed our calendar from Julian to Gregorian which caused much protest and upset due to the loss of certain days in that year and because the newer, more accurate Gregorian calendar had come from the church of Rome (Pope Gregory). As Britain was not a Catholic country at this time many devout Protestants refused to accept it for many years. Could the year be 1794 writen without the one as '794 and being given a leading J to indicate defiantly sticking to the Julian calendar, ie, does it mean "1794 on the old Julian calendar"? I see I've opened a can of worms here. Thanks Stuart for taking the picture, you've saved me a journey. It does look like a J to me but being as it's small in size like the 4 I'd say it was 1794. DaveHs theory sounds reasonable too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike142sl Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I've just looked on the Old Maps web site http://www.old-maps.co.uk/ maps of 1855 and although you can't take buildings on them too literally they do appear to be alligned differently to the current layout. Do you think these maps help at all either way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I see I've opened a can of worms here. Thanks Stuart for taking the picture, you've saved me a journey. It does look like a J to me but being as it's small in size like the 4 I'd say it was 1794. DaveHs theory sounds reasonable too. I think we can safely say that, IF IT IS A DATE STONE, then it is definately 1794. It could just be 1794 in some strange stylish font. It could be '794, regardless of this being G1794 or J1794 it would most likely be the same year. Yes there are only 11 days difference between the 2 calendars but at the same time New Years Day was moved to January 1st. Before that it had been in March at the Vernal Equinox. This would make about 3 months difference and lead to the "dual dating" system used on some old documents, eg Feb 1756/57. However big the difference though I am not questioning that the last 3 figures are 794 which would mean 1794 in anybodys book. However, can we be sure, certainly in light of the previous post by mike142sl that it is definately a date stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukelele lady Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Would it help to know when the now demolished music hall was built which stood at the side of this building? Maybe they were built at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tsavo Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Brief dates here: http://www.sheffieldhistory.co.uk/forums/i...209&hl=west Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now