• Occupation query

    From Jenny M Benson@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 15 14:07:26 2021
    1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.

    His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
    like a letter Y. Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter J
    quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".

    Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet Maker"
    or is there some other possibility?
    --
    Jenny M Benson
    Wrexham, UK

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john@21:1/5 to Jenny M Benson on Mon Feb 15 16:26:38 2021
    On 15/02/2021 15:07, Jenny M Benson wrote:
    1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.

    His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
    like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter J quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".

    Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet Maker"
    or is there some other possibility?

    Journeyman
    see https://www.familyhistory.co.uk/census-abbreviations/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 15 17:33:01 2021
    On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 16:26:38, john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr>
    wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
    On 15/02/2021 15:07, Jenny M Benson wrote:
    1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.
    His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
    like a letter Y. Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter
    J quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".
    Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet
    Maker" or is there some other possibility?

    Journeyman
    see https://www.familyhistory.co.uk/census-abbreviations/

    Jenny already knows about Journeyman; she has a page with a J on it that
    is quite clear - but what appears to be a Y, which is different to the J
    - it is that which she is asking about.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    What's really worth knowing is for the most part unlearnable until you have enough experience to even recognise it as knowledge, let alone as useful knowledge. - Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>, in alt.windows7.general, 2017-4-30

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian Goddard@21:1/5 to Jenny M Benson on Mon Feb 15 17:58:28 2021
    On 15/02/2021 14:07, Jenny M Benson wrote:
    1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.

    His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
    like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter J quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".

    Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet Maker"
    or is there some other possibility?

    Could it be M for Master Cabinet Maker?

    Ian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steven@21:1/5 to Jenny M Benson on Mon Feb 15 18:54:21 2021
    On 15/02/2021 14:07, Jenny M Benson wrote:
    1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.

    His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
    like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter J quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".

    Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet Maker"
    or is there some other possibility?

    I think it has to be J for journeyman (although it is clearly not what
    is actually written) since J is the only thing it can be that makes
    sense. When I look around the page, the way he has written his capital
    letters varies wildly - look at the "S" in sail maker and how it varies
    from entry to entry. What he has written is consistent with the "T" in a
    Thomas a few lines below, but not with other capital T's on the page. So
    I think it's fair to say that his handwriting is too inconsistent to
    make solid deductions.

    Steven

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 16 14:28:20 2021
    On 15/02/2021 18:33, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 16:26:38, john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr>
    wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
    On 15/02/2021 15:07, Jenny M Benson wrote:
    1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.
     His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
    like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter
    J  quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".
     Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet
    Maker"  or is there some other possibility?

    Journeyman
    see https://www.familyhistory.co.uk/census-abbreviations/

    Jenny already knows about Journeyman; she has a page with a J on it that
    is quite clear - but what appears to be a Y, which is different to the J
    - it is that which she is asking about.

    The problem is there are no other abbreviations on that standard list
    which it could be read as apart from as a J.

    So if it isn't a J, has enumerator used a T/Y/I or another letter to
    mean something else but not given any clues? There is nothing on the
    first or last page.

    It would be interesting to see another copy of the schedule, especially
    if it was available in colour. It is seems from other pages some of it
    could originally have been completed from notes in pencil and/or a very
    poor pen and then completed afterwards.

    On a personal note, I know I use different forms of the uppercase letter
    J, sometimes with a descender, sometimes without a top bar/arm, a half bar/serif or a full bar, often depending on context, writing speed or
    even who might read it! So you are fortunate I've never been a census enumerator ;)

    John

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 16 18:04:33 2021
    On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:28:20, john <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr>
    wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
    []
    It would be interesting to see another copy of the schedule, especially
    if it was available in colour. It is seems from other pages some of it
    could originally have been completed from notes in pencil and/or a very
    poor pen and then completed afterwards.
    []
    The instructions to enumerators (I happen to have an example from the
    first written page of a census book, so I have a copy of the facing page
    with the instructions on; I'm sure plenty of others do too) includes the
    words "with the pencil provided". It's always amused me - makes me think
    things can't have been very good in 1841 (and/or, census enumerators
    weren't very well paid) if a pencil had to be provided. From the few
    cases I have where I _do_ have a colour image (presumably the microfilm
    was _too_ badly degraded, or lost, or the book was never filmed), they
    mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as well
    as they have).

    Does sound as if this particular scribe just had bad writing. (He
    certainly wasn't alone in that.)
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Every time I think I know where it's at, they move it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian Goddard@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 16 23:03:39 2021
    On 16/02/2021 18:04, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    they mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as
    well as they have).

    Pencil, being graphite, is stable. So is Indian ink. Bleu-black ink,
    however, fades to brown. The bencil stood a better chance of surviving
    then ink.

    Ian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 16 23:49:19 2021
    On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 23:03:39, Ian Goddard <ianng@austonley.org.uk>
    wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
    On 16/02/2021 18:04, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
    they mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived
    as well as they have).

    Pencil, being graphite, is stable. So is Indian ink. Bleu-black ink, >however, fades to brown. The bencil stood a better chance of surviving
    then ink.

    Ian

    It is, however, more susceptible to rubbing, as it doesn't really "soak
    in", or if it does, to a much lesser extent.

    So depends how much the books were accessed. Probably several times near generation (to do what the census was for!), then not for a century or
    so. Then I don't know, until microfilming - probably hardly at all after
    that.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not the primary use of the computer.
    - VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Johnson@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Wed Feb 17 16:00:43 2021
    On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:04:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
    <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:


    The instructions to enumerators (I happen to have an example from the
    first written page of a census book, so I have a copy of the facing page
    with the instructions on; I'm sure plenty of others do too) includes the >words "with the pencil provided". It's always amused me - makes me think >things can't have been very good in 1841 (and/or, census enumerators
    weren't very well paid) if a pencil had to be provided. From the few
    cases I have where I _do_ have a colour image (presumably the microfilm
    was _too_ badly degraded, or lost, or the book was never filmed), they
    mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as well
    as they have).


    In 1841 not everyone would have owned a pencil* and those enumerators
    who did might not have wanted to use their own equipment on, in this
    case, the government's business. The government would have wanted to
    ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

    * I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
    than they cost today.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Athel Cornish-Bowden@21:1/5 to Peter Johnson on Thu Feb 18 11:25:25 2021
    On 2021-02-17 16:00:43 +0000, Peter Johnson said:

    On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:04:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:


    The instructions to enumerators (I happen to have an example from the
    first written page of a census book, so I have a copy of the facing page
    with the instructions on; I'm sure plenty of others do too) includes the
    words "with the pencil provided". It's always amused me - makes me think
    things can't have been very good in 1841 (and/or, census enumerators
    weren't very well paid) if a pencil had to be provided. From the few
    cases I have where I _do_ have a colour image (presumably the microfilm
    was _too_ badly degraded, or lost, or the book was never filmed), they
    mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as well
    as they have).


    In 1841 not everyone would have owned a pencil* and those enumerators
    who did might not have wanted to use their own equipment on, in this
    case, the government's business. The government would have wanted to
    ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

    * I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
    than they cost today.

    Not 1841, but in 1872 you could buy a dozen for 60c in Kansas:

    http://www.kristinholt.com/archives/3111


    --
    Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to peter@parksidewood.nospam on Thu Feb 18 16:53:05 2021
    On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 16:00:43, Peter Johnson
    <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote (my responses usually follow points
    raised):
    On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:04:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
    []
    words "with the pencil provided". It's always amused me - makes me think >>things can't have been very good in 1841 (and/or, census enumerators >>weren't very well paid) if a pencil had to be provided. From the few
    cases I have where I _do_ have a colour image (presumably the microfilm
    was _too_ badly degraded, or lost, or the book was never filmed), they >>mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as well
    as they have).


    In 1841 not everyone would have owned a pencil* and those enumerators

    Agreed, though I would have thought at least _most_ of the people who
    applied for such a job would, but ...

    who did might not have wanted to use their own equipment on, in this
    case, the government's business. The government would have wanted to

    ... that _is_ a good point.

    ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

    I'd have thought they'd have preferred ink, though.

    * I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
    than they cost today.

    Agreed.

    (Just had further thought: elsewhere in this thread someone's said it's graphite, and therefore more inert than ink. But in 1841, how many would
    have been [real] lead instead? [Not that that's any more ert.] And which
    sort would the government-supplied one be? Discuss!)
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    There should be a place on the ballot paper for 'None of the above', and if enough people filled that in, the system might start to change. - Jeremy
    Paxman in RT, 2014/1/25-31

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ruth Wilson@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 18 18:41:11 2021
    Snipped

    ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

    I'd have thought they'd have preferred ink, though.

    * I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
    than they cost today.

    Agreed.

    (Just had further thought: elsewhere in this thread someone's said it's graphite, and therefore more inert than ink. But in 1841, how many would
    have been [real] lead instead? [Not that that's any more ert.] And which
    sort would the government-supplied one be? Discuss!)

    There used to be such a thing as 'puce pencil' that was pretty indelible
    and used for official documents. I remember us having them in our tin of
    odds and ends and drawing on the back of my hand. My mum told me it was poisonous so I cried myself to sleep expecting to die!!!
    I recently Googled it, and the Victorian ones were poisonous, but the
    later ones used something different. I think clerks used to suck the end
    to dampen them and get them to work more efficiently, which was the problem.
    I don't know about indelible pencil, but it's certainly an indelible
    memory (and be careful what you say to sensitive children)

    Ruth

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john@21:1/5 to Ruth Wilson on Thu Feb 18 20:59:03 2021
    On 18/02/2021 19:41, Ruth Wilson wrote:
    Snipped

    ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

    I'd have thought they'd have preferred ink, though.

    * I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
    than they cost today.

    Agreed.

    (Just had further thought: elsewhere in this thread someone's said
    it's graphite, and therefore more inert than ink. But in 1841, how
    many would have been [real] lead instead? [Not that that's any more
    ert.] And which sort would the government-supplied one be? Discuss!)

    There used to be such a thing as 'puce pencil' that was pretty indelible
    and used for official documents. I remember us having them in our tin of
    odds and ends and drawing on the back of my hand. My mum told me it was poisonous so I cried myself to sleep expecting to die!!!
    I recently Googled it, and the Victorian ones were poisonous, but the
    later ones used something different. I think clerks used to suck the end
    to dampen them and get them to work more efficiently, which was the
    problem.
    I don't know about indelible pencil, but it's certainly an indelible
    memory (and be careful what you say to sensitive children)

    Ruth

    See the Wikipedia entry on pencils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil
    They never contained lead. They have a graphite/clay core. The problem
    with poisoning from ordinary pencils in the past was the lead in the
    exterior paint.

    For indelible pencils see this Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copying_pencil
    They contained a graphite/clay core usually containing a water-soluble
    aniline dye. That dye was poisonous so licking the pencil to give a
    stronger mark was dangerous. They are still used in some countries for
    ballot papers, etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Ellson@21:1/5 to john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr on Thu Feb 18 20:38:36 2021
    On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 20:59:03 +0100, john
    <john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr> wrote:

    On 18/02/2021 19:41, Ruth Wilson wrote:
    Snipped

    ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

    I'd have thought they'd have preferred ink, though.

    * I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
    than they cost today.

    Agreed.

    (Just had further thought: elsewhere in this thread someone's said
    it's graphite, and therefore more inert than ink. But in 1841, how
    many would have been [real] lead instead? [Not that that's any more
    ert.] And which sort would the government-supplied one be? Discuss!)

    There used to be such a thing as 'puce pencil' that was pretty indelible
    and used for official documents. I remember us having them in our tin of
    odds and ends and drawing on the back of my hand. My mum told me it was
    poisonous so I cried myself to sleep expecting to die!!!
    I recently Googled it, and the Victorian ones were poisonous, but the
    later ones used something different. I think clerks used to suck the end
    to dampen them and get them to work more efficiently, which was the
    problem.
    I don't know about indelible pencil, but it's certainly an indelible
    memory (and be careful what you say to sensitive children)

    Ruth

    See the Wikipedia entry on pencils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil
    They never contained lead. They have a graphite/clay core. The problem
    with poisoning from ordinary pencils in the past was the lead in the
    exterior paint.

    For indelible pencils see this Wikipedia entry >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copying_pencil
    They contained a graphite/clay core usually containing a water-soluble >aniline dye. That dye was poisonous so licking the pencil to give a
    stronger mark was dangerous. They are still used in some countries for
    ballot papers, etc.

    Graphite was also known as "black lead" from the days when analysis
    was a visually rather than chemically defined matter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)