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?
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/
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?
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?
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:Jenny already knows about Journeyman; she has a page with a J on it that
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
JÂ quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".
 Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet
Maker"Â or is there some other possibility?
Journeyman
see https://www.familyhistory.co.uk/census-abbreviations/
is quite clear - but what appears to be a Y, which is different to the J
- it is that which she is asking about.
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.
they mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as
well as they have).
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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!)
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
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 30:27:28 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,193 |
| Messages: | 5,328,364 |