I've transcribed a handwritten 1925 indenture relating to property transfer. I've managed most of it but can't fully unscramble what looks like some sort of occasional cipher to my untrained eye. The script doesn't seem to resemble letters. The main culprits are what I assume are simple conjunctions like 'and' - but even that doesn't seem to be consistent.
What was the reason for this script? Did it follow a standard form? I assume it must have but can't find any guide using google etc.
I've put a couple of examples in the link below - some of the words are obvious, but I've had to try and deduce others in the bold underlined script. Any best guesses welcome!
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z5fEtEv8C8Rw
I've transcribed a handwritten 1925 indenture relating to property transfer. I've managed most of it but can't fully unscramble what looks like some sort of occasional cipher to my untrained eye. The script doesn't seem to resemble letters. The main culprits are what I assume are simple conjunctions like 'and' - but even that doesn't seem to be consistent.
What was the reason for this script? Did it follow a standard form? I assume it must have but can't find any guide using google etc.
I've put a couple of examples in the link below - some of the words are obvious, but I've had to try and deduce others in the bold underlined script. Any best guesses welcome!
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z5fEtEv8C8Rw
On 29/04/2023 10:38, RJH wrote:
I've transcribed a handwritten 1925 indenture relating to property transfer. >> I've managed most of it but can't fully unscramble what looks like some sort >> of occasional cipher to my untrained eye. The script doesn't seem to resemble
letters. The main culprits are what I assume are simple conjunctions like
'and' - but even that doesn't seem to be consistent.
What was the reason for this script? Did it follow a standard form? I assume >> it must have but can't find any guide using google etc.
I've put a couple of examples in the link below - some of the words are
obvious, but I've had to try and deduce others in the bold underlined script.
Any best guesses welcome!
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z5fEtEv8C8Rw
Try the writing experts on RootsChat. They have a lot of experience with
odd writing:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/handwriting-deciphering-recognition/
I've transcribed a handwritten 1925 indenture relating to property transfer. I've managed most of it but can't fully unscramble what looks like some sort of occasional cipher to my untrained eye. The script doesn't seem to resemble letters. The main culprits are what I assume are simple conjunctions like 'and' - but even that doesn't seem to be consistent.
What was the reason for this script? Did it follow a standard form? I assume it must have but can't find any guide using google etc.
I've put a couple of examples in the link below - some of the words are obvious, but I've had to try and deduce others in the bold underlined script. Any best guesses welcome!
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z5fEtEv8C8Rw
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK
<patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z5fEtEv8C8Rw
Could it be some form of shorthand? Can't think why, though.
I've transcribed a handwritten 1925 indenture relating to property
transfer.
I've managed most of it but can't fully unscramble what looks like some
sort
of occasional cipher to my untrained eye. The script doesn't seem to
resemble
letters. The main culprits are what I assume are simple conjunctions like 'and' - but even that doesn't seem to be consistent.
What was the reason for this script? Did it follow a standard form? I
assume
it must have but can't find any guide using google etc.
I've put a couple of examples in the link below - some of the words are obvious, but I've had to try and deduce others in the bold underlined
script.
Any best guesses welcome!
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z5fEtEv8C8Rw
On 29 Apr 2023 at 11:57:20 BST, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 29/04/2023 10:38, RJH wrote:
I've transcribed a handwritten 1925 indenture relating to property transfer.
I've managed most of it but can't fully unscramble what looks like some sort
of occasional cipher to my untrained eye. The script doesn't seem to resemble
letters. The main culprits are what I assume are simple conjunctions like >>> 'and' - but even that doesn't seem to be consistent.
What was the reason for this script? Did it follow a standard form? I assume
it must have but can't find any guide using google etc.
I've put a couple of examples in the link below - some of the words are
obvious, but I've had to try and deduce others in the bold underlined script.
Any best guesses welcome!
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z5fEtEv8C8Rw
Try the writing experts on RootsChat. They have a lot of experience with
odd writing:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/handwriting-deciphering-recognition/
Many thanks - given it a whirl and posted.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 10:38:23 AM UTC+1, RJH wrote:
I've transcribed a handwritten 1925 indenture relating to property transfer. >> I've managed most of it but can't fully unscramble what looks like some sort >> of occasional cipher to my untrained eye. The script doesn't seem to resemble
letters. The main culprits are what I assume are simple conjunctions like
'and' - but even that doesn't seem to be consistent.
What was the reason for this script? Did it follow a standard form? I assume >> it must have but can't find any guide using google etc.
I've put a couple of examples in the link below - some of the words are
obvious, but I've had to try and deduce others in the bold underlined script.
Any best guesses welcome!
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0z5fEtEv8C8Rw
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK
It is or was normal conveyancing practice to highlight certain words. The underlined words are "And Whereas", "Now this Indenture Witnesseth" and "All that".
It is or was normal conveyancing practice to highlight certain words. The
underlined words are "And Whereas", "Now this Indenture Witnesseth" and "All >> that".
Code cracked, thanks very much.
I understand emphasis - makes it easier to get the essence. But why the (to my
eye) illegible in places script? If anything it made it more frustrating - key
words that to many readers difficult to interpret. Maybe that's it - could only be read reliably by a legal professional?
On 30/04/2023 08:37, RJH wrote:
It is or was normal conveyancing practice to highlight certain words. The >>> underlined words are "And Whereas", "Now this Indenture Witnesseth" and "All
that".
Code cracked, thanks very much.
I understand emphasis - makes it easier to get the essence. But why the (to my
eye) illegible in places script? If anything it made it more frustrating - key
words that to many readers difficult to interpret. Maybe that's it - could >> only be read reliably by a legal professional?
FWIW, that was my reading of it, too. It's worth posting any other bits
that are unclear.
These documents were usually written without any punctuation, so this emphasised wording was intended to indicate breaks? It does seem to be a weird script, though, almost gothic.
Is this to do with your boundary wall issue? I thought you said the
document was supposed to be illegible?
On 30 Apr 2023 at 09:56:23 BST, GB wrote:
On 30/04/2023 08:37, RJH wrote:
It is or was normal conveyancing practice to highlight certain words. The >>>> underlined words are "And Whereas", "Now this Indenture Witnesseth" and "All
that".
Code cracked, thanks very much.
I understand emphasis - makes it easier to get the essence. But why the (to my
eye) illegible in places script? If anything it made it more frustrating - key
words that to many readers difficult to interpret. Maybe that's it - could >>> only be read reliably by a legal professional?
FWIW, that was my reading of it, too. It's worth posting any other bits
that are unclear.
These documents were usually written without any punctuation, so this
emphasised wording was intended to indicate breaks? It does seem to be a
weird script, though, almost gothic.
Is this to do with your boundary wall issue? I thought you said the
document was supposed to be illegible?
Yes, it is. I've now managed to transcribe the entire (1200 word) document. No
idea what my solicitor's problem with it was.
The document refers to an arrangement whereby the other side (not the boundary
in question) sold the land to a new owner of 'my' property in 1925, and all references are to that boundary, and other specifics like light and drainage.
So of no relevance to troublesome wall. For that, I'm having to rely on a common sense conclusion that it's not 'my' boundary or wall, and it's next door's issue. Whether they fix it or not is another question for another day .
. .
Yes, it is. I've now managed to transcribe the entire (1200 word) document. No
idea what my solicitor's problem with it was.
I sympathise with not taking responsibility for commenting on a document where even a few words are hard to decypher.
Also, take the number of hours it took you to transcribe the document, multiply by say £250, and add VAT. Would you have been happy to pay that?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:01:03 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,570 |