Quote:
Originally Posted by Retlaw
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
|
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?