Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album

[cashman]

Is that not where the "Canine Club" now is?

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Another picture to add further confusion to Whalley Rd.
Retlaw.

There is no confusion. If my last photo and list don't convince you that The Slater's was at Number 13 Whalley Rd when the dilapidated photo was taken (and not 23 as you said), then nothing will convince you.

The directories of the time say it was No 13, the number of properties on the old OS map point to it being No 13, the electoral registers katex has checked out have a Mr A Westwell at No 13 and my last photograph has Steinway House (the name is atop the building) as No 11, therefore common sense should tell you the next property (just over Marquis St) on Whalley Rd is No 13.

Even the evidence looked at coming down Whalley Rd has The Slater's at No 13. The directories have The Hope & Anchor at 21 - 23 (sometimes 19,21 & 23), now work backwards and The Slaters is No 13. Take the young soldiers army record that Andrew gave us, he gives his address as the Hope & Anchor 21 - 23 Whalley Rd. Work back again and The Slater's is No 13.

I don't care what number The Hope & Anchor is now, but back in the time of the dilapidated Slater's photo, the Hope was No 21- 23, making the Slater's Arms on the corner, just lower down by three properties NUMBER 13.

[Atarah]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Another picture to add further confusion to Whalley Rd.
Retlaw.

I dont understand why the photo is up on thread no. 360 - its Abbey Street!

[Atarah]

Attached is a grainy old photo of that junction. Hopefully you can make out some of the names along the end building, J. L. Haworth & Co, H.Walmsley & Son and Riley & Co.

Now please see the attached listing from the 1935 Barrett's Directory. You will see that all those three (Haworth's, Walmsley's and Riley's) were all listed as being at Number 11 Whalley Rd, which was Steinway House.

Could I just ask, why would 3 completely seperate shops all be listed as no. 11? Seems a bit odd.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Atarah

I dont understand why the photo is up on thread no. 360 - its Abbey Street!

thats what i said.

[MargaretR]

Deffo Abbey St - bought two fireplaces there in 1961.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

Deffo Abbey St - bought two fireplaces there in 1961.

Brown n Catlows? me classmate started yon easter 63 as apprentice plumber.

[Retlaw]

I don't care what number The Hope & Anchor is now, but back in the time of the dilapidated Slater's photo, the Hope was No 21- 23, making the Slater's Arms on the corner, just lower down by three properties NUMBER 13.[/quote]
Ok so you don't care what the numbering sysetm is today, and evidently you don't believe the old licensing records or the 1871 census returns.
Then how come the numbers on that block of Whalley Rd, have exactly the same numbers they had then, very large coincidence.
You have'nt answered that.
The Hope & Anchor was 27/29 then & still is, count the doorways back down from there, and 23 is still standing. Nu 21 is the one thats missing, its the vacant plot which is now occupied by a large ornamental plant pot.
You can rant as much as you like, but the numbers were and still are as they always were. Your flogging a dead horse.
Retlaw

[Retlaw]

Originally Posted by Atarah

I dont understand why the photo is up on thread no. 360 - its Abbey Street!

That woke you up did'nt it.

Retlaw

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Atarah

Attached is a grainy old photo of that junction. Hopefully you can make out some of the names along the end building, J. L. Haworth & Co, H.Walmsley & Son and Riley & Co.

Now please see the attached listing from the 1935 Barrett's Directory. You will see that all those three (Haworth's, Walmsley's and Riley's) were all listed as being at Number 11 Whalley Rd, which was Steinway House.

Could I just ask, why would 3 completely seperate shops all be listed as no. 11? Seems a bit odd.

It's not that odd Atarah. If you look on the old map (#244), you will see that the original Number 11 Whalley Rd had a substantial yard area. It is also pretty evident on one of the photos Walter put up, you can see the wall.

Now I don't know when Steinway House was built, but you can see by comparing the photos that it was built on that end plot, just before Marquis St. The plot of the original Number 11 (more or less)

Steinway (as in the maker of pianos) House was built by Haworth's who were a music dealer. Their advertisement of the time boasted and I qoute ''11,000 Sq Feet of floor space. Always more than 100 pianos in stock. Recital hall to seat 132 people. Radio Department and a stock of 14,000 records'' So it was a huge place.

Now, my guess is, as time went on and they didn't need as much space, due to a decline in business or whatever, they rented part of their property out to other business's, Walmsley's being one and Riley & Co being another (at the time of the last photo I uploaded). For postal purposes all their addresses would have been Steinway House 11 Whalley Rd. The postman would have to be a bit thick if he had a letter / parcel for Messrs Walmsley and he stuck it through Haworth's letterbox just because they owned the building. Even if they received each others mail from time to time (which I doubt), it would be a case of ''Oh this one is for Riley & Co, not us, I'll pop it next door''.

It happens to this day were more than one business share a large property and I'm sure they devise a system whereby they distinguish one business from another for a variety of reasons, ie post, stock deliveries, business tax, rent, electricity supply, telephone bills etc etc. They all still share the one address. OK they may use a system were one becomes 11a, 11b and on, but not always.

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

I don't care what number The Hope & Anchor is now, but back in the time of the dilapidated Slater's photo, the Hope was No 21- 23, making the Slater's Arms on the corner, just lower down by three properties NUMBER 13.

Ok so you don't care what the numbering sysetm is today, and evidently you don't believe the old licensing records or the 1871 census returns.
Then how come the numbers on that block of Whalley Rd, have exactly the same numbers they had then, very large coincidence.
You have'nt answered that.
The Hope & Anchor was 27/29 then & still is, count the doorways back down from there, and 23 is still standing. Nu 21 is the one thats missing, its the vacant plot which is now occupied by a large ornamental plant pot.
You can rant as much as you like, but the numbers were and still are as they always were. Your flogging a dead horse.
Retlaw[/QUOTE]

Walter, I have proved without a shadow of a doubt, with a map, directories, electoral roll (courtesy of katex), an army service record (courtesy of Andrew) and a photograph that The Slater's Arms could have been no other number than No 13 Whalley Rd.

You have provided us with nothing but but your own rantings and a couple of census returns that prove nothing. We could even accuse you of fibbing. You told us the electoral registers, 1900, 1910, 1920 (and the others you listed) said A. Westwell was living at the address you claimed The Slater's to be, number 23. Well katex's photo disproves your claim.

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

I don't care what number The Hope & Anchor is now, but back in the time of the dilapidated Slater's photo, the Hope was No 21- 23, making the Slater's Arms on the corner, just lower down by three properties NUMBER 13.

Ok so you don't care what the numbering sysetm is today, and evidently you don't believe the old licensing records or the 1871 census returns.
Then how come the numbers on that block of Whalley Rd, have exactly the same numbers they had then, very large coincidence.
You have'nt answered that.
The Hope & Anchor was 27/29 then & still is, count the doorways back down from there, and 23 is still standing. Nu 21 is the one thats missing, its the vacant plot which is now occupied by a large ornamental plant pot.
You can rant as much as you like, but the numbers were and still are as they always were. Your flogging a dead horse.
Retlaw[/QUOTE]

Sorry, something else I meant to add to my last. Once again, you are referring to a couple of irrelevant documents. The 1869 licensing report and the 1871 census return tell us nothing about the photo being discussed, a 1930's shot of The Slater's Arms.

I have based my research on facts, you have based yours in the realms of fantasy. None of your documents or photos back up any of your claims. You just keep repeating that you're right and I am wrong, yet provide nothing to substantiate your claims. You have attempted to browbeat me into accepting your point, as you have no doubt done before, to others, on similar threads. On this thread alone, you have miffed off me, Anzac and Andrew. You had earlier tried to silence others, by highlighting their lack of knowledge while boasting of your own extensive knowledge. Bully boy tactics really.

You can keep on repeating yourself over and over, but for anyone interested enough, all they need to do, is take a look back as far as page 16, study the evidence set before them from that point and arrive at their own conclusion. Case closed.

[Retlaw]

Had a look at page 16, you quote.
the Hope & Anchor Hotel at numbers 21-23 Whalley Rd (still is from what I can gather).
That is where you are wrong again, the present day numbers are 27 & 29, as they were in the licencing reports & the 1871 census, why should the numbers on that block have changed to suit you, and then be exactly the same today.
You claim the newspaper reports & the census returns are wrong, so all the millions of people doing their family history, are according to you wastng their time, all those record are wrong then are they.

If that is so, what makes the records you keep quoting any better.

Retlaw

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Had a look at page 16, you quote.
the Hope & Anchor Hotel at numbers 21-23 Whalley Rd (still is from what I can gather).
That is where you are wrong again, the present day numbers are 27 & 29, as they were in the licencing reports & the 1871 census, why should the numbers on that block have changed to suit you, and then be exactly the same today.
You claim the newspaper reports & the census returns are wrong, so all the millions of people doing their family history, are according to you wastng their time, all those record are wrong then are they.

If that is so, what makes the records you keep quoting any better.

Retlaw

Once again Ratlaw, you have taken one line from one of my comments and used it out of context. When I said ''it still is from what I can gather'' I meant the pub is still there, as opposed to the Slater's Arms which I had just mentioned a line or so earlier in that comment (which is long gone).

No I don't think the millions of people using using census returns or newspaper reports are wasting their time, but as you have proven again and again in your comments, they certainly shouldn't be relying on them. I did state somewhere amongst my comments that no single source should be accepted when doing research and emphasized the the need to cross reference and cross reference again. That is exactly what I have done with this little debate, cross referenced the OS map with the directories, an army record, the electoral registers and old photographs (one photograph that actually names some of the shops that match the directories and the Burgess Rolls of the time). That is why I am confident that circa 1935, The Slater's Arms was No 13 Whalley Rd.

What have you given as your evidence? An 1869 licensing report and an 1871 census. The photos you uploaded prove nothing, other than in one of them, the pub in question was standing.

It's a good job you are an ''historian'' (and I use the term loosely) and not a hanging judge.

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

That woke you up did'nt it.

Retlaw

This comment also shows you for what you are Retlaw.

Atarah, Cashman and MargaretR all pointed out that your drawing of Catlow's corner was Abbey St and not Whalley Rd. So what do you do, put your hand up and admit you have made (yet another) mistake? No you make light of it and make out you did it intentionally to 'Wake them up'

Not so my friend. May I refer the jury to comment #299. You sir actually thought it was on Whalley Rd.