Where Am I? No 12

[cazza59]

Hi John

I must have missed the post about the date of the photo. Can you recall on what basis people think it's older than c1907?  I don't know either way.  The only thing I can tell you, it is on the same wafer thin paper as the Clifton Browns and the same tone, but all that proves is that is from approximately the same era.

There is no evidence to prove or disprove a link to the other WAIs.

I think the safest thing is to assume that it is a stand alone photo, that way no one goes on a wild goose chase to prove a connection.

Caz

[DavidG02]

Pretty sure the goose is loose

[cazza59]

Pretty sure the goose is loose

 

The goose might even be cooked!

[JohninSussex]

Hi John

I must have missed the post about the date of the photo. Can you recall on what basis people think it's older than c1907?  I don't know either way.  The only thing I can tell you, it is on the same wafer thin paper as the Clifton Browns and the same tone, but all that proves is that is from approximately the same era.

There is no evidence to prove or disprove a link to the other WAIs.

I think the safest thing is to assume that it is a stand alone photo, that way no one goes on a wild goose chase to prove a connection.

Caz

Hi Caz thanks for the reply.  I actually meant that people on the thread said the photo looked from a later era maybe 20s/30s (not earlier).  That would mean it wasn't from the same batch.  But if the photo has the same paper/size/condition as "the set", and you acquired them together, isn't it likely that they're all related? 

As I said, I do think it's unlikely this will be found, especially given the time people have already spent on it.

[Ruskie]

Great stuff Ruskie.    If there are any particular areas of the house that people would like a close up of, please let me know.

Virtually the entire house Caz. But that may not be feasible.

I just noticed the extra detail that could be seen on all of the closeups. Quite amazing really.

Perhaps repost those you've already posted on this thread and fill in the gaps? I know that some of the features I noticed and commented on through looking at the "non closeup", were rendered almost irrelevant upon looking at the closeups which revealed so much more detail.

So, I suppose, as much detail as you can provide wold be ideal.

See what others think though as I wouldn't want enlargements for my whims alone.  and of course there is no guarantee that closeups will help with identification.

[cazza59]

Yes and no, because there were a couple of others that I can't remember off hand, that are along the same lines and I doubt they are connected.

I agree, I doubt this one will be found, but then I didn't think the house in India would be found either and Yorkslass proved me wrong.

It might turn up one day, if not, then it's provided many hours of entertainment (read that as frustration, tearing of hair and absolute agony)  for a lot of people!   

[cazza59]

Whoops, you snuck in their Ruskie.     My response is to John above.

Okay…I'll scan it bit by bit.

Shouldn't be too much longer until I can post.

Caz

[cazza59]

Unfortunately I still can't create a new thread, not sure why, but I'll try again tomorrow.  I have done quite a few scans but not sure they will tell us anything new.

Caz

[Ruskie]

You are right about the scans not helping us identify the house.

See whether others want to see closeups before going ahead and doing it. I might just be me being nosey which makes me interested to see all the detail. 

(Eg, I noticed on the far right beside the gabled house, behind the brick chimney appears to be a canopy possibly over a front or back door (already mentioned by Caz earlier in the thread I think). There is also another brick building or lean to - maybe a wall - and what looks like an open door. I just thought it was interesting.  )