Another signature comparison - William SMALMAN.

[M_ONeill]

I've found another example, a witness signature in a 1761 marriage - I think it's the same person (particularly the 'curl' you mentioned previously, Goldie), but I'm not 100% sure. What do people think?

The writing is a little different - but I'm thinking that might simply be a different style writing implement.

[goldie61]

It does look remarkably similar to the other 2 that were probably the same man.
The 'W' and first 'i' are not quite the same - I can't see a dot for the 'i' in this example, but I'd say all the other letters are formed the same as the other 2.
I'm sure if we looked a selection of our own signatures from different years, they would not all be absolutely identical!

[M_ONeill]

Apologies for yet another William Smalman signature, but this one could be quite important!

Fellow Rootschatter ciderdrinker has very kindly posted what he feels is a possible lineage linking some of my related records in another thread. He suggests that the William who witnesses the wedding of a Martha Smalman in 1767 (signature below) is the same one that signed the wedding of Thomas and Mary in 1761. If true, he would potentially fit as the brother of both women and thus fit the proposed lineage as the child of a John and Elizabeth Smallman.

Now... having said that, I have my doubts. The signature seems very different to me, but I suppose it could simply be a different writing implement. It definitely doesn't match the older William signature attached in the first post of the thread.

[goldie61]

Apologies for yet another William Smalman signature, but this one could be quite important!

Fellow Rootschatter ciderdrinker has very kindly posted what he feels is a possible lineage linking some of my related records in another thread. He suggests that the William who witnesses the wedding of a Martha Smalman in 1767 (signature below) is the same one that signed the wedding of Thomas and Mary in 1761. If true, he would potentially fit as the brother of both women and thus fit the proposed lineage as the child of a John and Elizabeth Smallman.

Now... having said that, I have my doubts. The signature seems very different to me, but I suppose it could simply be a different writing implement. It definitely doesn't match the older William signature attached in the first post of the thread.

Did you mean to post another signature?
Can't see one here.

And did you see my reply to the last one you posted on here? You haven't made any comment.

[M_ONeill]

Whoops, forgot to attach! And also forgot to add a comment I had typed up for your last post, apologies!

I agree that it seems to be very consistent to the other signatures posted, with a few differences. As for my signature - I'm a terrible signer, and any resemblance between my signatures is more chance than design. So god help any descendants of mine that ends up relying on that to make a link! 

(Now that I look at this signature again, I'm wondering if it actually is more like the first signature I posted, from the 1750's...)

[goldie61]

Although this one, and the one from the 1750s, uses 'Wm' instead of 'William', I don't think they are from the same man. 
The formation of the letters are much more like the other 2 signatures from 1761, although a little more angular, but as you say, this could have been because of a different writing implement.
I know my signature looks different depending on what type of pen I use.
And the capital 'W' at the start of his name is formed exactly like that in the 1761s ones, with that distinctive loop carrying the writing on to the next letter.
Do you know when William Smallman died?  If he was near the end of his life in 1767, his signature might be a little more 'shaky'.
You decision of course, but I'd say a quite a possibility they're the same man.

[M_ONeill]

Well assuming the proposed lineage is correct, then this William would have been about 40 years of age. Adding in the children he had with his wife Susanna, he had at least two or three decades left after this point so I don't think debility was a factor.

Though thanks to the help of yourself and others in this thread, I think I now have a fairly solid throughline connecting these documents with one individual. I believe that this is a great-granduncle of mine, older brother to my 5x great grandmother Mary Smalman.

While I need to do a bit more digging, there's a good chance that these two, along with another sister Martha (from whose wedding the last signature came from) would then be children of a William Smalman and Elizabeth Jefferies (m.1727). I'm not 100% set on this link as William the younger is listed as being born three months before the wedding, at least in transcript, but if true William and Elizabeth would be my 6(!)x great grandparents. It's entirely possible that this elder william is the Churchwarden from Monkhopton in 1754.

So thanks once again everyone, you've helped me put together a lot of very tricky puzzle pieces! 

EDIT: Having said the above, ciderdrinker posted a will in the other thread that suggests William the younger died sometime in 1776, that'd mean he only had nine years left - maybe you were on to something, Goldie!

[CarolA3]

Age is not the only factor to affect handwriting.  My father had rheumatoid arthritis starting in his mid-40s.  His writing was affected and on bad days he couldn't even hold a pen.

Carol