1
2
3
4
5
6
7 "View from Music Court to South Transept"
Unknown Crystal Palace views
Unknown Crystal Palace views
Can anyone figure where these views were taken from?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 "View from Music Court to South Transept"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 "View from Music Court to South Transept"
I had a little hunt around and have no idea if this will be of any help or not, but I found a website with a basic floor plan from the Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace (picking up on the last photo "... to the South transept"). I have included the link rather than the image because its quite a bigg'un, but there may be additional info on the site itself that maybe of more use to you.
http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsite ... supps7.htm
http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsite ... alacea.jpg
http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsite ... supps7.htm
http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsite ... alacea.jpg
-
tulse hill terry
- Posts: 688
- Joined: 25 Jun 2007 01:33
- Location: sarf lunnen
After a long Saturday night, what a sobering post!
View 1. This is looking towards the Parade/West facade of the building, with the Stationary Court, absent to the left, and the large "Court of English and German Sculpture" just visible on the right.
View 2. This is the "Italian Vestiblule", probably by Delamotte ca. 1859, though printed by Frith's and held by Bromley Library.
View 3.This is from the Art Treasures Exhibition of 1859, and not the Crystal Palace. It is the centenary year with a relevant exhibition now on
http://www.manchestergalleries.org/what ... ?itemID=25
View 4. This is looking through a collection of busts of English Writers and Poets into the "English and German Sculpture Court", a little to the right/north of view 1.
View 5. This is looking from the Nave through more English busts into the Egyptian Court.
View 6, is the entrance to the Italian court from the Nave.
View 7, is looking south, from the front of the Court of Musical Instruments, across the east/garden end of the South Transept into the display of what used to be called the Old World - Africa. All the sculpture present is the work of John Bell. 1812 1895.
How should I know, well I'm holding the original views 1, 4, 5, and 7 in my hand. And yes they are the originals, age had left marks which made them individual.
You must have made copies of the dealers scans, from the same place I bought them. More fool me for paying for the privilege. The dealer who sold me views 4 and 5 has already been fobbed off by the webmaster of this forum, who then pleads on wikipedia:
"This breaks the original copyright/attribution conditions. I feed my family by selling my work to commercial organisations so I hope you will understand. Especially as the reason I found this was because of commercial exploitation of this work by others. "
If you persist in bragging how little you are willing to pay for, or give credit for where you came by this kind of material, then please be honest enough to explain to your audience where you yourself came by this material, and them the chance to make their own copies.
You have been explicit to me in the past how you despise private collectors, who might not be so selfish with what they collect if what they pay for hadn't circulated thirteen times round the net in a short matter of time. Owners of artworks of much wider cultural interest have built up years of weariness at just such disingenuous enquiries.
Do you have any idea how much academics have to pay, to illustrate their unpaid research for publication. The V&A wants to charge £45 an image!
Oh, and don't be so sure who you are giving uncredited and pirated material out to on this forum, I think you may know some of them already.
View 1. This is looking towards the Parade/West facade of the building, with the Stationary Court, absent to the left, and the large "Court of English and German Sculpture" just visible on the right.
View 2. This is the "Italian Vestiblule", probably by Delamotte ca. 1859, though printed by Frith's and held by Bromley Library.
View 3.This is from the Art Treasures Exhibition of 1859, and not the Crystal Palace. It is the centenary year with a relevant exhibition now on
http://www.manchestergalleries.org/what ... ?itemID=25
View 4. This is looking through a collection of busts of English Writers and Poets into the "English and German Sculpture Court", a little to the right/north of view 1.
View 5. This is looking from the Nave through more English busts into the Egyptian Court.
View 6, is the entrance to the Italian court from the Nave.
View 7, is looking south, from the front of the Court of Musical Instruments, across the east/garden end of the South Transept into the display of what used to be called the Old World - Africa. All the sculpture present is the work of John Bell. 1812 1895.
How should I know, well I'm holding the original views 1, 4, 5, and 7 in my hand. And yes they are the originals, age had left marks which made them individual.
You must have made copies of the dealers scans, from the same place I bought them. More fool me for paying for the privilege. The dealer who sold me views 4 and 5 has already been fobbed off by the webmaster of this forum, who then pleads on wikipedia:
"This breaks the original copyright/attribution conditions. I feed my family by selling my work to commercial organisations so I hope you will understand. Especially as the reason I found this was because of commercial exploitation of this work by others. "
If you persist in bragging how little you are willing to pay for, or give credit for where you came by this kind of material, then please be honest enough to explain to your audience where you yourself came by this material, and them the chance to make their own copies.
You have been explicit to me in the past how you despise private collectors, who might not be so selfish with what they collect if what they pay for hadn't circulated thirteen times round the net in a short matter of time. Owners of artworks of much wider cultural interest have built up years of weariness at just such disingenuous enquiries.
Do you have any idea how much academics have to pay, to illustrate their unpaid research for publication. The V&A wants to charge £45 an image!
Oh, and don't be so sure who you are giving uncredited and pirated material out to on this forum, I think you may know some of them already.
Copyright is a complicated issue. If you have the original postcards and they are more than 50 years since publication and/or the artists death you can do whatever you want with them. With old pictures/art etc the copyright is on the photography the image (for which you have to pay reproduction rights), not the painting itself. If you took a picture of the mona lisa you can do whatever you want with it. It's one reason why you aren't allowed to take pictures in museums.
The worst that could happen with these threads is that someone objects and you are asked to remove them. You aren't making money from them and they are 'in the public interest'. Even with copyrighted images are you are allowed in most instances to use them for personal/private use. The issues arise when they are publicized and you make money out of them as you are depriving someone of potential earnings.
Things are different if it is registered as a trademark. The Hollywood sign in LA is, so if you take a picture of it, you will have to ask permission to publish it from the LA authorities. You can do whatever you want with an artists impression of it however. It's incredibly confusing.
It would be a shame to lose the images that are posted here and I think falkor should quote his sources whenever possible. But please keep posting your images, they are facinating.
The worst that could happen with these threads is that someone objects and you are asked to remove them. You aren't making money from them and they are 'in the public interest'. Even with copyrighted images are you are allowed in most instances to use them for personal/private use. The issues arise when they are publicized and you make money out of them as you are depriving someone of potential earnings.
Things are different if it is registered as a trademark. The Hollywood sign in LA is, so if you take a picture of it, you will have to ask permission to publish it from the LA authorities. You can do whatever you want with an artists impression of it however. It's incredibly confusing.
It would be a shame to lose the images that are posted here and I think falkor should quote his sources whenever possible. But please keep posting your images, they are facinating.
Can I add a word here?
The purpose of copyright is to protect the owner of the intellectual property from loss by unauthorised exploitation. Whatever we think of copyright, we have to honour that here. There is the issue where no loss is incurred/public interest is involved. Most copyright/publication right holders take a pragmatic attitude on that.
But we have had one ugly episode of someone claiming copyright (but unable to prove it) who was most unpleasant about it. So take care, keep the pictures coming. Pre-1946 photos should be in the clear which covers a lot of what appears here. Post 1946 - if they are yours (as the previous poster said) no problem. If they are not please ensure the owner doesn't mind. Most don't.
In response to tulse hill terry. I'm afraid you have misquoted the context of my wikipedia statement which is the reverse of what you suggest. It is that all copyright material on Sydenham Town that belongs to me is free for non-commercial use including Wikipedia. Putting my photos on another forum would delight me. No problem. What was happening with Wikipedia was that they were relicensing my stuff without my permission for commercial use which was being exploited. It was their decision, which I regret, to remove it.
I hope this sets that matter straight.
I 'm afraid your accusation of fobbing off is news to me. Can you expand?
Admin
The purpose of copyright is to protect the owner of the intellectual property from loss by unauthorised exploitation. Whatever we think of copyright, we have to honour that here. There is the issue where no loss is incurred/public interest is involved. Most copyright/publication right holders take a pragmatic attitude on that.
But we have had one ugly episode of someone claiming copyright (but unable to prove it) who was most unpleasant about it. So take care, keep the pictures coming. Pre-1946 photos should be in the clear which covers a lot of what appears here. Post 1946 - if they are yours (as the previous poster said) no problem. If they are not please ensure the owner doesn't mind. Most don't.
In response to tulse hill terry. I'm afraid you have misquoted the context of my wikipedia statement which is the reverse of what you suggest. It is that all copyright material on Sydenham Town that belongs to me is free for non-commercial use including Wikipedia. Putting my photos on another forum would delight me. No problem. What was happening with Wikipedia was that they were relicensing my stuff without my permission for commercial use which was being exploited. It was their decision, which I regret, to remove it.
I hope this sets that matter straight.
I 'm afraid your accusation of fobbing off is news to me. Can you expand?
Admin
Lostmind, the plans you found are for the original Crystal Palace building at Hyde Park, before it came to Penge, where the exterior and interior were re-designed. I think the best plans I found for the Penge building is in the Samuel Philips book + "Delamotte's Crystal Palace" in-cover. I've also got these plans that were surveyed sometime after the 1866 fire (you can see the north transept is gone), but I couldn't fit them on my scanner:
One of them refers to the "Monkey House", so this must have been surveyed after the Aquarium closed and was drained, so that the tanks could be used as cages for monkeys!
tulse hill terry, many thanks indeed for your comprehensive reply! I didn't think I would get any responses to be honest. You seem very knowledgeable when it comes to this subject. I've asked questions before about the Palace on forums, but they've always been too specialised to get any help with...
Well done Terry--spot on!
These are mine for what it's worth, but I don't really care, as I find the copyright law--for reasons I won't go into--an insult to my intelligence. Therefore, I don't abide by it. People are welcome to do what they like with my images as far as I'm concerned, and I don't need any credit. This is just a hobby.
Also, don't invite me for dinner because I will only tell you what I really think of it, as I don't even believe in telling white lies. Truth is the authority (that's my motto). So where did I get those images displayed in my opening post? They are simply thumnails I saved from Ebay for the most part, as well as one from Bromley library, which you've already pointed out. No dealings here mate. I'm glad you won the "originals", thus you have them in superior quality. I just save the low quality stuff to help me figure out the interior of the palace. Next time I'll paint them from memory before I post on the forum! 
Anyway, no hard feelings mate! I do appreciate your help, Terry! Thanks again.
One of them refers to the "Monkey House", so this must have been surveyed after the Aquarium closed and was drained, so that the tanks could be used as cages for monkeys!
tulse hill terry, many thanks indeed for your comprehensive reply! I didn't think I would get any responses to be honest. You seem very knowledgeable when it comes to this subject. I've asked questions before about the Palace on forums, but they've always been too specialised to get any help with...
Let's compare...View 2. This is the "Italian Vestiblule", probably by Delamotte ca. 1859, though printed by Frith's and held by Bromley Library.
Well done Terry--spot on!
I can delete that one then...View 3.This is from the Art Treasures Exhibition of 1859, and not the Crystal Palace.
Thanks! I think I found some views of the Old World and New World courts... (dunno what the fishtank is doing there!)View 7, is looking south, from the front of the Court of Musical Instruments, across the east/garden end of the South Transept into the display of what used to be called the Old World - Africa. All the sculpture present is the work of John Bell. 1812 1895.
No such thing as originals, only "original copies"! None of these are daugerrotypes, so it's possible other collectors have them as well.How should I know, well I'm holding the original views 1, 4, 5, and 7 in my hand. And yes they are the originals, age had left marks which made them individual.
The admin did remove some of my posted CP images once, but they were actually scans I did of my own stereocards I had purchased.You must have made copies of the dealers scans, from the same place I bought them. More fool me for paying for the privilege. The dealer who sold me views 4 and 5 has already been fobbed off by the webmaster of this forum, who then pleads on wikipedia:
These are mine for what it's worth, but I don't really care, as I find the copyright law--for reasons I won't go into--an insult to my intelligence. Therefore, I don't abide by it. People are welcome to do what they like with my images as far as I'm concerned, and I don't need any credit. This is just a hobby.
Allow me to explain why I started this topic. I'm just organising my Crystal Palace images right now to eventually upload to my website to share with everyone in half-decent quality where possible (looking forward to my first court case as well). Many images are my own, otherwise I state the sources. I don't bother with this practise on forums, although if anyone here ever has any questions about images I post then feel free to ask. I'm the most honest guy you'll ever meet, and would never ignore anyone, either. My only weakness is that I can be manipulated quite easily.If you persist in bragging how little you are willing to pay for, or give credit for where you came by this kind of material, then please be honest enough to explain to your audience where you yourself came by this material, and them the chance to make their own copies.
Also, don't invite me for dinner because I will only tell you what I really think of it, as I don't even believe in telling white lies. Truth is the authority (that's my motto). So where did I get those images displayed in my opening post? They are simply thumnails I saved from Ebay for the most part, as well as one from Bromley library, which you've already pointed out. No dealings here mate. I'm glad you won the "originals", thus you have them in superior quality. I just save the low quality stuff to help me figure out the interior of the palace. Next time I'll paint them from memory before I post on the forum! Anyway, no hard feelings mate! I do appreciate your help, Terry! Thanks again.
-
tulse hill terry
- Posts: 688
- Joined: 25 Jun 2007 01:33
- Location: sarf lunnen
Views 5 and 6, I bought from World of Stereoviews, his page for exhibitions are here, though he removes the ones sold.
http://www.worldofstereoviews.com/great ... npage1.htm
View 6 has been floating round ebay for a while.
View 7 I bought from ebay seller “found-in-Australia” in August of 06, check him out he often has good stuff. I bought 20 in one go, why doesn't Falkor want to share the rest of them with you guys?
The second view of the Italian Vestibule was printed as part of a portfolio of prints by Digby Wyatt, co-architect of the Palace’s interior, from Delamotte photographs and actually printed on the premises! I did get a rather moth-eaten set on ebay for £150. and duly showed them to anyone interested on Victorian Weekend in Crystal Palace Park a couple of years ago.
The gingery prints of stuffed animals are from a reprint of the two volumes of photographs taken by Delamotte for the directors of the Crystal Palace Company. The reprints apart from being such a strange colour were printed in Germany, and so unfortunately is the text. It’s often available on Abebooks, about £22.00. The books no secret, it in the Ian Leith/English Heritage book in the bibliography.
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookD ... D0%26y%3D0
I have the list of captions in English if anyone wants a copy, I haven’t bothered with the text, I take forever to translate German.
The English Heritage photos are here, if you haven’t seen them already, more images beside.
http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org. ... lace_name=
The next image was published by the London Stereoscopic Company, a particular passion of Brian May. View #38 of 45 views. The description reads “Group of Africans – Contrasting the Negro of the lower levels with the Danakil of the high pastures and plateaus of the Desert.” It’s covered by the Handbook “The Natural history department of the Crystal Palace Described.” They have a copy in Bromley Library and perhaps another in the library Crystal Palace. It also explains the presence of the fishtanks, they also had cases of sponges I seem to remember.
Of course I don’t know where the other images are but then Falkor didn’t offer the information.
Can I just make it plain, I have no problem with this forum documenting every possible period and inch of South London. Ebay is a public market, World of Stereoviews is easily accessible on the net – to the public. The London Metropolitan Archive is open to the public. Lambeth, Lewisham, Bromley and Croydon local history libraries are open to the public.
Why is Falkor/Mantis2k/Giles unwilling to ask permission, give credit and share sources.
Oh wouldn’t it been easy if all these libraries had scanned there archives, and it was all available from one's own pc/mac.
Somehow I don’t think they have been waiting for Falkor to publish them on the net. They charge for publication. When you signed the London Metropolitan Archive’s “Application to take digital or photographic copies of documents in the reading room”
Did you not read the clause
“I will not use the copy except for research for a non-commercial purpose or private study and will not supply a copy of it to any
other person.”
This is because they charge for publication, and surely the reason why you refuse to give sources or credits.
In this thread,
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... c24a5bdbd7
It was the top image that you took from this page of the World of Stereoviews" website "Order #G204. Price $120"
http://www.worldofstereoviews.com/glasspage4.htm
[img]http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/sydenha ... 11.jpg[img]
This is a classic, when you approached me via ebay in July of last year, I told you about the other ebay member "h2ogeol_since_1998" who had outbid me on the 6 stereoviews of the collapse of the north wing. You didn't like it when I approached him myself after yourself. Not such an exclusive.
NOW you feel the need to watermark an image to quote "1861 North Wing destruction--caused by strong winds--before any of the 10 fires ever occured. Unfortunately, I can't put this out on a public forum because of all the lurkers--I have to "hold back"--so I've superimposed a watermark; the transparent property enables one to view the image without using it commercially. If anyone I met on the walkabout would like it without the watermark, I'd be more than happy to email you a clean copy, personally... it's just too damn rare otherwise! I might deposit this down at the London Metropolitan Archives; best place for it!"
So you want to give something back, maybe? Didn't want to share the rest of them with the guys?
As for the truth, well it's obvious you don't have a conscience or any manners, they way you described in your emails, those you have asked for help, and still do.
To Stuart, you grossly simply the concept of copyright, property both intellectual and material. You don't wikipedia to steal your work, anyone can copy it off your website and sell it, or even give it away. You've let people do it to others on your site.
To leenewham, all this information is already out there open to the public, you can find it out for yourself, you don't need it mediated for you.
And it you are all so oblivious to what this is really about then, you won't mind this post.
P.S
I'm sorry macleanmuir if you thought I was rude about your friends book, I kept it short thinking there were many othres who had bought and read the book and had opinions to share. I somehow find I have two copies !myself
http://www.worldofstereoviews.com/great ... npage1.htm
View 6 has been floating round ebay for a while.
View 7 I bought from ebay seller “found-in-Australia” in August of 06, check him out he often has good stuff. I bought 20 in one go, why doesn't Falkor want to share the rest of them with you guys?
The second view of the Italian Vestibule was printed as part of a portfolio of prints by Digby Wyatt, co-architect of the Palace’s interior, from Delamotte photographs and actually printed on the premises! I did get a rather moth-eaten set on ebay for £150. and duly showed them to anyone interested on Victorian Weekend in Crystal Palace Park a couple of years ago.
The gingery prints of stuffed animals are from a reprint of the two volumes of photographs taken by Delamotte for the directors of the Crystal Palace Company. The reprints apart from being such a strange colour were printed in Germany, and so unfortunately is the text. It’s often available on Abebooks, about £22.00. The books no secret, it in the Ian Leith/English Heritage book in the bibliography.
http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookD ... D0%26y%3D0
I have the list of captions in English if anyone wants a copy, I haven’t bothered with the text, I take forever to translate German.
The English Heritage photos are here, if you haven’t seen them already, more images beside.
http://viewfinder.english-heritage.org. ... lace_name=
The next image was published by the London Stereoscopic Company, a particular passion of Brian May. View #38 of 45 views. The description reads “Group of Africans – Contrasting the Negro of the lower levels with the Danakil of the high pastures and plateaus of the Desert.” It’s covered by the Handbook “The Natural history department of the Crystal Palace Described.” They have a copy in Bromley Library and perhaps another in the library Crystal Palace. It also explains the presence of the fishtanks, they also had cases of sponges I seem to remember.
Of course I don’t know where the other images are but then Falkor didn’t offer the information.
Can I just make it plain, I have no problem with this forum documenting every possible period and inch of South London. Ebay is a public market, World of Stereoviews is easily accessible on the net – to the public. The London Metropolitan Archive is open to the public. Lambeth, Lewisham, Bromley and Croydon local history libraries are open to the public.
Why is Falkor/Mantis2k/Giles unwilling to ask permission, give credit and share sources.
Oh wouldn’t it been easy if all these libraries had scanned there archives, and it was all available from one's own pc/mac.
Somehow I don’t think they have been waiting for Falkor to publish them on the net. They charge for publication. When you signed the London Metropolitan Archive’s “Application to take digital or photographic copies of documents in the reading room”
Did you not read the clause
“I will not use the copy except for research for a non-commercial purpose or private study and will not supply a copy of it to any
other person.”
This is because they charge for publication, and surely the reason why you refuse to give sources or credits.
In this thread,
http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... c24a5bdbd7
It was the top image that you took from this page of the World of Stereoviews" website "Order #G204. Price $120"
http://www.worldofstereoviews.com/glasspage4.htm
[img]http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/sydenha ... 11.jpg[img]
This is a classic, when you approached me via ebay in July of last year, I told you about the other ebay member "h2ogeol_since_1998" who had outbid me on the 6 stereoviews of the collapse of the north wing. You didn't like it when I approached him myself after yourself. Not such an exclusive.
NOW you feel the need to watermark an image to quote "1861 North Wing destruction--caused by strong winds--before any of the 10 fires ever occured. Unfortunately, I can't put this out on a public forum because of all the lurkers--I have to "hold back"--so I've superimposed a watermark; the transparent property enables one to view the image without using it commercially. If anyone I met on the walkabout would like it without the watermark, I'd be more than happy to email you a clean copy, personally... it's just too damn rare otherwise! I might deposit this down at the London Metropolitan Archives; best place for it!"
So you want to give something back, maybe? Didn't want to share the rest of them with the guys?
As for the truth, well it's obvious you don't have a conscience or any manners, they way you described in your emails, those you have asked for help, and still do.
To Stuart, you grossly simply the concept of copyright, property both intellectual and material. You don't wikipedia to steal your work, anyone can copy it off your website and sell it, or even give it away. You've let people do it to others on your site.
To leenewham, all this information is already out there open to the public, you can find it out for yourself, you don't need it mediated for you.
And it you are all so oblivious to what this is really about then, you won't mind this post.
P.S
I'm sorry macleanmuir if you thought I was rude about your friends book, I kept it short thinking there were many othres who had bought and read the book and had opinions to share. I somehow find I have two copies !myself
Not me Guv. The rules are here: http://sydenham.org.uk/usage.html which points here:tulse hill terry wrote:To Stuart, you grossly simply the concept of copyright, property both intellectual and material.
http://web.archive.org/web/200403120754 ... graphs.htm
These was the best readable expert stuff I could find. But if you can suggest better than I would be delighted to replace it.
You missed the point. If you take it from this site the copyright statement applies. And if it wasn't there implicit copyright still applies. Whereas if they copy it from Wikipedia they were granted a right to use the stuff commercially.tulse hill terry wrote:You don't wikipedia to steal your work, anyone can copy it off your website and sell it, or even give it away. You've let people do it to others on your site.
Terry - you have mischievously turned around my declaration that people may share my work non-commercially to say I am a hypocrite by not sharing. You suggest I am free and easy with other people's IP by fobbing off your dealer. I guess your silence when challenged to justify your defamatory and untruthful remark means you now know it to be wrong.
It really is dispiriting to be subject to such a nasty and unjustified attack when I have done all I can to provide you and the others with a free and responsible community resource. OK I'm not perfect, I make mistakes as you do. I try and resolve them politely by PM or other backchannel means;. I wish you would please do the same. Forcing me to do it this way doesn't really help anybody.
Please can we keep to the agreed spirit of friendliness and not personal abuse?
Admin
why doesn't Falkor want to share the rest of them with you guys?
Nobody really cares in general... Nobody wants to know the source... It's a waste of time. People are just interested in seeing the image. If somebody wants to know something about a particular image then they can ask, I've got nothing to hide, otherwise it's pointless.Of course I don’t know where the other images are but then Falkor didn’t offer the information.
Look, mate, I'm not being funny but you sound a bit obsessive re: source of images. Do you think other people are constantly thinking about where Falkor gets every image he posts? I'm lucky if anyone takes an interest in local history full stop. I really don't understand your mindset... "It came from Frith".
"Oh, where did Frith get it from?"
"Delamotte."
"Where's the negative being stored? What date was the photo processed?"
Maybe big collectors want to know these things, but not your average Joe who visits this forum. Again, we are lucky if we get even one more person remotely interested in this subject.
You obviously don't seem to understand how the world works... It's not about following rules all the time and being controlled by other people. Have you any idea how corrupt this place is? Maybe it's best to not get into this debate. I told you I don't agree with copyright law, but what I do agree with is using images for non-commercial purposes only. Anyway, this is all getting rather petty compared to bigger things that are happening in the world right now.Somehow I don’t think they have been waiting for Falkor to publish them on the net. They charge for publication. When you signed the London Metropolitan Archive’s “Application to take digital or photographic copies of documents in the reading room”
Did you not read the clause
“I will not use the copy except for research for a non-commercial purpose or private study and will not supply a copy of it to any
other person.”
Is your name not Terry?This is a classic, when you approached me via ebay in July of last year..
Agreed. I've committed a sin and will burn in hell for eternity. However, God loves every single one of us here, so maybe he'll forgive me in time. No, actually, I've already denied the Holy Spirit, so that's it now.http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic. ... c24a5bdbd7
It was the top image that you took from this page of the World of Stereoviews" website "Order #G204. Price $120"
http://www.worldofstereoviews.com/glasspage4.htm
Yeah, that was excellent!!NOW you feel the need to watermark an image to quote "1861 North Wing destruction--caused by strong winds--before any of the 10 fires ever occured. Unfortunately, I can't put this out on a public forum because of all the lurkers--I have to "hold back"--so I've superimposed a watermark; the transparent property enables one to view the image without using it commercially. If anyone I met on the walkabout would like it without the watermark, I'd be more than happy to email you a clean copy, personally... it's just too damn rare otherwise! I might deposit this down at the London Metropolitan Archives; best place for it!"
So you want to give something back, maybe? Didn't want to share the rest of them with the guys?
I thought that might piss off some elitists... It was honestly just a wind-up, mate. All those images will be on my site soon. Nobody has asked for them cause nobody takes local history seriously. Genealogy is a much bigger industry.I've had a few arguements with some disturbed collectors over the years and it hasn't always ended too well. I'm not rude, and I don't like it when people are rude to me. However, sometimes I can be a bit inconsiderate towards other people's feelings, unsconsciously aware. I've analysed some of these encounters with my circle of friends, and they've often agreed that I was in the right, and in some cases know the person whose quarrelled with me. Anyhow, what people tell you about me is purely hearsay. I always judge people based on my experiences--never by what other people tell me. There's nothing wrong with asking for help, although some traditional Brits have a problem with that. I'm always on a pursuit for knowledge, and there's always new things for me to learn.As for the truth, well it's obvious you don't have a conscience or any manners, they way you described in your emails, those you have asked for help, and still do.
Terry (or whatever your name is), let's end this discussion now. It's really pointless. Other users here must be getting pissed off with us argueing. Maybe we should continue by email or something?