Page 9 of 11

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 22:39 Thu 31 Mar 2016
by jdaw1
LGTrotter wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Looks like "Tried" to me...
I see 'tried' as well.
I saw that too, but thought it didn’t really fit. Maybe it does.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 20:36 Fri 01 Apr 2016
by LGTrotter
jdaw1 wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Looks like "Tried" to me...
I see 'tried' as well.
I saw that too, but thought it didn’t really fit. Maybe it does.
I thought 'tried' as in 'tasted'. The comma after 'tried' made me wonder though.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 14:33 Tue 05 Apr 2016
by djewesbury
Tried.

The way I worked this out was to look at the individual letters. First we see a capital T. This is followed by a small r. The next three letters are i, e and d. I put these all together, making sure to keep them in the right order, and the word they spelled out was Tried.

Tried.

Glad to be helpful.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 14:36 Tue 05 Apr 2016
by jdaw1
djewesbury wrote:put these all together, making sure to keep them in the right order
Good technique. Thank you. “Tried” it must be.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 22:19 Wed 20 Apr 2016
by jdaw1
This is in the Handwriting thread because it is a question about book sources, even though it isn’t about handwriting.

About five years ago the image on the right was on an East European wine merchant’s website. Is the picture real? I’m not even asking if the very white labels are new. Is the image substantially a digital creation? Were there real bottles bearing these labels?

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 11:07 Thu 21 Apr 2016
by PhilW
jdaw1 wrote:Is the image substantially a digital creation? Were there real bottles bearing these labels?
Difficult to tell for certain, however several factors point to at least partial, if not whole digital creation:
- the most compelling is error-level analysis which looks like the dates on the 1952 and 1967 have been added at a different resolution, or to a previously saved image, prior to quantisation; the stencil test on the left-hand bottle shows similar potential characteristics, but the blurring makes this harder to judge.
- the chance of almost-consecutive selos on the '52 and '67 bottles would be slim.
- the hue of the wine within all three bottles, but particularly between the right-hand bottles is so close as to be suspicious (though they could be a manipulated photo of actual physical bottles, potentially all filled with "something", with dummy undated labels, and then the dates added after in photoshop as wanted).

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 11:13 Thu 21 Apr 2016
by jdaw1
PhilW wrote:Difficult to tell for certain, however several factors point to at least partial, if not whole digital creation:
I agree with the conclusion.
PhilW wrote:- the most compelling is error-level analysis which looks like the dates on the 1952 and 1967 have been added at a different resolution, or to a previously saved image, prior to quantisation; the stencil test on the left-hand bottle shows similar potential characteristics, but the blurring makes this harder to judge.
Good spot.
PhilW wrote:- the chance of almost-consecutive selos on the '52 and '67 bottles would be slim.
The bottles (or the bottles to which the labels were digitally added) could have been recently ex-cellars, and so recently selo’d.
PhilW wrote:- the hue of the wine within all three bottles, but particularly between the right-hand bottles is so close as to be suspicious (though they could be a manipulated photo of actual physical bottles, potentially all filled with "something", with dummy undated labels, and then the dates added after in photoshop as wanted).
Good spot again.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 20:19 Thu 21 Apr 2016
by Glenn E.
I would say mostly if not entirely digital. It is at the very minimum a (poor) digital composition.

In particular, the 1967 in front looks completely off. The fill level isn't smooth, and doesn't appear to be level. We're looking down at the bottle and the fill doesn't jive with our angle of viewing. Furthermore, the color of the Port is completely off. That's a tawny - and a light one at that - not a VP behind that light green glass.

The blurring of the whitewash on the 1939 has been synthetically cleaned up as well. Add to that the fact that I've searched far and wide for 1939 Ports (my mother's birth year), and I've never seen that one.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 12:34 Sun 24 Apr 2016
by jdaw1
Image
“Deep with Rich nice nose”. And I think the last word is “acidity”. Please say more.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 13:42 Sun 24 Apr 2016
by flash_uk
On arrival, lacks acidity.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 14:01 Sun 24 Apr 2016
by PhilW
Deep col
Rich nice nose
On ??? lacks acidity

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 21:37 Sun 24 Apr 2016
by jdaw1
PhilW wrote:col
I don’t see that. Do others?

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 22:00 Sun 24 Apr 2016
by LGTrotter
jdaw1 wrote:
PhilW wrote:col
I don’t see that. Do others?
I saw 'col' (diminutive of colour) but I also saw 'and'. 'On something lacks acidity'. The something could be 'arrival', but this doesn't seem to make sense.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 22:17 Sun 24 Apr 2016
by jdaw1
LGTrotter wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
PhilW wrote:col
I don’t see that. Do others?
I saw 'col'
I saw “w/”, not favoured by others.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 22:54 Sun 24 Apr 2016
by LGTrotter
jdaw1 wrote:I saw “w/”, not favoured by others.
What would "w/" mean?
PhilW wrote:Rich nice nose
I saw 'rich big nose' here.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 08:57 Mon 25 Apr 2016
by jdaw1
LGTrotter wrote:What would "w/" mean?
I might mean “with”, which would fit.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 11:05 Mon 25 Apr 2016
by PhilW
I'm surprised by the disagreement here; I thought the text was quite clear except for the antepenultimate word.
I should however have included a period or comma (not sure which) after "Rich".
The missing word might be one or two words, perhaps "????end" or "???? end"

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 11:37 Mon 25 Apr 2016
by flash_uk
How about
"on bin end
lacks acidity"

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 18:50 Sat 14 May 2016
by jdaw1
I want the penultimate word to be “until”, but it stubbornly persists in looking like “with”. He’s not the Messiah.
Image

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 18:56 Sat 14 May 2016
by PhilW
Might "witt" help at all (can't see how, but... and it's definitely not "woger")

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 01:22 Sun 15 May 2016
by DRT
The context suggests it could be "bott", but only the last two letters fit that.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 16:17 Sun 15 May 2016
by Andy Velebil
Based on the word "wood" the first letter is a "w", then looks like an "i", then the "t", the last being possibly an "h" as it has a distinctive bump in it and is not a smooth upturn like the other T's in the words.

Looks like "With" which would not be uncommon to use one to top up/refresh the other. So would make sense

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 19:16 Sun 15 May 2016
by DaveRL
It looks like "with" to me. I wonder if there is an older use, or perhaps a dialect, where "with" can mean "until"?

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 23:12 Mon 16 May 2016
by jdaw1
Mixed-vintage tawny it is.

Do peeps agree that the last word in this reprehensible Port is “bad”?
Image
“Rather smelly nose. Light very shallow and rather short & bad” — hasn’t sold it to me.

Re: Handwriting questions

Posted: 23:23 Mon 16 May 2016
by jdaw1
“Poor nose and very pleasant wine. Will last, but really also is drinkable now”?
Image