zompist bboard

I have so much trouble reading old cursive text, it's crazy. Can anyone read this? I've got: Chas. Bu?cher & Alfred Cheeseborough. F???? ?? W. 169 & 171 1881


-------------------------------------------------
I can't read some of these street numbers, especially those on the bottom. I've listed them here, the top row is the left side and the bottom row is the right side. I'm hoping someone here has more intuitive knowledge about numbers and patterns than me and can make out what these numbers are in order.

Top row L-R looks like 108, 112, 118, 120.

Bottom row is 134*, 146**, 148, 154, 158, 166.

*Looks more like 131, but that's odd.

**the 4 looks like a 7, but that'd break the sequence. 4 seems more likely.

(This is L&L how exactly?)

108, 112, 118, 120
1--*, 1-6**, 148, 154, 155***, 16-****

*I guess 131 or 151.*****
**146, I think.
***To the previous poster: That is not an eight. Not, I say! Not! It's not consistent with the other eights in the... blueprint (?).
****Either 166 or 160.
*****On second thought, it's almost certainly 151******. That little broken line would make a theoretical "3" a lot taller than any of the other numbers.
******Not saying that I'm sure the last digit isn't 4 or 7 or something.

Wierdmin wrote:***To the previous poster: That is not an eight. Not, I say! Not! It's not consistent with the other eights in the... blueprint (?).

Sure it is. It's got the exact same size and shape, minus the missing bits. The SW end clearly curves back up toward center, as it does in 8. What it's not consistent with is the 5 immediately to the left of it.

155 is odd, not even. All the other numbers in that row are even.

158 is a no-brainer, IMO.

I'm pretty sure cromulant got them all right.

cromulant wrote:Top row L-R looks like 108, 112, 118, 120.

Bottom row is 134*, 146**, 148, 154, 158, 166.

*Looks more like 131, but that's odd.

**the 4 looks like a 7, but that'd break the sequence. 4 seems more likely.

(This is L&L how exactly?)

Well 134 makes the most sense since that house is supposedly 134 Alexandrine. Thank you all for helping me!

And is not writing a form of linguistics?

Huh, my first (and second) impression was:

108 112 118 120
151/131 176 178 107/157 155 166

108 112 118 120
134 146 148 154 158 166

It's a list of street addresses, so I anticipate that the numbers must either all be odd or even, since the locations are on the same side.

bulbaquil wrote:108 112 118 120
134 146 148 154 158 166

It's a list of street addresses, so I anticipate that the numbers must either all be odd or even, since the locations are on the same side.

Two people agree on this sequence so I'm going to asume it's correct. Thanks to all!

Bump for recycling purposes.

Buncher? Four SV?

I'll go with Charles Boucher (even though there's definitely no o there, he may have an odd way of signing his name, or it could have been written by someone else who just made a mistake) and Fort St. W. (i.e. "Fort Street, West")

It could definitely be Buncher, though, as that is a real name.

Soap wrote:I'll go with Charles Boucher (even though there's definitely no o there, he may have an odd way of signing his name, or it could have been written by someone else who just made a mistake) and Fort St. W. (i.e. "Fort Street, West")

It could definitely be Buncher, though, as that is a real name.

Fort street makes sense! How on earth did you figure that out! Damn!

It could be Front Street...?

Bristel wrote:It could be Front Street...?

No, it has to be Fort street but I'm just shocked he got Fort street out of that despite the thousands of possibilities.

How about Burcher? :/

It's either Buncher or Burcher, I'm confident of that much.

The street name is clearly Fort - that last letter must be a t, because it exactly matches the one in "St." Right before it is more likely "or" than anything; I've certainly written the "or" sequence like that before; I'm scouring my class notes right now to see if I can find one; if I can't, I'll look in previous semesters' notes or in non-academic notes.

bulbaquil wrote:Right before it is more likely "or" than anything; I've certainly written the "or" sequence like that before

same. i think this is relatively common, actually -- holdover from when r rotunda was used, possibly?