Very Old Pic (Apparently it's an East Dulwich house)

[DJKillaQueen]

The Bovril airship was flying as early as 1913. So if you are right about the airship I would say the photo is pre WW1 but only just.

[DJKillaQueen]

Hmm just had a look on the 1911 census. There are no entries for 191-200 underhill road.

[Grotty]

where did you find the photo?

[Alex K]

This is a lovely thread.

[computedshorty]

Scattered Homes

The picture has some conection with the time of rehoming the children of the Camberwell Workhouse Constanmce Road Now St Francis Road. It is possible that the att. picture is connected.

In June 1898, Camberwell set up London's first children's scattered homes following the scheme devised in Sheffield to house children in small family groups in ordinary urban houses. Camberwell initially rented two houses on Heaton Road, Peckham Lane, where around twenty children from "in-and-out" families were placed under the care of two foster mothers.

Five further homes were added in January 1899: two in Crystal Palace Road, one in Lordship Lane, and two in Melbourne Grove, Dulwich. By 1903, thirty-one scattered homes were in use. In 1908, the locations included: 18-20 Ashbourne Grove; 2-4 Barforth Road, Nunhead; 200-202 Barry Road; 1 Burnaston Terrace, Grove Vale; 59-63, 262, 272, 297-299 and 341-343 Crystal Palace Road; 14 Derwent Grove; 6, 24-26, 209, 263 and 267 Friern Road; 335 Lordship Lane; 29 Marsden Road; 1-3 and 9-11 Matham Grove; 71 Melbourne Grove; 1-4 Rye Road; Peckham; 197-199, 306, 322 and 326-8 Upland Road,

[silverfox]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> silverfox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Does the reflection in the middle window show

> the

> > gable end of a house at 90 degrees? It looks

> like

> > a Dutch Gable at a guess. Tintagel Rd looking

> up

> > Lordship Lane?

>

> No. It's clearly a Zeppelin, possibly on the way

> to Streatham, which would put the date a little

> later (1915/6?). There again, it might be not be

> unrelated to the stain running from the top of the

> picture. Sadly, colour photography having not been

> invented at the time, it's impossible to tell just

> by looking, but my money's on Bovril.

I accept I'm wrong about Tintagel Crescent (although the roof is correct).

If you look opposite 88 Lindsell Rd the facade of the houses matches the reflection in the middle window of the photo. Unfortunately the house is different. So, back to the drawing board.

[DJKillaQueen]

Hmmm that's really interesting CS. Do you know if Underhill Road was used at all?

[healey]

As others have said, Underhill Road opposite Honor Oak Mansions almost certainly.

The slightly sunken roof detailing next to the chimney (if it's still there) and the shape of step up to the next house could identify the right house, but Google maps isn't really great for such fine comparisons!

[edhistory]

Who says this is an East Dulwich house?

John K

[jimbo1964]

I do.

[Huguenot]

I don't think John K was challenging you jimbo1964, as a historian he'd probably be able to help more if you explained why you believe it's an ED house?

Is it of friends or family - where did it come from?

[jimbo1964]

Well he could see I started the thread. Anyhow.. For the record I work at a photo press agency. We have it archived on file as 'East Dulwich House'.

[Penguin68]

Does your photo archive indicate the sources of your pictures, or just their descriptions?

[jimbo1964]

I'll do some more digging when I have a bit more time. There might be loads of old negatives in storage.

[edhistory]

Need more provenance or hard corroboration for nexus.

The brick-course ofset count to follow street gradient might exclude this identification or not.

Small/medium builders used pattern books. This photo could be anywhere in south east England or the midlands.

John K

[Penguin68]

I don't have a protractor with me, but if you look at the original photo, and assume that the people in it are standing upright (what would be at 90 degrees to a flat surface) - then you can work out the slope of the road (steepness of the hill) which should exclude many houses in SE England & Midlands (outwith the very fair point that the photo is directly identified as being in ED). The house (as those opposite Ryedale) is also facing correctly as regards the downward slope.

[DJKillaQueen]

There must have been some prior knowledge that led to the photo being filed as a house in ED so I tend to agree with Penguin that the photo is more likely to be where it says it is rather than not.

[computedshorty]

A house in 1959 dont know where.

[ianr]

> A house in 1959 dont know where.

It is, as it says on the outside, in Cardiff. The photograph turns up in Jeremy Deller and Alan Kane's Folk Archive exhibition, entitled Paiinted House, Cardiff, Wales, 2001. A note says the tenant was airing a long-standing grievancve wih the the council. (Warmning: if you go to the British Council site hosting a replica of the whole exhibition - the pic's on the fourth floor - it gratuitously pre-downloads 40MB on you, including some videos.)

[the-e-dealer]

Source of Cardiff PIcture - Here

http://www.anambitiousprojectcollapsing.com/2010/02/jeremy-deller-and-alan-kanes-folk.html

[civilservant]

there used to be a house off the Wimbledon end of Worple Road where the resident had done something very similar - he was trying to publicise his diffrences with Merton Council

I used to walk past it on my way to the station 10 years ago. He died, it was all swept away, house was gentrified etc.

Does anyone remember it? I can't find any trace of it on t'internet

[edhistory]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There must have been some prior knowledge that led

> to the photo being filed as a house in ED so I

> tend to agree with Penguin that the photo is more

> likely to be where it says it is rather than not.

I wouldn't start from there.

Here's an example: http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external/Item&sp=Zdulwich&sp=234304&sp=X

If the URL does not work it is image 232211.

Jimbo1964 works with archived photos and can probably explain better than me the problems with image identification.

John K

[DJKillaQueen]

I see your point John.

[joom]

This is interesting, I've always wondered about these half houses. By the looks of the photo it still looks like two houses to me - the windowsills are different, as are the curtains. To me it looks like it is two houses.

[mikeb]

Joom - good point. Plus they are very deliberately standing outside only one half of the house - if it had been one house then I would have expected the photographer (perhaps the father of the household?) to have included both sides of the house.