Occupation query

[Jenny M Benson]

1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.

His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
like a letter Y. Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter J
quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".

Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet Maker"
or is there some other possibility?

[john]

Post by Jenny M Benson
1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.
His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter J
quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".
Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet Maker"
or is there some other possibility?

Journeyman
see https://www.familyhistory.co.uk/census-abbreviations/

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by Jenny M Benson
1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.
His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter
J quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".
Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet
Maker" or is there some other possibility?

Journeyman
see https://www.familyhistory.co.uk/census-abbreviations/

Jenny already knows about Journeyman; she has a page with a J on it that
is quite clear - but what appears to be a Y, which is different to the J
- it is that which she is asking about.

[john]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Jenny M Benson

Post by Jenny M Benson
1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.
 His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter
J  quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".
 Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet
Maker"  or is there some other possibility?

Journeyman
see https://www.familyhistory.co.uk/census-abbreviations/

Jenny already knows about Journeyman; she has a page with a J on it that
is quite clear - but what appears to be a Y, which is different to the J
- it is that which she is asking about.

The problem is there are no other abbreviations on that standard list
which it could be read as apart from as a J.

So if it isn't a J, has enumerator used a T/Y/I or another letter to
mean something else but not given any clues? There is nothing on the
first or last page.

It would be interesting to see another copy of the schedule, especially
if it was available in colour. It is seems from other pages some of it
could originally have been completed from notes in pencil and/or a very
poor pen and then completed afterwards.

On a personal note, I know I use different forms of the uppercase letter
J, sometimes with a descender, sometimes without a top bar/arm, a half
bar/serif or a full bar, often depending on context, writing speed or
even who might read it! So you are fortunate I've never been a census
enumerator ;)

John

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:28:20, john <***@s145802280.onlinehome.fr>
wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
[]

Post by john
It would be interesting to see another copy of the schedule, especially
if it was available in colour. It is seems from other pages some of it
could originally have been completed from notes in pencil and/or a very
poor pen and then completed afterwards.

[]
The instructions to enumerators (I happen to have an example from the
first written page of a census book, so I have a copy of the facing page
with the instructions on; I'm sure plenty of others do too) includes the
words "with the pencil provided". It's always amused me - makes me think
things can't have been very good in 1841 (and/or, census enumerators
weren't very well paid) if a pencil had to be provided. From the few
cases I have where I _do_ have a colour image (presumably the microfilm
was _too_ badly degraded, or lost, or the book was never filmed), they
mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as well
as they have).

Does sound as if this particular scribe just had bad writing. (He
certainly wasn't alone in that.)

[Ian Goddard]

they mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as
well as they have).

Pencil, being graphite, is stable. So is Indian ink. Bleu-black ink,
however, fades to brown. The bencil stood a better chance of surviving
then ink.

Ian

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Ian Goddard

they mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived
as well as they have).

Pencil, being graphite, is stable. So is Indian ink. Bleu-black ink,
however, fades to brown. The bencil stood a better chance of surviving
then ink.
Ian

It is, however, more susceptible to rubbing, as it doesn't really "soak
in", or if it does, to a much lesser extent.

So depends how much the books were accessed. Probably several times near
generation (to do what the census was for!), then not for a century or
so. Then I don't know, until microfilming - probably hardly at all after
that.

[Peter Johnson]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:04:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The instructions to enumerators (I happen to have an example from the
first written page of a census book, so I have a copy of the facing page
with the instructions on; I'm sure plenty of others do too) includes the
words "with the pencil provided". It's always amused me - makes me think
things can't have been very good in 1841 (and/or, census enumerators
weren't very well paid) if a pencil had to be provided. From the few
cases I have where I _do_ have a colour image (presumably the microfilm
was _too_ badly degraded, or lost, or the book was never filmed), they
mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as well
as they have).

In 1841 not everyone would have owned a pencil* and those enumerators
who did might not have wanted to use their own equipment on, in this
case, the government's business. The government would have wanted to
ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

* I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
than they cost today.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Johnson
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:04:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
The instructions to enumerators (I happen to have an example from the
first written page of a census book, so I have a copy of the facing page
with the instructions on; I'm sure plenty of others do too) includes the
words "with the pencil provided". It's always amused me - makes me think
things can't have been very good in 1841 (and/or, census enumerators
weren't very well paid) if a pencil had to be provided. From the few
cases I have where I _do_ have a colour image (presumably the microfilm
was _too_ badly degraded, or lost, or the book was never filmed), they
mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as well
as they have).

In 1841 not everyone would have owned a pencil* and those enumerators
who did might not have wanted to use their own equipment on, in this
case, the government's business. The government would have wanted to
ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.
* I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
than they cost today.

Not 1841, but in 1872 you could buy a dozen for 60c in Kansas:

http://www.kristinholt.com/archives/3111

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 16:00:43, Peter Johnson

Post by Peter Johnson
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:04:33 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

[]

Post by Peter Johnson

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
words "with the pencil provided". It's always amused me - makes me think
things can't have been very good in 1841 (and/or, census enumerators
weren't very well paid) if a pencil had to be provided. From the few
cases I have where I _do_ have a colour image (presumably the microfilm
was _too_ badly degraded, or lost, or the book was never filmed), they
mostly _are_ in pencil (which makes it amazing they've survived as well
as they have).

In 1841 not everyone would have owned a pencil* and those enumerators

Agreed, though I would have thought at least _most_ of the people who
applied for such a job would, but ...

Post by Peter Johnson
who did might not have wanted to use their own equipment on, in this
case, the government's business. The government would have wanted to

... that _is_ a good point.

Post by Peter Johnson
ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

I'd have thought they'd have preferred ink, though.

Post by Peter Johnson
* I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
than they cost today.

Agreed.

(Just had further thought: elsewhere in this thread someone's said it's
graphite, and therefore more inert than ink. But in 1841, how many would
have been [real] lead instead? [Not that that's any more ert.] And which
sort would the government-supplied one be? Discuss!)

[Ruth Wilson]

Snipped

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Peter Johnson
ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

I'd have thought they'd have preferred ink, though.

Post by Peter Johnson
* I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
than they cost today.

Agreed.
(Just had further thought: elsewhere in this thread someone's said it's
graphite, and therefore more inert than ink. But in 1841, how many would
have been [real] lead instead? [Not that that's any more ert.] And which
sort would the government-supplied one be? Discuss!)

There used to be such a thing as 'puce pencil' that was pretty indelible
and used for official documents. I remember us having them in our tin of
odds and ends and drawing on the back of my hand. My mum told me it was
poisonous so I cried myself to sleep expecting to die!!!
I recently Googled it, and the Victorian ones were poisonous, but the
later ones used something different. I think clerks used to suck the end
to dampen them and get them to work more efficiently, which was the problem.
I don't know about indelible pencil, but it's certainly an indelible
memory (and be careful what you say to sensitive children)

Ruth

[john]

Post by Ruth Wilson
Snipped

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Peter Johnson
ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

I'd have thought they'd have preferred ink, though.

Post by Peter Johnson
* I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
than they cost today.

Agreed.
(Just had further thought: elsewhere in this thread someone's said
it's graphite, and therefore more inert than ink. But in 1841, how
many would have been [real] lead instead? [Not that that's any more
ert.] And which sort would the government-supplied one be? Discuss!)

There used to be such a thing as 'puce pencil' that was pretty indelible
and used for official documents. I remember us having them in our tin of
odds and ends and drawing on the back of my hand. My mum told me it was
poisonous so I cried myself to sleep expecting to die!!!
I recently Googled it, and the Victorian ones were poisonous, but the
later ones used something different. I think clerks used to suck the end
to dampen them and get them to work more efficiently, which was the problem.
I don't know about indelible pencil, but it's certainly an indelible
memory (and be careful what you say to sensitive children)
Ruth

See the Wikipedia entry on pencils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil
They never contained lead. They have a graphite/clay core. The problem
with poisoning from ordinary pencils in the past was the lead in the
exterior paint.

For indelible pencils see this Wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copying_pencil
They contained a graphite/clay core usually containing a water-soluble
aniline dye. That dye was poisonous so licking the pencil to give a
stronger mark was dangerous. They are still used in some countries for
ballot papers, etc.

[Charles Ellson]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 20:59:03 +0100, john

Post by john

Post by Ruth Wilson
Snipped

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Peter Johnson
ensure that all returns were completed to the same standard, too.

I'd have thought they'd have preferred ink, though.

Post by Peter Johnson
* I don't know what a pencil cost in 1841 but I bet it was much more
than they cost today.

Agreed.
(Just had further thought: elsewhere in this thread someone's said
it's graphite, and therefore more inert than ink. But in 1841, how
many would have been [real] lead instead? [Not that that's any more
ert.] And which sort would the government-supplied one be? Discuss!)

There used to be such a thing as 'puce pencil' that was pretty indelible
and used for official documents. I remember us having them in our tin of
odds and ends and drawing on the back of my hand. My mum told me it was
poisonous so I cried myself to sleep expecting to die!!!
I recently Googled it, and the Victorian ones were poisonous, but the
later ones used something different. I think clerks used to suck the end
to dampen them and get them to work more efficiently, which was the problem.
I don't know about indelible pencil, but it's certainly an indelible
memory (and be careful what you say to sensitive children)
Ruth

See the Wikipedia entry on pencils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil
They never contained lead. They have a graphite/clay core. The problem
with poisoning from ordinary pencils in the past was the lead in the
exterior paint.
For indelible pencils see this Wikipedia entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copying_pencil
They contained a graphite/clay core usually containing a water-soluble
aniline dye. That dye was poisonous so licking the pencil to give a
stronger mark was dangerous. They are still used in some countries for
ballot papers, etc.

Graphite was also known as "black lead" from the days when analysis
was a visually rather than chemically defined matter.

[Ian Goddard]

Post by Jenny M Benson
1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.
His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter J
quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".
Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet Maker"
or is there some other possibility?

Could it be M for Master Cabinet Maker?

Ian

[Steven]

Post by Jenny M Benson
1841 England Census, HO107-846-1-11-15, entry for John Bulman.
His occupation is Cabinet M(aker) but this is prefaced by what looks
like a letter Y.  Further down the page "J Engraver" shows the letter J
quite clearly, different to the apparent "Y".
Is it most probable that the enumerator meant "Journeyman Cabinet Maker"
or is there some other possibility?

I think it has to be J for journeyman (although it is clearly not what
is actually written) since J is the only thing it can be that makes
sense. When I look around the page, the way he has written his capital
letters varies wildly - look at the "S" in sail maker and how it varies
from entry to entry. What he has written is consistent with the "T" in a
Thomas a few lines below, but not with other capital T's on the page. So
I think it's fair to say that his handwriting is too inconsistent to
make solid deductions.

Steven