59 replies to this topic

[Mikeo]

Quote

Philip Longworth, in The Unending Vigil (page 200) says that some of the machines were traced to a builder's yard in Eastbourne.

How interesting about the pantographs!  Does the book give the name and address of the builder?  Does it state whether the machines were brought back into use?
In my last post I talk of "a stone's throw" ... well it's a little more than that because the Pumping Station was near Whitley Bridge, whereas Charles Jones, the stonemason, lived and had his premises in Cavendish Place at Cavendish Bridge Wharf.  In fact, this stonemason may be a red herring because in the same location (Cavendish Bridge Wharf), there was also a builder, King and Son, and a Sand and Ballast Wharf (Manager Thomas Groves).  There was a railway siding and stones may well have been brought into the Sand and Ballast Wharf as building materials.
M

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Dragon, on 27 January 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

You clearly haven't caught on to the belief that the GWF is a Statutory Consultee on all things Great War.

Don't know about this, Gwyn, but I was commenting there on the rather (I think) over-excited posts from LF suggesting that this was a critical situation.  As I said, I do think this is interesting for the GWF, but not that it is desperate, requires conservation action, etc etc.

Liz

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Mikeo, on 27 January 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

How interesting about the pantographs!  Does the book give the name and address of the builder?  Does it state whether the machines were brought back into use?
In my last post I talk of "a stone's throw" ... well it's a little more than that because the Pumping Station was near Whitley Bridge, whereas Charles Jones, the stonemason, lived and had his premises in Cavendish Place at Cavendish Bridge Wharf.  In fact, this stonemason may be a red herring because in the same location (Cavendish Bridge Wharf), there was also a builder, King and Son, and a Sand and Ballast Wharf (Manager Thomas Groves).  There was a railway siding and stones may well have been brought into the Sand and Ballast Wharf as building materials.
M

Mikeo will know, as a fellow member of the local history society research group I asked about this on Friday, that we've had a reply from Bob Elliston, author of Eastbourne's Great War. He says

'... in recent years a report was made of defective CWGC head stones being used as paving slabs in the passageways behind houses in the Roselands area [of Eastbourne].  I understand that Francis and Co Monumental Masons Carrera Wharf Lottbridge Drove made the headstones for the CWGC.'

This may be in his book or, he thinks, in a local newspaper report.  If it's not in the book, it may be a bit difficult to track down though a letter could be sent to the paper.
EDIT see post #31 below.

I suppose 'builder's yard' could have been a slightly misleading reference to the stonemason's yard, or it could be that the builders who took the stones also took the pantographs...?

Liz

[Tom Morgan]

Mikeo, on 27 January 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

How interesting about the pantographs!  Does the book give the name and address of the builder?  Does it state whether the machines were brought back into use?
In my last post I talk of "a stone's throw" ... well it's a little more than that because the Pumping Station was near Whitley Bridge, whereas Charles Jones, the stonemason, lived and had his premises in Cavendish Place at Cavendish Bridge Wharf.  In fact, this stonemason may be a red herring because in the same location (Cavendish Bridge Wharf), there was also a builder, King and Son, and a Sand and Ballast Wharf (Manager Thomas Groves).  There was a railway siding and stones may well have been brought into the Sand and Ballast Wharf as building materials.
M

Apologies for the delay in replying, Mikeo - I hadn't noticed your post until now.

The book doesn't identify the builder, unfortunately, or how many of the machines he had. (Though it's possible that the CWGC records or correspondence files might do so).  

The machines were brought back into use, apparently. The book says that "in co-operation with an engineering contractor, the process was successfully adapted for mass production.  Equipped with a high speed steel drill one machine could now carve four headstones in a day".

I was thinking that a builder wouldn't want the machines particularly.  Their only purpose, I suppose, was to mark out blanks for the production of IWGC headstones and there was no requirement for these any more - hence the disposal of the machines in the first place.  I wondered  whether a builder might have bought a job lot of surplus material consisting of the machines (which he didn't particularly want) together with a quantity of unfinished/rejected headstones, which he might well be able to find a use for as building material.  That's just a guess, however.

Tom

Edit - Liz was replying at the same time as me, I think.  Her point about the possible confusion in the book between a builder's yard and a stonemason's yard is a good one.

Edited by Tom Morgan, 29 January 2012 - 08:52 PM.

[GJH]

Ken,

Thanks for the name of the convalescent hospital "summerdown camp" I will now follow this up.

Graham

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Mikeo and I have been doing a bit of research as Eastbourne local history society members (he knows much more than I do, as a proper Eastbournian) and I'm deputed to report back.  What we've found adds useful background to what we already know, that these were reject headstones, but doesn't in fact provide a definitive answer to the question of whether they were rejects from a local stonemason's yard, or arrived  in a local builder's yard from elsewhere, or even both.

We researched back issues of the Eastbourne Local History Society's journal (not yet digitised) and and found that the use of reject headstones by a local builder or builders had been mentioned before, though not in connection with the shed at Bedfordwell Pumping Station.

An article by the editor in issue 91 of Spring 1994 describes research done by Ken Batham following a report in the Eastbourne Gazette, 30th June 1993, 'concerning a resident of Windermere Crescent who had dug up in his front garden a headstone for a soldier killed in World War 1.  The stone recorded the death of Private 33042, Robert Stirling Bambery, Royal Scots, 23rd July 1917, Age 21'.  

It was of course much less easy in 1993 to research WW1 casualties than it is today, but Mr Batham contacted the Royal Scots and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and so traced the burial place of Pte Bambery to Gwalia Cemetery, Poperinghe, Belgium. The article explains what must have happened.

'Contracts were placed with many stonemasons in this country.  The finished results had to pass muster before being accepted to be sent over to the cemeteries.  They were rejected if chipped or mis-engraved.  The stone found in Windermere Crescent must have been faulty in some way – indeed the picture in the Gazette shows only half a stone.  Perhaps it was dropped or broken in the stonemason's yard.  It appears that this stone was not a unique case and the Commission has since ensured that such errors are totally destroyed as are all those memorials which are routinely replaced.  That is why when looking around churchyards and cemeteries these stones are usually found to be in perfect condition.'

It remains unclear whether these reused stones, which are not for local burials, were from local stonemasons, or a local builder had received them from further afield.

Has anyone found examples of this re-use of reject headstones elsewhere?  I find it interesting that the CWGC made a point of saying that these would now be routinely destroyed, and we do not know how long this practice went on or how common it was.  


The Bedfordwell shed may be a rarity and some may think worth preserving for that reason, though I would not think as a war memorial.

A question was asked at the end of the 1993 article about a back alley between two rows of houses off Seaside (Roselands, mentioned in a previous post - this is very close to Windermere Crescent where the other stone was found, and not far from Bedfordwell) being paved with stones from a monumental mason's yard.  This was answered in No 93, in 1994, which stated that the houses had been built in 1898-9, that no one knew if the paving stones had been laid then or later, and that no lettering was visible though it could have been on the underside.

I'll add a bit more shortly from a local Great War history.

Liz

[Liz in Eastbourne]

More background information, still not telling us the exact answer to the question of how/when the reuse of rejected headstones occurred in Eastbourne.
.
R A Elliston's book Eastbourne's Great War 1914 – 1918 ( SB publications, Seaford, 1999)  has a section on Eastbourne's war graves (pp 172 –176).  He says there are 18 officers and 112 other ranks buried in Ocklynge Cemetery with CWGC headstones and 3 airmen with private memorials.

'The badges were roughed out from drawings using a pantograph machine and then, with the lettering, were finished by hand carving.  The main contractors for the Eastbourne headstones were Messrs J Andrews Ltd of Willingdon Road and Messrs Francis and Sons Ltd, Carrara Wharf, Junction Road.' (p 174).EDIT The latter is very near Bedfordwell.

One of RA Elliston's sources is P Longworth's CWGC history, The Unending Vigil, Constable 1967, already mentioned by Tom in previous posts. I don't know if this mentioned the Eastbourne stonemasons, though.

Liz

[Liz in Eastbourne]

joanbelge, on 26 January 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

Please keep us posted  if you find out more Liz

Joan - I have twice tried to send you a pm in the past few days, but your mailbox appears to be full. Could you pm me?


Liz

[Tom Morgan]

Excellent work, Liz and Mikeo, and fascinating results.

Liz - the only reference to Eastbourne in the book's index is the one referring to the machines being traced to a builder's yard.

Tom

[Tom Morgan]

The index doesn't mention either of the firms that Liz named. It does mention that by 1921 over seventy contractors had been employed on the production of headstones.  I'll re-read the section of the book dealing with production.

Tom

[truthergw]

Fascinating detective work. I would suggest that the value of a reject headstone would be fairly small. Hardly enough to warrant transport costs so the stones probably did not travel far from the yard where they were carved. Perhaps they were the first attempts at using the pantograph?

[Siege Gunner]

Apart from the mystery of the origin of the stones, the thing I find most interesting is that the carved face of the stones is apparently on the outside of the shed.  I wonder if the building originally had clap-board cladding.

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Thanks Tom, Tom and Mick.  It does look more likely that the reject stones came from a stonemason, probably Francis and Co.  They must have carved stones for cemeteries in France and Flanders as well as Eastbourne - that must have been the case with many/most of the stonemasons involved.  We haven't exactly uncovered a widespread local phenomenon of using reject stones in building: three instances in roughly the same area of town, so far, two of which are paths/garden landfill and one an outhouse or shed.

EDIT Four instances, I should have said!  I've just been reminded of Baz's # 13 referring to the thread started in 2004 about CWGC headstones and containing a post from Hooge about the place near Eastbourne station - again roughly the same area, and again it sounds like a fairly rough building/ workshop. I'll have a look for that but nothing may be visible from outside. I'd failed to click on the thread link before. It seems Terry Denham was going to go and look at it in 2005 - I wonder if he did?

I've no idea about the construction of the shed, Mick. It is odd the way they appear to face outwards as a decorative feature; I think Gwyn commented on this too. We'll have to ask around.

This has  told me, at least, some things I didn't know about how CWGC headstones were produced just after the war.

Liz

Edited by Liz in Eastbourne, 01 February 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[joanbelge]

Liz have sent you pm
Joan

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Terry Denham tells me he didn't see the building referred to in the earlier thread (see Baz'z  #13)...I think a tour of the sites might be in order for anyone who's interested, but we need to find out whether access is possible first.

Are these such a curiosity that they have value as such - rather like stamps with errors on them - even though the CWGC seems (as one might expect) to have disapproved the practice when it was discovered, and the stones should really have been destroyed?

Liz

[CGM]

Are these stones visible on the outside? In the photos they are very, very clean and there is no sign of weathering at all. Also the wording in the original thread is

Now inside this modest little shed.....

(........photo of outside of the shed.......)

The walls were made up of these ww1 headstones, i have no idea about how or why they came to be there.

Just my thoughts, of course.

CGM

[truthergw]

Liz in Eastbourne, on 02 February 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

Terry Denham tells me he didn't see the building referred to in the earlier thread (see Baz'z  #13)...I think a tour of the sites might be in order for anyone who's interested, but we need to find out whether access is possible first.

Are these such a curiosity that they have value as such - rather like stamps with errors on them - even though the CWGC seems (as one might expect) to have disapproved the practice when it was discovered, and the stones should really have been destroyed?

Liz

Stamps with errors only have a value to collectors. If someone wanted to collect these stones, he would presumably make an offer for them. If more than one person wants to collect them, we have a market and a going rate. Now, where did I put my pantograph?

[Liz in Eastbourne]

CGM -  You're probably right.  In fact, it's implied by both accounts, looking back at them again.

Tom  - My analogy with stamps wasn't that exact, I was just thinking about a couple of early posts on this thread describing the situation as critical and exhorting people, especially Eastbourne inhabitants, to conserve the shed wall.  I was wondering if anyone would be interested in doing so because of its curiosity value - not envisaging a market in  flawed headstones!

I don't think anyone would worry about their conservation on WW1 remembrance grounds, do you?


Liz

[truthergw]

Liz in Eastbourne, on 02 February 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

CGM -  You're probably right.  In fact, it's implied by both accounts, looking back at them again.

Tom  - My analogy with stamps wasn't that exact, I was just thinking about a couple of early posts on this thread describing the situation as critical and exhorting people, especially Eastbourne inhabitants, to conserve the shed wall.  I was wondering if anyone would be interested in doing so because of its curiosity value - not envisaging a market in  flawed headstones!

I don't think anyone would worry about their conservation on WW1 remembrance grounds, do you?


Liz

I am a very bad judge of what things people find worth collecting. I trawl through E-bay and am continually amazed at the stuff for sale. I bet, if the stones were put up as genuine headstones from the Great War, which they almost certainly are, someone would bid. I also bet that there would be a thread on some forum or other complaining bitterly at the lack of respect and how could anyone bear to part with such a precious heirloom. As I say, I am a very bad judge and have even been accused of displaying  a very unhealthy measure of cynicism.

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Update


The shed was pulled down earlier this week.

It's a bit of a disappointment as  the conservation officer  had said last Friday we could go and look at it with the site manager, and we had fixed on next Wednesday to do it.  However, the headstones are still there apparently so we are still going to look at them.  The Pumping Station itself is to be converted into flats, I understand.

Has anyone a view on what should happen to the headstones?  There's no reason why I should be asked or my view should carry any weight, but just supposing the site developers are wondering what to do with them, what do you think?

Btw Tom when you say they are almost certainly genuine, what do you mean?  I am assuming they are genuine in the sense that they were worked on with the intention of sending them to be used as headstones, but self-evidently they weren't - so they are only sort-of genuine.

Liz

[Keith Roberts]

If as it appears these are all faulty headstones, perhaps the right answer would be for them to be broken up. Otherwise look out for them on eBay.

Keith

[joanbelge]

Hello
I feel a bit sad that the shed was demolished before Liz and other interested parties had had the opportunity to visit. Is it known whether the headstones were salvaged?
Sorry just read Liz's post properly and see that they are still intact

[Paul Reed]

Liz in Eastbourne, on 16 February 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Has anyone a view on what should happen to the headstones?  There's no reason why I should be asked or my view should carry any weight, but just supposing the site developers are wondering what to do with them, what do you think?

Liz

Hi Liz,

I would recommend you contact Newhaven Fort Museum. I am sure they will take them for their WW1 collection.

http://www.newhavenfort.org.uk/

[joanbelge]

I second Paul's suggestion!

[Liz in Eastbourne]

Thanks for the suggestion, Paul, sounds like a good idea - for one or two if not all (I don't know how many there are).

Keith - yes, destroying them, or the remainder after a museum had taken some, might also be acceptable especially as we know the CWGC at the time decided that would be the best procedure.  But I'm inclined to think if anyone wants to preserve them in a museum setting, that would be OK now.  It wouldn't be right for them to end up on eBay, would it?

Joan, I don't know if they are completely intact but that is the impression I have, that they took care to save them.  After all the shed was taken down after the conservation officer had notified the site manager of our interest.


Any other thoughts?  

Liz