Black Watch Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 Aurel Check out post 21, I think that shows it more clearly. Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 Neil, I am really doing my best... But it's rather hard to explain. Do you mean that the white rhomboid cross (or part of it) is attached to that vertical board of a standard cross (which I think is in the row behind Gardiner), and that the two are attached to Gardiner's cross ? don't you think the rhomb would be rather smal, compared at least to other rhombs and circles on other crosses in the cemetery ? I really wish I could reproduce that part of the photo and mark parts of it with arrows and names and rows etc., as some pals can. What I see, from the photographer's point of view is : a. First Gardiner's cross b. A dark standard cross behind it (the cross bar is not visible) c. then the white rhomboid cross behind the standard cross (its white vertical bar is hidden by the standard cross) d. and then also a white cross behind the rhomboid cross (next to another cross). I don't know if this will help, and besides it's not really relevant, but these letters b c d correspond to what now in the cemetery are the headstones b = Row A, headstone 16 (2 Unknowns) c = Row B, headstone 18 (R. Baxenden) d = Row C, headstone 19 (F.R. Evely) Also, have a look at the following postings with a photo (or a fragment of it) : 56, 61, 62, 65. I'm not saying that I can pinpoint the rhomboid cross (though I see a few 'candidates'), but I think that nothing seems attached to Gardiner's cross. (Yes I know, there may be a year or so between the two photos) But even if I seem to have a different opinion, this does not mean that I do not appreciate your contribution. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Watch Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 a. First Gardiner's cross b. A dark standard cross behind it (the cross bar is not visible) c. then the white rhomboid cross behind the standard cross (its white vertical bar is hidden by the standard cross) d. and then also a white cross behind the rhomboid cross (next to another cross). IMO a. Gardiners Cross ( we agree ) b. Dark vertical piece of wood that is attached to rhomboid cross and is nailed to the right arm of Gardiners cross c. as above d. I agree On Gardiners cross just to the left and slightly above the word "of", the horizontal bar and the 2 left sloping parts of the rhomboid are obscuring part of Gardiners cross. Hopefully someone who agrees with me will come on and explain it better. BTW I think the rhomboid is missing the left corner. Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geoff501 Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 On Gardiners cross just to the left and slightly above the word "of", the horizontal bar and the 2 left sloping parts of the rhomboid are obscuring part of Gardiners cross. Hopefully someone who agrees with me will come on and explain it better. BTW I think the rhomboid is missing the left corner. Neil Neil, Well spotted, I agree. Also if the rhomboid was really one or 2 rows behind, then it is absurdly tall. Look at the rhomboid, it is clearly in front of Gardiners memorial: Photoshop contrast stretch. Is the character on the vertical member a '3' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 Geoff and Neil, I'm sorry, but I really don't agree. As an argument to claim that the rhomboid cross is even in front of Gardiner's cross, you overlook one thing. there is not really a "hole" in the upper vertical part of Gardiners's cross: part of (the right part) it is broken off. And where it is broken off you can see the left side of the rhomboid cross and the white cross behind it. And the rhomboid cross absurdly tall ? sorry, I don't see that. Look at the other rhombopid and circular crosses that are at an even farther distance. I'll make a drawing in different colours and scan and post it as soon as I can. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geoff501 Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 As an argument to claim that the rhomboid cross is even in front of Gardiner's cross, you overlook one thing. there is not really a "hole" in the upper vertical part of Gardiners's cross: part of (the right part) it is broken off. And where it is broken off you can see the left side of the rhomboid cross and the white cross behind it. Aurel, I agree the top right half of the top of Gardiners cross is missing so we see a broad cross behind it, which looks like a square hole is in this part of Gardiners cross. This would be unlikely (the square hole) as wood does not break like that. However the lower left arm of the rhomboid (the south west arm) seems to be visible in front of Gardiner and it seems to be below the fracture line on Gardiners cross. Guess we all need a higher resolution scan. If you email me the one you have I will cut the section out to forum size and post here. Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 Geoff and Neil, Here's my drawing. I left Gardiner's cross white. The standard cross in the row behind it, only partially visible, is grey pencil The rhomboid cross behind the standard cross is yellow And the cross behind the rhomboid cross (white on the photo) I coloured blue. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 And the corresponding photo to compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 1. However the lower left arm of the rhomboid (the south west arm) seems to be visible in front of Gardiner and it seems to be below the fracture line on Gardiners cross. 2. Guess we all need a higher resolution scan. If you email me the one you have I will cut the section out to forum size and post here. Geoff Geoff, 1. No matter how hard I try ... "In front of Gardiner" ? If the rhomboid cross is 2 (or 3 ?) rows behind Gardiner's row (that's my opinion), I surely can never see part of it in front of Gardiner's cross... 2. I don't think I have your email address. Could you give it to me off Forum please ? Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Watch Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 Aurel Yeah, I think your right. The upper part of Gardiners cross is wider than the bottom half. (not really but thats how it looks). I think I realise now that it looks wider because part of it is the grave 2 rows behind. Oh well back to the drawing board. But it would be nice to have the higher res copy of the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geoff501 Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 Yeah, I think your right. The upper part of Gardiners cross is wider than the bottom half. (not really but thats how it looks). I think I realise now that it looks wider because part of it is the grave 2 rows behind. Yes, I agree now also. This part of the edge is very hard to see in the photo, even the hi-res version: Any more crazy ideas to keep the thread alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 Well, this one had me excited for a while! Neil, that was a really good idea. However, I don't think it quite works either. Nevertheless I'm extremely pleased that there is still life in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest geoff501 Posted 14 August , 2006 Share Posted 14 August , 2006 Nevertheless I'm extremely pleased that there is still life in this thread. Me too. You never know, many wild ideas may coalesce into something real. Terry said it would take 6 pages.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 15 August , 2006 Share Posted 15 August , 2006 Why is it these flurry's of excitement happen when I'm tucked up in bed in another hemisphere. Nevertheless, I'm going to get my 2 cents worth in, even if it's been answered!! Neil, Aurel is correct (I think). The entire top right half of Gardiner's cross is missing. It's the white colour from some of the crosses behind that appear to make it look more intact than it actually is. Here's the photo Aurel's been wanting to post to explain it. The red line indicates what I think to be the broken edge of Gardiner's cross. Tim L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacky Platteeuw Posted 15 August , 2006 Share Posted 15 August , 2006 Possibly this has already been discussed. It is remarkable how good the lettering of Gardiner's cross has been made. In my view the work of a professional or a highly qualified painter. You can see the difference in the postcard from Kemmel i Posted. The cross of the 5 is very readable and well made. The other white one to the left is not that way and not redable directly (possibly it would be by using Photoshop). Jacky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 15 August , 2006 Share Posted 15 August , 2006 Dear Topic Pal in the Southern Hemisphere, I guess ready to be tucked up very soon, and his antipodes in Ypres and elsewhere Up Above (is that the opposite of Down Under ?) This I think was discussed too, but maybe not entirely. (*) - Can we say that Gardiner's cross contained 4 ring segments (and that 3 of them disappeared, the only one remaining being the one with LOVING ?) (I think that the empty heart under the IN (?) is proof that the circle indeed was complete ?) - That the full text on these segments was IN LOVING MEMORY ? - In that case there was nothing written on the two lower segments ? - In that case, is the IN of IN LOVING MEMORY the IN we see below the name Gardiner, between the date and the heart ? If so, isn't it a bit odd to find it so low ? (Or maybe it is not IN ? I think O should have a look at that earlier posting indeed.) - And if the two upper segments read LOVING and MEMORY, what was between the two words, that letter that Neil (probably correctly) read as B ? *** And having no relevance to our almost solved mystery : Days ago it was pointed out that there were two (standard) crosses near the right side of Sabine's photo which appeared to be planted on the feet of Jones and the man next to him (now A.27 and A.28). If I am right, such a "feet cross" is also visible in front of the rhomboid cross (probably B.18 R. Baxenden). It's the cross partly hidden by the P of Gardiner's cross. Aurel (*) Yes it was. By Mike. Posting # 24, of 26 July. I've just seen that for the IN he suggested : KILLED IN ACTION. Possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Watch Posted 15 August , 2006 Share Posted 15 August , 2006 - Can we say that Gardiner's cross contained 4 ring segments (and that 3 of them disappeared, the only one remaining being the one with LOVING ?) (I think that the empty heart under the IN (?) is proof that the circle indeed was complete ?) - That the full text on these segments was IN LOVING MEMORY ? - In that case there was nothing written on the two lower segments ? - In that case, is the IN of IN LOVING MEMORY the IN we see below the name Gardiner, between the date and the heart ? If so, isn't it a bit odd to find it so low ? (Or maybe it is not IN ? I think O should have a look at that earlier posting indeed.) - And if the two upper segments read LOVING and MEMORY, what was between the two words, that letter that Neil (probably correctly) read as B ? I think its likely that the 2 bottom segments were "rest" in "peace" the "in" on the cross being the linking word. Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 15 August , 2006 Share Posted 15 August , 2006 I think its likely that the 2 bottom segments were "rest" in "peace" the "in" on the cross being the linking word. Neil, Yes, that would make sense too of course. (I hadn't thought of it because the letters R.I.P. were already on the cross. But even with them being there, Rest in Peace is possible.) Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 15 August , 2006 Share Posted 15 August , 2006 A detail taken from Jacky's Kemmel Chateau Cemetery postcard. This one shows Killed in Action Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 16 August , 2006 Share Posted 16 August , 2006 Well then..... I have just got an answer from CWGC which explains everything. For those of you wishing to know the answer, please see my post No. 626 above As I have had no takers so far, I assume nobody wants to know the solution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 16 August , 2006 Share Posted 16 August , 2006 Terry Can I send you the £20 on the understanding that you will NOT "reveal all"? Small price to pay to wind up so many folk. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stebie9173 Posted 16 August , 2006 Share Posted 16 August , 2006 Can anyone lend me a £20 note, please.... Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Posted 16 August , 2006 Share Posted 16 August , 2006 Easy tiger. Just 'cause your a Mod don't think that you can take a liberty! Have a look at the thread regarding NCOs and Officers bumped off by the troops As for you Hartley! Roxy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 16 August , 2006 Share Posted 16 August , 2006 I always thought Terry's post 626 was a good 'un as I said in post 627! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auimfo Posted 16 August , 2006 Share Posted 16 August , 2006 Here's my $20. If you explain in great detail without being confusing, I'll give you another $20. Tim L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now