Nameplates as Collectables

[adb968008]

A side thought, but what is the oldest known nameplate ?

 

I assume Rockets are not original, when I look at the various contemporary drawings of the time, none of them show a nameplate on the locomotive, even the Ackermann drawings of the service fleet shows painted name plates.

[Steamport Southport]

52 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

A side thought, but what is the oldest known nameplate ?

 

I assume Rockets are not original, when I look at the various contemporary drawings of the time, none of them show a nameplate on the locomotive, even the Ackermann drawings of the service fleet shows painted name plates.

 

Rocket definitely had nameplates. Had them on the photographs when it was first preserved.

 

Don't take any drawings as being gospel. Many of them were made years after. That's something which the people that want to rewrite history do. "But it doesn't look like the drawings so it must be fake"....

 

 

Oldest surviving nameplates? Locomotion I assume.

 

 

Jason

[adb968008]

18 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Rocket definitely had nameplates. Had them on the photographs when it was first preserved.

 

Don't take any drawings as being gospel. Many of them were made years after. That's something which the people that want to rewrite history do. "But it doesn't look like the drawings so it must be fake"....

 

 

Oldest surviving nameplates? Locomotion I assume.

 

 

Jason

Photographs in 1829 ? i don’ t think so.

 

not sure we can take them as gospel either.. as they’d be at least from 1860… which is no indicator of what was 40 years earlier…just an indicator of what it looked like when preserved, and by 1860’s lots of locos had nameplates, which could have been added anytime.

 

but does beg the question, if drawing a picture of something years later, why miss out something that was evidently there, unless it wasnt ? .. a nameplate is probably the most stand out feature of a loco, after the chimney afterall.

 

In short, your answer is no better than my question, and doesnt slamp dunk. I’m afraid.

Edited August 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Steamport Southport]

2 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Photographs in 1829 ? i don’ t think so.

 

not sure we can take them as gospel either.. as they’d be at least from 1860… which is no indicator of what was 40 years earlier…just an indicator of what it looked like when preserved, and by 1860’s lots of locos had nameplates.

 

In short, your answer is no better than my question, but does beg the question, if drawing a picture of something years later, why miss out something that was evidently there 40 years later… unless it wasnt ?

 

No. But when it was handed over to the Patent Office it had nameplates on it.

 

A photograph exists of it with Robert Stephenson on the footplate. George Stephenson was photographed and he died in 1848. Brunel was very well photographed.

 

Are you really saying photographs of early railways don't exist? First railway photographs were taken in the 1840s.

 

https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/railway-art-and-photography

 

North Star's plates are definitely real and that was built in 1837.

 

[adb968008]

48 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

No. But when it was handed over to the Patent Office it had nameplates on it.

 

A photograph exists of it with Robert Stephenson on the footplate. George Stephenson was photographed and he died in 1848. Brunel was very well photographed.

 

Are you really saying photographs of early railways don't exist? First railway photographs were taken in the 1840s.

 

https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/railway-art-and-photography

 

North Star's plates are definitely real and that was built in 1837.

 

Thanks, but North Star isnt Rocket either.

But at least North Star is dated, 1837, which goes someway to answering my question..

Quote

A side thought, but what is the oldest known nameplate ?

 

I never said “photographs of early railways don't exist?” I’m talking about Rocket, but your pushing your own twist, for your own reasons… a photo from the 1860’s is no better than a photo from the 1960’s, or even 2020’s when it comes to demonstrating the 1820’s…

 

Does anyone know if Rocket had nameplates in 1829, it had the number “no 1” when it went to the patent office, i’m assuming thats not from 1829 either, as are many of its mods, a nameplate could have been added at anytime inbetween.

 

 

As a comparator, No 57 Lion is often questioned if it is Lion at all..it was “found” without a nameplate.

http://www.lionlocomotive.co.uk/Images/Reclaim/Ext.jpg

 

 

but thanks on the North Star example.

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Steamport Southport]

19 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Thanks, but North Star isnt Rocket either.

But at least North Star is dated, 1837, which goes someway to answering my question..

 

I never said “photographs of early railways don't exist?” I’m talking about Rocket, but your pushing your own twist, for your own reasons… a photo from the 1860’s is no better than a photo from the 1960’s, or even 2020’s when it comes to demonstrating the 1820’s…

 

Does anyone know if Rocket had nameplates in 1829, it had the number “no 1” when it went to the patent office, i’m assuming thats not from 1829 either, as are many of its mods, a nameplate could have been added at anytime inbetween.

 

 

As a comparator, No 57 Lion is often questioned if it is Lion at all..it was “found” without a nameplate.

http://www.lionlocomotive.co.uk/Images/Reclaim/Ext.jpg

 

 

but thanks on the North Star example.

 

 

 

 

No idea what you are on about. Maybe learn to read as I didn't say it was photographed in 1829....

 

There's a photo of Robert Stephenson next to Rocket, which is the photo that I alluded to. Can't find it though. Might not be on the internet.

 

 

Here's Rocket with it's nameplates and before it was altered back to an earlier condition.

 

https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/stephensons-rocket-returns-newcastle/

 

He was also photographed next to the LNWR replica. Why would he be there if it was wrong?

 

Dismissed as a fake, but that's Robert Stephenson and the 1870s replica.

 

https://www.ssplprints.com/image/198372/george-stephenson-and-the-rocket

 

 

Lion is Lion and anyone who things otherwise is deluded. Easy to say something is fake without pointing out exactly what he thinks it is.

 

 

My own reasons? No idea what the hell you are on about. 

 

They were even putting nameplates on bogs in the 18th century. To say they weren't putting nameplates on locomotives is a total load of crap.

 

 

 

Jason

[adb968008]

Someone is losing their cool.

[62613]

On 16/08/2021 at 16:04, Steamport Southport said:

 

No. But when it was handed over to the Patent Office it had nameplates on it.

 

A photograph exists of it with Robert Stephenson on the footplate. George Stephenson was photographed and he died in 1848. Brunel was very well photographed.

 

Are you really saying photographs of early railways don't exist? First railway photographs were taken in the 1840s.

 

https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/railway-art-and-photography

 

North Star's plates are definitely real and that was built in 1837.

 

It was Robert that died in 1848. His father outlived him

[lanchester]

19 minutes ago, 62613 said:

It was Robert that died in 1848. His father outlived him

No - Robert died in 1859, same year as IK Brunel. Geordie died 1848.

 

The 'Rocket' nameplate seems unlikely to be original, or even from a time 'in service' if only because it is attached directly to the iron boiler whereas in service Rocket, at least as originally built, had timber boiler cladding. The 'No 1' on the buffer beam when delivered to the Science Museum obviously isn't 'Rainhill condition' as Rocket didn't have a front buffing arrangement then.

 

The nameplate on Locomotion No 1' now doesn't accord with that in the 1925 pictures - the latter having the name integral with a numeral 1 above - neither version likely to be original. I don't think the early S&D locomotives were physically numbered at all (although they might have been for accountancy purposes, I suppose). Later S&D locos like Derwent carried numbers on the dome - not an option for Locomotion, of course.  As for North Star, judging from pix of the original in Swindon paint shop pre-scrapping, I think the name was in the form of individual letters, rather than a 'plate'. Don't know if the letters on the montage in Steamport's illustration are those originals. Reckon the works plate likely is kosher, though.

[Compound2632]

On 16/08/2021 at 15:46, Steamport Southport said:

Don't take any drawings as being gospel. Many of them were made years after. That's something which the people that want to rewrite history do. "But it doesn't look like the drawings so it must be fake"....

 

The first edition of the Ackermann prints (which were the drawings being referred to) were published in 1831 so they are about the best contemporary evidence you're likely to find - the general views by T.T. Bury and the long train pictures, possibly by I. Shaw. In the latter, at least Fury is drawn with what appears to be a nameplate rather than a name painted onto the boiler lagging.  But the artists were depicting something they'd no prior experience of drawing and the prints we see are at second-hand from the artists' drawings, having been engraved by Ackermann's lithographers, probably at his London shop. The 1833 and 1834 editions of the long train prints show considerable differences, though the locomotives are largely unchanged, except for colour.