Sor or Sir?

For me it is SOR because the 'i' in kidney looks completely different. I think it was written with am 'o' because he was hearing it in his head not thinking about the proper spelling.

In the graphic that you kindly posted, Sam, there does not seem to be a dot up there above "Sir/Sor"

Hi Chris,

Here's a cleaner close-up. As you rightly observe, there's no dot there:


For direct comparison, here are the three "o's" in question:

[Chris G.]

I'm sure this would have been canvassed before, but here goes...
There are two types of 'r' in the From Hell letter.
One is the print-type r (much as it looks in type, only flowing into cursive). The other, which the writer of the letter appears to default into while attempting to spell (or to mis-spell convincingly) 'preserved', is the more classic looping r of older handwriting. I would suggest that the writer defaulted into this 'r' because his (I won't bother saying 'or her') mind was on spelling and the effort of using his wrong hand to write with, making the additional task of disguising the writing difficult.
For this reason, while it looks dodgy, 'Sor' could be 'Sir' with the looping 'r' changing halfway into the less classical version (and the 'i' undotted).
Sor or Sir, it's probably unimportant. But I would still hazard the view that his habitual 'r' was the looping one.
Jason Ellis

Hello Jason and Sam

Jason, that's a very good observation of yours about the nature of the "r" in this letter. I have always read this as "Sor" but I think you are right that it is the nature of the way the "r" is written in the salutation that gives the appearance of an "o" and that it is in fact an "i". Another item that has been discussed before is that the dot in the "i" throughout the letter is placed high. This is something that D'Onston does also in his 16 October 1888 letter to the City of London police, and considering that D'Onston also uses the word "preserved" in that letter as does the "From Hell" letter writer led me to think of him as a possible suspect for sending the missive along with the kidney. In the graphic that you kindly posted, Sam, there does not seem to be a dot up there above "Sir/Sor" although I think Jason is indeed correct, and you appear to confirm with that illustration, that the salutation is actually "Sir." Good work, gentlemen! The reason I think it is an "i" is that the "o" throughout the letter begins from with a loop the bottom while this one begins from the top, so I don't think it is an "o."

All the best

Chris

[Paul Butler]

.....and I thought I was the only one that thought it was undoubtedly "Sir".

He has just omitted the dot over the "i" that's all.

Regards.

Paul

Wassup, AP? Are you down on "o's"?

Here's From Hell with the offending/iffending/uffending letters roughly highlighted in blue:



The "o" in "From", "Sor" (?), and "tother" look reasonably similar to me.

Yours,

Vic the Voweller

[AP Wolf]

It is 'sir', no doubt about it, but others like a stage and an audience.
One can but pray they get the clap.

I'm sure this would have been canvassed before, but here goes...
There are two types of 'r' in the From Hell letter.
One is the print-type r (much as it looks in type, only flowing into cursive). The other, which the writer of the letter appears to default into while attempting to spell (or to mis-spell convincingly) 'preserved', is the more classic looping r of older handwriting. I would suggest that the writer defaulted into this 'r' because his (I won't bother saying 'or her') mind was on spelling and the effort of using his wrong hand to write with, making the additional task of disguising the writing difficult.
For this reason, while it looks dodgy, 'Sor' could be 'Sir' with the looping 'r' changing halfway into the less classical version (and the 'i' undotted).
Sor or Sir, it's probably unimportant. But I would still hazard the view that his habitual 'r' was the looping one.
Jason Ellis