Sor or Sir?

[Jason Ellis]

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

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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

[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

[Sam Flynn]

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:

[WRITEFX]

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.

[Chris G.]

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.

Good point. There is also the example of the "Si" in "Signed" where he is also going directly from the "S" to the next letter, so maybe it is after all "Sor." Back to square one.

Chris

[AP Wolf]

Wow Chris, you wobble more than George Bush senior, I wouldn't like to be taking on Helman province with you as an ally.

[Paul Butler]

Hi all.

The i/o in question here is the only one that follows a fancy copperplate S.

The way the S is formed with a sort of double loop causes the upward loop to what I think is an I, start much higher up than in "signed" giving the impression that it could be an O.

I'm still convinced its a correctly spelled "Sir".

Would someone educated enough to be able to make a decent stab at copperplate style writing misspell such an easy word unintentionally?

Regards to all.

Paul

[Dan Norder]

The end half loop of the supposed O in Sor looks like the beginning of the R instead. If you say it's an O because it looks like other Os then what you are left with doesn't look like the other Rs... but then if it's an I it's missing the dot from the other Is. So you have to ask yourself if it's more likely the author would draw an R that's half formed or forget to dot the I. To me it could go either way based upon the handwriting alone, but based upon the meaning of the words Sir has the obvious edge.

[WRITEFX]

Hi all.

The i/o in question here is the only one that follows a fancy copperplate S.

The way the S is formed with a sort of double loop causes the upward loop to what I think is an I, start much higher up than in "signed" giving the impression that it could be an O.

I'm still convinced its a correctly spelled "Sir".

Would someone educated enough to be able to make a decent stab at copperplate style writing misspell such an easy word unintentionally?

Regards to all.

Paul

I sometimes write in a fancy style like that at times and do make mistakes easily if I'm distracted. If this writer was an upper-class BBC type then he would be hearing 'sor' instead of 'sir' in his head. Or he might have been speaking aloud in that accent as normally he spoke differently. So once again I think he did write 'sor' and not 'sir'.

[Paul Butler]

I sometimes write in a fancy style like that at times and do make mistakes easily if I'm distracted. If this writer was an upper-class BBC type then he would be hearing 'sor' instead of 'sir' in his head. Or he might have been speaking aloud in that accent as normally he spoke differently. So once again I think he did write 'sor' and not 'sir'.

I know its been suggested that "Sor" and "Mishter" are supposed to convey to the reader some sort of Irishness about this letter. I'm not really very convinced by that idea I have to say, but what it really all comes down to is the lack of a dot over the disputed letter.

Regards.

Paul

[WRITEFX]

Hi Paul, I never thought of it as Irish.

[Paul Butler]

Hi FX.

This was discussed on casebook a year or so back. I think the idea was that the writer was trying to implicate the Irish using some sort of feeble attempt at a stage Irish accent. A sort of OTT fake Irish "Sergeant Seamus O'Shaunessy of Precinct 47" or whatever as we used to see in some of the old black and white gangster films.

Like I said, it's an idea that doesn't really do it for me, but Irish is about the only dialect in the English language I can think of where Sir might just possibly be pronounced Sor.

If it's just a spelling mistake, why not "ser", or "Sur"? Both of which would be more likely, being pronounced the same as "Sir"?

Regards.

Paul