Where Am I? No 12

[John915]

Good morning,

Good evening,



Look at the area around it, full of fully grown DECIDUOUS trees, no sign whatsoever of any Scots Pines as in Cazza's pic. It has no tower, no greenhouse and no large building to rear right.






John915

The Ordnance Survey map of 1888 to 1913  specifically shows Pine trees (coniferous)  in a similar  location to those which are visible in Cazzas photo.

The presence of 3 symbols for CONIFEROUS trees means nothing. You have no way of telling whether they are Scots Pine, Spruce, Douglas Fir, Norway Fir (Christmas tree) or any other coniferous tree. If you look again they are out numbered about 20 to 1 by the DECIDUOUS trees symbols.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there.

The main entrance  was changed  from being  near the tower  to the other side.         You can see the evidence of that  on the satellite image.   The paths and tracks  have clearly been changed.

The satellite image shows driveways and paths but that does in no way mean they have been altered at any time. What evidence does that view give that they have been changed, NONE.

IT IS NOT CAZZA'S HOUSE.  END OF.

John915

[Ruskie]

Some hours ago I  sent Scouseboy my email address via PM.

I am still waiting for the copies of the 2 pages from Denbighshire archives which contain the evidence that we are waiting for to prove that Caz's house and Fron Yw are one and the same.

I note that you are currently online and active on the boards Scouseboy and hope you have not forgotten to forward these pages to me.

[Little Nell]

I think looking at maps does help us.  I had started to compile all this before I saw John's reply above, but it has taken me a while to get all the snippets together.

I am attaching snips of OS maps of varying dates as one image and all carefully dated.  All have north at the top, so the angle is consistent.  Contours are roughly north-west to south east orientation with higher ground on the right-hand side of each map.  It is not possible to say which is the ‘front’ of the house.

In 1871 we can see a house of a very asymmetric shape.  To the south east there is an area of woodland – deciduous trees according to the map.  To the north of the house, also deciduous trees.

In 1898 there are some coniferous trees now marked.  The house seems to have changed its shape a little, but is roughly the same foot-print.

In 1910, we see major differences.  The house is now rectangular in shape and the area that was previously shown as all wooded to the south-east is now showing an embankment on three sides, enclosing an area of lower ground.  (One could speculate that this is for a croquet lawn or tennis court. ) The trees are all marked as deciduous.  NB NO POND

In 1968, the house has been extended on the north-eastern side (a narrow extension) and to the north-west (an extension that is the full width of the house).  The embankment can be clearly seen (sorry, cut off a bit) and the rill like water feature appears for the first time under the  word ‘Vron’ and extends beyond it.  Also note that there are no coniferous trees around the house.

The map revisions published in 1938 and 1953, together with the 2.5 inch map of 1956 do not show the water-feature or other significant changes.

So, if we accept that the photo was taken before the house at Vron Yw was rebuilt in 1906 or so, then the following must apply:
 
there would not be a pond/water-feature
some 17th century architectural features might be visible as indicated by other published sources.

If the photo was taken after 1906, the photo must have been taken somtime between 1956 or so and 1967/8  – from map evidence.   Indications are that the photo is not of this date.

Nell

[JenB]

The Ordnance Survey map of 1888 to 1913  specifically shows Pine trees (coniferous)  in a similar  location to those which are visible in Cazzas photo.

Please look at Mike's posting here http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=717629.msg5715719#msg5715719 on which he clearly and conclusively demonstrates the direction from which the photo must have been taken to include the bank and supposed pond.

It's plainly obvious from this that the 'coniferous trees' you mention would only show on the right-hand side of the house and not extending right around it as on Cazza's photo.

In any case, the presence of a mere 2 coniferous tree symbols do not constitute any sort of proof.

 

[Joyful]

Thanks Nell those snippets are very helpful

Joy

[Ruskie]

Excellent explanation and concise summary Nell, which shows the development of the house and grounds.

However, it does not prove that this house and grounds is same house and grounds in Caz's photo. I am awaiting the two pages from Scouseboy which contain the proof.

[Little Nell]

However, it does not prove that this house and grounds is same house and grounds in Caz's photo

Agreed - I have never thought they were the same.  The majority of contributors to this thread also seem to feel likewise.  In the absence of being able to view the pictures that ScouseBoy has seen, I am falling back on other evidence sources which we can see to provide proof that it is NOT Vron Yw.  Our OS maps are a fantastic resource and can explain the landscape we see around us - and in photos.

Nell

[JenB]

Hi Little Nell, thank you for your excellent and concise summary, from which only one conclusion can be drawn - this is not the house in Cazza's photo.

By the way, for anyone wanting to access them, historical maps of Dembighshire can be seen here http://www.peoplescollection.wales/locate

[Mike in Cumbria]

Yes, thanks for doing that, Nell. This is yet further, conclusive proof that the mystery house can not possibly be Fron Yw.

Scouseboy may be having a huge laugh at all our expenses, in which case I take my hat off to him as a maestro of the wind-up.  If he really does still believe, however, that Fron Yw is the mystery house, it is time for him to answer the many questions put to him, not least of which is:

Do you genuinely believe that Cazza's photo shows a 17th century house?

I'm very conscious though that it's much easier proving again and again that this is NOT the house than it is to find the real place. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

Mike