Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by mick2007, Feb 27, 2011.
Nah, your original has a flat top, this one is curved.
I'm sort of going on the theory that it's been rebuilt..
I already mentioned it was a packhorse bridge
Well, everything I can find about the Pedlars Bridge says that it's located here, where the Smite Brook crosses a bridleway in amongst the clump of trees.
Unfortunately, there's no evidence of the buildings shown in your photo, including a substantial industrial building (the chimney). I'd expect some trace in the aerial view, even if they'd all been demolished.
Here's another, high-res image on Flickr
The buttresses evident in your mystery bridge are very different or absent in the modern bridge. The stones don't match up in any way and the light/shadow suggests that your pic was taken from roughly south, which is the same direction as the pictures of Pedlars Bridge are taken, which largely discounts the possibility that your photo is of the other side.
Sorry, I don't think that's it.
Obviously it's not, but don't you think it's very similar to Hebden Bridge (although different arches)?
Fairly certain the bridge is Spon Bridge, Coventry - see http://www.flickr.com/photos/pikerslanefarm/2916846110/in/set-72157607158409840/
I had that one pegged a few days ago but dismissed it. Looking again ... it could be, hmmm.
( Apols... I have been distracted from this thread by work! )
I don't believe it is.
Three arches, not two. Stonework's all different.
A closer look: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24130425@N07/3362413479
and it's been like that for at least 40 or 50 years
Unless the bridge was totally replaced at the end of the 19th century(and weathered very badly in little over 60/70 years) in which case all bets are off
Hello Midland Red.
I know it's hard to tell as bridges and greenery near to them could become overgrown, but I'm sure that Nick's picture is a two arched bridge. Also, the arches on your bridge are different heights.
Cyber beat me to it
Was going to mention it's stonework as well rather than blockwork type of construction
Look carefully at mick's pic though. The left arch is slightly lower than the right, and buried under the grass on the very right could be another arch.
The depth of the bridge in the two pictures differs hugely though.
BTW, another post on that thread at SSC also puts the modern day Nat West in context with the Kings Head Hotel with a photo from the 1930s.
And the cut????? (can't remember the sodding name of them now ) are different
I learnt that word today btw
Yeah, but look at the courses of brickwork immediately above the arch, there's only 3
but both arches visible in mick's photo are of the same height and width.
If it was one of the Spon Bridge arches buried, they'd be different dimensions.
e2a: Spon Bridge is also clearly much wider.
Given the difference in depth, I was considering that it might be possible the bridge was widened and re-faced with new bricks at some point.
However, I think that the Old Spon bridge is somewhat older than the glass negative so that work done to it would probably look a bit more modern than it currently does.
The keystone in the arch in Midland's picture is also not there in Nick's picture
The bricks supporting the arches are completely different
Those cutwaters (if that's the right term for those pier things) are completely different
Looks like a slight height and width difference to me but I suppose it could be foreshortening or an optical illusion caused by the wonky brickwork.
Yes I know. It wouldn't have been IF it were expanded and re-faced.
I do concede that it isn't the same, my mind was just meandering down a route where it might be possible that one bridge became the other one, but I don't think it did on reflection.
but you'd think with such an old bridge, they'd have made an effort to match the original brickwork (although I know that's a bollox idea as I've seen plenty of bridges that have been appallingly repaired with nothing like the original stonework). Then again, different stonework may still have been added centuries ago with people not realising these bridges would still be standing centuries later and so therefore might not have been thinking about whether the stonework matched
I have to concede that, on reflection, it probably isn't Spon Bridge after all - it looks mighty similar at first look, with the buildings as well, but I have to agree now that it's somewhere else, and I can't think of another bridge in Coventry likely to fit the bill
Sorry for the wild goose chase
I will give you the Old Bablake School from last year
I don't believe mick's photo dates from before 1771
Sorry Minnie I should of been paying more attention.
OK back to it...
Annoyingly it would now appear not to be the same one..
A few things come into the equation. First by it would appear to be a packhorse bridge. These are hundreds of years old..so there can't be that many around the Coventry area with two arches in a similar setting. They should also be well documented or at least mentioned somewhere.
All the negatives so far of this age and type have been around Coventry, so I can only presume this is as well. This sort of narrows down the odds some what.
All the other photographs as of yet have some kind of significance..not just a nice scenic view. So photographing an ancient quirky bridge would fit in wth the rest of the pictures.
I know for a fact through local bridges from my part of the world that a few have been knocked down and rebuilt in the last hundred years and they are different in shape. For various reasons.
The width of the bridge does look very similar on both. The width of the stream and environment also look basically the same.
The real clue has to be the buildings in the background though..and as Cybertect as said. It doesn't look like the one..
All I can really say then, is should around the Coventry area. It shouldn't be somewhere in Derbyshire or anything like that.
As for the other shots with the other bridge on. All those were taken a lot later on another type of film. So as of yet I don't think they are relevant to this shot. I think those were taken around 30 years later.
Well, packhorses bridges wree built for centuries so it's hard to pinpoint what century it was built in. I've found stone packhorse bridges built in the 1500s and ones built a couple of hundred years later looking very similar. Maybe Cybertect can tell us if construction changed dramatically at any time, but as Cybertect seems to be ignoring anything I say...!
Could have been on holiday or on some assignment?
Still could have been on holiday. Also read that loads of packhorse bridges no longer exist anyway, so it's possible this one doesn't
That's a difficult one. So much can change in that picture. Water levels, embankments, overgrowth, buildings knocked down, chimneys knocked down etc.
The main pictures that come up if you google packhorse bridges are Allerford and Hebden, both of which have chimneys and bridges in the pictures. The house may have gone decades ago as well. I found a couple of similar pictures of houses like that that could be near mills or rivers, but I can't remember where (although I think one of them was in Belgium and another was a wooden building, so I ruled them out!). The whole scenery in that particular area may have changed.
As for the other shots with the other bridge on. All those were taken a lot later on another type of film. So as of yet I don't think they are relevant to this shot. I think those were taken around 30 years later.[/QUOTE]
I think we should send Cybertect out with a camera and tell her to get up off her arse and find the answer for you
I've also come to the conclusion looking at the high res, that were on the 2005 photo e.t.c...that is just basically a path. The early one looks more like a road than a path, which would make sense if it's by a house.
The others, like I say seem to have some sort of significance..ie historical one or whatever. Maybe this bridge is long gone, but there was some reason for taking it. Some quirky historical happening or something.
Which one are you talking about, the single arched bridge or the two-arched bridge?
Oh right, the double arched bridge.
So you think the double arched bridge could just be a pedestrian path rather than a packhorse bridge?
If it was just for pedestrians, would it have needed to have been built in stone. Why not just wood?
If it was just built for pedestrians rather than horses, why build such a sturdy-looking structure?
No sorry, what I meant was the doubled arched bridge in the old photo looks wide enough for a small road/lane. The recent photographs from the last few years suggest it's way to small to be classed at anytime as a road or lane which really it must of been in the old photograph because it's by a house and the walls from either end of the bridge also suggest that too...I think.
Separate names with a comma.