Is there a catch to the windows?

[Lugg]

HAHAHA, four years ago, we were in a hotel in Brighton. It was at the waterfront right beside Brighton Pier. I had opened the old sash window before we went to bed - wanted to hear the waves.  Next morning when I woke up, my husband had gotten up ahead of me. He was sitting in a chair in his coat (it was summer), he had stuffed his pillow into that gaping window. It was raining like shite and very cold.
I asked him why he didn´t just close the window - he said he couldn´t. I got up and closed the window like I had never done anything else in my life....
We don´t have sash windows here, guess that is why he didn´t get it.....

One of those metal ones, like the one in the picture slammed shut once and nearly took my finger off.

[-Harters-]

Can either of you tell me why ND/5 became RCW/8  which is the scratched catch taken from the downstairs bathroom by R W Cook on the 28th September.   

Um.    Isn't ND/5 actually Junes night dress? 

[Alias]

One of those metal ones, like the one in the picture slammed shut once and nearly took my finger off.

Maybe Mr. Alias was just being smart not messing with that window!!

[Patti]

Um.    Isn't ND/5 actually Junes night dress? 

No. It was originally the bathroom widow catch...it was changed to RCW/8 by N Davidson.  :D

[-Harters-]

No. It was originally the bathroom widow catch...it was changed to RCW/8 by N Davidson.  :D

ND/5 was Junes night dress.

The window catch was also ND/5 for a while, but correctly renamed as there was already an ND/5 and it wasn't Davidsons exhibit anyway.

[lookout]

I don't suppose there's much difference between a window catch and a nightdress really.

[susan]

Hi lookout think there may be a big difference if you went to bed in the wrong one

[maggie]

I don't suppose there's much difference between a window catch and a nightdress really.

Very profound lookout 

[lookout]

Very profound lookout 

  tee hee hee.

[Patti]

ND/5 was Junes night dress.

The window catch was also ND/5 for a while, but correctly renamed as there was already an ND/5 and it wasn't Davidsons exhibit anyway.

Hartley. DN/5 was originally the window catch...Whether it became the exhibit number for the nightdress or not...Please look back at the documents I posted earlier on this thread....

[-Harters-]

Hartley. DN/5 was originally the window catch...Whether it became the exhibit number for the nightdress or not...Please look back at the documents I posted earlier on this thread....

Patti, junes night dress was ND/5, taken and registered a long time before the window catch even became an exhibit.

Yes the window catch was also noted as ND/5, but it was then changed, probably because the reference was already taken and the fact that it wasn't actually Davidsons exhibit.

Are you really not understanding what I'm saying? 

[-Harters-]

Patti, junes night dress was ND/5, taken and registered a long time before the window catch even became an exhibit.

Yes the window catch was also noted as ND/5, but it was then changed, probably because the reference was already taken and the fact that it wasn't actually Davidsons exhibit.

Are you really not understanding what I'm saying? 

[Patti]

Patti, junes night dress was ND/5, taken and registered a long time before the window catch even became an exhibit.

Yes the window catch was also noted as ND/5, but it was then changed, probably because the reference was already taken and the fact that it wasn't actually Davidsons exhibit.

Are you really not understanding what I'm saying? 

And my point is that it was changed from ND/5 to RCW/8 despite the explanation and mistakes, which there are far too many to suit in my opinion, whether you agree on that or not.   

You are merely reiterating what I said in the first place! Why don't you agree that what I said was correct....and that was the fact it was changed, instead of going round the houses....do you think I'm daft, thick or on one? 

[-Harters-]

And my point is that it was changed from ND/5 to RCW/8 despite the explanation and mistakes, which there are far too many to suit in my opinion, whether you agree on that or not.   

You are merely reiterating what I said in the first place! Why don't you agree that what I said was correct....and that was the fact it was changed, instead of going round the houses....do you think I'm daft, thick or on one? 

Huh? 

Anyway, back to reality, all I was pointing out was that ND/5 also related to another exhibit which was taken prior to the window catch.

I don't really understand your reply, it doesn't relate to my observation. 

[Patti]

You are showing me a document Hartley that looks like it has been altered at some point. Anyone can see that.     Is there any explanation as to why it looks changed?  Should it not read ND/5, ND/6 and ND/7 and not ND/6, ND/5 and ND/7....How odd!

I am not saying that ND/5 was NOT the exhibit number for the nightdress. What I am saying is regardless of that, that number was also given to the window catch, then it was changed.  I was only saying.....

Davidson was in charge of all the exhibits.....was he not? There is nothing fishy about it....I am just saying!