Would the REAL Sarah Kidd Please Stand Up
- Thread starter gjb
- Start date
Bocaj
Sr. Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
- Messages
- 404
- Reaction score
- 242
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Detector(s) used
- Left and right side of the brain
This has always confused me. Those different versions of the same map. (Which is as I showed the same outline as the RI map).
There is are so many things wrong with it:
- different handwriting in the same map and between at least two of them
- simple outline vs filled details.
- out of context and frame "of me Sarah ~W" (not Sarah K or Sarah O)
- the handwriting is different to the other maps except the last of the above
- one of those maps was proven a modern copy (ink test) but which one?
- 1669 has no relation to Kidd
- why is a point written after 1669?
The first map is a photograph of the original parchment. If you read the documents in the folder MEPO 2/9166 (National Archives), it is made clear that the original parchment was tested/examined by the forensic scientist Wilson R. Harrison as well as someone from The Metropolitan Police Laboratory in 1951. It was not a copy or reproduction (line-drawn tracing) on modern paper since the reports describe it as a "parchment" and Elizabeth Dick is quoted as saying she believed the parchment map that was sent to be forensically examined was genuine (17th century) and drawn or owned by Captain Kidd. Although the parchment material might date to the 17th century, the ink was determined not to be but much more recent, while the writing style was concluded to be early 20th century including the unconventional compass rose (which as I explained in other posts has more in common with compass roses on fictional maps) and the "CHINA SEA" had modern pencil marks under the ink. The handwriting ("of me Sarah W...") tries to imitate 17th century cursive, but the strokes more likely reflect 20th-century penmanship. The compass rose is unambiguously not something that would have appeared on a 17th century nautical chart. I am not sure what the copyright status of the folder is (including the photograph) but it is Crown Copyright. It is possible copyright has expired (public domain), alternatively, it might still be protected although can be published under the Open Government Licence (OGL v3.0) but you would need to include an attribution statement. I would have posted the whole folder here if I got clarity on the copyright. I have a digital scan of the entire folder (98 pages) including the photograph. You can purchase a digital scan of the whole folder from the National Archives for £117.60 (which is how much it cost me in August 2025). However, if you only want specific pages this will cost less.
Last edited:
The contents of MEP 2/9166 including two 1951 forensic reports on the map were not made public until 2004. Prior to 2004, very few people knew about these reports that were private and their contents were disclosed to only a handful of individuals. The fact that the two forensic reports concluded the map is not authentic and drawn in early 20th century, explains why Elizabeth Dick's attitude changed post-1951. After the reports, she no longer expressed an interest in going on a treasure hunting expedition and she was quoted in newspapers as saying she was bored or tired with the maps. I can only presume based on these reports that she realised the maps are a hoax but she did not publicly admit this because she wanted to make money by selling them. It is highly suspicious to say the least that Dick never publicly mentioned these forensic reports, despite she went on to live another 14-years (she died on 20 July 1965). She would have certainly been informed about the forensic reports of the parchment that revealed it was a hoax map since she gave police permission for the testing/examination.
Post-2004, when the contents of the MEP 2/0166 were made public and the folder was unsealed - 'true believers' in the map's authenticity like Paul Hawkins and George Edmunds, were panicking, and had to come up with an explanation or rather an ad hoc hypothesis made up on the spot to not concede being disproven. How could the ink on the map postdate the 17th century and there be modern pencil marks under the ink if Captain Kidd drew it? This is when, the true believers started incorrectly claiming that the original parchment was not tested but a modern copy of the map was tested. This makes no sense and is refuted by anyone who reads the contents of the folder (the map is clearly described as the original "parchment"). To this day George Edmunds (who in the 2000s erroneously believed these maps are authentic and drawn by Kidd) is still wrongly claiming that it was a copy (somehow by the British Museum) that was forensically tested and not the original:
Post-2004, when the contents of the MEP 2/0166 were made public and the folder was unsealed - 'true believers' in the map's authenticity like Paul Hawkins and George Edmunds, were panicking, and had to come up with an explanation or rather an ad hoc hypothesis made up on the spot to not concede being disproven. How could the ink on the map postdate the 17th century and there be modern pencil marks under the ink if Captain Kidd drew it? This is when, the true believers started incorrectly claiming that the original parchment was not tested but a modern copy of the map was tested. This makes no sense and is refuted by anyone who reads the contents of the folder (the map is clearly described as the original "parchment"). To this day George Edmunds (who in the 2000s erroneously believed these maps are authentic and drawn by Kidd) is still wrongly claiming that it was a copy (somehow by the British Museum) that was forensically tested and not the original:
Last edited:
I am not sure who made the three reproductions (top-left is a photograph of the original parchment map) -
- Top-right: a digital high-contrast scan of the photograph with the outer background isolated.
- Bottom-left: a detailed tracing reproduction that retains the shading on the island.
- Bottom-right: a simplified outline/line-drawn tracing reproduction.
Last edited:
Bocaj
Sr. Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
- Messages
- 404
- Reaction score
- 242
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Detector(s) used
- Left and right side of the brain
Indeed this is very interesting as the 3 filled versions seem to be created by the same artist who created the RI map. The handwriting at least is very similar. The last one has the same hand writing as the Palmer maps (the handwriting style is indeed similar to Kidd's). As the Sarah map is not in any of the published prints I have to assume it was a version made for the book that has not been used and somehow made it into the furniture sold to Palmer. But why do the other maps have the same handwriting as the outline map? Or is the handwriting on them different on the reproduction than the original? In Hawkins website I read that both versions of the Sarah map were "discovered" by Palmer in furniture he bought.
As far as I have seen the original and the traced copies have the same writing. how does this make sense?
Bocaj
Sr. Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
- Messages
- 404
- Reaction score
- 242
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Detector(s) used
- Left and right side of the brain
Some comparision:
- The tracing of the original map taken from the short movie clip seem to be quite exact including the handwriting style (see "Sea")
- The RI map/Skeleton Map are not tracings but clearly related
- The handwriting is clearly different on the Palmer and the RI maps with the exception of the three Sarah Kidd maps (see first post)
- the Sarah map's handwriting seem to be very similar to the RI map except the last "traced" map which is the same as the other Palmer maps
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Supporting Vendors
View all →
