Ghosts

Or perhaps not? When is a ghost sign not a ghost sign?

There is a lively debate among ghost sign enthusiasts as to whether the restoration or recreation of faded painted lettering destroys the ghostliness of the sign. One of the more famous examples, previously featured in this journal, is a restored sign, but the restoration is itself starting to fade.

In some ways photographing ghost signs is another way of preserving them. For example, how I wish I'd seen this sign in Ilkley before a newly built extension obscured most of it. Another part survival in Bradford was much fuller a couple of years ago, but again has fallen victim to building modernisation, as the before and after images here show.

Which brings me to today's image. We noticed this arrive in the village about a year ago. I don't know if there was a ghost sign beneath it, or if it is a recreation. It has at least inspired me to wonder who James Wilks was.

Unlike Mrs Sgwarnog, I'm not a genealogist, but a quick Internet search reveals that at an 1871 meeting of the Baildon Local Board of Guardians James Wilks and Son were ordered to pay a one shilling and nine pence water charge for "jobbing purposes" and a further one shilling and three pence to water their horse. There is also a 45 year old James Wilks from Baildon, perhaps the son, recorded as arriving at Ellis Island in 1917.

Which leads me to conclude that the sign may not be ghostly, but the echoes of various generations of James Wilks' certainly are.