My theory is the brickie forgot the last digit wasn’t meant to be a number 8 about 4 or 5 layers in, and then tried to rescue it to look like a number 5 maybe?
by skippermonkey
My theory is the brickie forgot the last digit wasn’t meant to be a number 8 about 4 or 5 layers in, and then tried to rescue it to look like a number 5 maybe?
by skippermonkey
16 comments
Ah 188J, my favourite year.
Definitely a Friday build, back from a lunch time session.
[ah, so that’s where they’ve gone](https://redd.it/1dowvyj)
I heard that 188k was a better year.
If you zoom into it, like really zoom in to absolute maximum zoom, and if you look really carefully at the zoomed image, then you’ll see that it magnifies the picture. That’s how zooming works.
It looks like a brick jumper.
[1885 right enough.](https://englishbuildings.blogspot.com/2013/04/oxford_21.html)
Looks like a 5 to me
Looks like the bottom of the J was going to be a 5. The top of the J looks newer, but it’s hard to imagine a repair job being needed there. Maybe a stress crack from the chimney stack? If so, the brickie was skilled enough to match the mortar but not very good at writing numbers.
Maybe they started in 1888, but it was 1891 by the time they finished.
Jive talking.
You mean 188!
That brickwork really ties the street together man.
Maybe that’s just the address of the loft apartment on the other side of the wall
It’s actually a building from the future where they use a base 20 number system. It was/will be built in the year 11379.
Eighteen eighty-J the best year