• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Cottingley Fairies

I thought the girls just used cardboard cutouts in the pictures? That's what they look like.

That had always been my impression, too. The Elsie / Giant Hand photo might have been done that way, but it presumes the cardboard cutout included the fingers in addition to the fairy.
 
I lived in Bradford (Cottingley is on the outskirts) for 15 years from the early 60's and even back then it was amazing that the fairies were talked about often, and that some still believed that they were real. Even then I saw that the fairies looked in effect contemporary to the the time and wondered why people had been taken in - but a more innocent time obviously. I'm sure the girls would have been amused that their story would be talked about well into the next century. A lot of talent they had there.

Back then I bet there were still plenty of people who remembered the fuss about them first-hand. If they only saw the photos reproduced in newspapers and magazines they wouldn't have had much chance to analyse them closely as we can now. The first time I came across them was in a book or magazine, possibly a paranormal-type part work like The Unexplained, can't remember, and the lack of detail was frustrating.

At least one of the cousins was interviewed on TV shortly before they died. I was fascinated. The story was yet within living memory. No longer, of course.

Yup, I love the Cottingley Fairies, whether or not they existed.
 
The house where the girls lived on Main St in Cottingley (no. 31 I think) still exists and they would still recognize the road, although the surrounding area has of course been built on. The wooded area at the back of the property around Cottingley Beck (where the photos were taken) is also still there in part. It would have been interesting to visit and take "then and now" piccies but only the "large hand" photo location could be identifiable I suppose with its curving dry stone wall, if it still exists. One fascinating story I think.
 
i think those 'seams' are what I see as where one hand meets the other; it IS pretty blatant, we just don't come to the same conclusion as to what's caused it.

I'm nothing like any kind of expert in photography, but I don't really see any signs of manipulation, just poor definition in the image :)
It's taken a good dose of looking at but I see now what you mean. The digits of the left hand behind have lined up exactly with the right so that the fingers on the right hand look grossly extended. You are right I dont think the image of the hand has been altered. However to throw another curved ball there seems to be something distorted about what appears to be the fence above the fairy. Its scale and alignment seem totally incorrect when compared to the dry stone wall on the left of the photo. I'm probably seeing things.(The distortion around the right wrist is I think a spot of damage on the negative or the print- look closely and you can see it extends marginally onto her dress)
 
Last edited:
Ha - having looked again with my morning eyes its not a fence of course above the fairy, its a hedge line in the distance . Oh the shame of getting old!
 
That had always been my impression, too. The Elsie / Giant Hand photo might have been done that way, but it presumes the cardboard cutout included the fingers in addition to the fairy.

I'm sure I read (or heard, as I can remember seeing at least one of the TV interviews as well) one of the ladies saying that they'd had a lot of trouble with that gnome, as it was the hardest to get to stand up and kept falling over.
 
I'm sure I read (or heard, as I can remember seeing at least one of the TV interviews as well) one of the ladies saying that they'd had a lot of trouble with that gnome, as it was the hardest to get to stand up and kept falling over.



:beer::beer::beer:Pissed.
 
One thing I had forgotten was that the images on Wiki etc are nothing like the original prints made in 1917. In particular the first photo the girls made with all the fairies is much more intriguing than the susequent cleaned up ones are. Very much less like cardboard cutouts than the later versions. It does make me wonder how much of the detail we see on the figures was altered in subsequent renderings by others and how much is original artwork by the girls themselves. (both had apparently drawn fairies for years before embarking on their prank). We will never know I suppose.
 
Just read this surprisingly nuanced article by Eva Wiseman, which starts with the Cottingly Fairies but talks more generally about belief and wonder. In particular she says
"The question is not “Are they [fairies] real?” but “Do people see them?", which feels like a useful distinction.

‘I believe in fairies, you should, too’ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...gic-ghosts-eva-wiseman?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 
FFS. The fairies are dressed like Flappers.

To be fair, the fashion sense of the Fay is a closed book to us.

If they can appear to us - or not - as they choose, perhaps they would appear to us in a form we could comprehend without terror. Maybe Orthon's real appearance was similar to Lovecraft's Cthulhu, but he chose to manifest to Adamski as a Nordic humanoid in order to induce dialogue rather than diarrhoea!

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
I guess essentially, the shots are a development of the late Victorian cheesecloth-and-ventriloquists'-dummies-as-ectoplasm-y ghosts photographs..?

Timewise, it was the perfect storm in terms of the rise of spiritualism, and people looking for the supernatural and confirmation of other worlds, because of the carnage of the trenches. Down the road in Leeds, I know there were members of my family reading crystal balls and reading the cards - maybe a more widespread sign of the times and the culture, than we have realised, until recently..?

I can remember seeing one of the old ladies interviewed on the local news, in the 1970s.

I'm still open to the idea they saw something they didn't understand - because I don't think it's an old excuse to say "We faked it to make you believe we saw it" - we've seen the same impulse with the Enfield Poltergeist where it does seem that amongst the stuff the girls faked, there were genuinely strange phenomena going on, witnessed by third parties, that can't be so easily dismissed. I think it's human nature to try and convince people of what you saw.

Although what they thought they saw may have been down to some psychological rather than material, phenomenon? (A sort of folie a deux). One of the girls certainly had the skill-set required, though. I have read Joe Cooper's book - but ages ago now so can't recall it well - got the feeling one of the women was utterly ashamed of the whole thing and wanted to wash her hands of it. The other persisted in saying "But we did see something, there!" And that rift you sensed between them was also intriguing.
 
To be fair, the fashion sense of the Fay is a closed book to us.

If they can appear to us - or not - as they choose, perhaps they would appear to us in a form we could comprehend without terror. Maybe Orthon's real appearance was similar to Lovecraft's Cthulhu, but he chose to manifest as to Adamski a Nordic humanoid in order to induce dialogue rather than diarrhoea!

maximus otter
Yes. I've always thought 'aliens' are remarkably 1950s' in their 'futuristic' fashion sense...
 
The photos are up for sale!

Photos for sale


Photographs of what is considered to be one of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century are expected to fetch more than £2,000 when they are sold at auction.

The two images of the Cottingley Fairies were taken in July and September 1917 by 16-year-old Elsie Wright and her nine-year-old cousin Frances Griffiths, in the village of Cottingley, near Bingley in Yorkshire.

The two girls, like so many children then and now, believed in fairies and set out to prove their existence, little knowing that their practical joke would stir such controversy and fool such eminent figures as Sherlock Holmes’s creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
etc
 
The negatives might be more interesting!

The Guardian article is very vague about what exactly is on sale. They are probably just old prints and come without copyrights.

Many years ago, when I had a website, a correspondent warned me against using one of the Cottingley images*, as they were still protected and the owners had been pro-active in hunting for infringements! I don't think I was ever big enough to merit a cease-and-desist notice!

*May well have been one of those now on offer. I forget. :hide:
 
The negatives might be more interesting!

The Guardian article is very vague about what exactly is on sale. They are probably just old prints and come without copyrights.

Many years ago, when I had a website, a correspondent warned me against using one of the Cottingley images*, as they were still protected and the owners had been pro-active in hunting for infringements! I don't think I was ever big enough to merit a cease-and-desist notice!

*May well have been one of those now on offer. I forget. :hide:

Apparently a large number of prints of the photographs were sold in the area when the originals were publicised. I could be wrong but I thought the original originals were kept by Bradford museum. The ones shown in the Guardian article are very much cleaned up and altered versions of the originals. Who knows what you are getting for your money?
 
The negatives might be more interesting!

The Guardian article is very vague about what exactly is on sale. They are probably just old prints and come without copyrights.

Many years ago, when I had a website, a correspondent warned me against using one of the Cottingley images*, as they were still protected and the owners had been pro-active in hunting for infringements! I don't think I was ever big enough to merit a cease-and-desist notice!

*May well have been one of those now on offer. I forget. :hide:

Looks like they are indeed prints, circa 1920 (the pics were originally taken in 1917).

https://www.expressandstar.com/news...hotographs-expected-to-fetch-2000-at-auction/
 
I really wish those news stories wouldn't refer to them as hoax photographs :mad: The fairies did exist.

Looking at the linked stories about the sale, I see the same two photographs shown in each story, but there was more than just those two, wasn't there?

*goes off to explore t'internet*

Ah yes, like this one for example:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cRMS2nIj2o4/Tgj3digiirI/AAAAAAAAIIo/i02VReyWEbU/s1600/Fairy_4.jpg

On that site there's also a photo I've never seen before :)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-St9n-RWD6...fiths-photographed-at-the-beck-cottingley.jpg
 
On that site there's also a photo I've never seen before

Very nice. I had never seen that one either.

Some of us on here are old enough to remember when one of the sisters appeared live on the Nationwide show. I think, at that point, she was admitting the hoax, though her grasp of details was rather vague - I know that feeling!

Later, I think, the confession was retracted. It's one of those tales! My own feeling is that the father was involved in the retouching of images the girls initiated. I don't think the images are exact replicas of the ones in the Fairy Book they are said to belong to, though their derivation is fairly obvious. They look like the work of a professional artist, though.

So they might still be thought-forms of the girls' imperfect recollections of contemporary story-book fairies! :witch:
 
Last edited:
Very nice. I had never seen that one either.

Some of us on here are old enough to remember when one of the sisters appeared live on the Nationwide show. I think, at that point, she was admitting the hoax, though her grasp of details was rather vague - I know that feeling!

Later, I think, the confession was retracted. It's one of those tales! My own feeling is that the father was involved in the retouching of images the girls initiated. I don't think the images always exactly reflect the pages from the Fairy Book they are said to belong to, though their derivation is fairly obvious.

So they might still be thought-forms of the girls' imperfect recollections of contemporary story-book fairies! :witch:

Ooh I've never seen them on telly, that interview would have been good to see. I recall hearing how one of them was adamant that the whole thing was a hoax, while the other was insistent that they really had seen fairies, or not all of the photos were hoaxes, or summat.

My firm belief will always be that there really were fairies, but they made up the photos because no one believed them.

And yes I agree with you about the images from the Fairy Book. They are similar, but not exact.
 
Gosh, I'm a little bit busy right now, so I haven't looked this up, but I know one of the girls had worked in a photographer's, so would have had a least some technical knowledge, and one (I think the same one) was quite a talented artist, so copying pictures but making a few changes wouldn't have been at all hard.

I'd also point out that the cutouts are a lot larger than the figures were in the book (I used to own a copy), so can't have been direct tracings.
 
quite a talented artist, so copying pictures but making a few changes wouldn't have been at all hard.

I see contemporary youngsters do this all the time, when, occasionally, I supervise Art lessons. The vogue is for Japanese Manga-style cartoons and every school seems to have great mimics of that formula. Twenties' fairybook style was no more demanding! :)
 
Last edited:
I think the girls traced them and coloured them in. They may have made a few changes.

Ah, tracing pictures. Does anyone even do that anymore? So many lost things in the age of computers and smartphones and t'internet.


The bank behind them is great fodder for any weirdo who is prone to excess pareidolia. Which subset doesn't include me, of course :oops:

I can't see owt on there.. 'cept maybe a labrador, looking to the right:
upload_2018-9-29_13-25-45.png


... but that's it.
 
Back
Top