Talk:Caxton Press (New Zealand)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Victoria Street premises edit
I remember The Caxton Press building in Victoria Street, Christchurch. We have a lot of photos of that street on Commons but I couldn't find one of the premises, although this one has the north wall of the building at the image's margin. The building is shown in this 2008 Google StreetView. The address of that building was 119 Victoria Street.
I've had a look on PapersPast whether it was reported when they moved there. I found a report that early on, they were in the central city's Kingston Street but that street name neither exists any longer nor is it listed as a former Christchurch street name. In May 1950, an accountant advertised a few times (here's the first advert) that he has commenced practice "in the new Caxton Press Building, 119 Victoria Street". Hence, the 1951 move to new premises is wrong; they were already there by May 1950. Schwede66 19:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- I see that in the September 2014 Press article, they claim that Caxton had been in the Victoria Street building since 1935. I wonder whether that's true. Searching for "119 Victoria" on PapersPast returns nothing prior to 1950. Schwede66 19:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: interesting work; thanks for digging into this. Gosh pre-earthquake Christchurch Street View pictures always make me a little sad. :( Cool to see what the building looked like, though!
- Just checked the Oxford reference text I've been using. It says that in 1935 they moved into a "disused stables at 152 Peterborough Street, Christchurch". Then "Curnow's Enemies, published in June 1937, was the last book printed before new premises were acquired at 129 Victoria Street, and a new press was installed (a cylinder Wharfedale) ... A new phase came in 1951 with the move to a new building at 119 Victoria Street".
- I haven't had a look at PapersPast to see if that matches up, but might explain why the September 2014 Press article was confused; they'd been on Victoria Street at least since the 1930s from the sounds of it? Oxford text is still possibly wrong about when the 1950s move took place, but maybe the mix-up there is with the departure of Glover, which was definitely 1951. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Yes, the 129 Victoria vs 119 Victoria address may explain the confusion. And indeed, looking at EQ photos is a tough thing. I've just had a look whether I can see the photos that I uploaded on 4 September 2010, i.e. the day of the first earthquake. Only 3, which surprised me. But as soon as it was light, I took a walk around the block and that included Victoria Street. It was entirely clear that morning that many heritage buildings would come down. I had no idea that we'd ultimate see a near clear-felling in the CBD, though. Schwede66 04:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Oh wow, interesting to see those photos. Those places look very different now. I was up in Hawke's Bay for that one (it was university holidays); still remember my little sister waking me up to tell me about the earthquake. Surreal times (in a different way to the surreal times we're living in now!). Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I see. Yes, the 129 Victoria vs 119 Victoria address may explain the confusion. And indeed, looking at EQ photos is a tough thing. I've just had a look whether I can see the photos that I uploaded on 4 September 2010, i.e. the day of the first earthquake. Only 3, which surprised me. But as soon as it was light, I took a walk around the block and that included Victoria Street. It was entirely clear that morning that many heritage buildings would come down. I had no idea that we'd ultimate see a near clear-felling in the CBD, though. Schwede66 04:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)