Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

City Tour

Expand Messages
  • John Salmon
    Yesterday I visited the city again. First stop was St Botolph without Aldgate. This is the most easterly church in the city and possible the least visited. It
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Yesterday I visited the city again.
      First stop was St Botolph without Aldgate. This is the most easterly
      church in the city and possible the least visited. It has some good
      features, particularly the roof. It is also has a collection of wall
      monuments and stained glass commemorating a number of the Lord Mayor's
      of London.

      As I was in the area I thought I would also visit the Bevis Marks
      Synagogue which is only about 200 yards away. I had never been in.
      For those who may also think of visiting it perhaps I can save you the
      time and also the £3 entrance fee which I was asked for. The guard on
      the door also wanted to search my camera bag. Also no photography is not
      allowed and it is far from being a spectacular interior that didn't
      bother me. It has a number of large brass chandeliers and the usual rows
      of inward facing "pew". There are a number of cards for sale but having
      been charged £3 I opted not to bother. I was in and out in 5 minutes!!
      I will post the exterior views which I took.

      As it was only lunch time I decided to try the only other "easy" church
      which I hadn't tried during the last few months of city visits. So off
      to St Pauls on the tube and a short walk down to St Andrew by the
      Wardrobe. When I got there the outer doors were open but access to the
      church nave via glass doors was locked. Strangely access to the gallery
      was open so I went upstairs and did some shots from that level. While I
      was there the administrator returned and when I asked she was very
      willing to open up and show me round and allow photography. She also
      took me into the vestry and side chapel where there was stained glass.
      It is quite a simple interior.

      I then walked back via St Nicholas Cole Abbey to redo a few exteriors
      and on to St Paul's Cathedral where I took a few pictures of the exterior.

      All that now remains of the City Churches is:-
      All Hallows by the Wall - open and stewarded by Friends of City Churches
      on most Fridays. So far I haven't found the right Friday!
      St Mary Moorfield (RC)
      St Andrew Undershaft (key kept by St Helens)
      St Peter upon Cornhill (key kept by St Helens)
      St Nicholas Cole Abbey (closed)

      I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the Evangelist
      which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
      making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission there. I
      visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was allowed, so
      I hope it is still permitted.

      Photos to follow.

      John
      --
      John Salmon
      www.saintsilas.org.uk
    • RICHARD CAMP
      John, Repeated thanks for sharing your superb photographs of City churches; I ve made notes on all of them, from Pevsner. Look ... From: John Salmon
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        John,
        Repeated thanks for sharing your superb photographs of City churches; I've made notes on all of them, from Pevsner.
        Look

        --- On Wed, 1/4/09, John Salmon <j.r.salmon@...> wrote:

        From: John Salmon <j.r.salmon@...>
        Subject: [Churchcrawling] City Tour
        To: "Church Crawling" <Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, 9:01 AM






        Yesterday I visited the city again.
        First stop was St Botolph without Aldgate. This is the most easterly
        church in the city and possible the least visited. It has some good
        features, particularly the roof. It is also has a collection of wall
        monuments and stained glass commemorating a number of the Lord Mayor's
        of London.

        As I was in the area I thought I would also visit the Bevis Marks
        Synagogue which is only about 200 yards away. I had never been in.
        For those who may also think of visiting it perhaps I can save you the
        time and also the £3 entrance fee which I was asked for. The guard on
        the door also wanted to search my camera bag. Also no photography is not
        allowed and it is far from being a spectacular interior that didn't
        bother me. It has a number of large brass chandeliers and the usual rows
        of inward facing "pew". There are a number of cards for sale but having
        been charged £3 I opted not to bother. I was in and out in 5 minutes!!
        I will post the exterior views which I took.

        As it was only lunch time I decided to try the only other "easy" church
        which I hadn't tried during the last few months of city visits. So off
        to St Pauls on the tube and a short walk down to St Andrew by the
        Wardrobe. When I got there the outer doors were open but access to the
        church nave via glass doors was locked. Strangely access to the gallery
        was open so I went upstairs and did some shots from that level. While I
        was there the administrator returned and when I asked she was very
        willing to open up and show me round and allow photography. She also
        took me into the vestry and side chapel where there was stained glass.
        It is quite a simple interior.

        I then walked back via St Nicholas Cole Abbey to redo a few exteriors
        and on to St Paul's Cathedral where I took a few pictures of the exterior.

        All that now remains of the City Churches is:-
        All Hallows by the Wall - open and stewarded by Friends of City Churches
        on most Fridays. So far I haven't found the right Friday!
        St Mary Moorfield (RC)
        St Andrew Undershaft (key kept by St Helens)
        St Peter upon Cornhill (key kept by St Helens)
        St Nicholas Cole Abbey (closed)

        I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the Evangelist
        which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
        making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission there. I
        visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was allowed, so
        I hope it is still permitted.

        Photos to follow.

        John
        --
        John Salmon
        www.saintsilas. org.uk
















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • RICHARD CAMP
        John, Repeated thanks for sharing your superb photographs of City churches; I ve pored over all of them with the help of Pevsner. Look forward v. much to
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          John,
          Repeated thanks for sharing your superb photographs of City churches; I've pored over all of them with the help of Pevsner.
          Look forward v. much to seeing the interior of St Peter's upon Cornhill, into which I could not get last month. It has the only Wren screen in situ, although it's no longer a `working' church.
          Richard

          --- On Wed, 1/4/09, John Salmon <j.r.salmon@...> wrote:

          From: John Salmon <j.r.salmon@...>
          Subject: [Churchcrawling] City Tour
          To: "Church Crawling" <Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, 9:01 AM






          Yesterday I visited the city again.
          First stop was St Botolph without Aldgate. This is the most easterly
          church in the city and possible the least visited. It has some good
          features, particularly the roof. It is also has a collection of wall
          monuments and stained glass commemorating a number of the Lord Mayor's
          of London.

          As I was in the area I thought I would also visit the Bevis Marks
          Synagogue which is only about 200 yards away. I had never been in.
          For those who may also think of visiting it perhaps I can save you the
          time and also the £3 entrance fee which I was asked for. The guard on
          the door also wanted to search my camera bag. Also no photography is not
          allowed and it is far from being a spectacular interior that didn't
          bother me. It has a number of large brass chandeliers and the usual rows
          of inward facing "pew". There are a number of cards for sale but having
          been charged £3 I opted not to bother. I was in and out in 5 minutes!!
          I will post the exterior views which I took.

          As it was only lunch time I decided to try the only other "easy" church
          which I hadn't tried during the last few months of city visits. So off
          to St Pauls on the tube and a short walk down to St Andrew by the
          Wardrobe. When I got there the outer doors were open but access to the
          church nave via glass doors was locked. Strangely access to the gallery
          was open so I went upstairs and did some shots from that level. While I
          was there the administrator returned and when I asked she was very
          willing to open up and show me round and allow photography. She also
          took me into the vestry and side chapel where there was stained glass.
          It is quite a simple interior.

          I then walked back via St Nicholas Cole Abbey to redo a few exteriors
          and on to St Paul's Cathedral where I took a few pictures of the exterior.

          All that now remains of the City Churches is:-
          All Hallows by the Wall - open and stewarded by Friends of City Churches
          on most Fridays. So far I haven't found the right Friday!
          St Mary Moorfield (RC)
          St Andrew Undershaft (key kept by St Helens)
          St Peter upon Cornhill (key kept by St Helens)
          St Nicholas Cole Abbey (closed)

          I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the Evangelist
          which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
          making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission there. I
          visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was allowed, so
          I hope it is still permitted.

          Photos to follow.

          John
          --
          John Salmon
          www.saintsilas. org.uk
















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tina Bird
          ... For what it s worth, I wanted to photograph St. John s extensively because of its architectural similarities to St. Bartholomew s. There was no problem
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            > I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the
            > Evangelist
            > which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
            > making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission
            > there. I
            > visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was
            > allowed, so
            > I hope it is still permitted.

            For what it's worth, I wanted to photograph St. John's "extensively" because
            of its architectural similarities to St. Bartholomew's. There was no problem
            with taking pictures anywhere in the Tower (I didn't visit the crown
            jewels). The problem was that visitors were pushed through the White Tower
            (where the chapel is) rather quickly. I was able to hop out of the line and
            get a few shots, but didn't have the freedom to move around that I wanted.

            This was 2004, and I vaguely recall I was there on a Sunday. Avoiding the
            weekend and the tourist season would have helped. Dunno if you can do
            anything bout the velvet ropes.

            t.
          • RICHARD CAMP
            John, The City churches have been well researched and written up already, as you know; apart from the slim Pevsner volume, there are others such as that by
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              John,
              The City churches have been well researched and written up already, as you know; apart from the slim Pevsner volume, there are others such as that by Stephen Millar. The latter includes maps and suggested itineraries. Leaving the Guildhall Bookshop, I felt that no city in the world could possibly have so much written about it.
              It would be impossibly expensive to reproduce your pictures in book form; I'm certain that Londoners and tourists alike would snap up a CD, suitably packaged, containing your superb photographs. It's very difficult, as you describe in the Tower, to take decent pictures in a hurry. Your photographs would be the perfect complement to existing books on City churches. I'm hope the Friends of City Churches would support the venture, give advice about publicity and publishing rights (and take a just share of the profits).
              Your pictures deserve the widest possible viewers and would give pleasure to many.
              Best wishes,
              Richard

              --- On Wed, 1/4/09, Tina Bird <tbird@...> wrote:

              From: Tina Bird <tbird@...>
              Subject: RE: [Churchcrawling] City Tour
              To: Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, 10:28 PM








              > I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the
              > Evangelist
              > which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
              > making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission
              > there. I
              > visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was
              > allowed, so
              > I hope it is still permitted.

              For what it's worth, I wanted to photograph St. John's "extensively" because
              of its architectural similarities to St. Bartholomew' s. There was no problem
              with taking pictures anywhere in the Tower (I didn't visit the crown
              jewels). The problem was that visitors were pushed through the White Tower
              (where the chapel is) rather quickly. I was able to hop out of the line and
              get a few shots, but didn't have the freedom to move around that I wanted.

              This was 2004, and I vaguely recall I was there on a Sunday. Avoiding the
              weekend and the tourist season would have helped. Dunno if you can do
              anything bout the velvet ropes.

              t.
















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • cbnewham
              Hmmm. I ve spent many years in this area. I don t want to pour cold water on any venture, but personally I think it would be a waste of time. Nobody is
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Hmmm. I've spent many years in this area. I don't want to pour cold water on any venture, but personally I think it would be a waste of time.

                Nobody is interested in a stack of pictures covering all these churches in detail - especially if it's just a CD/DVD of pictures and nothing more. Tourists have their own snaps and the locals won't care as they can see the churches any time they like.

                What people will buy is a small selection of pictures and some text to go with them in book form. A book can be made quite easily and a *small* selection of pictures provided. You might even make a small profit from such a venture (well, enough to cover some of the travel costs incurred in taking the pictures). Then again, I've seen picture books of London churches, so you'd need a new angle on the subject.

                As for official bodies, and going from my own experiences at dealing with such entities: not a hope. You may as well go and batter your head against the nearest hard surface. The level of disinterest and stonewalling is usually quite astounding.

                I think John has the right idea sticking to a plain DVD offered to people on here. Proceeding beyond that point with a view to selling to the public at large would, as I said, most likely end in disappointment, wasted effort, and wasted money.

                cbn

                --- In Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com, RICHARD CAMP <richard.camp5@...> wrote:
                >
                > John,
                > The City churches have been well researched and written up already, as you know; apart from the slim Pevsner volume, there are others such as that by Stephen Millar. The latter includes maps and suggested itineraries. Leaving the Guildhall Bookshop, I felt that no city in the world could possibly have so much written about it.
                > It would be impossibly expensive to reproduce your pictures in book form; I'm certain that Londoners and tourists alike would snap up a CD, suitably packaged, containing your superb photographs. It's very difficult, as you describe in the Tower, to take decent pictures in a hurry. Your photographs would be the perfect complement to existing books on City churches. I'm hope the Friends of City Churches would support the venture, give advice about publicity and publishing rights (and take a just share of the profits).
                > Your pictures deserve the widest possible viewers and would give pleasure to many.
                > Best wishes,
                > Richard
                >
                > --- On Wed, 1/4/09, Tina Bird <tbird@...> wrote:
                >
                > From: Tina Bird <tbird@...>
                > Subject: RE: [Churchcrawling] City Tour
                > To: Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, 10:28 PM
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > > I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the
                > > Evangelist
                > > which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
                > > making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission
                > > there. I
                > > visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was
                > > allowed, so
                > > I hope it is still permitted.
                >
                > For what it's worth, I wanted to photograph St. John's "extensively" because
                > of its architectural similarities to St. Bartholomew' s. There was no problem
                > with taking pictures anywhere in the Tower (I didn't visit the crown
                > jewels). The problem was that visitors were pushed through the White Tower
                > (where the chapel is) rather quickly. I was able to hop out of the line and
                > get a few shots, but didn't have the freedom to move around that I wanted.
                >
                > This was 2004, and I vaguely recall I was there on a Sunday. Avoiding the
                > weekend and the tourist season would have helped. Dunno if you can do
                > anything bout the velvet ropes.
                >
                > t.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • John Salmon
                There is hope then. John
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  There is hope then.
                  John

                  Tina Bird wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >> I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the
                  >> Evangelist
                  >> which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
                  >> making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission
                  >> there. I
                  >> visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was
                  >> allowed, so
                  >> I hope it is still permitted.
                  >
                  > For what it's worth, I wanted to photograph St. John's "extensively" because
                  > of its architectural similarities to St. Bartholomew's. There was no problem
                  > with taking pictures anywhere in the Tower (I didn't visit the crown
                  > jewels). The problem was that visitors were pushed through the White Tower
                  > (where the chapel is) rather quickly. I was able to hop out of the line and
                  > get a few shots, but didn't have the freedom to move around that I wanted.
                  >
                  > This was 2004, and I vaguely recall I was there on a Sunday. Avoiding the
                  > weekend and the tourist season would have helped. Dunno if you can do
                  > anything bout the velvet ropes.
                  >
                  > t.
                • John Salmon
                  I agree with cbn. I am certainly not pursuing a book. However I was approached by a couple of churches to supply pictures for their websites. We will see what
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 2, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I agree with cbn. I am certainly not pursuing a book. However I was
                    approached by a couple of churches to supply pictures for their
                    websites. We will see what happens. Probably not a lot!!

                    I do now have an archive which documents the vast majority of the
                    monuments and also the stained glass as well as the usual internal views.

                    The main plus point is that I have enjoyed re-visiting the churches and
                    achieving what I hope are worth while results. If in addition you have
                    enjoyed seeing the pictures and it inspires further visits what more can
                    I ask.

                    I also still have the challenge of the last four churches.

                    John

                    cbnewham wrote:
                    > Hmmm. I've spent many years in this area. I don't want to pour cold water on any venture, but personally I think it would be a waste of time.
                    >
                    > Nobody is interested in a stack of pictures covering all these churches in detail - especially if it's just a CD/DVD of pictures and nothing more. Tourists have their own snaps and the locals won't care as they can see the churches any time they like.
                    >
                    > What people will buy is a small selection of pictures and some text to go with them in book form. A book can be made quite easily and a *small* selection of pictures provided. You might even make a small profit from such a venture (well, enough to cover some of the travel costs incurred in taking the pictures). Then again, I've seen picture books of London churches, so you'd need a new angle on the subject.
                    >
                    > As for official bodies, and going from my own experiences at dealing with such entities: not a hope. You may as well go and batter your head against the nearest hard surface. The level of disinterest and stonewalling is usually quite astounding.
                    >
                    > I think John has the right idea sticking to a plain DVD offered to people on here. Proceeding beyond that point with a view to selling to the public at large would, as I said, most likely end in disappointment, wasted effort, and wasted money.
                    >
                    > cbn
                    >
                    > --- In Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com, RICHARD CAMP <richard.camp5@...> wrote:
                    >> John,
                    >> The City churches have been well researched and written up already, as you know; apart from the slim Pevsner volume, there are others such as that by Stephen Millar. The latter includes maps and suggested itineraries. Leaving the Guildhall Bookshop, I felt that no city in the world could possibly have so much written about it.
                    >> It would be impossibly expensive to reproduce your pictures in book form; I'm certain that Londoners and tourists alike would snap up a CD, suitably packaged, containing your superb photographs. It's very difficult, as you describe in the Tower, to take decent pictures in a hurry. Your photographs would be the perfect complement to existing books on City churches. I'm hope the Friends of City Churches would support the venture, give advice about publicity and publishing rights (and take a just share of the profits).
                    >> Your pictures deserve the widest possible viewers and would give pleasure to many.
                    >> Best wishes,
                    >> Richard
                    >>
                    >> --- On Wed, 1/4/09, Tina Bird <tbird@...> wrote:
                    >>
                    >> From: Tina Bird <tbird@...>
                    >> Subject: RE: [Churchcrawling] City Tour
                    >> To: Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com
                    >> Date: Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, 10:28 PM
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the
                    >>> Evangelist
                    >>> which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
                    >>> making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission
                    >>> there. I
                    >>> visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was
                    >>> allowed, so
                    >>> I hope it is still permitted.
                    >> For what it's worth, I wanted to photograph St. John's "extensively" because
                    >> of its architectural similarities to St. Bartholomew' s. There was no problem
                    >> with taking pictures anywhere in the Tower (I didn't visit the crown
                    >> jewels). The problem was that visitors were pushed through the White Tower
                    >> (where the chapel is) rather quickly. I was able to hop out of the line and
                    >> get a few shots, but didn't have the freedom to move around that I wanted.
                    >>
                    >> This was 2004, and I vaguely recall I was there on a Sunday. Avoiding the
                    >> weekend and the tourist season would have helped. Dunno if you can do
                    >> anything bout the velvet ropes.
                    >>
                    >> t.
                  • Les Center
                    Of  course it was a long time ago---pre 9/11, by 17 years or so, but I didn t have any trouble either place, and  got good hand-held photos.---But a lot
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 6, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Of  course it was a long time ago---pre 9/11, by 17 years or so, but I didn't have any trouble either place, and  got good hand-held photos.---But a lot could be different now. Les

                      --- On Wed, 4/1/09, Tina Bird <tbird@...> wrote:

                      From: Tina Bird <tbird@...>
                      Subject: RE: [Churchcrawling] City Tour
                      To: Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 5:28 PM








                      > I am also hoping to redo St Peter ad Vincula and St John the
                      > Evangelist
                      > which are both in the Tower of London. However I haven't got round to
                      > making inquiries yet about access and photographic permission
                      > there. I
                      > visited years ago on a organised visit when photography was
                      > allowed, so
                      > I hope it is still permitted.

                      For what it's worth, I wanted to photograph St. John's "extensively" because
                      of its architectural similarities to St. Bartholomew' s. There was no problem
                      with taking pictures anywhere in the Tower (I didn't visit the crown
                      jewels). The problem was that visitors were pushed through the White Tower
                      (where the chapel is) rather quickly. I was able to hop out of the line and
                      get a few shots, but didn't have the freedom to move around that I wanted.

                      This was 2004, and I vaguely recall I was there on a Sunday. Avoiding the
                      weekend and the tourist season would have helped. Dunno if you can do
                      anything bout the velvet ropes.

                      t.
















                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.