Hey, there! Log in / Register
Let's go with Furcolo
By adamg on Wed, 10/07/2015 - 12:30pm
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Finally, one I know
This is Amory and Boylston, right near the present day Stony Brook Station.
Wow
what a difference today.. the pic reminds me of the Adams Family house ;) Today.. not to so bad.
John and Abigail?
John and Abigail?
Not Sure
But I do know Foster Furcolo is fun to say.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Foster Furcolo
It was never easy to get my grandmother to laugh, but a surefire way was to just blurt out, "Foster Furcolo!" She would go into hysterics. It was downright Pavlovian. Even better was to sneak up & whisper the magic name in her ear... Thanks for resurfacing that memory. :-)
Foster would do well these days
Foster the PEOPLE!
You Sure?
The old and new buildings don't have much in common.
Yeah I'm not convinced. They
Yeah I'm not convinced. They're similar, but what would be Boylston if the other poster is correct slopes down in the BA picture.
I'm convinced its not
Amory and Boylston because I live in the eggplant colored three-decker right across the street (and parking lot) and spend a considerable amount of my evenings looking out the window.
The building on the corner of Amory and Boylston is no younger than 131 years. It appears on G.W. Bromley's 1884 Atlas of West Roxbury.
http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/handle/2452/205987
I agree.
The angle seems about right but the building is completely different and at the left on the foundation level you can see that it does seem to slope down rather than uphill as Boylston does. Where did Furcolo hang out? It doesn't really sound like a JP pol's name.
Sigh
I knew it was too good to be true.
Don't feel bad--it was a good guess!
I definitely thought you were right until some hard squinting at the modern pics.
Oops.
I missed the "for Governor" part. That doesn't really help.
One is wood, the other brick
They don't seem much the same at all.
I'm thinking that this is somewhere on Dot Ave, judging from the era of construction.
Update: I knew I'd recently biked through an area with a parcel like this. Here?
Sonewhere around MLK Boulevard in Roxbury
This looks like something under what is now the Washington Park Mall that got blasted in urban renewal.
Mission Hill at Parker ave or
Mission Hill at Parker ave or Fort Hill across Columbis that isu guess.
Looks like a Whitings milk
Looks like a Whitings milk truck parked there ( see trademark on left top corner ,
The Answer
Thanks for playing folks! This is the intersection of Erie and Greenwood Streets in Dorchester in 1957. The Furcolo poster was a clue for the date, but there are some other posters on the building that might have given you a clue for the neighborhood....
Can't see it larger
Usually these have a link to see it larger. This one didn't and that made it harder to read the posters.
"See it larger"
Yes, I miss the links to a bigger view. Now the links just go to Twitter, with the same tiny photo. Makes it MUCH more difficult to examine the photos in detail.
Charlestown I think, can't id
Charlestown I think, can't id the spot. Whiting's delivered in Charlestown, big suit with Hood apparently
H. P. HOOD & SONS, INC. vs. WHITING MILK COMPANY. 345 Mass. 287
H. P. HOOD & SONS, INC. vs. WHITING MILK COMPANY.
345 Mass. 287
December 4, 1962 - January 4, 1963
Suffolk County
Present: WILKINS, C.J., WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK, & SPIEGEL, JJ.
In a suit in equity by one milk dealer against another to enjoin unfair competition by use of milk cartons similar to those of the plaintiff, the allegations of the bill were construed as referring to and as controlled by samples of the parties' respective cartons annexed to the bill. [288]
Notwithstanding that, in a suit in equity by one milk dealer against another to enjoin unfair competition, there were allegations in the bill respecting a secondary meaning attached to the plaintiff's cartons, deliberate adoption by the defendant of cartons similar in general appearance to those of the plaintiff with intent to confuse purchasers, and actual confusion, a case for relief in equity was not stated where it appeared from sample cartons of the parties annexed to the bill and controlling its allegations that, although the cartons adopted by the defendant were similar in shape and color scheme to those of the plaintiff, the printed designs on the respective cartons were so different that the defendant could fairly be said to have taken reasonable steps to distinguish its product from that of the plaintiff. [291-293]
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on February 7, 1962.
The suit was heard by Lurie, J., on demurrer.
Arthur D. Thomson (Jerome E. Weinstein with him) for the plaintiff.
Harold Lavien for the defendant.
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/345/345mass287.html
Repeat?
I feel like this is deja-vu all over again and that this has been a previous UHub Boston City Archives post?
Am I the only one that feels this way? I ain't mad or nothing. Just wondering.
Not a repeat (we don't think)
Not a repeat (we don't think), but several of our previous mystery photos have had Foster Furcolo signs plastered on dilapidated buildings.