We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
William (Willie) Paul was born in Glasgow in 1884. He became a socialist and eventually joined the Socialist Labour Party (SLP). The organization that had been inspired by the writings of Daniel De Leon, the man who helped establish the International Workers of the World (IWW) and the Socialist Labor Party in the United States. Leaders of the group included John S. Clarke, Jack Murphy, Arthur McManus, Neil MacLean, James Connally, John MacLean and Tom Bell.
Paul eventually became joint editor of the SLP journal, The Socialist, with John S. Clarke, Tom Bell and Arthur McManus. The journal advocated the importance of "revolutionary industrial socialism" and refused to work with reformist parties such as the Social Democratic Federation and the Labour Party. Instead the SLP concentrated on political action for propaganda purposes.
In the The Socialist Willie Paul argued for workers' control of industry: "We contend that only those working in the industries have the requisite knowledge whereby these industries can be controlled. Only the industrial workers know the needs and demands of the processes of wealth production... It has been customary for the wage-workers to be told that they must look to the State for salvation. For the last twenty years and more, prominent hot-air Labourists have assured us that the hope of the workers lay in State control. The largest section of the working class movement in its political activity has been responsible for the advocacy of what they called State Socialism. As Industrial Unionists we have argued that State ownership takes all control away from the workers and leaves them at the mercy of unsympathetic and irresponsible ministers."
In 1911 Paul became involved in the Clydesbank Singer sewing machine factory dispute, in which 10,000 workers went out on strike in protest at the company's decision to cut the pay of the workforce. Singers broke the strike in three weeks. Willie Paul and Arthur McManus were considered to be ring-leaders of the strike and along with 500 other workers they lost their jobs at the company.
Paul now moved to Derby where he earned a living by running a small hosiery and drapery market stall as a one-man business. He was successful in this business venture and other stalls were opened in Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Rotherham and Chesterfield. According to Graham Stevenson: "These were surreptitiously used as centres for radical literature distribution and revolutionary fund-raising. Whilst this business and the role of wandering Marxist tutor brought Paul to temporary stays in many northern and midland’s towns and cities, he was mainly resident in Derby for the rest of his life."
Willie Paul was opposed to Britain's involvement in the First World War. Over 3,000,000 men volunteered to serve in the British Armed Forces during the first two years of the war. Due to heavy losses at the Western Front the government decided to introduce conscription (compulsory enrollment) by passing the Military Service Act. The No-Conscription Fellowship (NCF) mounted a vigorous campaign against the punishment and imprisonment of conscientious objectors. About 16,000 men refused to fight. Most of these men were pacifists, who believed that even during wartime it was wrong to kill another human being.
Paul joined Alice Wheeldon, John S. Clarke and Arthur McManus, in establishing a network in Derby to help those conscientious objectors on the run or in jail. This included Alice's son, William Wheeldon, who was secretly living with his sister, Winnie Mason, in Southampton and according to Nicola Rippon Clarke "spent most of the war hiding in Mr Turner's farm at Arleston, now part of Sinfin on the southern outskirts of the town."
During the First World War he provided social science classes in Derby from 1917-18. A book of his lectures entitled The State: its Origin and Functions was published as a result of these classes. According to Graham Stevenson: "The work clearly follows classic Marxist themes, but more interestingly draws the same or similar theoretical conclusions as Lenin was reaching at the same time, without the benefit of Paul being able to read Lenin’s work at this point, since it had not yet been translated."
In 1918 he unsuccessfully stood for Wigan as a Socialist Labor Party candidate in the General Election. He took 13% of the vote in a straight fight with an official Labour Party candidate.
In April 1920, Willie Paul, Tom Bell, Willie Gallacher, Arthur McManus, Harry Pollitt, Rajani Palme Dutt, Helen Crawfurd, A. J. Cook, Albert Inkpin, Arthur Horner, J. T. Murphy, John R. Campbell, Bob Stewart and Robin Page Arnot joined forces to establish the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). McManus was elected as the party's first chairman and Bell and Pollitt became the party's first full-time workers.
Willie Paul argued strongly against the strategy suggested by Lenin that the CPGB should develop a close-relationship with the Labour Party. "We of the Communist Unity Group feel our defeat on the question of Labour Party affiliation very keenly. But we intend to loyally abide by the decision of the rank and file convention... The comrades who voted in favour of the Labour Party were undoubtedly influenced by the arguments put forth on this question by Lenin, Radek, and many other Russian Communists. We believe that these heroic comrades, in urging Labour Party affiliation, have erred on a question of tactics. But we frankly admit that the very fact that Lenin, Radek, Bukharin, and the others advise such a policy is a very good reason why a number of delegates thought we were perhaps in the wrong."
Paul became editor of the Communist Review (1921-1923). He also contributed to the Sunday Worker, The Communist and the Labour Monthly. He was the Communist Party of Great Britain candidate at the Rusholme constituency in the 1922 General Election. He received 5,366 votes and was beaten into third place by Charles Masterman. He also finished third in the 1924 General Election.
Paul ceased to play an active role in the Communist Party of Great Britain after the second of these parliamentary elections. It has been claimed that he was unhappy with the role that Joseph Stalin played in the formation of CPGB policy. Paul, as a supporter of workers' control of industry, also disapproved of Soviet-style "state socialism".
During the Second World War, he was much involved in campaigning work in aid of the Soviet Union in its fight against Nazi Germany. After the war he was a prominent supporter of the Derby Peace Council.
Willie Paul died in Derby in March 1958.
Industrial Unionism is not only a means of improving the immediate conditions of Labour. It has a greater object than that; it aims at controlling the means of wealth production on behalf of the workers. We contend that only those working in the industries have the requisite knowledge whereby these industries can be controlled. Only the industrial workers know the needs and demands of the processes of wealth production. We further affirm that industrial unionism, representing the workers along the lines by means of which wealth is created, is the only democratic solution to the social problem. Industrial Unionism is, therefore, not only the best means by which to wage the class struggle, it is also the best and safest method whereby the workers can achieve their emancipation.
It has been customary for the wage-workers to be told that they must look to the State for salvation. The largest section of the working class movement in its political activity has been responsible for the advocacy of what they called “State Socialism.” As Industrial Unionists we have argued that State ownership takes all control away from the workers and leaves them at the mercy of unsympathetic and irresponsible ministers. We have stated time and again that it is impossible for State officials to understand the nature of the problems arising in the industries, or to appreciate the grievances of the workers. The reports issued by the Industrial Unrest Commissioners clearly prove that the State bureaucrats are unable to realise the problems which arise, in every workshop.
I have had a long and interesting interview with Lenin. We spoke on various aspects of the movement, and particularly upon the growth and progress of Communism in Britain. Lenin had read the report of the Communist Unity Convention held in London last August. He said that the verbatim report of the speeches and resolutions of the Convention showed that the formation of the Communist Party marked an epoch in the history of the British revolutionary movement. The Communist Party had gone a long way towards unifying the Communist elements in Britain, and he hoped that the Party, which had made such an effort to achieve unity, would assist the Communist International in making the forthcoming Unity Congress a great success. Our greatest weakness is the continued prevalence of sectarian factions in the Left Wing. This spirit must be crushed, he contended, at all costs. The time had long since passed for the existence of narrow, partisan, doctrinaire bodies like the present S.L.P.
He was very much interested in my account of the S.L.P., and of its pioneer advocacy in Britain, of the industrial form of the Socialist Republic. He said he had never known that there existed a party in Britain which had refused to participate in the various Congresses of the Second International prior to the war. But why, he asked, did a party with such a record - a record which seemed to indicate that it had been working out the theories of the Bolsheviks before the 1917 Revolution - fail to respond to the revolutionary needs of the movement by refusing to attend the rank and file Convention at which the Communist Party was launched? I said that the vital point of difference between the S.L.P. and the Communist Party was the question of affiliation to the Labour Party. The S.L.P. considered any such approach to the Labour Party was a compromise of principles. Those of us who were expelled from the S.L.P., for attempting to secure unity, were equally opposed to Labour Party affiliation, but we were prepared to go and light out our case on the floor of the Unity Convention and abide by the result of the decision. We viewed the whole question of Labour Party affiliation as one of tactics and not one of fundamental principle. We also considered the need for Communist unity to be of greater importance than minor points such as Labour affiliation. Lenin said that was the proper attitude. But, he said, now that the Labour Party has rejected the application of the Communist Party, now that the Labour Party, itself has solved the problem which separated the S.L.P. from the Communist Party would the S.L.P. join up with the Communist Party? I said I did not think so. Such a party, he said, is destined to speedily disappear; the movement has neither time nor a place for such bodies. In any case, the Third International, by organising a further Unity Convention, which every disciplined group claiming adherence to the Communist International would have to attend, offered a last chance to the various factions in the Left Wing of the British movement to build up an united Communist movement.
Lenin then proceeded to discuss the attitude of the Communist Party towards the Labour Party in view of the much talked-of forthcoming General Election. His views on the subject showed that he abhors the type of revolutionary who has a canalised, or single track, mind. Lenin looks upon every weapon as necessary in the conflict with capitalism. To him, as a good student of old Dietzgen, every weapon, every policy, and every problem must be examined in the terms of its relations to the needs of the moment and the means at our disposal. This explains why he does not go out of his way to extol one particular weapon. He clearly realises the value of revolutionary parliamentary action but, he also understands its limitations as a constructive power in the creation of a Workers Industrial Republic. To Lenin the test of the real revolutionary Communist is to know when to use a given weapon and when to discard it.
Talking on the Labour Party, Lenin said he was very glad to learn that it had refused to accept the affiliation application of the Communist Party. It was a good move to have applied for affiliation, because the refusal of the Labour Party to accept Communists in its ranks showed the masses exactly where the Labour Party stood. Henderson had thus unwittingly paid a great tribute to the growing power of revolutionary Communism in Britain by being afraid to have aggressive Communists in his organisation; and the Labour Party, by its own action, in turning down the Communist Party, had plainly indicated that there was at last a fighting group in Britain which had attracted good mass fighters to its ranks. Of course, continued Lenin, we must not forget that the Communist Party in its application for affiliation to the Labour Party very frankly put forward certain conditions which would have given it full freedom of action to conduct its own policy in its own way. We must never enter into negotiations with bodies, such as the Labour Party, without demanding full freedom of action. In this respect the Communist Party’s attitude in applying to the Labour Party for admission to its ranks differed, most fundamentally, from such organisations as the I.L.P. and B.S.P., which formally accepted the Labour Party’s constitution and policy. The strong stand taken up by the Communist Party, in seeking affiliation with the Labour Party, was no doubt arrived at as a result of the B.S.P. policy sharpened by the militant elements expelled from the S.L.P. It was a good omen for the future that these two groups were able to come together. And it was a good thing that the ex-S.L.P. men, who were so keen against affiliation with the Labour Party, realised the value of revolutionary discipline by refusing to split the new party because their own position had not been accepted. Likewise, when the Labour Party threw out the request for affiliation it was the B.S.P. element that was tested and it stood firm. To have past through two such severe trials, and to have maintained the solidarity of the organisation, was a tribute to the seriousness of the comrades who had formed the Communist Party.
In all moderate sections of the British Labour movement one hears nothing but puerile lamentations regarding the great capitalist conspiracy to crush the organised industrial workers. This is the cry that is now uttered by Messrs. Henderson, Clynes, Thomas, and the other “privies” of modern Labourism. We do not deny that the capitalist class has organised its forces to try and smash the trade union movement; indeed, we have never heard of a time, in the history of propertied society, when the aim of the property owners was not to try and subjugate the toiling masses. But it is not only necessary that the workers’ attention should be directed to the determined attack which the master class is making upon them, of even greater importance is it for them to know about the hideous conspiracy of the trade union leaders who have wrought more havoc among the organised masses than all the combined onslaughts of the propertied interests could ever have done. For, after all, a capitalist offensive upon the trade union masses automatically reacts upon them and instinctively creates resentment, which in its turn produces defensive and aggressive tactics. No one can deny this. The rank and file miners wanted to fight when Smillie diverted the struggle into the Sankey Commission truce of defeat. Last year the industrial mass struggle was sabotaged by Black Friday. This year 47 unions, led by A. Henderson, went down in a defeat unparalleled even in the history of British trade union betrayals. The conspiracy against the working-class, in this country, is not that it is being attacked by the capitalist class; that is the normal condition of the class struggle. The real conspiracy against the trade unions lies in the damnable treachery of the trade union leaders themselves who, since the armistice, have systematically and successfully undermined every instinctive attempt of the rank and file to put up a fighting resistance against the employing class. The dauntless fighting spirit of the masses was such that easily it could have surmounted the inherent weakness of the trade unions. But what it could not surmount was the bureaucratic power of leaders determined to avoid a struggle even at the expense of betraying their own members.
John Reed's descriptive sketch of the opening scenes of the Soviet revolution is history portrayed with cinematographic vividness. After reading a few pages one seems to be whirled into the vortex of the revolution itself. So graphic is the writing that one does not read from page to page; one lives and moves from event to event.
The author was well equipped for his task. While a student at an American University he had thrown in his lot with the revolutionary members of the I.W.W. He was a poet rooted to the realities of the world by a study of Marx. Here, indeed, were mingled the ideal ingredients for writing the epic of the workers’ first victory in their conquest of world capitalism.
The keen-eyed John Reed entered Russia in 1917 as a correspondent for an American paper. He was able to see the chaos created by the war and the Tsarist government. He was confronted, on every side, by the helpless and cowardly incompetence of Kerensky and his Right Wing Socialist ministers. These gentlemen did not destroy Tsarism; it collapsed internally through its own putrid condition when the masses pricked it. What Kerensky and his associates did was to refuse to face any of the immediate problems forced forward by the capitulation of the Tsar. Neither industry nor the land were attended to. The government seemed to be reduced to that state of palsied bewilderment which is the normal condition of the Second International when confronted with the tasks and responsibilities of government.
When Lenin and the other Communist leaders arrived in Russia, the masses were not favourably disposed towards the Bolsheviks. Lenin, by his clever and straightforward policy of always forcing forward the struggles, unmasked the cowardice and ineptitude of Kerensky and the Mensheviks. Each day in its passing verified the attitude of Lenin and showed, at the same time, that Kerensky and his Right Wing Socialist advisers were wrong. As history was moving rapidly on top gear, the very swiftness of events made things increasingly difficult for Kerensky and easier for the Communists. Thus the masses rallied to Lenin.
And what did this mean? It meant the beginning of the real battle for power. It meant the opening of the greatest struggle in history—the shifting of political power from the control of the propertied interests into the hands of the propertyless masses.
Kerensky and his Right Wing Socialist friends talked very gaily about Nationalisation. They were almost as blithe on this point as some of our I.L.P. friends. And like the I.L.P. they had not worked out the need for the struggle for power. Hence, when Kerensky was given office he could only accomplish, like his imitator MacDonald, a policy of capitalist continuity.
Ten Days that Shook the World is the record of the Russian workers’ struggle for power. The revolutionary crisis lasted much longer than ten days. But those critical days decided the final fate of the Russian propertied interests.
John Reed’s remarkable study is first of all a story; secondly it is a history; and thirdly it is a thesis on revolutionary struggle. Those who possessed the original expensive edition generally read it three times. One sweeps through it in the first reading; then the second time one studies it in order to remember the important land marks in the development of the Soviet revolution. In the third reading one goes more slowly and learns important lessons from it which can be applied universally.
Willie Paul - History
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | The e-mails have been clogging the system, the phone calls have started, Fox News called . . It's just like the old days, aka the Clinton Years.
Yep, Slick Willie is back, not that he was ever completely gone. But this time he's been resurrected by his alter ego, Bill Clinton. While pushing his memoir on "60 Minutes," Arkansas' prodigal son mentioned that, of all the nicknames he's acquired, he likes Slick Willie the least.
I swelled with pride. And sighed at the prospect of having to write still another column on the history of Slick Willie, going into his life and times, his birth and . apparent immortality.
Just when you think Slick Willie belongs to history, he pops up on "60 Minutes." He's like some Golem you've invoked for what seemed perfectly good reasons at the time, but who then refuses to go away when his time is over. Kind of like Bill Clinton himself.
This time Slick Willie has drawn fire from Bill Clinton himself, who says there's "a very good reason" he dislikes the name: "No one could fairly look at my political life and say I didn't believe in anything."
Really? And just what political belief wouldn't he modify if his popularity depended on it? He didn't specify. He seldom does. It wouldn't be Clintonesque (another term he inspired) to be specific. If there was a single constant to which he adhered throughout his political career, it was probably triangulation.
Bill Clinton may be confusing the term Slick Willie with Empty Suit. Both might apply in his case, but in addition to equivocation - at which he remains the master - the term Slick Willie implies duplicity. Which is why I used it to describe his political persona.
Back in 1996, a book publisher talked me into putting out a collection of my Clinton editorials and columns over the years. I went though roll after roll of microfilm at the Pine Bluff, Ark., public library to see when I'd first used the term Slick Willie. It turned out to be September 27, 1980. It was in an editorial for the Pine Bluff Commercial that had been inspired by the two-faced attack he made on his gubernatorial opponent that year, Frank White.
On the one hand, Bill Clinton was trying to place himself in the honored tradition of Arkansas' post-Faubus reform governors when he spoke at his party's state convention that year - even though he had embraced Orval Faubus himself, literally, at the outset of his first term.
He would also criticize Frank White, quite rightly, for demagoguing the issue of how to handle the Cuban refugees who'd arrived in Arkansas that summer. Then-Gov. Clinton welcomed the refugees at first, but by September of that year he was badmouthing Jimmy Carter for sending the Cubans to Fort Chaffee. In the dishonorable tradition of Orval Faubus, he threatened to defy the whole United States Army if Washington sent any more our way. It was all pretty slick. Hence the sobriquet Slick Willie.
It caught on. Because politicians aren't just given nicknames. They earn them. At some point, a nickname engages the public imagination with an almost audible click - Old Hickory, The Rail Splitter, Tricky Dick, The Great Communicator . and, of course, Slick Willie.
Slick Willie had a long incubation period. As early as 1979, I was still trying out nicknames for the state's new governor. Most played on his youth - Kid Clinton, Boy Governor, Young Smoothie - for he was the youngest governor in the Union at the time. But nothing clicked till Slick Willie, and it would go national when Bill Clinton did in 1992.
By now I've seen myself credited with coining the nickname Slick Willie so often that I expect it will be noted on my tombstone. (I should have known that Devoted Husband and Father was too much to hope for.) Databases generations hence will doubtless contain the entry, "Slick Willie - Nickname given 42nd pres. of U.S. by obscure Ark. newspaper editor."
But history is never simple, and neither is the history of Slick Willie. So I hasten to add that a letter writer to the old Arkansas Democrat -Mr. J.L. Crosser of Calico Rock, Ark. - used the phrase some time earlier in 1980. And wasn't there also a bar-and-grill, maybe combined with a pool hall, named Slick Willy's around at the same time?
All I know is that, almost a quarter of a century ago, deep in darkest Arkansas at Pine Bluff, I was blissfully oblivious to all these other Slick Willies. I was having too much fun dreaming up nicknames for our boy governor, scarcely suspecting that one day he would become our boy president.
So who really created Slick Willie? That's easy: Bill Clinton.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Paul Greenberg, editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, has won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing. Send your comments by clicking here.
Willie Nelson was born Willie Hugh Nelson on the 29th of April 1993 in Abbott, Texas to Ira Doyle Nelson and Myrle Marie- Greenhaw. They are of English-Scottish ethnicity. His father, Late. Ira was a mechanic.
He has a sister, Bobbie. She is a pianist.
His mother, Myrle left the family soon after his birth. His father Ira remarried. Later, he left him and his sister. Willie and sister, Bobbie were raised together by their grandparents. They taught the siblings to Play the Guitar. His grandfather brought a Guitar at the age of six and taught him a few chords.
At the age of nine, Nelson used to play guitar for the local band, Bohemian Polka. Apart from it, he used to pick cotton and raise pigs for his living.
The story of professional fouls: from Willie Young to Federico Valverde
Willie Young brings down Paul Allen in the FA Cup final in 1980 and Federico Valverde does the same to Álvaro Morata in the Supercopa in Jeddah. Composite: Alan Cozzi/Offside Francois Nel/Getty Images
Willie Young brings down Paul Allen in the FA Cup final in 1980 and Federico Valverde does the same to Álvaro Morata in the Supercopa in Jeddah. Composite: Alan Cozzi/Offside Francois Nel/Getty Images
Last modified on Tue 14 Jan 2020 17.41 GMT
W hen Atlético Madrid striker Álvaro Morata raced through on goal with a few minutes to play in the Spanish Supercopa final, the Real Madrid midfielder Federico Valverde knew what he had to do. Football constantly changes, but there is always room for classic shithousery. “It was something that I should not have done,” said Valverde. “I apologised to Morata, but it was the only thing I could do because he’s a very fast player.”
Valverde’s tackle may not have been in the spirit of fair play, but it worked out well for his team. He was sent off immediately but, by taking out Morata, he helped his teammates stay in the game and play for penalties. Real Madrid went on to win the shootout and Atlético were left wondering what might have been. Not that their manager blamed Valverde. “I told him that he did what he had to do at that moment,” said Diego Simeone after the game.
Valverde’s lunging challenge brought to mind a similarly cynical foul made 40 years ago in an FA Cup final. That tackle denied a young player the chance to score a famous goal at Wembley and it also led to a change in the laws of the game that still stands today.
The 1980 FA Cup final was not going to script. West Ham, who were in the Second Division at the time, had taken an early lead through a rare Trevor Brooking header and Arsenal – who had seen off the might of Liverpool after four gruelling matches in the semi-finals – simply ran out of ideas. Then came the chance for West Ham to kill the game and add one last dollop of feelgood factor to the plot.
As an exhausted Arsenal side – playing their 67th match of the season – pushed for an unlikely equaliser, West Ham’s 17-year-old midfielder Paul Allen found himself through on goal with just Pat Jennings to beat. Allen, the youngest player to have played in the FA Cup final at the time, was about to complete his footballing fairytale. Yet Willie Young had other ideas.
Young had formed a fine centre-back partnership with David O’Leary at Arsenal, yet it would be fair to describe the hulking Scot as an uncompromising defender. And, as Allen raced towards the Arsenal goal in the 87th minute, Young chose to demonstrate his approach to the game.
“Paul was put through, about 20 yards outside the box,” recalled Young in Jon Spurling’s fine book Rebels for the Cause. “I had a split second to make up my mind. Either he would have most probably scored, or I had the chance to at least keep us in with a shout. So I thought: ‘Son, you’ve gotta go.’ I was a defender and I defended. It wasn’t a brutal foul. I just tapped his foot and he went down. Paul was very good about it and said: ‘I’d have done the same, big man.’ I never lost any sleep over it.”
Arsenal fan Nick Hornby wrote in Fever Pitch that, even though he was embarrassed by the tackle as he stood on the Wembley terraces, “part of me actually enjoyed the foul”. “It was so comically, parodically Arsenalesque. Who else but an Arsenal defender would have clattered a tiny 17-year-old member of the academy?”
Whereas the laws of the game compelled the referee to dismiss Valverde on Sunday night, no such punishment existed in 1980. The referee at Wembley, George Courtney, merely awarded West Ham a free-kick and booked Young. In doing so, he opened a national debate. The meek punishment added credence to the idea that football needed a professional foul law.
Although most newspaper reports concentrated on West Ham’s victory and Brooking’s rare headed goal, they all referenced Young’s challenge. Some backed him, arguing that it was the law rather than the defender who was to blame. Others called the foul blatant, callous and cynical. Jeff Powell said it had created a “sour memory” for the watching world. “As long as professional fouls pay off, they will be committed,” noted the Mail’s comment section.
David Lacey wrote in the Guardian: “The Football Association may consider it worthwhile informing referees of their full support should they decide next season to dismiss those who commit such cynical, squalid fouls, for which yellow cards and free-kicks are inadequate punishments.”
When the Football League subsequently appointed a committee to consider ways of making football more entertaining – with Jimmy Hill chairing the discussion and both Matt Busby and Bobby Charlton asked for their opinions – they suggested that players committing professional fouls should be sent off. The law was introduced two years later. The change was obviously made to deter calculating defenders but, as Valverde showed, there is still room in the sport for pure cynicism. At least he ended up on the winning team. Young didn’t even have that consolation.
Understanding Our Appraisals
Executive producer Marsha Bemko shares her tips for getting the most out of ANTIQUES ROADSHOW.
Value can change: The value of an item is dependent upon many things, including the condition of the object itself, trends in the market for that kind of object, and the location where the item will be sold. These are just some of the reasons why the answer to the question "What's it worth?" is so often "It depends."
Note the date: Take note of the date the appraisal was recorded. This information appears in the upper left corner of the page, with the label "Appraised On." Values change over time according to market forces, so the current value of the item could be higher, lower, or the same as when our expert first appraised it.
Context is key: Listen carefully. Most of our experts will give appraisal values in context. For example, you'll often hear them say what an item is worth "at auction," or "retail," or "for insurance purposes" (replacement value). Retail prices are different from wholesale prices. Often an auctioneer will talk about what she knows best: the auction market. A shop owner will usually talk about what he knows best: the retail price he'd place on the object in his shop. And though there are no hard and fast rules, an object's auction price can often be half its retail value yet for other objects, an auction price could be higher than retail. As a rule, however, retail and insurance/replacement values are about the same.
Verbal approximations: The values given by the experts on ANTIQUES ROADSHOW are considered "verbal approximations of value." Technically, an "appraisal" is a legal document, generally for insurance purposes, written by a qualified expert and paid for by the owner of the item. An appraisal usually involves an extensive amount of research to establish authenticity, provenance, composition, method of construction, and other important attributes of a particular object.
Opinion of value: As with all appraisals, the verbal approximations of value given at ROADSHOW events are our experts' opinions formed from their knowledge of antiques and collectibles, market trends, and other factors. Although our valuations are based on research and experience, opinions can, and sometimes do, vary among experts.
Appraiser affiliations: Finally, the affiliation of the appraiser may have changed since the appraisal was recorded. To see current contact information for an appraiser in the ROADSHOW Archive, click on the link below the appraiser's picture. Our Appraiser Index also contains a complete list of active ROADSHOW appraisers and their contact details and biographies.
In September 2018, Randy Edwards was pronounced dead after a fatal car accident.
According to state police, Randy&aposs car struck a pole, which caused the Chevrolet Silverado to flip. He was then ejected from the vehicle and his injuries were fatal. At the time, a statement was posted on Willie and Juniors shared Facebook page from cast member Ronnie Adams.
"It is in deep sadness that I make this post. Junior and Theresa&aposs son, Willie&aposs brother, Randy passed away in a vehicle accident early this morning. Randy was 35. Please keep the Edwards family in your prayers and also please respect their privacy at this time."
&aposShotgun Willie&apos and &aposPhases and Stages&apos
Back on his home turf, Nelson also resumed his recording efforts, but in his own style and on his own terms. Soon, that unique approach won the long-haired, bandanna-wearing performer a devoted following. Released in 1973, Shotgun Willie is considered by many to be one of his best albums, showcasing his abilities as a singer, storyteller and performer, despite the fact that it did not chart well. The same would be true of 1974’s Phases and Stages.
In the 1930s, Moretti became friends with then unknown singer Frank Sinatra. Sinatra's first wife, Nancy Barbato, was a paternal cousin of John Barbato, a Moretti associate. Moretti helped Sinatra get bookings in New Jersey clubs in return for kickbacks. Finally, in 1939, Sinatra signed a recording contract with band leader Tommy Dorsey. However, by the early 1940's, Sinatra had achieved national popularity and wanted to sign a more lucrative recording contract, but Dorsey refused to release him from their existing contract. Sinatra asked Moretti for help. In a meeting with Dorsey, Moretti jammed a gun barrel down his throat and threatened to kill Dorsey if he did not release Sinatra. Dorsey eventually sold the contract to Sinatra for one dollar. Α]
In the late 1940s, Moretti become acquainted with comedians Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis while they were performing at Bill Miller's Riviera nightclub in Fort Lee, New Jersey. In earlier years, Moretti and Abner "Longy" Zwillman were watching the club's cardroom when it was previously owned by Ben Marden. In 1947, Martin, Lewis, Sinatra, and comedian Milton Berle all performed at the wedding reception of Moretti's daughter.
How long can the guitar stay together?
There are instruments older than Trigger, but few guitars have logged as many playing hours in a lifetime, and Nelson plays hard. This type of acoustic guitar wasn’t intended to be played with a pick — and the wear shows on the top — but Trigger is also a testament to just how durable a fine guitar can be.
By now the frets are worn down, the top is covered in cuts and autographs, and despite several repairs there is a large hole through the front of the guitar. Trigger sees a guitar technician at least twice a year, and despite everything the instrument has been through it has no major cracks, the back is whole, and the headstock has never been broken.
All this wear has shaped the timbre into something unique – Trigger is an instrument that sounds like no other.
Nelson has said in interviews that he thinks they’ll give out at about the same time. The only time they’ve been apart was when the IRS went after Nelson’s possessions and Trigger had to hide away in Hawaii until the dust cleared.
Willie Paul - History
Some topics are born into trouble. You'll see what I mean in a moment. This week, for example, I got a letter from a reader in North Carolina who upbraided me for daring to suggest that the Portsmouth Powder Alarm of 1774 was the first armed conflict of the American Revolution. That's how this all got started. (Continued below)
Hey, it wasn't my idea. Locals have been making that claim for two centuries. Today a number of important historians with impressive credentials agree. Shots were fired at Fort William & Mary, gunpowder was stolen, and the King's flag was torn down four months before the battles at Lexington and Concord.
Not so, according to my North Carolina reader. The first armed insurrection against the King was the Battle of Alamance in North Carolina on Mary 16, 1771. A stone marker erected there in 1880 declares that Alamance was the "First Battle of the Revolution." But the longer I study history, the less I trust old stone markers and bronze plaques. So I googled it. Modern historians generally disagree.
Alamance was clearly a grassroots uprising by discontented farmers called "Regulators." They fought bravely against the superior militia of the royal governor of North Carolina. But their beef was with local sheriffs and tax collectors, not with the King of England. The Regulators showed that many American colonists were discontented and willing to take up arms against authority. But they did not espouse a new form of government or combine organized forces to establish a new nation.
Who was Willie Jones?
I'm not picking on North Carolina, but while we're on the topic of Revolutionary War legends, I must tackle Willie Jones. This story has been bugging me for years. Willie (pronounced Wyley) was a radical leader during the run-up to the American Revolution in 1774 and 1775. Think of him as the Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry of North Carolina. Willie and his brother Allen were wealthy slave-holding aristocrats who reportedly befriended a young Scottish sailor named John Paul around 1773. John Paul was reportedly a long-lost cousin of Willie Jones. According to one version of the story, Paul Jones hung out with the Jones brothers in their mansion at "The Grove" for two years. Living with the families of these cultured men and women, the story goes, John Paul was transformed "from the rough and reckless mariner into the polished man of society."
As the Revolution approached, the Jones brothers reportedly pulled a few strings and helped young John Paul get his first job with the Continental Navy -- and a great career was launched. In appreciation for their guidance while staying at "The Grove" in Halifax, NC, the young captain, family legend claims, officially changed his name to John Paul Jones.
The story neatly fills in the "lost years" in the life of John Paul Jones who disappears from the record books in the West Indies in 1773 and reappears on the radar in Philadelphia almost two years later as captain of the ship Alfred. He arrived in Portsmouth, NH to captain the Ranger in 1777 and sailed from here into the history books by attacking the British in their own waters. We know that young John Paul was captain of the merchant ship Betsy before he came to America. He was accused of murdering one of his crewman and bound over for trial at Tobago in 1773. Rather than wait for his trial, he took off for Fredericksburg, Virginia, historians believe, where his elder brother William Paul, a tobacco farmer, had recently died. The next 20 months are a matter of speculation.