Talk:Pier Head

Is there a pier at Pier Head?Paul E. Ester 01:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• No, only the landing stage for the Mersey Ferry (which sank in a storm). chowells 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I moved this here:-
"There is now a new Liverpool landing stage to replace this, it was initially used on Saturday / Sunday 8th / 9th September 2007. and has had two cruise ships land already - the QE2 is due to arrive on the 21st of September which I think will be the official opening of the new floating landing stage".
It is useful information, but a comment, not an encyclopaedia entry, as it is. Swanny18 09:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

"which in 2001/2002 were dubbed the 'The Three Graces':"

It may have been, but I think the phrase "The Three Graces" in relation to the Pier Head is much older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.219.172 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

In that case, do you have a source that says so? Swanny18 (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

not much earlier, but 1998 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=inFvXOKRqFgC&pg=PA310&dq=three+graces+liverpool&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tIX7TsiTDIOo8QOH3M3gAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=three%20graces%20liverpool&f=false I can't believe that the phrase was only made around that time. I am going to have a proper look Sweetie candykim (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

also 1998 (page 18) 'celebrated waterfront's 'three graces' http://books.google.co.uk/books?ei=h4b7TreKBoOl8gPD8a3XAQ&id=ZLLfAAAAMAAJ&dq=three+graces+liverpool&q=three+graces+#search_anchor Sweetie candykim (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot more discussion on this in the thread further down this page - your comments should really be added there. The first source you cite is very odd - most of the pages are from a book on knitwear, but the last section is about architecture - presumably from another book included there in error. The section referring to the Three Graces in that book cannot date from 1998, because it states: "The design was awarded through a competition in 2000....." (my emphasis). So far as I know, no-one has yet come forward with a definite use of the phrase before your second citation, from 1998. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Few people today will remember but the Pier Head actually was jet black for decades. All the major buildings and churches were deep black in colour. The staining black was the result of decades of unrestricted coal burning in Liverpool. In the 1960s Smokeless Zones came into Law and powerful Power Washer hoses were used to return the buildings to their original colour. It was quite a surprise to many 'leather Necks' (Liverpudlians) to realise that all buildings were not in fact jet black in colour.Johnwrd (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Heres a picture (2nd down) of the Liver Building, complete with grime.

But; “Leathernecks”? Where do you get that from? Who are they? Swanny18 (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The date provided for the term "Three Graces" was deleted a while ago, with the edit summary ""Three Graces" has been a long standing term, not from 2001/2". Leaving aside the thought that 2002 was, in fact, a long time ago, now, such a claim could do with a source to back it up. I have re-instated the date, with a reference to the earliest use of the term I can find, and I’d be interested to see a source that actually uses the term much earlier than then. The earliest use of the term seems to date from 2001/2002, when it appears to have been coined to juxtapose with the new “Fourth Grace” project. Prior to that, according to the Liverpool Echo’s Millenium edition in 2000, and this source from 1995, the three buildings were referred to (if they had any widely-used common name at all) as “the three sisters”. And the Pevsner guide to Liverpool (published in 2004) doesn’t use the term at all (in fact the author calls the three building remarkably dissimilar) so it was arguably not in general use even then. Swanny18 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

In response to your message on my page, and your readdition of the text, i'm fair minded enough to accept a / your point of view (given your sourced information), that there may be the need of some evidence to verify "The Three Graces" from an earlier date, pre 2001/2. What i would say is i am dumbfounded that you suggest the Three Graces was used from only this point and in addition consider 2002 as "a long time ago". Blimey it is not even a decade. Im sure the "Three Graces" go back many decades. I've never know people to call them the "Three Sisters" either. The only sisters i ever heard of was the chimneys at Clarence dock.

Why for example, do you think the 4th Grace was nicknamed so?

I think there is no need to source this -- or atleast a rewording of the existing text is necessary because there is absolutly no way "The Three Graces" only come from ten years ago! The "subsequently" in my opinion should be removed. Is it not acceptable enough just to compromise that they are called the 3 Graces and that there is a source provided? Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I sympathize with your dumbfoundedness. I can only suggest it shows how effective the marketing campaign was.

If the term really is older then it must be in print somewhere; it’s in guidebooks, newspapers, tourist information etc nowadays, so if the term was around in the 90’s (or earlier) in would be in older editions of those. I haven't seen it; has anyone?

And I’m not suggesting the term "three sisters" was in common use before (I never heard it!) I’m only pointing out it was used a couple of times in contexts where the term 'Three Graces' would have been more appropriate, if the term had existed. The fact it wasn’t used suggests the term wasn’t current then.

As for why the 'Fourth Grace' was called that, I mentioned it already. I can imagine some bright spark in PR coming up with “if we refer to these three buildings as the three graces, we can call the new one the fourth grace” but that’s only supposition. What is fact (apparently) is that the two terms came to light around the same time.

But any hard information on the subject would be welcome. Swanny18 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've found a 2001 reference here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

...and one from 2000 here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it's relevant that the term "Three Graces" may only have come to widespread public notice in the late 1980s or early 1990s, in relation to the Canova sculpture that was eventually purchased by the V&A Museum in 1994 - http://www.artfund.org/artwork/5413/the-three-graces. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The term was in use in Liverpool (widely known, although rarely used and seen as something of an affectation) at least as far back as the 1960s. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

As a footnote to Swanny18's reply, i'm 100% certain that "The Three Graces" term had nothing to do with any marketing plan of the early 2000's.

I'm pleased others are confirming that the term is much further than the last decade. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

But it does need sources rather than anecdotes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, but anecdote suggests that it's worth looking for them.

I think the term might show up in an early '60s pop song "My Scouse girlfriend, she's so fine, she looks like a Fourth Grace" or somesuch moon-june twaddle from one of those innumerable Liverpool bands that played the Cavern but never made it to Shea Stadium. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fine, but I looked for pre-2000 sources online and found absolutely nothing. So, those with access to local offline sources (such as libraries in Liverpool with archives of local newspapers) may need to investigate further. For what it's worth, I'll raise it at the RefDesk as well.Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Curiouser and curiouser.

FWIW I’ve asked a number of people (at various times in the past) about this; some say (like yous) the term has been around for ages, others not. And I can’t remember an instance meself of hearing it before the start of Fourth Grace fiasco. Has anyone got an old Rough Guide or something that might have it in?

Also, I found a couple of sites that go back a bit (they're undated, but one is around the World heritage application, and the other the Capital of Culture application (they were turn of the century I think).

I also found this; not a RS, I know, but interesting...)Swanny18 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Revisiting this - there's a 1998 source here - "... one of the celebrated waterfront's 'three graces'.....". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pier Head. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222083911/http://www.liverpoolworldheritage.com/ to http://www.liverpoolworldheritage.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207111903/http://liverpoolworldheritage.com/visitingthewhs/areas/pierhead/index.asp to http://www.liverpoolworldheritage.com/visitingthewhs/areas/pierhead/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325160523/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/worldheritagecity/ThreeGraces.asp to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/worldheritagecity/ThreeGraces.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply