Continued from last week

With the arrival of the Second World War, Benskin’s in-house magazine The Pennant ceased publication. But not for long. It returned in April 1947 and spent another ten years much beloved of all who worked at the company until Benskin’s was taken over.

How it happened was explained in the editorial of the last edition, dated April 1957.

The editorial of that last edition began: “On 6th February, 1957, rumour began to buzz and ticker tapes to tick in earnest and that evening’s papers recorded a rapid advance in the price of Benskin’s shares. With commendable promptness an announcement was made the following day by the directors of Ind Coope and Benskin’s confirming that merger proposals were being discussed.”

The editorial continued detailing the terms of the merger, personnel involved and so on.

It ended: “Amongst the earliest of the now universal house magazines, The Pennant, which has throughout been run as an amateur magazine by members of Benskin’s staff, was first published at Christmas 1930. It   was not published during the war but recommenced with the April issue in 1947.

“The Ind Coope Group have a group magazine issued quarterly covering all members of the group. They will also be publishing a News Sheet monthly and in these circumstances The Pennant becomes redundant and we therefore regret to announce that this issue will be the last of this old established journal.

“We take this opportunity of thanking all members of The Pennant Committee, contributors, licensees and emplyees whose support and interest has assured the past achievements of the magazine. Particularly is a tribute due to Mr G.N. Rickett who, as Secretary of The Pennant since its first issue, has given unstintingly of his time and thought, and to whom much of the credit for the success of the journal is undoubtedly due.”

And with that, it was gone. But if you get the chance to flick through the back copies, I recommend that you do. It’s a fascinating read.

This is, sadly, my last Nostalgia column as I too have been declared redundant. Whether there will be a Nostalgia column next week remains to be seen. I too would like to thank all those readers and contributors who have written or emailed in over the past two years.

Before I go, I’m sure you want to know the answer to that puzzle I reprinted from The Pennant last week.

Well... I’ll leave you with the “winning solution”. Personally I find it just as baffling as the original question, but here it is anyway.

“From a comparison of identities between tradesmen and householders we learn that –

“The coalman is not Jones, Brown or Cook and that therefore he must be Smith or Green (b), (h), (j).

"The milkman is not Smith (f).

“The namesake of the butcher lives at No 2 (d).

“Considering the question of relationships, we find that –

“The butcher’s brother-in-law lives at No 1 (a).

“The baker’s namesake’s brother-in-law lives at No. 3 (i).

“The milkman’s namesake has no relations.

“Thus, there are two pairs of relations only.

“Now we are further told (g) that Mrs Green and Mrs Jones are sisters, and since it seems from (a) and (d) that they are not the wives of the occupants of No 1 and No 2, they must then be the wives of the baker’s namesake and his brother-in-law, who must have married sisters.

“Green and Jones will thus be the baker’s namesake and his brother-in-law, or vice versa.

“Now, as to propinquity, we are told that –

“Jones lives next but one to the coalman’s namesake (b).

“Smith lives next but one to the milkman’s namesake (f).

“Cook lives next to the coalman’s namesake (j).

“And since we know that the butcher’s namesake lives at No. 2 (d), and that the baker’s namesake’s brother-in-law lives at No. 3 (i) and that the butcher’s married sister lives at No. 1 (a), then the baker’s namesake must live at No. 4 or No. 5.

“But we know the baker’s namesake is either Green or Jones. Therefore he must live at No. 5, because he must live two doors away from the coalman’s namesake, with Cook in between them.

“And since Smith lives next but one to the milkman’s namesake, who has no relations, he must be the butcher’s namesake living at No. 2, and Cook must be the milkman’s namesake living at No. 4.

“The householders may therefore be arranged thus, the remaining vacancy at No. 1 being naturally filled by Mr Brown: –

“No. 1: Mr Brown, Grocer’s namesake.

“No. 2: Mr Smith, Butcher;s namesake

“No. 3: Mr Green, Coalman’s namesake

“No. 4: Mr Cook, Milkman’s namesake, and

“No. 5: Mr Jones, Baker’s namesake.”

So now you know! Bye everyone!