"The Gloria Scott"

The Gloria Scott.

The case begins Saturday, July 3, 1880.

Why?

SEASON OF THE TELLING:
"I have some papers here," said my friend Sherlock Holmes as we sat one winter’s night on either side of the fire."
"I had often endeavoured to elicit from my companion what had first turned his mind in the direction of criminal research, but had never caught him before in a communicative humour."
"Those are the facts of the case, Doctor, and if they are of any use to your collection, I am sure that they are very heartily at your service."

POINT IN HOLMES’S CAREER:
"But why did you say just now that there were very particular reasons why I should study this case?"
"Because it was the first in which I was ever engaged."

POINT IN HOLMES’S EDUCATION:
"You never heard me talk of Victor Trevor? He was the only friend I made during the two years I was at college . . . and that only through the accident of his bull terrier freezing on to my ankle one morning as I went down to chapel.
"I was laid by the heels for ten days."
"Before the end of the term we were close friends."
"Finally he invited me down to his father’s place at Donnithorpe, in Norfolk, and I accepted his hospitality for a month of the long vacation."

SPORTING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE:
"There was excellent wild-duck shooting in the fens, remarkably good fishing . . ."

HOLMES’S DEPARTURE FROM DONNITHORPE:
"At last I became so convinced that I was causing him uneasiness that I drew my visit to a close."
"All this occurred during the first month of the long vacation. I went up to my London rooms, where I spent seven weeks working out a few experiments in organic chemistry. One day, however, when the autumn was far advanced and the vacation drawing to a close, I received a telegram from my friend imploring me to return to Donnithorpe . . ."
"He met me with the dog-cart at the station, and I saw at a glance that
the last two months had been very trying ones for him.

THE DATING OF THE GLORIA SCOTT:
"Some particulars of the voyage of the bark Gloria Scott, from her leaving Falmouth on the 8th October, 1855, to her destruction in N. Lat. 15 degrees 20’, W. Long. 25 degrees 14’, on Nov. 6th."
"It was the year ‘55, when the Crimean War was at its height, and the old convict ships had been largely used as transports in the Black Sea."

YEARS PAST SINCE THE SHIP’S DESTRUCTION:
"Why, it’s thirty year and more since I saw you last."
"The case might have been dealt leniently with, but the laws were more harshly administered thirty years ago than now, and on my twenty-third birthday I found myself chained as a felon with thirty-seven other convicts in the ‘tween-decks of the bark Gloria Scott, bound for Australia."
"We prospered, we travelled, we came back as rich colonials to England, and we bought country estates. For more than twenty years we have led peaceful and useful lives, and we hoped that our past was forever buried."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
July 12, 1874. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
Summer 1876.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
Here’s a fascinating little problem. Trevor distinctly dates the destruction of the Gloria Scott on November 6, 1855. He backs up the general period with the statement that the Crimean War was at its height, which it was in 1855. Yet both he and Hudson refer to that experience as being thirty years ago, which means this case would occur in 1885 . . . while Holmes and Watson were together.
Previous chronologers have dismissed the thirty years as a mutual mistake on the parts of Hudson and Trevor, but what about young Trevor, the physical evidence of those twenty peaceful years in England? The elder Trevor needed more than a few years to find fortune, travel, and eventually feel changed enough to head back to England as a colonial. He thought his past was well behind him, and that means his wife and son were certainly additions to his life after the return to England.
But what if the "thirty years" was not a mistake, but a simple rounding up of a number like twenty-seven or twenty-eight? Sound reasonable enough. In fact, any comparison between the 1850s and the 1880s would seem a bit like three decades, wouldn’t it? Of course, that would make Sherlock Holmes a college student when he first met Dr. Watson . . . but what was it Watson wrote in A Study in Scarlet?

"There was only one student in the room . . ."

Holmes speaks of coming back to his London rooms from Donnithorpe, most probably his Montague Street rooms (which we’ll later learn he had when he "first came up to London"), where he works on organic chemistry, much as he was doing when Watson first met him. Back when we were discussing A Study in Scarlet, I became convinced that Holmes and Watson first met in the summer of 1881. Would it be so impossible, then, that Holmes’s vacation in Donnithorpe took place in the summer of 1880?

Since Holmes’s trip to Donnithorpe begins with the traditional English university long vacation, I’m going to place both the trip and this case on Saturday, July 3, 1880.

"The Speckled Band"

The Speckled Band.

The case begins Sunday, April 1, 1883.

Why?

THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE OCCURRENCE AND THE WRITING:
"On glancing over my notes of the seventy odd cases in which I have during the last eight years studied the methods of my friend Sherlock Holmes . . ."

SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS BY WATSON:
"The events in question occurred in the early days of my association with Holmes, when we were sharing rooms as bachelors in Baker Street. It is possible that I might have placed them upon record before, but a promise of secrecy was made at the time, from which I have only been freed during the last month by the untimely death of the lady to whom the pledge was given."

SIGNIFICANT DATE REFERENCE:
"It was early in April in the year ‘83 . . ."

SIGNIFICANT MORNING REFERENCE:
"He was a late riser, as a rule, and as the clock on the mantelpiece showed me that it was only a quarter-past seven, I blinked up at him in some surprise, and perhaps just a little resentment, for I was myself regular in my habits."

THE TIMES OF THE ROYLOTTS:
"In the last century, however, four successive heirs were of a dissolute and wasteful disposition, and the family ruin was eventually completed by a gambler in the days of the Regency. Nothing was left save a few acres of ground, and the two-hundred-year-old house, which is itself crushed under a heavy mortgage. As it was, he suffered a long term of imprisonment and afterwards returned to England a morose and disappointed man."
"When Dr. Roylott was in India he married my mother, Mrs. Stoner, the young widow of Major-General Stoner, of the Bengal Artillery. My sister Julia and I were twins, and we were only two years old at the time of my mother’s re-marriage. She had a considerable sum of money--not less than L1000 a year--and this she bequeathed to Dr. Roylott entirely while we resided with him, with a provision that a certain annual sum should be allowed to each of us in the event of our marriage. Shortly after our return to England my mother died --she was killed eight years ago in a railway accident near Crewe. Dr. Roylott then abandoned his attempts to establish himself in practice in London and took us to live with him in the old ancestral house at Stoke Moran."
"Last week he hurled the local blacksmith over a parapet . . ."
"She was but thirty at the time of her death . . ."
"She died just two years ago . . ."
"Julia went there at Christmas two years ago, and met there a half-pay major of marines, to whom she became engaged. My stepfather learned of the engagement when my sister returned and offered no objection to the marriage; but within a fortnight of the day which had been fixed for the wedding, the terrible event occurred . . ."
"Two years have passed since then, and my life has been until lately lonelier than ever. A month ago, however, a dear friend, whom I have known for many years, has done me the honour to ask my hand in marriage."
" . . . we are to be married in the course of the spring. Two days ago some repairs were started in the west wing of the building . . ."

SIGNIFICANT REFERENCES TO NATURAL EVENT:
"It is a little cold for the time of the year."
"But I have heard that the crocuses promise well."

THE SCHEDULE OF THE WORKMEN:
"Two days ago some repairs were started in the west wing of the building . . ."
" . . . there were no signs of any workmen at the moment of our visit."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
April 6, 1883. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
Early in April 1883, probably April 4,1883.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
The statement "early in April in the year ‘83" is clear enough, and no chronologer disputes it. The day is the item of question on this case, and my first impression on that score is that Watson would not be so annoyed at being awakened at 7:15 if it were not a day he fully expected to sleep as long as he wanted . . . a Sunday. Ernest Bloomfield Zeisler argues that it was not a Sunday, as Watson would not have felt compelled to state that the workmen were not at Stoke Moran if it were a Sunday, as the assumption would have been obvious to the reader. Yet Watson does not tell us that it was Sunday, so we have no basis for making Zeisler’s assumption. Zeisler also argues against Sunday, stating that Holmes could not have visited the Doctors Commons to check out Roylott on a Sunday . . . which I think shows little faith in the resources and connections of Sherlock Holmes. A regular person might not have been able to do the research on a Sunday, but the master detective on a mission of immediate life-or-death importance? That is another story. Quarter past seven is only a resentful hour to young bachelors on the morning after their Saturday night recreations, and thus I’m sticking this tale on Sunday, April 1, 1883. 

Was SPEC the true first case of working with Holmes that Watson recorded? I find nothing in SPEC that disproves my earlier assertion in the STUD Chronology Corner. Watson’s confession that he promised to keep this tale secret until after a certain lady’s death gives him a good reason for using STUD first, even though SPEC was the more remarkable tale . . . perhaps even the thing that inspired him to start writing up Holmes’s cases to begin with. He surely must have had the writing of it in mind while he was still in contact with Helen Stoner, or else the promise not to write of it would not have even come up. And that promise also shows us exactly why he decided to publish STUD first . . . all of the main players in the crime are dead by the time the case is done.

In VEIL, Watson makes the statement, "When one considers that Sherlock Holmes was in active practice for twenty-three years, and that during seventeen of these I was allowed to cooperate with him and to keep notes of his doings . . ." Knowing that Watson was doing so in September of 1903 (CREE), subtracting the three years when Watson thought Holmes dead, one gets the year 1883 as the year that Holmes started allowing Watson to "cooperate with him." Unless one can prove a falling out between the two during some other period, I think the VEIL statement backs up my assertion of SPEC’s claim to being the prime Canonical tale.

Having said all that, I’ll go one step further and proclaim April Fool’s Day as a new Sherlockian holiday . . . the day our Canon truly begins. Not in the Afghan war, not as Watson graduated from medical school, and not as he and Holmes became room-mates, innocent of each other’s career plans. It all truly began on a day when Holmes woke a resentful Watson from a peaceful morning-after slumber to head into what is perhaps THE classic among their adventures together. On April Fool’s Day . . .

"The Musgrave Ritual"

The Musgrave Ritual.

The case begins Thursday, June 23, 1881.

Why?

TIME PASSES ON BAKER STREET:
"It was only once in every year or two that he would muster energy to docket and arrange them." "Month after month his papers accumulated until every corner of the room was stacked with bundles of manuscript which were on no account to be burned, and which could not be put away save by their owner."

SEASON OF THE TELLING:
"I have some papers here," said my friend Sherlock Holmes as we sat together by the fire, I ventured to suggest to him that, as he had finished pasting extracts into his commonplace book, he might employ the next two hours in making our room a little more habitable."

THE STORY’S PLACE IN HOLMES’S BOX OF CASES: "Here’s the record of the Tarleton murders, and the case of Vamberry, the wine merchant, and the adventure of the old Russian woman, and the singular affair of the aluminum crutch, as well as a full account of Ricoletti of the club-foot, and his abominable wife. And here—ah, now, this really is something a little recherche." "He dived his arm down to the bottom of the chest . . ."

REFERENCES TO OTHER CASES:
"You may remember how the affair of the Gloria Scott, and my conversation with the unhappy man whose fate I told you of, first turned my attention in the direction of the profession which has become my life’s work." "Even when you knew me first, at the time of the affair which you have commemorated in ‘A Study in Scarlet,’ I had already established a considerable, though not a very lucrative, connection."

HOLMES’S RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF THE CASE: "When I first came up to London I had rooms in Montague Street, just round the corner from the British Museum . . ."

THE SOURCE OF THE CASE:
"Now and again cases came in my way, principally through the introduction of old fellow-students, for during my last years at the university there was a good deal of talk there about myself and my methods. The third of these cases was that of the Musgrave Ritual . . ."

LENGTH OF TIME SINCE HOLMES SAW MUSGRAVE: "For four years I had seen nothing of him until one morning he walked into my room in Montague Street."

TIME SINCE MUSGRAVE’S FATHER DIED:
"He was carried off about two years ago."

THE MONTHS OF BRUNTON’S LOVE LIFE:
"A few months ago we were in hopes that he was about to settle down again, for he became engaged to Rachel Howells, our second housemaid; but he has thrown her over since then and taken up with Janet Tregellis . . ."

THE SOMETIMES-SUPPRESSED COUPLET:
"What was the month?"
"Sixth from the first."

THE DAY MUSGRAVE CATCHES BRUNTON:
"One day last week—on Thursday night, to be more exact."

BRUNTON’S PLEA FOR TIME:
"Only a week, sir? A fortnight—say at least a fortnight!"

THE DAYS AFTER MUSGRAVE CAUGHT BRUNTON:
"For two days after this Brunton was most assiduous in his attention to his duties. I made no allusion to what had passed and waited with some curiosity to see how he would cover his disgrace. On the third morning, however, he did not appear . . ."

DAYS AFTER BRUNTON’S DISAPPEARANCE THAT RACHEL DISAPPEARS: 
"For two days Rachel Howells had been so ill, sometimes delirious, sometimes hysterical, that a nurse had been employed to sit up with her at night. On the third night after Brunton’s disappearance, the nurse, finding her patient sleeping nicely, had dropped into a nap . . ."

DAYS AFTER RACHEL’S DISAPPEARANCE BEFORE HOLMES CALLED IN: 
"Although we made every possible search and inquiry yesterday, we know nothing of the fate either of Rachel Howells or of Richard Brunton."

HOLMES GETS DOWN TO BUSINESS:
"The same afternoon saw us both at Hurlstone."

ORIGINS OF HURLSTONE:
"Over the low, heavy-lintelled door, in the centre of this old part, is chiselled the date, 1607, but experts are agreed that the beams and stonework are really much older than this."

AGE OF THE OAK:
"It was there at the Norman Conquest in all probability." 

TIME WITHOUT AN ELM:
"It was struck by lightning ten years ago."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
October 2, 1879. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
October 2, 1879.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
This pretty little puzzle was handled with such impressive mathematical and cosmological skill by Ernest Bloomfield Zeisler that even Baring-Gould bowed to his mastery in The Annotated Sherlock Holmes. But the Smash must follow a different path, as always, and this time that path leads all the way back to Charles the First.

"What was the month?" asks the ancient ritual, in a passage mysteriously suppressed in many editions. The answer: "Sixth from the first." And while others might debate what exactly was the first month on the calendar back in 1649 A.D., my preferred thought is that "the first" refers to the man whom this whole ritual revolves around: Charles the First. While some might argue that he wasn’t called "Charles the First" immediately following his death, the passage merely refers to "the first," and, indeed, Charles was first in the minds of his followers, and as Holmes says, the advent of Charles II was already foreseen. Charles the First died on January 30, 1649. Six months later would have been June 30.

After dating "The Gloria Scott" in July of 1880 and discussed Holmes meeting Watson in the summer of 1881 back when A Study in Scarlet was the topic, it seems that I’m going to have to go with June of 1881 for this case’s placement. Brunton begs for "at least a fortnight" more on the job, presumably to finish his treasure hunt — a treasure hunt that needs to be performed on as close to June 30th as possible. A fortnight (fourteen days) before that is June 16th, a Thursday. (How perfect is that? Brunton was discovered on a Thursday.) Counting the days in Musgrave’s narrative, it then follows that Holmes took up the case on Thursday, June 23, 1881 — just in time to recreate the ritual on his own.

"A Study in Scarlet"

A Study in Scarlet.

The case begins Tuesday, March 4, 1884.

Why?

SIGNIFICANT YEAR REFERENCE:
"In the year 1878 I took my degree of Doctor of Medicine of the University of London . . ."

SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL TIE-IN:
"I was removed from my brigade and attached to the Berkshires, with whom I served at the fatal battle of Maiwand." (June 27, 1880.)

SIGNIFICANT PASSAGE OF TIME:
"I was removed, with a great train of wounded sufferers, to the base hospital at Peshawar . . . improved . . . was struck down by enteric fever . . . . For months my life was despaired of, and when at last I came to myself . . . I was despatched . . . landed a month later on Portsmouth jetty, with my health irretrievably ruined, but with permission from a paternal government to spend the next nine months in attempting to improve it . . . London . . .There I stayed for some time at a private hotel in the Strand . . . I soon realized . . . that I must make a complete alteration in my style of living."

SIGNIFICANT YEAR REFERENCE OF QUESTIONABLE VALUE: 
"There was the case of Von Bischoff at Frankfort last year." 

KEY WATSON DATE OF CASE:
"It was upon the 4th of March, as I have good reason to remember, that I rose somewhat earlier than usual, and found that Sherlock Holmes had not yet finished his breakfast." 

KEY HISTORICAL REFERENCE OF THE CASE:
"I want to go to Halle’s concert to hear Norman Neruda this afternoon."

SEEMING BAD REPORTAGE BY THE STANDARD:
"The two bade adieu to their landlady upon Tuesday, the 4th inst., and departed to Euston Station with the avowed intention of catching the Liverpool express. They were afterwards seen together upon the platform. Nothing more is known of them until Mr. Drebber’s body was, as recorded, discovered in an empty house in the Brixton Road, many miles from Euston."

LESTRADE CONFIRMS WATSON:
"They had been seen together at Euston Station about half-past eight on the evening of the 3rd. At two in the morning Drebber had been found in the Brixton Road."
"On Thursday the prisoner will be brought before the magistrates, and your attendance will be required."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
March 4, 1881. Of course, Bring-Gould’s original thought in a 1948 BSJ was March 4, 1882. Methinks he bowed to popular opinion.

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
March 4, 1881. He does reiterate a nice point about Holmes and Watson meeting at Bart’s on January 1st, because the lab was empty, something we might make use of later.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
Call me contrary, but certain warped impulse has always made me want to go with that "bad" Standard date. As March 4 fell on a Tuesday in 1884, The Standard would seem to be placing the date at March 4, 1884. If Watson copied from actual newspaper clippings in his scrapbook, this could be a very reliable date. It would mean, of course, that "Speckled Band" actually took place *before* the Drebber-Stangerson murders, and Watson’s desire to write a novel of tragic romance in America caused him to condense time in his first chronicle of Holmes, making a later case his first with the detective.

In his original introduction to "The Date Being . . ." Andrew Jay Peck makes a good case for the Moriarty-involved opening of The Valley of Fear having been transplanted on to the Birlstone case, which didn’t necessarily involve Moriarty. He cites the precedence of the mind-reading passage from "The Resident Patient," which we all know was transplanted from the suppressed tale "The Cardboard Box." I think a good case can be similarly made for separating the "meeting Sherlock Holmes" portion of STUD from the "Drebber case" portion. The coincidence of Holmes getting a letter from Gregson just as the consulting detective concludes an explanation of his trade seems a bit much (like something from fiction, for heaven’s sake!), but the transplant notion explains even that quite nicely.

I have to conclude that the initial meeting, the days of Watson studying Holmes, and the incident of the article "The Book of Life" all took place some time long before Tuesday, March 4, 1884, the obvious beginning of the true Study in Scarlet.

"The Yellow Face"

The Yellow Face.

The case begins Saturday, March 29, 1884.

Why?

HOLMES’S CURRENT STATE:
"Few men were capable of greater muscular effort, and he was undoubtedly one of the finest boxers of his weight that I have ever seen."

THE FRIENDSHIP’S CURRENT STATE:
"For two hours we rambled about together, in silence for the most part, as befits two men who know each other intimately. It was nearly five before we were back in Baker Street once more."

NATURE’S CURRENT STATE:
"One day in early spring he had so far relaxed as to go for a walk with me in the Park, where the first faint shoots of green were breaking out upon the elms, and the sticky spear-heads of the chestnuts were just beginning to burst into their fivefold leaves."

GRANT MUNRO’S AGE:
"I should have put him at about thirty, though he was really some years older."

EFFIE MUNRO’S AGE:
"I am a married man and have been so for three years.
"She was a widow when I met her first, though quite young—only twenty-five."
"She had only been six months at Pinner when I met her; we fell in love with each other, and we married a few weeks afterwards."

THE TIMETABLE OF THE NEW NEIGHBOURS:
"Well, about six weeks ago she came to me."
"Well, last Monday evening I was taking a stroll down that way when I met
an empty van coming up the lane . . . it was clear that the cottage had
at last been let."
"All the rest of the night I tossed and tumbled, framing theory after theory, each more unlikely than the last."
"I should have gone to the City that day, but I was too disturbed in my
mind to be able to pay attention to business matters . . ." 
"For two days after this I stayed at home . . . . On the third day, however, I had ample evidence that her solemn promise was not enough to hold her back from this secret influence which drew her away from her husband and her duty.
"I had gone into town on that day . . ."
"That was yesterday, Mr. Holmes . . ."
"In that case I shall come out to-morrow and talk it over with you. But we had not a very long time to wait for that. It came just as we had finished our tea."

PHOTO TIME FOR THE MUNROS:
". . . a full-length photograph of my wife, which had been taken at my request only three months ago."

WHAT ZEISLER, KING OF CHRONOLOGY SAYS:
A Saturday near April 1, 1885 or 1886

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
Saturday, April 7, 1888

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
When placing this case in the years of Holmes and Watson’s cohabitation, much has been made of Watson’s words, "we rambled about together, in silence for the most part, as befits two men who know each other intimately." But their current level of intimacy really make any difference to Sherlock Holmes, who kept to himself on a regular basis? Watson didn’t have any choice but to become comfortable with Holmes’s silences very quickly, so I don’t think that line can fairly be used as a solid criteria for dating the tale.

Much more important, in my mind, is the reference to Holmes’s incredible strength and boxing ability. According to A Study in Scarlet, Watson learned of Holmes’s boxing abilities before he knew of Holmes’s line of work. As boxing was one of the few points of social contact Holmes engaged in during college, it’s not surprising that he and Watson made contact on that point early on. We know Holmes was boxing actively four years before The Sign of the Four, but past that, there is little evidence of it.

Going by Holmes’s physical condition, and Watson’s comments on it, I would have to date this case as early as possible, before the drug experimentation, before the cases that would cause him to collapse utterly. In 1883, at the time of SPEC, we know Holmes’s strength was poker-bendingly healthy, and that surely held out until 1884. Why 1884?

Starting with the day Grant Munro’s neighbors moved in, a Monday, it is easy to count the days in this story and find that Munro called upon Holmes on a Saturday. Which Saturday?

Well, there’s that photo that Grant asked his wife to have taken of her "three months before." And when would a man be asking his wife for a photograph? Christmas naturally suggests itself, and that would be the time Munro would think of as when his wife had it taken, regardless of when the actual photo session was. And three months later puts us right in that time when those green shoots are appearing on the trees: Saturday, March 29, 1884.

(Why 1884, and not 1883? Because in 1883 three months after Christmas would put this case at the same time as "Speckled Band" was set at in an earlier Chronology Corner.)

"The Red Circle"

The Red Circle.

The case begins Tuesday, January 6, 1885.

Why?

THE STATE OF HOLMES’S BUSINESS:
"I really have other things to engage me."
"So spoke Sherlock Holmes and turned back to the great scrapbook in which he was arranging and indexing some of his recent material."

A PREVIOUS CASE:
"You arranged an affair for a lodger of mine last year," she said — "Mr. Fairdale Hobbs."

LUCCA’S ARRIVAL:
"You say that the man came ten days ago and paid you for a fortnight’s board and lodging?"
"He has been there for ten days, and neither Mr. Warren, nor I, nor the girl has once set eyes upon him."

HOLMES’S DAILY ROUTINE:
"He took down the great book in which, day by day, he filed the agony columns of the various London journals."

THE SCHEDULE OF PERSONAL ADS:
"That is two days after Mrs. Warren’s lodger arrived."
"Yes, here we are — three days later."
"Nothing for a week after that. Then comes something much more definite ..."
"That was in yesterday’s paper, and there is nothing in to-day’s."

MRS. WARREN’S TIME AT HER CURRENT RESIDENCE: 
"Well, we’ve lived there fifteen years and no such happenings ever came before."

STATEMENT OF THE SEASON:
". . . the gloom of a London winter evening had thickened into one gray curtain . . ."

THE LUCCAS’ AMERICAN PERIOD:
"We fled together, were married at Bari, and sold my jewels to gain the money which would take us to America. This was four years ago, and we have been in New York ever since."

THE STATEMENT OF THE NIGHT, BY COMPOSER:
"By the way, it is not eight o’clock, and a Wagner night at Covent Garden! If we hurry, we might be in time for the second act."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
September 24, 1902. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
Winter 1895-1901.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY TIMETABLE:
"Winter" is the only plain reference to the date Watson gives us in this tale, and a very weak reference it is. Holmes mentions "Wagner night at Convent Garden," but was he necessarily referring to Richard Wagner? For all we know he could have known a cellist named Violet Wagner whose part in the orchestra he especially liked to hear no matter what was being played. So we must once again turn to the subtler details to date this case.

Holmes claims he has "other things to engage me," but does he really mean other cases? Given the focused, driven aspect of Holmes’s personality, would he be pasting clippings into his scrapbook if he really had a case to occupy him? In fact, the very act of clipping agony columns to past in a scrapbook fairly sings of a younger Holmes, just starting out in his career, taking in all possible data which might be useful to him. For the later, busier Holmes of the 1890s, clipping agony columns surely didn’t balance benefits versus time spent enough to really be of profit to him.

Another sign of a younger Holmes is the way Sherlock is excited to meet the Pinkerton, Mr. Leverton, who seems to be the famous one in that exchange. Leverton doesn’t appear to have heard of Holmes at all, while Holmes is quite the fan. 

A third element that marks this as an earlier case is Inspector Gregson. Gregson doesn’t make any documentable appearances after Holmes’s hiatus that ended in 1894. He is the first detective in the Canon to summon Holmes. He is Scotland Yard’s smartest in Holmes’s opinion, and the two men get along wonderfully. Which leads one to wonder why Holmes was working with Lestrade alone at the time of "The Final Problem." We see Gregson investigating organized crime in REDC and suddenly he’s gone in FINA, a tale of Holmes’s biggest battle against organized crime. Might Gregson have been killed by Moriarty during the late 1880s? I think so. Past "Greek Interpreter" in 1888, Watson only mentions Gregson in "Wisteria Lodge" in 1892 — a case wherein Watson was hallucinating the presence of Holmes himself, another of Moriarty’s victims. I think the Gregson of 1892 might have even been a ghost from Watson’s distraught mind overlaid upon another Scotland Yarder.

Yet why is this younger Holmes so reluctant to look into Mrs. Warren’s case? In those days he was all for the commonplace matters and not being put off by anyone’s personal qualities. The best excuse I can find for young Holmes looking to spend a lazy day at Baker Street is that it’s his birthday, and with that, and the previous considerations in mind, I’m going to place this one on Tuesday, January 6, 1885.

"The Beryl Coronet"

The Beryl Coronet.

The case begins Friday, February 26, 1886.

Why?

WATSON’S CURRENT PLACE OF RESIDENCE:
"Holmes," said I as I stood one morning in our bow-window . . .

STATEMENT OF THE MONTH:
"It was a bright, crisp February morning, and the snow of the day before still lay deep upon the ground, shimmering brightly in the wintry sun."

THE DAYS OF THE TRANSACTION:
"Yesterday morning I was seated in my office at the bank when a card was brought in . . ."
"Next Monday I have a large sum due to me . . ."
"I should not dream of doing so were it not absolutely certain that I should be able in four days to reclaim it."
"I leave it with you, however, with every confidence, and I shall call for it in person on Monday morning."

AGES AND TIMES OF THE HOLDER FAMILY:
"He was a man of about fifty . . ."
"She is my niece; but when my brother died five years ago and left her alone in the world I adopted her . . ."
"She is four-and-twenty."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
December 19, 1890. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
February 19, 1886.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
While my usual method is to follow Watson’s dates and let marriages sort themselves out later, "Beryl Coronet" is the first example of a situation where Watson’s marital status must be used to help determine part of the date. We know it is February and Watson is unmarried and at Baker Street, speaking of "our bow-window." As the tale was published in 1892, that bachelor limitation holds us to the years 1882 thru 1887.

Within that six year span, I would conjecture that 1886 is the most likely suspect, for one reason and one reason alone: Holder’s client has that large sum of money coming due on Monday. And while Monday is a fine day for debts to come due, I think it much more likely that the first of the month was the real day that the debt came due. As March 1st fell on a Monday in 1886, I would then place this case’s beginning on Friday, February 26, 1886.

"The Resident Patient"

The Resident Patient.

The case begins Saturday, October 2, 1886.

Why?

STATEMENT OF THE MONTH:
"It had been a close, rainy day in October."

CURRENT STATE OF LONDON:
"The paper was uninteresting. Parliament had risen. Everybody was out of town, and I yearned for the glades of the New Forest or the shingle of Southsea." A depleted bank account had caused me to postpone my holiday."

CURRENT STATE OF WATSON’S CAREER:
"You are yourself, I presume, a medical man?"
"A retired army surgeon."

THE START OF TREVELYAN’S PRACTICE:
"I won’t weary you with the account of how we bargained and negotiated. It ended in my moving into the house next Lady Day, and starting in practice on very much the same conditions as he had suggested."
"A few good cases and the reputation which I had won in the hospital brought me rapidly to the front, and during the last few years I have made him a rich man."
"Some weeks ago Mr. Blessington came down to me in, as it seemed to me, a state of considerable agitation. He spoke of some burglary which, he said, had been committed in the West End . . . For a week he continued to be in a peculiar state of restlessness . . . ."
"Two days ago I received the letter which I now read to you."
"He proposes to call at about a quarter-past six to-morrow evening . . ."
"You can imagine my amazement when, at the very same hour this evening, they both came marching into my consulting-room . . ."

THE YEAR OF THE ORIGINAL CRIME:
"This was in 1875. They were all five arrested, but the evidence against them was by no means conclusive. This Blessington or Sutton, who was the worst of the gang, turned informer. On his evidence Cartwright was hanged and the other three got fifteen years apiece. When they got out the other day, which was some years before their full term, they set themselves, as you perceive, to hunt down the traitor and to avenge the death of their comrade upon him."

DISTANCE OF WATSON’S WRITING FROM THE CASE:
"From that night nothing has been seen of the three murderers by the police, and it is surmised at Scotland Yard that they were among the passengers of the ill-fated steamer Norah Creina, which was lost some years ago with all hands upon the Portuguese coast, some leagues to the north of Oporto."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
October 6, 1886. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
October 29, 1887.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
It’s October. It’s before 1890. Watson is seriously depressed, in that way that only a man who has been without female companionship for some time can be depressed. The year 1887 seems full of female contact for Watson, if past Chronology Corners are to be believed, and Watson’s feelings of being cooped up in the sitting room sound a lot like the early Watson of Baker Street, still nursing his post-war health. Given the fact that they wouldn’t have let the Worthingdon bank gang out of prison *too* early, I’ll have to place this case in 1886.

As to the day in 1886, the heat seems to indicate earlier in the month, the kaliedoscope of evening activity on the Strand seems to say Saturday night. Based entirely on those thoughts and a touch of male intuition, I’m going to call this one taking place on Saturday, October 2, 1886.

"The Reigate Squires"

The Reigate Squires.

The case begins Tuesday, April 26, 1887.

Why?

A YEAR, A MONTH, AND A DAY
"It was some time before the health of my friend Mr. Sherlock Holmes recovered from the strain caused by his immense exertions in the spring of ‘87."
"On referring to my notes I see that it was upon the fourteenth of April that I received a telegram from Lyons which informed me that Holmes was lying ill in the Hotel Dulong. Within twenty-four hours I was in his sick-room and was relieved to find that there was nothing formidable in his symptoms. Even his iron constitution, however, had broken down under the strain of an investigation which had extended over two months, during which period he had never worked less than fifteen hours a day and had more than once, as he assured me, kept to his task for five days at a stretch."

BACK TO BAKER STREET, OFF TO REIGATE
"Three days later we were back in Baker Street together . . . a week after our return from Lyons we were under the colonel’s roof."

THE DAY OF THE BURGLARY
"Old Acton, who is one of our county magnates, had his house broken into last Monday."

CUNNINGHAM CORRECTS HOLMES’S BOGUS NOTE
"You see you begin, ‘Whereas, at about a quarter to one on Tuesday morning an attempt was made,’ and so on. It was at a quarter to twelve, as a matter of fact."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
April 14, 1887. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
April 25, 1887.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
Watson begins the sequence of events leading to "Reigate Squires" with an exact date that Canonical chronologists do not dispute in the least: Thursday, April 14, 1887. Watson made it to Holmes’s bedside by the 15th, they were back in Baker Street by the 18th, and in Reigate a week later, on Monday the 25th, a week after old Acton’s house was burgled. That night at 11:45 William Kirwan is killed, which Holmes purposefully mis-writes as 12:45 Tuesday morning.

The only question is when does one consider that the case actually started? When we first hear of Holmes on the 14th? Upon hearing of the Acton burglary on the 25th? Or when Holmes actually gets involved on the 26th? Personally, I’ll take Tuesday, April 26, 1887.

"The Second Stain"

The Second Stain.

The case begins Tuesday, July 19, 1887.

Why?

DATE OF PUBLICATION:
December 1904

TIMING OF THE PUBLICATION:
"I had intended "The Adventure of the Abbey Grange" to be the last of those exploits of my friend, Mr. Sherlock Holmes, which I should ever communicate to the public. This resolution of mine was not due to any lack of material, since I have notes of many hundreds of cases to which I have never alluded, nor was it caused by any waning interest on the part of my readers in the singular personality and unique methods of this remarkable man. The real reason lay in the reluctance which Mr. Holmes has shown to the continued publication of his experiences. So long as he was in actual professional practice the records of his successes were of some practical value to him, but since he has definitely retired from London and betaken himself to study and bee-farming on the Sussex Downs, notoriety has become hateful to him, and he has peremptorily requested that his wishes in this matter should be strictly observed. It was only upon my representing to him that I had given a promise that "The Adventure of the Second Stain" should be published when the times were ripe, and pointing out to him that it is only appropriate that this long series of episodes should culminate in the most important international case which he has ever been called upon to handle, that I at last succeeded in obtaining his consent that a carefully guarded account of the incident should at last be laid before the public."

STATEMENT OF THE SEASON AND DAY OF THE WEEK:
"It was, then, in a year, and even in a decade, that shall be nameless, that upon one Tuesday morning in autumn we found two visitors of European fame within the walls of our humble room in Baker Street."

THE TIMING OF THE LETTER:
"The letter—for it was a letter from a foreign potentate — was received six days ago."
"Each member of the Cabinet was informed of it yesterday, but the pledge of secrecy which attends every Cabinet meeting was increased by the solemn warning which was given by the Prime Minister."
"It was taken, then, yesterday evening between seven-thirty and eleven-thirty, probably near the earlier hour, since whoever took it evidently knew that it was there and would naturally secure it as early as possible."

THE STATE OF HOLMES’S PRACTICE:
"You are two of the most busy men in the country, and in my own small way I have also a good many calls upon me. I regret exceedingly that I cannot help you in this matter, and any continuation of this interview would be a waste of time."

THE STATEMENT OF THE SEASON:
", , , And yet as we saw it that autumn morning . . ."

THE STATE OF WATSON’S RELATIONSHIPS:
"Now, Watson, the fair sex is your department."

A PAST UNTOLD CASE:
"And you must have observed, Watson, how she manoeuvred to have the light at her back. She did not wish us to read her expression. . . . You remember the woman at Margate whom I suspected for the same reason. No powder on her nose — that proved to be the correct solution."

TIME PASSES:
"All that day and the next and the next Holmes was in a mood which his friends would call taciturn, and others morose."
"So for three mornings the mystery remained, so far as I could follow it in the papers. . . . Upon the fourth day there appeared a long telegram from Paris"
"But if I have told you nothing in the last three days, it is because there is nothing to tell. . . . Only one important thing has happened in the last three days, and that is that nothing has happened."

THE DAYS FROM THE DAILY TELEGRAPH:
"Yesterday a lady, who has been known as Mme. Henri Fournaye, occupying a small villa in the Rue Austerlitz, was reported to the authorities by her servants as being insane. . . . On inquiry, the police have discovered that Mme. Henri Fournaye only returned from a journey to London on Tuesday last. . . . Her movements upon the Monday night have not yet been traced, but it is undoubted that a woman answering to her description attracted much attention at Charing Cross Station on Tuesday morning by the wildness of her appearance and the violence of her gestures. . . . There is evidence that a woman, who might have been Mme. Fournaye, was seen for some hours upon Monday night watching the house in Godolphin Street."

LADY HILDA’S VIGIL:
"For two days I watched the place, but the door was never left open. Last night I made a last attempt."

TRELAWNEY HOPE’S TIME AWAY FROM THE BOX:
"Have you examined the box since Tuesday morning?"
"No. It was not necessary."

AN IMPORTANT BIT FROM ANOTHER STORY (NAVA):
"The July which immediately succeeded my marriage was made memorable by three cases of interest, in which I had the privilege of being associated with Sherlock Holmes and of studying his methods. I find them recorded in my notes under the headings of "The Adventure of the Second Stain," "The Adventure of the Naval Treaty," and "The Adventure of the Tired Captain." The first of these, however, deals with interests of such importance and implicates so many of the first families in the kingdom that for many years it will be impossible to make it public. No case, however, in which Holmes was engaged has ever illustrated the value of his analytical methods so clearly or has impressed those who were associated with him so deeply. I still retain an almost verbatim report of the interview in which he demonstrated the true facts of the case to Monsieur Dubugue of the Paris police, and Fritz von Waldbaum, the well-known specialist of Dantzig, both of whom had wasted their energies upon what proved to be side-issues. The new century will have come, however, before the story can be safely told."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
October 12, 1886. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
A Tuesday in July 1889.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY TIMETABLE:
Though the details of "The Adventure of the Second Stain" mentioned in "Naval Treaty" seem almost like they come from a very different "The Adventure of the Second Stain," there are also enough points of similarity to accept it as the same case for chronological purposes. Watson plainly still couldn’t (or wouldn’t, for the sake of a good story) write everything, even after the turn of the century, but that which he did is close enough to the original reference to go with his "same month as Naval Treaty" date. 

So, with the "Naval Treaty" connection, and its dating of July 29, 1887 as a starting point, certain questions regarding the "Second Stain" mystery letter start to come up: Which foreign potentate was raging about British colonialism in that letter which everyone so feared? The Premier seems to point that potentate’s identification in the direction of Europe, but is that mere subterfuge, one quickly seen through by Holmes? For if any potentate was liable to get stirred up by British colonialism in July, wouldn’t it be one who’s very patriotism helped the matter along in that very month?

Especially, for example, on July 4th?

Try this scenario on for size: Grover Cleveland has a bit too much to drink before fireworks on Monday, July 4th. Afterwards, in a fit of patriotic passion, he writes a fiery letter to the British Prime Minister. It goes into the mail the next day, taking a little over a week to cross the Atlantic and get to the Minister on Wednesday, July 13. Six days later, the Prime Minister comes to 221B Baker Street on Tuesday, July 19, 1887.

Hmmm, I think like it. Anybody else go for this one?

"The Naval Treaty"

The Naval Treaty.

The case begins Friday, July 29, 1887.

Why?

THE MARRIAGE CONNECTION:
"The July which immediately succeeded my marriage was made memorable by three cases of interest, in which I had the privilege of being associated with Sherlock Holmes and of studying his methods. I find them recorded in my notes under the headings of ‘The Adventure of the Second Stain,’ ‘The Adventure of the Naval Treaty,’ and ‘The Adventure of the Tired Captain.’"

THE TIME FOR TELLING SECOND STAIN:
"The new century will have come, however, before the story can be safely told."

THE DATE OF THE TREATY PASSING:
"Nearly ten weeks ago—to be more accurate, on the twenty-third of May— he called me into his private room, and, after complimenting me on the good work which I had done, he informed me that he had a new commission of trust for me to execute."

DURATION OF THE BRAIN FEVER:
"Here I have lain, Mr. Holmes, for over nine weeks, unconscious, and raving with brain-fever."

WATSON’S POINT IN GETTING TO KNOW HOLMES:
"I had never before seen him show any keen interest in natural objects."

THE SLOW SEASON FOR THE MEDICAL BUSINESS:
"I was going to say that my practice could get along very well for a day or two, since it is the slackest time in the year."

COUNTING HOLMES’S CASES:
"On the contrary," said Holmes, "out of my last fifty-three cases my name has only appeared in four, and the police have had all the credit in forty-nine."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
July 30, 1889. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
July 29, 1889.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
While the time of year in "The Naval Treaty" seems abundantly clear from Percy Phelps’s tale, again we come to a case where the dating of Watson’s marriage would seem to be necessary to pinpointing the year. Of course, with evidence in other cases of a Watson marriage in both 1887 and 1889, choices still have to be made. As Holmes has but fifty-three cases on his books in which he worked with the police at this point, I have to take the earlier choice on this one. 

Given the facts that Watson said this case took place in July, that the last day of July 1887 is exactly ten weeks past the theft of the treaty (which took place "nearly ten weeks ago," and that the case seems to take three days, I’d have to put the start of this case at Friday, July 29, 1887.

"The Crooked Man"

The Crooked Man.

The case begins Tuesday, August 30, 1887.

Why?

STATE OF WATSON’S MARRIAGE AND CAREER:
"One summer night, a few months after my marriage, I was seated by my own hearth smoking a last pipe and nodding over a novel, for my day’s work had been an exhausting one. My wife had already gone upstairs, and the sound of the locking of the hall door some time before told me that the servants had also retired."

TIME OF HOLMES’S VISIT:
"It was a quarter to twelve."

SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATITIONS FROM HOLMES:
"You still smoke the Arcadia mixture of your bachelor days, then! There’s no mistaking that fluffy ash upon your coat. It’s easy to tell that you have been accustomed to wear a uniform, Watson."

WATSON’S CURRENT SUBSTITUTE:
"I have no doubt Jackson would take my practice."

DURATION OF THE BARCLAY MARRIAGE:
"I may add that she was a woman of great beauty, and that even now, when she has been married for upward of thirty years, she is still of a striking and queenly appearance."

DURATION OF BARCLAY’S COMMISSION:
"It was commanded up to Monday night by James Barclay, a gallant veteran, who started as a full private, was raised to commissioned rank for his bravery at the time of the Mutiny."

DURATION OF BARCLAY’S RESIDENCE:
"The first battalion of the Royal Munsters (which is the old One Hundred and Seventeenth) has been stationed at Aldershot for some years. The married officers live out of barracks, and the colonel has during all this time occupied a villa called ‘Lachine,’ about half a mile from the north camp."

THE DAY OF THE CRIME:
"Now for the events at Lachine between nine and ten on the evening of last Monday."

THE DAY OF THE INVESTIGATION:
"That was the state of things, Watson, when upon the Tuesday morning I, at the request of Major Murphy, went down to Aldershot to supplement the efforts of the police."

DURATION OF WOOD’S SUPPOSED DEATH:
"I thought you had been dead this thirty years, Henry."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
September 11, 1889. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
June 26, 1889.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY TIMETABLE:
With the Sepoy Mutiny beginning in 1857, and Mrs. Barclay’s clear statement that she thought Henry Wood had been dead for thirty years (and she had better reason to remember than anyone), the logical year for this case would be 1887. (Holmes’s statement of "upward of thirty years" has to be taken as an estimation — he’s good, but he doesn’t track wedding anniversaries.) Beyond that, one must look to the details of Watson’s married life, and, as always, that’s where it gets tricky.

While other chronologers have gone with 1889, Anstruther seemed to be Watson’s fill-in doctor that particular summer, as we have seen in "The Boscombe Valley Mystery," and Watson is using Jackson in this case. Holmes’s reference to Watson’s military career and bachelor days also mark this as a tale from earlier times, when Watson had only been married for the first time and was still not so long out of uniform. His wife then, was that Mrs. Watson from "Five Orange Pips" who went on a visit to her mother’s and never seems to have returned. Watson is more easily tired in those early days, still showing the effects of the war. Looking at the above details, 1887 still seems a likely choice for the year. As for the day within that year?

Well, a few months have passed since Watson’s marriage, a marriage that had obviously not taken place at the time of "Reigate Squires" in the last part of April. Watson’s attentions seem totally unencumbered by romance as he takes Holmes to the country in that tale, so I would even go so far as to say that he had yet to meet his future wife (or at least had yet to start dating her).

It’s also not long before Mrs. Watson runs off to her mother’s, I’d wager, as Watson is exhausted yet still not headed for the bedroom at nearly midnight. Definitely sounds like trouble in paradise. The "long series of cases" dealt with by Holmes and Watson in 1887 probably didn’t help matters any, and Holmes’s sudden appearance that Wednesday morning at breakfast may have been the last straw, sending the current Mrs. Watson packing for mother’s house.

Given all of the above, I’d place this case on Tuesday, August 30, 1887.

"The Five Orange Pips"

The Five Orange Pips.

The case begins Friday, September 16, 1887.

Why?

SIGNIFICANT PASSAGE OF TIME:
"When I glance over my notes and records of the Sherlock Holmes cases between the years ‘82 and ‘90 . . ."

SIGNIFICANT YEAR REFERENCE:
"The year ‘87 furnished us with a long series of cases . . . the Paradol Chamber . . . the Amateur Mendicant Society . . . the British bark Sophy Anderson . . . the Grice Patersons in the island of Uffa, and finally of the Camberwell poisoning case."

SIGNIFICANT MONTH REFERENCE:
"It was in the latter days of September . . ."

WATSON’S MARITAL STATUS:
"My wife was on a visit to her mother’s . . ."

PREVIOUS ENCOUNTERS OF NOTE:
"I heard from Major Prendergast how you saved him in the Tankerville Club scandal."
"I have been beaten four times — three times by men, and once by a woman."

THE DATES OF THE OPENSHAW CLAN:
"When Lee laid down his arms my uncle returned to his plantation, where he remained for three or four years. About 1869 or 1870 he came back to Europe and took a small estate in Sussex, near Horsham."
"He didn’t mind me; in fact, he took a fancy to me, for at the time when he saw me first I was a youngster of twelve or so. This would be in the year 1878, after he had been eight or nine years in England."
" . . . by the time that I was sixteen I was quite master of the house."
"One day -- it was in March, 1883 — a letter with a foreign stamp lay upon
the table in front of the colonel’s plate."
"The letter arrived on March 10, 1883. His death was seven weeks later,
upon the night of May 2d."
"Well, it was the beginning of ‘84 when my father came to live at Horsham, and all went as well as possible with us until the January of ‘85. On the fourth day after the new year I heard my father give a sharp cry of surprise as we sat together at the breakfast-table."
"On the third day after the coming of the letter my father went from home
to visit an old friend of his, Major Freebody . . . . Upon the second day of his absence I received a telegram from the major, imploring me to come at once. My father had fallen over one of the deep chalk-pits
"It was in January, ‘85, that my poor father met his end, and two years
and eight months have elapsed since then."
"It was headed, "March, 1869," and beneath were the following enigmatical notices:
"4th. Hudson came. Same old platform.
"7th. Set the pips on McCauley, Paramore, and John Swain, of St. Augustine.
"9th. McCauley cleared.
"10th. John Swain cleared.
"12th. Visited Paramore. All well."

WATSON PROMOTES HIS PREVIOUS BOOK:
"I think, Watson," he remarked at last, "that of all our cases we have had none more fantastic than this."
"Save, perhaps, the Sign of Four."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
September 29, 1887. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
September 24, 1889.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
Here we have an excellent case of a Watsonian fork in the road: on one hand, Watson makes clear year and month references that are backed up by the client’s date-filled tale. On the other hand, we have a reference to "The Sign of Four" and a wife who has a mother. More conservative Sherlockians of the past tried with all their might to keep Watson married to only one woman, and have that one woman be Mary Morstan. As a result, they want to ignore the year and keep the month, ignore the mother and keep the SIGN. The Smash has to go back to his Number One Rule on this one: Trust Watson.

And following that rule, I have to lay down my second rule of chronology: If one argues in front of Watson’s dates, one inevitably starts twisting dates to suit marriages, rather than letting dates dictate marriages. (And everyone knows dates lead to marriages.)

Accepting the dates and the wife with a mother, we are left with only that pesky SIGN reference, which is easy to see as shameless self-promotion on Watson’s part: "If you think this case is great, buy ‘The Sign of Four,’ available at all better book stalls!" 

Which, in turn, leaves us with only one question: what was the day this case started? For that, we must turn to the handiwork of Captain Calhoun of the Lone Star. On Wednesday, May 2, 1883, Captain Calhoun killed Elias Opensaw. On Friday, January 9, 1885, Captain Calhoun killed Joseph Openshaw. And on Friday, September 16, 1887, Captain Calhoun killed John Openshaw. Why that particular day? Why five orange pips and only five? Ritual, of course. Calhoun was a pattern killer, and even though life at sea made it hard to adhere to his patterns perfectly, they’re still there. He killed Openshaw #2 exactly one year, eight months, and seven days after Openshaw #1. Then Openshaw #3 dies exactly two years, eight months, and seven days after Openshaw #2. Was the added year a purposeful change, or just the result of fitting his pattern around his seagoing schedule?
Who knows with these mass murderers? Whatever the reason, I’m dating this case at Friday, September 16, 1887.

"The Noble Bachelor"

The Noble Bachelor.

The case begins Thursday, October 6, 1887.

Why?

WATSON’S MARITAL STATE:
"It was a few weeks before my own marriage, during the days when I was still sharing rooms with Holmes in Baker Street, that he came home from an afternoon stroll to find a letter on the table waiting for him. I had remained indoors all day, for the weather had taken a sudden turn to rain, with high autumnal winds . . ."

AND THE SEASON ONCE MORE:
"Draw your chair up and hand me my violin, for the only problem we have still to solve is how to while away these bleak autumnal evenings."

LORD ST. SIMON’S LIFETIME:
"Born in 1846. He’s forty-one years of age . . ."
"Lord St. Simon, who has shown himself for over twenty years proof against the little god’s arrows . . ."
"As it is an open secret that the Duke of Balmoral has been compelled to sell his pictures within the last few years . . ."
"It is in the personal column of the Morning Post, and dates, as you see, some weeks back."
"There was a paragraph amplifying this in one of the society papers of the same week."
"An important addition has been made during the last week to the list of the prizes which have been borne away by these charming invaders."
"When did you first meet Miss Hatty Doran?"
"In San Francisco, a year ago."
"My wife was twenty before her father became a rich man."
"Her father brought her over for this last London season."

THE WEDDING DAY:
"Two days later--that is, on Wednesday last--there is a curt announcement that the wedding had taken place . . ."
"Such as they are, they are set forth in a single article of a morning paper of yesterday . . ."
"The ceremony, as shortly announced in the papers of yesterday, occurred on the previous morning . . ."

FHM’S HOTEL BILL:
"Oct. 4th, rooms 8s., breakfast 2s. 6d., cocktail 1s., lunch 2s. 6d., glass sherry, 8d."
"More valuable still was it to know that within a week he had settled his bill at one of the most select London hotels."

FRANK AND HATTIE’S DATES:
"Frank here and I met in ‘84, in McQuire’s camp, near the Rockies, where pa was working a claim. We were engaged to each other, Frank and I; but then one day father struck a rich pocket and made a pile . . ."
" . . .then Frank went off to seek his fortune . . ."
" . . . there was my Frank’s name among the killed. I fainted dead away, and I was very sick for months after. Pa thought I had a decline and took me to half the doctors in ‘Frisco. Not a word of news came for a year and more, so that I never doubted that Frank was really dead. Then Lord St. Simon came to ‘Frisco . . ."

WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
October 8, 1886. 

WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
December 7, 1888.

THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
Well, taking Lord St. Simon’s birth year and adding his age (also considering the fact that it’s autumn and his birthday has most likely passed for that year), the case probably takes place in 1887, with 1888 as an outside possibility if his birthday was past mid-October. Frank and Hattie met in 1884, and over two years have passed since that time, seeming to confirm an 1887 or 1888 date.

But then comes the matter of Frank Moulton’s hotel bill for October 4th, used as note-paper for a note he slipped Hattie Doran on the day of her wedding. As the wedding was reported the next day in a Wednesday newspaper, it plainly occurred on a Tuesday. In 1887, October 4 occurs on a Tuesday. In 1888, on a Thursday. As it would seem much more likely for a fellow to be carrying his hotel bill on the same day he received it, rather than sometime the next week, we find confirmation of 1887 as the year.

For Holmes and Watson, then, the case begins two days later, on Thursday, October 6, 1887.