Talk:Harry Bensley

Encyclopedic?
The article has many problems. It is sourced almost entirely from a self-published website the subject's descendant. The article is largely speculative since so few details are known for certain. The lack of sources makes the notability of the topic questionable. I'm inclined to cuit it down to what is in the very short BBC reference, or perhaps the longer Historic-UK.com website. Any other thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    19:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to come in on Mr Beback's assertions. I have already unmasked this individual as a fraudster. There was no "wager". The central character, Bensley, came up with the con whilst in a prison cell. I have outlined this to persons who keep pushing this fiction; but to no avail. The truth is here. JPM

I have also posted further on this nonsense as it is clearly getting out of hand. HE DID NOT DO IT. IT WAS A CON. SEE HERE: http://thebigretort.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/harry-bensley-man-in-iron-mask-hoax.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.52.118 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"USD 27,997" versus "$100,000" versus "£21,000"
http://mcnaught.orpheusweb.co.uk/HarryB/index.html claims the bet was for "$100,000 (then £21,000)", which is really confusing wording. I think it means that the bet was for £21,000, and then implies that £21,000 in 1907 Britain would have been roughly equivalent to $100,000 in twenty-first-century America (which may or may not be true, but is certainly irrelevant).

http://mcnaught.orpheusweb.co.uk/HarryB/postcd1.html very explicitly states (on the front of the postcard) that the wager was for £21,000.

The current article claims that the wager was for "USD $27,997", and gives http://mcnaught.orpheusweb.co.uk/HarryB/postcd1.html as the source for that claim. I'm going to assume that this number was the product of vandalism, and revert it back to "£21,000".