# Talk:Vauxhall Gardens

I am very interested to know the source material of the admission prices quoted to access Vauxhall Gardens in the 19th century. I need this information for a paper I am writing and would like to read more. I bet the users Bhoeble or perhaps Bhoesicol (who's similar usernames makes me suspect this is the same individual) could direct me to this information, but I don't know how to contact them directly. If anyone knows where I can get source texts on Vauxhall admissions and dates concerning when these admissions were instituted, I would be very greatful. I haven't found anything this detailed using the online references available through my university. This is for a graduate thesis project and I need the information sooner than later. Thank you!
I would be extremely interested in reading your paper when it is finished. Could you send a copy to the following address marsdendaniel@hotmail.com?

There is no indication of an admission fee to the New Spring Gardens, Vaux-Hall in the 17th century, and everybody assumes (probably correctly) that there was none – the income would have come entirely from the sale of refreshments.  When Jonathan Tyers re-launched the gardens in 1732, he instituted a one shilling admission charge, later (1737f) offering a season ticket to admit two people for the season (normally mid May to early Sept, depending on the weather) at twenty-one shillings (one guinea).  This was popular, and the cost quickly rose to twenty-five shillings, and then to two guineas.  The silver season tickets, which are some of the most attractive survivals of Vauxhall, lasted until about 1750 (one is shown on my website).  During Jonathan Tyers’s lifetime, the only examples I can find of variations from the one shilling charge are for special musical events (such as the rehearsal of Handel’s Fireworks Music on 21 April 1749), for which half-a-crown (two shillings and sixpence) was charged.  During the period following the death of  Tyers (1767), special ‘Gala’ evenings were introduced, for which the admission charge was three shillings; the Ridotto al Fresco of 1769 was the most expensive single event at the gardens in the 18th century, with a one guinea (twenty-one shilling) admission cost.  Even the great Vauxhall Jubilee in 1786 was cheaper, at ten shillings and sixpence (half a guinea).  However, the standard one shilling admission charge lasted for sixty years until 1792, when it rose to two shillings, helping to produce a profit of £5000 that season.  In 1826, the second season of new proprietors after the Tyers family sold up, it rose to four shillings.  The 1820s and ‘30s seasons saw some of Vauxhall’s greatest commercial successes, but by the end of the 1730s, things were changing, and the proprietors were having to try many expedients to bring back the visitors, amongst which was a sporadic re-introduction of the one shilling admission charge.  In 1840, the proprietors were finally declared bankrupt, and the gardens limped on for another nineteen years under various more or less successful lessees, sometimes with seasons of just a few days, or else no season at all.  In this period, the admission charge is hard to follow, but ranged between one shilling and four shillings for ordinary nights, up to almost anything for Charity events and other special openings. 
This information is derived from contemporary press cuttings etc. in collections of ephemera realted to Vauxhall in various UK and US libraries.  If you need references for these, do let me know.
Please see my website at www.vauxhallgardens.com
80.176.232.187 15:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, neither Guy Fawkes, nor Sir Samuel Moreland had anything to do with Vauxhall Gardens.  Sir Samuel's house was nearby but further north.  Also, the 1786 Jubilee was attended by five or six thousand people, not 61,000!  Also, I was wrong about the free entry before Tyers's time - In the Times of Weds 20 May 1789, referring back to the Vauxhall of pre-Tyers time, there is a reference to the 'six-penny days.' --Davidcoke 14:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vauxhall Gardens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


### Initial review
An interesting article. It has the makings of a GA, but it does not fully comply with the requirements, see WP:WIAGA, so I'm putting the GAN On Hold so that these can be addressed.
In particular:

The WP:lead is too short. It is required to both introduce the topic (which it does) and summarise the main features (which it does not).
Done. Lead sxpanded. ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article contains many block quotations, which is acceptable; however, in-line citations must be provided linking these quotations to their sources.
Done...except for the quotation from the Edinburgh Encyclopedia. I cannot locate this. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Note 1 is a broken link.
Corrected. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pepys is used as a citation, but the reference given is merely a link to Google book search. The relevant page numbers should be provided.
Done. Page number provided. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making these corrections, I'll continue now with the GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


### GA review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A interesting historical article.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Footnotes included as well as in-line citations.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'm satisfied that the article meets the requirements of GA, so I'm awarding GA-status without further delay. Congratulations on the article.Pyrotec (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Thomas Rowlandson - Vaux-Hall - Dr. Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Mary Robinson, et al.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 20, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-04-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 18:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Vauxhall Gardens. 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/20110314204203/http://www.vauxhallcivicsociety.org.uk/home/newsletter to http://www.vauxhallcivicsociety.org.uk/home/newsletter
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011051604/http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/videos/m/music-from-spring-gardens,-vauxhall/ to http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/videos/m/music-from-spring-gardens,-vauxhall/
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) 13:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I note that six years ago the surviving portion of the gardens resumed its historical name. Would it not now make sense to reformat this article and base it on the present gardens (while retaining all of the historical detail on the original gardens)? - Dann Chinn (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)