I was wrong (and so was everyone)

Summary by Krater

Tom Scott corrects a popular history video he made about 18th-century fire marks in London, explaining that historical research shows fire insurance companies actually did not let insured buildings burn based on whether a mark was present.

From the video

Answers: Did 18th-century firefighters let buildings burn if they didn't have fire insurance marks?

• London 18th-century fire insurance
• Fire marks and parish boundary markers
• Historical accuracy in popular media
• Archival research on fire brigades

What it concludes

• Fire marks in 18th-century London were an indicator of whether a building was insured, but insurance company fire brigades did not try to fight only insured fires.
• Cutting off fires early in uninsured buildings made economic sense to prevent spread to insured properties, and firefighters also wanted good advertising.
• There is no evidence from the time that letting a building burn was an official standard policy for insurance fire brigades in 18th-century London.