It reads "Caroline House" and the number 6 is also shown.
(The date refers to when 'Radio Caroline' began to call this address their home, and both pictures refer to that same date and event.)
The address is 6 Chesterfield Gardens, and it was described in 1964 as being "Caroline House", but it does not say that it is "Radio Caroline House". However, that fact is important to an understanding of what is being shown by these two pictures.
There is ample evidence to show that this was not "Radio Caroline House", but an address that people connected with Radio Caroline began to use.
On September 14, 1964, the day upon which people connected with 'Radio Caroline' began to use this address, there was no such company as 'Radio Caroline'. However, there was a pre-existing advertising promotion operation known as 'Caroline' to which a radio aspect was later added. The relevance of that information is in the question that then arises:
If there was no such company as 'Radio Caroline', then who or what was paying for the lease on 6 Chesterfield Gardens?
Now add this question:
Was there at least one other tenant of 6 Chesterfield Gardens occupying these premises before the people acting under the name of 'Radio Caroline' decided to move in on September 14, 1964?
The answer again is yes, there was at least one other tenant, and they had a prior connection to the name 'Caroline'!
Ian Cowper Ross helped to confirm that in his interview with Ray Clark.
That interview took place long after Ian Cowper Ross appeared on BBC-TV in 1991, and that is where he claimed that his novel of 1990 was a recital of true events, which of course, it was not and is not.
It is because the existing 'Radio Caroline Story' is such a finite tangled web of lies and deceit which seems to have brainwashed everyone into accepting them as fact, that it is necessary to go step-by-step in unravelling this mess.
So look again at the pictures and now what do they tell you?