David,
At least one photograph indicates that when the plate (in question) was raised into position during construction — the name T I T A N I C was not incised into it. By early May 1911, the name (with all the letters) was still not there as frame H-1560 shows. The point is quantified by seeing the absence of the letter -C- where it eventually is known to be positioned. (this tells us importantly that 1 and likely more letters were incised after the plate had been raised) I find it difficult to even consider that when the plate left the shop; only certain letters had been completed.
In the photographs that followed, (H-1561 & H-1561a) likely days prior to launch, the letters are clearly there and correctly spaced. The infamous glass plate “retoucher” clearly did his handy work directly over the existing letters he most likely seen on the plate.
The name of the ship is clearly seen at outfitting in September 1911, on film footage the following month and again while in dry-dock several months later. (February, 1912) The letters simply had not been painted.
Jumping back for a second; when Titanic was actually launched on May 31 — her name was not visible, but beyond reasonable doubt the 7 incised letters were present.
At what point the letters had been painted (making them visible) was most likely done after the ship received her last lick of paint at Belfast. It may well be that it was only done at the eleventh hour while tied up at Southampton.
The discussion was also about whether the letters had been raised or incised. Again, the photographs (and the Nomadic letters) have provided the definitive answer.
I posted that last image above because people had ask me (privately via email) about why the name could not be seen in the Feb, 1912 image. So I fiddle a@#$%’d around for an hour today (with the high resolution image) and found the answer. The name was here.
The thread also touched on whether there was a possibly the name had been applied in sectionalized plates. In the end - there was nothing of note found to substantiate this speculation.
Beyond what has been already discussed (and speculated on) by some of the best researchers in this particular field, the thread can only start to chase its own tail. I’m not saying the discussion has reached its terminus — far from that. However, it does appear to have accomplished what it set out to achieve.
Because of the input from everyone that has posted within this thread, we now know more than what we knew prior to it. That’s progressive research.
It’s like the images below which the left shows the area of where the starboard bow name plate was found and the right where the port side on is.
Both images have received that exact same photographic enhancement processes and (several) image correction filters. One shows the name and one does not. One side has no more favorable lighting conditions to the other. It’s a high resolution image taken from a glass photograph plate. On the hull (under extreme resolution of 1200 dpi) bird droppings and chalk markings on the plates themselves can be seen clearly.
Why is it visible on one side and not on the other?
I’d bet my prized bottle of Jack Daniels Tennessee Whiskey it isn’t there. (starboard side) And that’s why I believe it was never found on the wreck because it was only painted on. They were likely that pressed by schedule (both time & tide) prior to launch and later during outfitting (and further compounded by the disruption coursed by the diversion of men and materials when Olympic returned back to Belfast in October and again in March 1912) that it was not seen as a priority.
