-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
Titanic's bow name plates
- Thread starter Steven Hall
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bow
Forgive my ignorance, but Titanic was moved to drydock on October 4th, 1911 to allow Olympic in for repairs after the Hawke incident. She can't have spent very long in drydock for her to be in on 18th September, and then back in 16 days later. What were they doing? Fitting propellors? painting the hull?
Cheers
Paul
Cheers
Paul
Steven Hall
Member
Titanic was removed from the dry-dock on the Oct 7th.
Olympic dep Southampton Oct 4th & arrived Belfast Oct 6th.
Olympic later dep Belfast November / 20 / 1911 just after 10.am & arrived
Titanic's props - though sitting on the (side of the) dry-dock were not fitted as of Oct 7th.
Work was still running at (extreme) pace on Titanic although Olympic was back at Belfast.
Some have speculated that Olympic received new port side prop blades (at the time) as well. There is not written information to support this however.
From my understanding - Titanic was back in dry-dock on or about January 10 / 1912.
Olympic dep Southampton Oct 4th & arrived Belfast Oct 6th.
Olympic later dep Belfast November / 20 / 1911 just after 10.am & arrived
Titanic's props - though sitting on the (side of the) dry-dock were not fitted as of Oct 7th.
Work was still running at (extreme) pace on Titanic although Olympic was back at Belfast.
Some have speculated that Olympic received new port side prop blades (at the time) as well. There is not written information to support this however.
From my understanding - Titanic was back in dry-dock on or about January 10 / 1912.
Steven Hall
Member
Looking at some images lastest night - here is two of the ships bow name plates.
Perhaps if they have a chance during the next dive - see if there is any evidence of the starboard side plate.
Port side - Southhampton
Starboard side - Southampton
Perhaps if they have a chance during the next dive - see if there is any evidence of the starboard side plate.
Port side - Southhampton
Starboard side - Southampton
Bill Wormstedt
Member
Good shots, Steve.
AND - a very obvious band, between the white and black hull! First time I've seen an unquestionable sign of the gold band!
AND - a very obvious band, between the white and black hull! First time I've seen an unquestionable sign of the gold band!
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
This is a Harland and Wolff ship. The gold band was in place. Just an old photo.
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
The latest film of Titanic found in Greenoch; Scotland is very clear. Titanic is seen entering the Thompson Dock which looks like the first time. She still has part of her launching equipment on the hull.
The name Titanic shows up very well on this film reel, it is cut in but not painted. The best quality I've seen up to now.
So another nail in the switch theory, I just wish my Granda was alive to tell you.
The name Titanic shows up very well on this film reel, it is cut in but not painted. The best quality I've seen up to now.
So another nail in the switch theory, I just wish my Granda was alive to tell you.
Bob Read
Member
One bit of new information I thought I'd offer has to do with a piece of evidence in this argument. I and others have used the photo on p. 399 of "Titanic and Her Sisters" of Britannic's starboard side as proof that the shell plating where the name was on the bow was put in place without the name. The reproduction of that particular photo was not as good as it should have been. The link below is to a better copy of it. It shows the Britannic name already in place. This still does not provide conclusive proof one way or the other about where the name was applied (in shop or in situ).
Actually I personally believe it lends additional support to the notion that only the outline of the letters was scribed into the plate as in the Nomadic example. In this photo the starboard side is in fairly bright sunlight.
If the letters were fully "cut in" rather than outlined, I believe that they would show up more
by casting a little bit of shadow like the plate laps.
It would still be interesting if a photo surfaced which showed a recently plated hull in this area that could show the presence of a name already applied to the plate or not. Personally I don't think this part of the argument is as important as how much was "cut in". There is also a theory out there that the name was "cut in" to a nameplate in the shop and placed in a rectangular milled out area. For me there is nothing in the way of evidence that is compelling about this theory. I believe that what looks like a possible rectangular nameplate
is nothing more than a rectangular area produced by differences in paint shade.
http://webpages.charter.net/bpread/photos/Britannic_Name.jpg
Regards,
Bob Read
Actually I personally believe it lends additional support to the notion that only the outline of the letters was scribed into the plate as in the Nomadic example. In this photo the starboard side is in fairly bright sunlight.
If the letters were fully "cut in" rather than outlined, I believe that they would show up more
by casting a little bit of shadow like the plate laps.
It would still be interesting if a photo surfaced which showed a recently plated hull in this area that could show the presence of a name already applied to the plate or not. Personally I don't think this part of the argument is as important as how much was "cut in". There is also a theory out there that the name was "cut in" to a nameplate in the shop and placed in a rectangular milled out area. For me there is nothing in the way of evidence that is compelling about this theory. I believe that what looks like a possible rectangular nameplate
is nothing more than a rectangular area produced by differences in paint shade.
http://webpages.charter.net/bpread/photos/Britannic_Name.jpg
Regards,
Bob Read
Matthew Newman
Member
I am currently working on a research article about this very subject. And trying to get any information I can. Through my research here, TRMA historians, Titanic plans, etc, I've personally come to the conclusion that the name was "cut in" to a plate, then somehow added to the main structure. When or how is still the mystery that I'm having a lot of trouble with. I've been looking at numerous pages with how-to FAQ's, etc on shipbuilding, but nothing's been said about nameplates or how they come to be in their places.
I thought I would question some of the historians in here as to what they think on how or when, especially HOW, the plate was added on to the ship. I would assume it was picked up and placed on the hull via crane, but assumptions don't work to well for research articles.
Anyone have any idea how this was done? I think I've got enough info to put the "engraving" mystery to somewhat of a rest, but I'd like to be able to present an answer to the question "how".
Thanks all for any help you could possibly pass my way.
Matt.
I thought I would question some of the historians in here as to what they think on how or when, especially HOW, the plate was added on to the ship. I would assume it was picked up and placed on the hull via crane, but assumptions don't work to well for research articles.
Thanks all for any help you could possibly pass my way.
Matt.
Bob Read
Member
Matthew:
I think maybe it would help if you went back and read this entire thread. The prevailing opinion over here is not like what you are reading over on the TRMA board. Ken Marschall personally inspected the Nomadic which was contemporary to Titanic and found only the outline of the letters cut into the hull as a painting guide.
Also, from David Wilson who worked in the H&W shipyard, he described how this was done. You won't find much if any support here for a separate nameplate that was attached to the hull.
In this argument I concur with the views put forth by Ken Marschall, Parks Stephenson and David Wilson. You must decide for yourself which explanations have the greater weight of evidence behind them. Unfortunately we don't have any contemporary descriptions of the methodology so the "educated guesses" based on available evidence are falling into two camps with respect to a number of aspects. They are:
1. Name cut into shell plate in shop or after
shell plate was in place on the ship. (No
conclusive evidence.)
2. Letters outlined with a cut like Nomadic or
or a cut across the entire width of the
letters. (Contemporary evidence from another
vessel made in H&W's yard and other photo
interpretation vs. photo interpretation alone.)
3. Letters cut into shell plate vs. letters cut
into nameplate which was placed into a milled
out reception area in the shell plate.
(Photo interpretation vs. photo interpretation.)
As you can see without a contemporary description of the method and without a closeup clear photo of the letters certain aspects of both arguments rely heavily on photo interpretation. Whose interpretation is correct?
That's up to you to decide. You have to look at the evidence and decide which has more weight.
I believe personally that the descriptions of the method used to cut in letters given by David Wilson plus the Nomadic evidence tips the scale in favor of the outlined letters side. You may disagree but don't do so until you have read all the posts in this thread. On the other two issues we just don't have precise evidence but
you have to decide whose educated guesses sound more educated. On both sides there are people who have looked at a lot of Titanic material for a long time so just because Mr. A says one thing
and Mr. B says the opposite it is difficult to decide based on the particular proponent's position. Everybody whose educated guess on these matters has been given has spent years looking at photos and reading technical material and in some cases actually visiting the wreck.
If you are relatively new to this I would suggest that you take it slow until you too have put in the time and effort in study before deciding whose educated guesses you give more weight to.
Regards,
Bob Read
I think maybe it would help if you went back and read this entire thread. The prevailing opinion over here is not like what you are reading over on the TRMA board. Ken Marschall personally inspected the Nomadic which was contemporary to Titanic and found only the outline of the letters cut into the hull as a painting guide.
Also, from David Wilson who worked in the H&W shipyard, he described how this was done. You won't find much if any support here for a separate nameplate that was attached to the hull.
In this argument I concur with the views put forth by Ken Marschall, Parks Stephenson and David Wilson. You must decide for yourself which explanations have the greater weight of evidence behind them. Unfortunately we don't have any contemporary descriptions of the methodology so the "educated guesses" based on available evidence are falling into two camps with respect to a number of aspects. They are:
1. Name cut into shell plate in shop or after
shell plate was in place on the ship. (No
conclusive evidence.)
2. Letters outlined with a cut like Nomadic or
or a cut across the entire width of the
letters. (Contemporary evidence from another
vessel made in H&W's yard and other photo
interpretation vs. photo interpretation alone.)
3. Letters cut into shell plate vs. letters cut
into nameplate which was placed into a milled
out reception area in the shell plate.
(Photo interpretation vs. photo interpretation.)
As you can see without a contemporary description of the method and without a closeup clear photo of the letters certain aspects of both arguments rely heavily on photo interpretation. Whose interpretation is correct?
That's up to you to decide. You have to look at the evidence and decide which has more weight.
I believe personally that the descriptions of the method used to cut in letters given by David Wilson plus the Nomadic evidence tips the scale in favor of the outlined letters side. You may disagree but don't do so until you have read all the posts in this thread. On the other two issues we just don't have precise evidence but
you have to decide whose educated guesses sound more educated. On both sides there are people who have looked at a lot of Titanic material for a long time so just because Mr. A says one thing
and Mr. B says the opposite it is difficult to decide based on the particular proponent's position. Everybody whose educated guess on these matters has been given has spent years looking at photos and reading technical material and in some cases actually visiting the wreck.
If you are relatively new to this I would suggest that you take it slow until you too have put in the time and effort in study before deciding whose educated guesses you give more weight to.
Regards,
Bob Read
Steven Hall
Member
You sum it up well Bob.
I asked Ralph White about the letters - he took the port side footage in 87. He said the letters were fully cut in. I accept this as being as close to the fact as can be - because he was only 10 feet away from the letters.
I believe the letters had been routed out after the plate had been fixed to the ship.
I would have to look at the video footage of the 87 expedition again.
Regarding visting the wreck - unless they looked at the letters like White did from ten feet away, having been to the wreck means nought re this particular topic.
Ken may have also looked while diving on the wreck himself - I don't know. I only know what White told me. In the absence of anything else, that will do me.
I asked Ralph White about the letters - he took the port side footage in 87. He said the letters were fully cut in. I accept this as being as close to the fact as can be - because he was only 10 feet away from the letters.
I believe the letters had been routed out after the plate had been fixed to the ship.
I would have to look at the video footage of the 87 expedition again.
Regarding visting the wreck - unless they looked at the letters like White did from ten feet away, having been to the wreck means nought re this particular topic.
Ken may have also looked while diving on the wreck himself - I don't know. I only know what White told me. In the absence of anything else, that will do me.
Matthew Newman
Member
Hi Bob and Steve.
Thanks for getting back with me. Jeez, the further I go along, the more I learn, and the more QUESTIONS I have than answers. It seems to get tougher and tougher the more I go along.
I'm thinking that in my article, for now, I'm going to focus solely on the cut-in appearance of the letters and work on adding the "separate plating" and "How'd the do that?" issues for a later update. IF I can get my head to quit spinning with all this different info and write this one!
Going through 4-5 threads full of differing opinions, differing/correct/incorrect fact posts, debates, etc can be quite mind numbing after a while. Then there's what some of the books say and websites. LOL. It's very hard to "conclude" one way or the other.
I however find a photo of the name on the wreck hard to argue with. Though, as said, it's hard to determine anything for sure with a photo, especially when the photos in question are either taken in 1912 b&w, some rather fuzzy, and photos taken 2 miles under the ocean in 1987.
Steve, I wish you could get in touch with Ralph White again and ask just what he meant by "cut in"? I know it's not like picking up the phone and saying "Hey Ralph!", but you know what I mean. Or for all I know it could be. I just wish I knew more detail into what he said or could get more detail from him. Him or P.H. Nargeolet. (hope I spelled that right)
That in itself is open to interpretation. I've heard "cut in" before in reference to an outline being cut into something, or somebody actually routing something in.
One thing I have learned is that not EVERYONE is ever going to be satisfied with someone's conclusions and article. That's great. Maybe they know something that the author didn't. This being my first time ever writing ANYTHING of any kind of significance, I'm feeling pretty shaky with all the differing aspects at play here. I'm thinking maybe I should leave it in the hands of someone more capable of sorting through all this stuff. Maybe I won't feel so overwhelmed tomorrow.
Thanks guys for your help and any more you can send my way is always appreciated. Have a great evening.
Matt.
Thanks for getting back with me. Jeez, the further I go along, the more I learn, and the more QUESTIONS I have than answers. It seems to get tougher and tougher the more I go along.
I'm thinking that in my article, for now, I'm going to focus solely on the cut-in appearance of the letters and work on adding the "separate plating" and "How'd the do that?" issues for a later update. IF I can get my head to quit spinning with all this different info and write this one!
Going through 4-5 threads full of differing opinions, differing/correct/incorrect fact posts, debates, etc can be quite mind numbing after a while. Then there's what some of the books say and websites. LOL. It's very hard to "conclude" one way or the other.
I however find a photo of the name on the wreck hard to argue with. Though, as said, it's hard to determine anything for sure with a photo, especially when the photos in question are either taken in 1912 b&w, some rather fuzzy, and photos taken 2 miles under the ocean in 1987.
Steve, I wish you could get in touch with Ralph White again and ask just what he meant by "cut in"? I know it's not like picking up the phone and saying "Hey Ralph!", but you know what I mean. Or for all I know it could be. I just wish I knew more detail into what he said or could get more detail from him. Him or P.H. Nargeolet. (hope I spelled that right)
That in itself is open to interpretation. I've heard "cut in" before in reference to an outline being cut into something, or somebody actually routing something in.
One thing I have learned is that not EVERYONE is ever going to be satisfied with someone's conclusions and article. That's great. Maybe they know something that the author didn't. This being my first time ever writing ANYTHING of any kind of significance, I'm feeling pretty shaky with all the differing aspects at play here. I'm thinking maybe I should leave it in the hands of someone more capable of sorting through all this stuff. Maybe I won't feel so overwhelmed tomorrow.
Thanks guys for your help and any more you can send my way is always appreciated. Have a great evening.
Matt.
Scott R. Andrews
Guest
"I believe that what looks like a possible rectangular nameplate is nothing more than a rectangular area produced by differences in paint shade."
Bob,
After looking at an awful lot of photos, at the many variations (manipulation of contrasts, colors, etc.) of the same that have been posted here and on the TRMA site, I'm of a like mind here. After staring at all of the photographic evidence put forth until my eyes are half shot, a separate plate is not what the evidence indicates to me; like you, what I see on the best of these images shows not two different plates, but two contrasting areas of paint.
Besides, regardless of the method employed, cutting the letters directly into the plates of the hull rather than performing a complex secondary operation to fit a separate plate agrees with the most basic tenant that guides any good designer -- keep things as simple and as cost-effective as possible.
Regards,
Scott Andrews
Bob,
After looking at an awful lot of photos, at the many variations (manipulation of contrasts, colors, etc.) of the same that have been posted here and on the TRMA site, I'm of a like mind here. After staring at all of the photographic evidence put forth until my eyes are half shot, a separate plate is not what the evidence indicates to me; like you, what I see on the best of these images shows not two different plates, but two contrasting areas of paint.
Besides, regardless of the method employed, cutting the letters directly into the plates of the hull rather than performing a complex secondary operation to fit a separate plate agrees with the most basic tenant that guides any good designer -- keep things as simple and as cost-effective as possible.
Regards,
Scott Andrews
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
Hello,
If I may come with some information about the bow name.
One of the members of the Belfast Titanic Society, who passed away a few years ago was Tommy McBride. His uncle painted the bow and stern names and port of registry on Titanic. He told us that the name was cut in and his uncle over painted the cut in lettering. The name had no raised lettering or was there any plate added to the bow plating.
The rigging plans show this quite clearly and note that this plans are for ship 401 and not 400 - 401 as with some of the other plans i.e plans for the crows nest.
If I may come with some information about the bow name.
One of the members of the Belfast Titanic Society, who passed away a few years ago was Tommy McBride. His uncle painted the bow and stern names and port of registry on Titanic. He told us that the name was cut in and his uncle over painted the cut in lettering. The name had no raised lettering or was there any plate added to the bow plating.
The rigging plans show this quite clearly and note that this plans are for ship 401 and not 400 - 401 as with some of the other plans i.e plans for the crows nest.
Dave Gittins
Member
These old photos sure are fun. What with orthochromatic photographic emulsions and photos reduced from whole plate photos to fit in books, all sorts of images are seen.
I've recently found another to add to the fun. It was taken some time before Titanic was launched and from much the same angle as the well-known photo seen on the cover of The Birth of the Titanic. It's obviously an earlier photo, as the port anchor is not in its hawsehole.
The interesting thing is that the name on the port bow is very sharp and clear, suggesting strongly that it's cut in by some means. The name has also been painted in with white paint. The proof that it's not done by meddling with the negative is shown by the shadow that falls on the first letter T.
The entire photo is from the Library of Congress collection and is far too big to post here. Here's the relevant part.
It seems to me that there was some messing about with the name during the building. Maybe in this case it was painted on for the benefit of photographers and for advertising.
I've recently found another to add to the fun. It was taken some time before Titanic was launched and from much the same angle as the well-known photo seen on the cover of The Birth of the Titanic. It's obviously an earlier photo, as the port anchor is not in its hawsehole.
The interesting thing is that the name on the port bow is very sharp and clear, suggesting strongly that it's cut in by some means. The name has also been painted in with white paint. The proof that it's not done by meddling with the negative is shown by the shadow that falls on the first letter T.
The entire photo is from the Library of Congress collection and is far too big to post here. Here's the relevant part.
It seems to me that there was some messing about with the name during the building. Maybe in this case it was painted on for the benefit of photographers and for advertising.
