One aspect of this argument that seems to be getting misunderstood has to do with the letters being "cut in". There are two opinions in this
debate. The first says that the letters were outlined by a relatively shallow "cut". This was done apparently to create a paint separation line between the yellow of the letters and the black of the hull. This insured that the painters could paint the name the same way and in the same place as many times as necessary without the use of stencils and the like. The primary evidence for this view comes from the Nomadic. This was a passenger tender used in Cherbourg to ferry passengers offshore to vessels. The Nomadic was built not too very long before Titanic (I can't remember exactly when) at the H&W yards for White Star. The method used to "cut in" its name is assumed to be the same used on other larger White Star ships of that time. Here is a link to a photo which shows the port name of "Cherbourg" painted over. You can see clearly that the name was merely "cut in" around its perimeter.
http://webpages.charter.net/bpread/photos/2000_05.jpg
The photo on p.399 of "Titanic and Her Sisters"
linked to in my post above was once used as proof that the name was not placed on the plate before it was put in place in the hull. A better
copy of that photo was recently scanned and the
name is clearly evident although faintly. I have concluded that what this photo may demonstrate is that with the letters just lightly
outlined by a shallow cut, if the letters were routed or completely "cut in" across the entire width of the letter, I would expect to see more shadowing in this photo due to the direct sunlight conditions.
The other opinion is that the letters were fully
"cut in" across their entire width. Since I don't support this view I won't presume to present the whole case for this view. Basically
a dry dock photo of
Olympic's stern is used as
one piece of proof for this view. It appears to show certain letters with a contrasting reflectivity across their entire width in comparison to the semi-gloss hull black. Personally I believe that this photo may be interpreted wrongly. I believe that the yellow of the letters was a flat paint. The flat paint
when looked at from angle in comparison to the semi-gloss hull black will make it appear that the letter is fully "cut in" across its entire width. Other evidence put forward is wreck footage and accounts of what people saw at the wreck. I take somewhat of a jaundiced view of this evidence due to the fact that this area is highly obscured by rusticles. If this area was scrubbed then very close (less than a foot) photos were taken from different angles using strong light then I would give it more weight.
Those are the basics of the two positions on what is meant by the letters being "cut in". Scott Andrews brought up an important point above. He was arguing a different point with regards to a rectangular nameplate but he said that we should not forget cost considerations in place at the time when try to deduce the methods that were used to produce different aspects of the ship. It is kind of like Occam's Razor which states that the simplest answer to a question is usually the right one.
Another aspect of this particular question that I have never seen addressed has to do with
Olympic. Later in her career the bow name was changed in style and size and the sheer stripe was repositioned lower on the hull. This changed name was in the same location as the old
name. Was this new name "cut in" or merely painted on? Either way, if this was done over fully cut in letters it would seem that some irregularity of the edges of the new name's letters would show up where they crossed the old
fully "cut in" letters. However, if the letters had the kind of cuts used on Nomadic then the cuts were so shallow that they would not be noticed.
I know that some will object that Nomadic evidence should not be used because it was a different size of vessel with presumably differing plate thickness. This may or may not be a valid criticism. It is left to the reader to decide. Hopefully, this post will at least
clarify the positions of both sides with regard to this issue. I will leave it to the proponents of both positions to advance their own positions.
Regards,
Bob Read
