James Alexander Carlisle
Member
Dave,
This photo is not taken prior to the launch. The name was not painted on until March 1912.
This photo is not taken prior to the launch. The name was not painted on until March 1912.
Titanic's bow name plates
- Thread starter Steven Hall
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bow
Dave Gittins
Member
Jim, it certainly was taken before the launch, as can be seen in the full photo in the LOC. The ship is still on the slipway.
How much before the launch is another thing. Maybe a few days or a few weeks. The port anchor is not installed and there's a lot of stuff lying about that would need to be moved before the launch.
As I said, there seems to have been some messing about with the name. I can't see it in pictures of the launch, but it shows up soon after, at the fitting-out dock. Maybe the final painting was done in March 1912, but some form of name was the ship well before that. For an example, see page 60 of Anatomy of the the Titanic.
How much before the launch is another thing. Maybe a few days or a few weeks. The port anchor is not installed and there's a lot of stuff lying about that would need to be moved before the launch.
As I said, there seems to have been some messing about with the name. I can't see it in pictures of the launch, but it shows up soon after, at the fitting-out dock. Maybe the final painting was done in March 1912, but some form of name was the ship well before that. For an example, see page 60 of Anatomy of the the Titanic.
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
Dave,
Check the lettering, it is shoddy work. Not Harland & Wolff standard. A lot of photography fixing has gone on with Titanic and these appears to be one of them.
When Titanic enters the Thompson Dock in 1912 the name is clearly cut into the bow plate and not painted at that time.
Like I said Mr McBride did the actual name painting in 1912.
Check the lettering, it is shoddy work. Not Harland & Wolff standard. A lot of photography fixing has gone on with Titanic and these appears to be one of them.
When Titanic enters the Thompson Dock in 1912 the name is clearly cut into the bow plate and not painted at that time.
Like I said Mr McBride did the actual name painting in 1912.
Steven Hall
Member
The photo Dave posted was taken approx. 3 weeks prior to launch (2nd image below).
The name seen here was either scratched onto the photographic plate or painted on.
There was no name to be picked out immediately following the launch. The letters had been routed out, but were not visible (1st image).
The name is clearly visible at Outfitting in Sept 1911.
“The name of the ship was painted in ‘yellow ocher (yellow chromite)” in late March 1912.
“An arc lamp hanging over that support in this image” (Beveridge).
The name seen here was either scratched onto the photographic plate or painted on.
There was no name to be picked out immediately following the launch. The letters had been routed out, but were not visible (1st image).
The name is clearly visible at Outfitting in Sept 1911.
“The name of the ship was painted in ‘yellow ocher (yellow chromite)” in late March 1912.
“An arc lamp hanging over that support in this image” (Beveridge).
Steven Hall
Member
Jim, if your talking about the film footage - it was taken in October 1911 - not 1912.
Titanic actualy entered the drydock 4 times.
Titanic actualy entered the drydock 4 times.
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
Thanks Steve,
The name wasn't actually painted on until 1912 by Mr McBride.
If depicted on the plans as cut in then it was cut in. Bow name 18 inch lettering Stern name 18 inch, Port of Registry 12 inch (I've just checked the rigging plans).
The name wasn't actually painted on until 1912 by Mr McBride.
If depicted on the plans as cut in then it was cut in. Bow name 18 inch lettering Stern name 18 inch, Port of Registry 12 inch (I've just checked the rigging plans).
Bob Read
Member
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
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
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
I have to say it is wrong to identify Titanic with other WSL ships here. On the plans it clearly states Ship 401. There is no mention or mounting of an extra plate for the name as in the case of other ships.
She had name cut in at the time of entering the Thompson Dock as Steve pointed out in 1911.
She had name cut in at the time of entering the Thompson Dock as Steve pointed out in 1911.
Bob Read
Member
James:
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying we can't compare practices used to put the name on Nomadic to Titanic? Can we compare Olympic, to Titanic, to Britannic? You can compare Titanic to any other ship. Conclusions
drawn from which ship you are comparing it to
are up to the reader. To my way of thinking it is absolutely valid to compare Titanic to Olympic or Britannic for certain construction practices. To compare the method used to "cut in" the name on Nomadic to that used on Titanic
may or may not be valid. The reader must decide how much weight to give it. But to say "it is wrong to identify Titanic with other WSL ships here" which would rule out comparisons to her sisters, I believe is wrong because construction methods used on Titanic were not unique to her.
Regards,
Bob Read
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying we can't compare practices used to put the name on Nomadic to Titanic? Can we compare Olympic, to Titanic, to Britannic? You can compare Titanic to any other ship. Conclusions
drawn from which ship you are comparing it to
are up to the reader. To my way of thinking it is absolutely valid to compare Titanic to Olympic or Britannic for certain construction practices. To compare the method used to "cut in" the name on Nomadic to that used on Titanic
may or may not be valid. The reader must decide how much weight to give it. But to say "it is wrong to identify Titanic with other WSL ships here" which would rule out comparisons to her sisters, I believe is wrong because construction methods used on Titanic were not unique to her.
Regards,
Bob Read
Scott R. Andrews
Guest
James,
The physical cutting-in of the name appears to have predated the launch. The evidence for this lies in a close-in inspection of the area of the name from H-1561, probably the most-often reproduced pre-launch photo of the port bow of the Titanic. Bruce Beveridge has a very clear large format print of this photo prepared by UFTM; when examining the areas immediately around the "doctored" area of the negative, where the photographer manually removed the coating to add the ship's name, bits of the actual characters can be clearly seen poking out from the edges of the photographer's own efforts. These characters -- like the yellow band, which is also present in that photo -- appear very dimly and are easily lost if the resulting print is either made either a bit too light or a bit to dark. This sort of detail is also easily lost in prints which are greater than one generation removed from the original negative, which is the case with the reproductions in the majority of the books available. Another pre-launch photo that shows a bit of the real name is H-1559, in which a bit of the real letter "A" can be seen partly obscured by the forward decending leg of the "A" the photographer crudely scratched into the negative.
Regards,
Scott Andrews
The physical cutting-in of the name appears to have predated the launch. The evidence for this lies in a close-in inspection of the area of the name from H-1561, probably the most-often reproduced pre-launch photo of the port bow of the Titanic. Bruce Beveridge has a very clear large format print of this photo prepared by UFTM; when examining the areas immediately around the "doctored" area of the negative, where the photographer manually removed the coating to add the ship's name, bits of the actual characters can be clearly seen poking out from the edges of the photographer's own efforts. These characters -- like the yellow band, which is also present in that photo -- appear very dimly and are easily lost if the resulting print is either made either a bit too light or a bit to dark. This sort of detail is also easily lost in prints which are greater than one generation removed from the original negative, which is the case with the reproductions in the majority of the books available. Another pre-launch photo that shows a bit of the real name is H-1559, in which a bit of the real letter "A" can be seen partly obscured by the forward decending leg of the "A" the photographer crudely scratched into the negative.
Regards,
Scott Andrews
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
Hi Bob,
Sorry for the confusion. On some plans of the Olympic class liners, some of the plans are for both 400 / 401. In this case however when it comes to name and rigging. The Titanic 401 has it's own plans. I've seen quite a few plans for both both ships which are marked 400 and 401.
The rigging plans are for each ships.
Hope this is clear, once again sorry about the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion. On some plans of the Olympic class liners, some of the plans are for both 400 / 401. In this case however when it comes to name and rigging. The Titanic 401 has it's own plans. I've seen quite a few plans for both both ships which are marked 400 and 401.
The rigging plans are for each ships.
Hope this is clear, once again sorry about the confusion.
Bob Read
Member
Scott:
Steve Hall has posted that photo above in the thread. I know this has often been pointed to as an example of a photographer altering the negative to "improve" the name "Titanic" to make it stand out. It is held up as a crude photographic alteriation. I'm not so sure this was the work of the photographer. If you look very closely at that image, the lighting fixture in the foreground is actually superimposed over the "T". If this was a crude photo alteration I would have expected the photographer to just place the "T" over the lighting fixture rather than meticulously maintaining the superimposition of the lighting fixture. What was going on? I have no idea. Since the name didn't show up very well for photographers with the black/yellow hull/letter combination, could White Star or H&W been influenced to place the name on the hull in large prominent letters which would show up better for the photographers?
I have heard that Olympic had her unique launch
colors applied for this very reason.
I don't know what was happening in this photo but is the chestnut of a photographic alteration of this photo actually correct?
Regards,
Bob Read
Steve Hall has posted that photo above in the thread. I know this has often been pointed to as an example of a photographer altering the negative to "improve" the name "Titanic" to make it stand out. It is held up as a crude photographic alteriation. I'm not so sure this was the work of the photographer. If you look very closely at that image, the lighting fixture in the foreground is actually superimposed over the "T". If this was a crude photo alteration I would have expected the photographer to just place the "T" over the lighting fixture rather than meticulously maintaining the superimposition of the lighting fixture. What was going on? I have no idea. Since the name didn't show up very well for photographers with the black/yellow hull/letter combination, could White Star or H&W been influenced to place the name on the hull in large prominent letters which would show up better for the photographers?
I have heard that Olympic had her unique launch
colors applied for this very reason.
I don't know what was happening in this photo but is the chestnut of a photographic alteration of this photo actually correct?
Regards,
Bob Read
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
Bob,
I'm meeting up with John Parkinson in Belfast tonight. I'll ask him if he remembers seeing the name on the ship when she was on the slipway. He's 99 years and two days old. It's just a chance he might remember it.
I'm meeting up with John Parkinson in Belfast tonight. I'll ask him if he remembers seeing the name on the ship when she was on the slipway. He's 99 years and two days old. It's just a chance he might remember it.
Scott R. Andrews
Guest
"I would have expected the photographer to just place the "T" over the lighting fixture rather than meticulously maintaining the superimposition of the lighting fixture."
Bob,
The photographer's work in H-1559 -- the latter of the two photos I sited, and the photo from which Steve's image above was cropped -- wasn't really all that meticulous. If you look closely at the lamp stanchion, you will notice that where the cross of the "T" passes through, the image of the stanchion has been lightened a bit, but where the vertical leg runs through the image of the stanchion, part of it has nearly been totally erased by the photographer's work in burnishing away the coating on the negative. The editing to H-1561 was a bit cleaner in appearance, with a chemical used to remove the coating from the negative instead of burnishing or scraping, which is what gives that particular image the appearance of letters applied to a photographic print with "White-out". (Incidentally, the latter technique is the same one used for applying the cataloging "H-numbers" and the photographer's initials, "RW", to the bottom corners of each negative.)
Regards,
Scott Andrews
Bob,
The photographer's work in H-1559 -- the latter of the two photos I sited, and the photo from which Steve's image above was cropped -- wasn't really all that meticulous. If you look closely at the lamp stanchion, you will notice that where the cross of the "T" passes through, the image of the stanchion has been lightened a bit, but where the vertical leg runs through the image of the stanchion, part of it has nearly been totally erased by the photographer's work in burnishing away the coating on the negative. The editing to H-1561 was a bit cleaner in appearance, with a chemical used to remove the coating from the negative instead of burnishing or scraping, which is what gives that particular image the appearance of letters applied to a photographic print with "White-out". (Incidentally, the latter technique is the same one used for applying the cataloging "H-numbers" and the photographer's initials, "RW", to the bottom corners of each negative.)
Regards,
Scott Andrews
James Alexander Carlisle
Member
Scott,
The name was more or likely cut in before the launch like you say. This thread concerned a plate over the bow plate. Most likely the centre punching for the lettering was done before the launch and chalked in for the benefit of the person who was doing it.
To get back, the name was clearly visible in 1911 as she would be known as Titanic after the launch although most of H&W workers still referred to her as 401 after the launch as well.
I think now we all agree that the name was cut in and painted on in March 1912.
Well I'm off now to a Belfast Titanic Society meeting which is being held two hundred yards from her birthplace.
The name was more or likely cut in before the launch like you say. This thread concerned a plate over the bow plate. Most likely the centre punching for the lettering was done before the launch and chalked in for the benefit of the person who was doing it.
To get back, the name was clearly visible in 1911 as she would be known as Titanic after the launch although most of H&W workers still referred to her as 401 after the launch as well.
I think now we all agree that the name was cut in and painted on in March 1912.
Well I'm off now to a Belfast Titanic Society meeting which is being held two hundred yards from her birthplace.
Similar threads
