| Author |
Message |
    
N. James Wright
Member
Username: steatham_man
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 6:04 pm: | 
|
Does anyone know the specification of the lookout's binoculars - if they had had them. Were they 7x50 or what? |
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 3192
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 8:38 pm: |
|
If binoculars had been officially issued to the lookouts they would probably been given what were called 'night glasses'. These were rather crude Galileon telescopes. They magnified about 4x and the object lenses were maybe 50 - 60mm.
Prismatic binoculars of the time were quite small, maybe 6 x 30.
We know that David Blair, the original second officer, lent the lookouts his binoculars for the run to Southampton. These were marked "Theatre, marine and field". This means they were a zoom design, with a variable field of view for the various uses.
None of these glasses had coated lenses, so they were not comparable with decent modern glasses.
I guess the lookouts would have got whatever the master saw fit to give them. In fact, lookouts were not normally supplied with binoculars. The whole thing is a phoney issue.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1488
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 11:24 pm: |
|
All those binoculars at that time had relatively narrow fields of view. It wasn't until 1919 that wide field eyepieces were introduced in prismatic binoculars and 1935 when they introduced coated lenses to cut reflections at the glass surfaces.
Interesting point about night glasses Dave. Prismatic binoculars would have too much light loss for use at night.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11900
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 3:55 am: |
|
>>All those binoculars at that time had relatively narrow fields of view.<<
Even with wider views, using binoculars to try and search for something is still no sweet picnic. Even the most experienced hand scanning the horizon in slow steps can easily miss something. I know this from personal experience using everything from hand held instruments to the pintel mounted beast known on warships as the Big Eyes.
I learned very quickly to never use binoculars to search for anything when I was on lookout duty or when I was serving on my ship's Snoopy Team. I did my searching with the naked eye. Binoculars came into play only when I knew where something was and needed to identify it.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 3193
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 7:36 am: |
|
In my book there's a ad for binoculars. The prismatics cost 7 pounds 10 shillings for 6x and 9 pounds for 12x. The field on the 12x would be narrow, even with modern technology.
The night glasses cost only 3 pounds 15 shillings, because of their simplicity.
A mate lent me a pair of 20 x 50 glasses the other day. Hilarious!
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Tarn Stephanos
Member
Username: titanictarn
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 9:19 am: |
|
Plus how useful could binoculars be at night?....
I always thought the assertion made be some that had Fleet & Lee had binoculars, they would have seen the berg sooner- is moot-
Has anyone ever tried to look through binoculars at night? They are more of a hinderence than a help...
..The philosopy of Nome, meaning all....
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 4:20 pm: |
|
>>A mate lent me a pair of 20 x 50 glasses the other day. Hilarious!<<
Lots of wiggles and jiggles I bet.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Brian J. Ticehurst
Member
Username: briantice
Post Number: 305
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 6:49 pm: |
|
By coincidence I have been researching the binoculars in relation to an object that belonged to David Blair and in the Army & Navy Catalogue of 1907 page 1207 there are several types of binoculars illustrated including the following:
Lumex Prism Binoculars ''Can be used in dull weather and failing light. Where prism glasses of ordinary construction are of little use''.
Cheers Brian |
Charles B. Weeks Jr.
Member
Username: charles_weeks
Post Number: 211
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 12:53 am: |
|
Sam:
I would think a pair of 20 x 50s would have been near impossible to hold on target, or are they the ones mounted on a tripod? I have always found that 7 x 50s worked very well, for general use.
REgards,
Charlie Weeks |
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1490
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 1:00 am: |
|
Hi Capt. Weeks. That's what I meant by wiggles and jiggles if you hold them in your hands. But it was Dave Gittins who was given those to use. I'll let him comment on them. For my purposes, I have 7x35 Bushnell easy focus pair with coated lenses that I like for general viewing of things.
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11911
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 3:33 am: |
|
Tripods and solid mountings of any kind aren't always what they're cracked up to be. Even if the instrument isn't moving, the ship beneath your feet is. The BigEyes on a warship are on a mounting that's welded to the deck, but can be hell on roller skates to focus on a target if you're a rockin' and a rollin'
>>Has anyone ever tried to look through binoculars at night?<<
Yes I have. The result was the reason I learned early on never to use the bloody things for searching.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 3195
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 8:52 am: |
|
The 20 x 50 binoculars were hand held and I was stone sober. They are really meant for things like bird watching when mounted on a tripod.
I love my 7 x 50 glasses afloat and ashore. Like Michael, I've found them precious little use at night. They were good for watching McNaught's comet. At sea, I use them for checking out things I've sighted with the naked eye.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Charles B. Weeks Jr.
Member
Username: charles_weeks
Post Number: 212
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:51 am: |
|
I'm with you fellows. Keep the lookout with the naked eye, then use the glasses to magnify what ever you spot. A 50 MM from end should bring in enough light for night use, but only after the Mark I eyeball found what you were looking for.
Regards,
Charlie Weeks |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11918
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 3:50 am: |
|
In my case, I had few real options. On a low visibility watch, binoculars are worse then useless in my opinion. By the time you spot to danger, it's already so close that you don't need them. (But you might need to "Make yer peace!" )
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 3201
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 9:01 am: |
|
Of course, some people are more skilful with binoculars than others!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6388651.stm
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 1492
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Now a highly skillful politician would say they were high density sun filters, not lens caps. 
There are no Unsinkable Theories.
Sam Halpern
40° 23' 50'' N, 74° 13' 55'' W.
|
Charles B. Weeks Jr.
Member
Username: charles_weeks
Post Number: 214
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Sam:
I think the picture is a hoot. Typical of a politician. However speaking of High Density Sun Filters. I picked up a set of Variable Density Filters (Polarized) from a surplus store. They fit on the eye pieces and work very well.
Regards,
Charlie Weeks |
Timothy Trower
Member
Username: tjtrower
Post Number: 154
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 1:17 am: |
|
Now here is an isolated instance where I would like to see some exploration done in the wreck of the Titanic itself -- to find the missing binoculars.
Tim Trower
www.titanicbranson.com
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 3203
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 4:47 am: |
|
At least one pair of binoculars was recovered. They may be online. They are rather mangled. I think they are some kind of "night glasses" as described above.
There were no "missing binoculars". The evidence is a bit messy and comes from several men. It's clear that David Blair saw fit to lend the lookouts the second officer's binoculars for the run from Belfast to Southampton. I suggest that was because they were in busy waters, with ships to avoid and lights to find. No binoculars were intended to be supplied to the lookouts, which was normal.
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11929
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 6:24 am: |
|
>>Now a highly skillful politician would say they were high density sun filters, not lens caps.<<
I would think a politician would want filters of the rose coloured veriaty! 
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Timothy Trower
Member
Username: tjtrower
Post Number: 155
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Dave is right, of course, and it was a poor choice of language to use the word "missing". As I remember, Davy Blair loaned his binoculars to the lookouts just once, and then put them back into the second officers quarters. Those are the ones I'd like to see, restored, and used in objective testing to see whether or not any difference might have been made. (Actually, I think we know what the outcome of those tests would be, but I'd like to firmly crush those rumors once and for all.)
Tim Trower
www.titanicbranson.com
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 11937
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 4:05 pm: |
|
>>(Actually, I think we know what the outcome of those tests would be, but I'd like to firmly crush those rumors once and for all.)<<
That's about the size of it. Dave Gittins, Charles Weeks, and myself have more seagoing experience between the three of us then we may care to think about, and our attitudes towards binoculars are coloured by a lot of training and experience. Ask any other experienced sailor on this forum about this and I think you'll find that their attitudes are much the same.
Still, it's been experimented with and tested to death, and for all of that, the message just doesn't seem to get out. The whole thing with binoculars was misdirection back in 1912 and they knew it then. Many a trained officer even said as much in sworn testimony. However, this whole thing is so deeply entrenched in the whole Titanic mythos that I doubt we'll ever see it go away.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Dave Gittins
Member
Username: gittins
Post Number: 3208
Registered: 4-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 7:49 pm: |
|
It should be possible to get binoculars more or less identical to those recovered from the wreck. They turn up in antique shops from time to time. Then all we need is a dark night and an iceberg!
Dave Gittins
Titanic: Monument and Warning.
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/Book.html
|
Roy Kristiansen
Member
Username: whh
Post Number: 734
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 9, 2007 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Dave, if you can't find an iceberg, how about a dark night and a shadow? '-)
Roy |
