Artefact inventory

  • Thread starter Rose Hill (401)
  • Start date

Karen

Member
Jan 21, 1998
15
0
211
I'm sure if we found some menus we could see what they ate in 1912, oh wait a minute...if we found some suitcases we could see what they wore in 1912, oh hang on....if we found some damage in the starboard side we could find out what sunk her....oh.....
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
Yes, a menu would fetch a good price at auction. And no I'm not trying to annoy people here,...just expressing my opinion. I'm tired of seeing sentimentality ruin good commercial oppurtunities and impede progress. It's true isn't it that the wreck will eventually disappear in dust? If your really interested in preserving the memory of the tragedy then why not allow commercial salvage? Certainly the sale of artifacts can help focus attention on the tragic events and also provide that substance we sometimes call filthy lucre but neccessary stuff to fund all the memorials and educational programs needed. Did'nt someone post the money issues a museum was expereincing in Halifax? Could'nt some commercial enterprise help them out too? I think so and I don't mean to be offensive to anyone here either but that's my opinion.
Bill
 
T

Tracey McIntire

Guest
Dear Bill,
It is my opinion that the company executives and stockholders of RMS Titanic Inc. have no intention whatsoever of donating any money they make to museums, memorials, or educational programs. Since they fired George Tulloch for not being profit-oriented enough, it is clear that they are just out to make money for themselves. If you have heard anything to the contrary, I would really like to know. I also believe that even if we allowed the wreck and all the artifacts to crumble away, the memory of the Titanic will still live on. We don't need artifacts to remind us of her tragic story.
Respectfully yours,
Tracey
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
33
323
What Tracy has said is true. If there was any chance RMS Titanic Inc would do what is right it was w/ George Tulloch in charge because at least we know he cared re: the ship in a historical context. As for being overly sentimental, if you can't get sentimental over the Titanic story, you are just plain unemotional. As for needing to find menus & suitcases at the bottom of the sea to help us know re: 1912, that's ludicrous. Buy an old cookbook for a vintage recipe, look through old magazines to see what people wore. We don't need to disturb a grave to find out re: anything that happened only 88 years ago. My God, there are old people in nursing homes who can remember what life was like back then. The Titanic is still recent history & within living memory. There's no justification for treating it like the discovery of King Tut's tomb.
 
K

Karen Rock

Guest
To me, the video of the moment Titanic was found and Bob Ballard's first trip down the grand staircase are the images I like to watch again and again. Oh, you can bring up everything down there and stick it under glass, but it's not the same. We have pictures and video of how it all was and one day Titanic will be gone but the pictures and memories will always remain. It's not the physical possessions that matter. Many people on this site have a deep interest in Titanic for so many more reasons that money and archeology and these interests will remain long after she's gone.
Kind regards
Karen
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
Well folks it seems that a federal judge has put to rest any plans to cut into the wreck,...at least for now anyway. The Titanic can lie safely sleeping in the mud until nature finishes what an iceberg started. Thanks for all the sincere replies to my posts everyone;-)
Bill
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
33
323
So sorry you're disappointed Bill re: the recent court verdict to let the Titanic alone.

But as to what seems to be your rather backhanded gratitude to those of us who've participated in this debate, I think I can speak for the others in saying that, while we disagreed w/ you, we really were very sincere in our opinions & we did - & do - appreciate your point of view. Yours is one shared by a lot of other reasonable people; I understand your take on it & respect it.
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
Thanks Randy,

I'll get over it. Perhaps the judge thinks that like some other very good acheological sites that have been located and then reburied to await a better time tecnically speaking to explore them safer and more effienctly; that Titanic should be left alone too. I do think we haven't seen or heard the last of her saga and believe that aside from napkins and menus there are valid reasons to deep explore her wreck still, I can wait though until technology gets better and less invasive to do so.

I do wonder though if any steel/rivits were ever sampled from Olympic to see if the 'brittle steel' theory holds water (pardon the pun)? She was built first and gave years of service without any incidents (except Nantucket Lightship, and the RN collision) so it would have been great if when she was broken up some of her was sampled for scientific testing. The collision she had with the RN ship opened a huge hole in her bow and must have caused some plate seperation along the hull and rivit poping too without the tragic results the iceberg collision caused her sister.

Thanks

Bill
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Bill, the rivits used were iron, not steel. While I don't know if any of the rivits from the olympic were ever examined(And they had no reason to do so when the ship existed) rivits recovered from the Titanic have been examined though only in small quantities. These rivits did show a trend in having higher levels of impurities then would have been ideal.

Re the brittle steel; the steel used in the Titanic's construction was the very best available at the time. Two things bear noting, one being that the chemical composition of steel manufactured in the late 19th and early 20th century was very different then what's used today. Secondly, the brittle steel problem wasn't recognised until the Second World War when new ships broke up for no apparent reason, even when tied to the peir.

BTW, The collision with the HMS Hawke was in the starboard quarter aft.

Cordially
Michael H. Standart
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
Hi Michael,

I used to be a steel yard document inspector and was responsible for checking that each piece sold out of the yard had the proper foundry documentation for the usage it was sold for, ie. ships/bridges= top quality standards and so forth. I was wondering what grading/testing methods they used in 1912 to classify "battleship" steel.

Thanks
Bill
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Hi Bill, you may be better served by a trained metallurgist in getting an answer to this one, or perhaps contacting a connection you may have with a steel manufacturer. If anybody would have any information on the standards contemporary to the turn of the century, these would be the guys.

I had the name of the contractor who provided the steel for the Titanic's plating, but I seem to have lost it in my mountain of books. The firm still exists, albit under a different name. If I can find it, I'll let you know...assuming somebody doesn't beat me to it...which is very possible on this forum. There's a lot of expertise around here.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Mike Herbold

Member
Dec 13, 1999
1,007
8
313
Michael:
You said the rivets were iron and not steel. Dumb me. Please explain to me the difference between iron and steel, and why the rivets would not be made of steel.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Mike, the difference lies in what they add to the iron in order to make it tougher and also to make it more resistant to corrosion, such as a specified amount of carbon, or some other metal. Sorry if I caused a little confusion here.

Bill, as I promised, I backchecked to find the name of the contractor who provided the steel. It was Dazell and D. Colville & Co. (Source; SS401, Parks Stephenson, site owner at http://home.flash.net/~sparks12titanic.html

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
C

caroldenice

Guest
carol holleman
[email protected]
i think it would be good if they could get to where the gate was locked and recover the bodies. it would be a closure for the families left. possibly use dna testing to find out who's who. also i was wondering, on a list i read i noticed alot of people were "buried at sea" how do they do that? just through the body overboard to be eaten by sharks? any input would be appreciated.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Carol, intriguing sentiment, but it's not one shared widely by survivors families. They got their closure a very long time ago, and those who are around today are known to be adamently opposed to any molestation of the wreck...much less any human remains which may be inside. As far as the survivors families are concerned, the RMS Titanic is the grave for their lost kin.

Re burial at sea, those whose remains were taken care of that way were cremated. Sharks don't generally include ashes in their diet.

The prospect may well be academic anyway since no evidence of human remains has ever been found. Artifacts such as boots, yes, but local marine life finished off any human remains a long time ago, bones and all.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
I must beg to differ on sea burials, Mike. I know that cremated remains are scattered from ships these days and have been for some time. (Joseph Boxhall's ashes were scattered at his SOS position). The USN even has instructions on its web site on how those eligible may make arrangements. The USN also buries bodies at sea if requested. You are eligible, but please don't rush to take advantage.

Those buried from Carpathia and Mackay-Bennett were buried in the traditional way. The body was sewn into a canvas shroud and heavy weights were added. In the days of sail, these were often cannon balls but in 1912 they often used iron furnace bars. At a certain point in the burial service, the body was slipped from a plank into the sea. It was common for the body to be covered by the national flag up to this point.

As you point out, there is no chance of finding bodies in Titanic.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Thanks Dave, I stand corrected, although what I should have said was that scattering cremated remains is the preferred practice these days. Obviously, the Mackay-Bennet couldn't do that.

Not to worry, burial at sea is one "benefit" I'm in no particular rush to take advantage of. ;-)

This business about finding remains on the Titanic was one I encountered on the titanic listserv I subscribe to. Predictably, it was unsourced,(what a surprise!) but it seems to be taking on a life of it's own. How the h**l do these things start anyway? Enquiring minds would really like to know.

Cordially,
Michael h. Standart
 
D

Daniel Rosenshine

Guest
About bodies being found down there, there certainly would be none in the debris field. However there are very slight possibilities that anyone who went down with the ship (trapped in a cabin or anywhere inside the ship) may still have remains. The only remains possible are teeth due to their content (I know they're bones but they are slightly different to normal bones).

How true this is I don't know. I can not remember where I read this, perhaps it was from "Discovery of the Titainic" by Ballard, perhaps not, it was some time ago.

Daniel.
 

Mimi

Member
Jan 2, 1998
14
0
211
I read Robert Ballard said that there are probably human remains ,such as skeletons deep inside the Titanic. Mimi
 

Mike Johnson

Member
Aug 6, 2012
8
0
31
Minnesota, USA
Has RMS Titanic inc ever produced an accurate inventory of all the items recovered from the wrecksite? If not, why not? It seems to me that a lot of people are concerned that items from the wreck have gone missing or been sold. If it was well known what had been brought up this concern wold probably not exist.

The company's failure to produce an inventory is worrying and makes you wonder whether even they know what they have brought up.

Regarding the original post in this thread by Rose Hill, www.guernseys.com--the auctioneer for RMSTI's entire holdings--has a catalog with over 450 holdings. (US $45)

Link:
Guernsey's Catalogues

I do wish there was a catalog of their complete holdings (not including coal, I suppose).

Sorry if this is old news. I'm new to the forum.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads