Is this really the Titanic

[Jan C. Nielsen]

I bought this picture (its a real photo, not a postcard) on Ebay recently. It looks to be the Titanic. It's certainly not Britannic because the lifeboats aren't right. At first blush, the promenade deck reminds one of the Olympic. However, this appears to be a "fittings" picture from between February 3, 1912, and April 2, 1912, in Belfast. The key distinguishing feature is the aft cutaway below the promenade deck and near the rear mast. That cutaway is much longer on Olympic. Any thoughts, disagreements, or questions?

I'm sorry, the posted picture is pretty blurry. The original, in fact, is quite clear and focused.

 

[Adam Leet]

That is indeed Titanic. The restaurant windows are already in place, and the rest of the windows are staggered, not to mention the open aft B-deck promenade is shorter. Easy to tell the difference, despite the bad JPEG compression, by the way.


Adam

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I agree with Adam on this one. The shorter open B deck promanade is a dead givaway. The so-called Ismay Screen was not fitted until sometime in March 1912.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Brandon Whited]

Jan,

So it was you that bought that picture, eh? That's quite a find! I was looking at it on eBay a couple of days ago. Who knows what's liable to be up for grabs on that site next! Enjoy!


Cheers,

-B.W.

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

Jan,

I didn't see that one on ebay, looks like a good find! The scan isn't exactly clear, but check with some Titanic photo people to see whether it is a rare picture. I don't think I've ever seen that one before, but then again I'm not very knowledgeable on exterior photos.

Olympic would have had the same restaurant windows, but at this stage it would have also had a full line of boats on the boat deck (which doeasn’t seem to be the case on this photo).

If you want to send me a clearer scan of the photo, I could forward to to someone who would know more about the photo.

Regards,

Daniel.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I don't know how "rare " it is, but it's far from unpublished. My copy of Merideths "1912 Facts About the Titanic" has the same photo.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

Just had a look at my copy of Marriott's Titanic, and the picture on pp 4 - 5 matches the one above. However there is no crane visible in Jan's photo. This was either removed, or it's a different photo. If these images are the same, then they're the H&W photos H1713x - as according to the UFTM Titanic index I have.

Daniel.

 

[Jan C. Nielsen]

Thanks for the feedback. Can anyone help me date this photo? In Don Lynch's book, he show a "fittings" picture of February 3, 1912, which is before the Ismay Promenade was in place, and part of the aft plating hasn't been installed. This picture is after that, but before the promenade was put in. The crane is also missing. Any ideas?

 

[Bob Read]

On p. 18 of Thomas Bonsall's book, "Titanic",
there is a nearly identical copy of this photo.
The only difference appears to be that the floating crane is in the background. Everything else (expecially the extent of painting) is the same. Bonsall gives a date of
October 6, 1911. As far as the reason the crane does not appear, it may possibly be explained by the photo on the next page of Bonsall's book. It show Olympic and Titanic in the same photo. Olympic has been brought back because of a lost propeller. The photo is dated March 6, 1912. Titanic still has the same paint pattern but you can see work in progress on the screens for the A deck promenade. In your photo, no such work has begun. Therefore, I would place the photo somewhere between October 6, 1911
March 6, 1912. Perhaps someone else has access to an exact date but this is as close as I can place it from existing photos.

Regards,
Bob Read

 

[Jan C. Nielsen]

Thanks, Bob. I didn't know that it could be as early as October 6, 1911. The February 3, 1912 date in Lynch's book must be wrong.

 

[Bob Read]

Jan:
I'm not sure what photo and what book you are referring to when you cite "Lynch's book".
If you could give title and page number maybe I could give a better comment. If Lynch dates this exact photo as February 3, 1912 he could be right. That would place it within the time frame I mentioned. You might on first blush think that the Feb. 3 date with no work started on the A deck screen would be wrong but not necessarily. I don't know if I ever knew the exact date it was started but it was surprisingly late. Even in the March 6 photo with Olympic the work doesn't look very far along. This is not the photo of Olympic and Titanic taken from forward that you see in most books. It is taken from what appears to be the port side with Titanic in the background also showing the port side. I would have to look further to confirm that it is indeed the port side of both ships since the photo may have been reversed.

Regards,
Bob Read

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

Jan,

I've been told that this is the H1713x photo I was referring to earlier, however this must be an earlier printing and the crane must have been removed, as apparently the water ripples are the same. This must be a February 1912 photo and definitely not Oct. 1911.

Daniel.

 

[Bob Read]

Daniel:
First, I see no reason why the picture would have been "doctored" to remove the crane.
Not that H&W didn't "doctor" photos but when they removed objects in photos is was very crudely done and was readily apparent on the photo. I can't see any evidence that they "erased" the crane in this photo. Since the date Bonsall gives for the one with the crane in it is October 6, 1911, I see no reason why this couldn't be nearly the same date.
If I can upload this scan, this is the March 6, 1912 photo.
As you can see, the paint pattern on Titanic is nearly identical and you can just make out some activity in placing the A deck promenade screens. That's why there can be such a large date window for Jan's photo in my opinion.

Regards,
Bob Read

 

[Bob Read]

Sorry:
I messed up the upload. Here's the
March 6, 1912 photo.

Regards,
Bob Read

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

In that case, perhaps Bonsall is wrong, the Titanic is too advanced for this photo to be Oct. 6 1911. Her B deck windows were only removed in Sep. 1911 to be replaced with the new cabin windows, so I really doubt that only a month later, the windows were in place, funnels etc.

If you have the H1713x print, or a copy of the "Sisters" book (pg.128) or the Marriott book (pp.4-5) and I think McGoughan's "Birth of the Titanic" would also have this photo, you can really see that this is the same photo especially if you follow the water ripples. You really can't replicate them, or make them stay the same for any longer than it takes to capture them on film.

Jan has the print, he’d be the better person to compare it to the photos in books.

Regards,

Daniel.