Last Log of the Titanic


Jul 9, 2000
58,660
870
563
Easley South Carolina
Huh???
eh.gif


Uhhhhh...Matthew, I think you're getting the movie confused with the reality. There was no Rose or Jack and in the real world accident, the water "rose" to 12,500 feet above the level of the boat deck. (That's a tad higher then E-Deck.
wink.gif
)
 

Michael Kuker

Member
Sep 2, 2011
6
0
31
Hi all, I'm interested in picking up this book, but the only copy available at a decent price on Amazon is a Kindle edition. Does the print copy have any photographs or illustrations that aren't in the Kindle version?
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
548
388
Michael --

Thanks for your interest in my book.

The publisher told me the e-editions would be "the same" as the printed book. I've never really checked to see if that were true as I don't use e-book readers (a symptom of my age). However, there are decent used copies of the hardback available if you check around. Should you find one, and be in the Toledo, Ohio area, I'll be glad to sign it.

-- David G. Brown
 

Michael Kuker

Member
Sep 2, 2011
6
0
31
David,

I ended up buying the Kindle version and tearing through it last night; I found it an excellent read and your arguments very convincing. I understand you're working on another Titanic tome?

In regards to ebooks in general, this was the first ebook I've purchased and it was a fine experience on my iPad. I have a few quibbles with the presentation, but I understand they are somewhat common to the format: the chapter titles are not formatted properly and the images (cover and bridge diagram) should have been higher resolution, but they did not ruin my experience by any means.

I look forward to your future work!
 

MrBojangles

Member
Oct 18, 2020
3
0
1
I had never heard of this book before, and bought it after seeing David G Brown on television a few months ago. I cannot recall the show, and it probably was from years ago. I enjoyed the book and the theories, most of which are likely true. I finished reading it last evening, Christmas evening.

Nonetheless, I question where the editor was when this was proofread. I identified the following discrepancies, which should not detract from the excellent theories presented, but should be addressed nonetheless. A good editor should have caught each and every one of them:

Page 12, under reference to BALLARD, Dr Robert D, "he discovered Titanic's wreckage in 1987." The year was 1985, not 1987.

Page 26, line 8 references "the Widners". Should be the Wideners.

Page 33, "From Mesaba to Titanic and all east-bound ships." The Titanic was heading west-bound. Although this could be correct, in that it could have meant to be for all east-bound ships, as well as Titanic, and she was singled out as she was heading west-bound.

Page 104, line 11: "852.5 foot length." Titanic is 882.5 feet in length.

Page 105: "If we assume the plates were pushed apart to a uniform width of one inch, it would have taken 114 linear feet of open seam to equal a 12-square foot hole." 12 X 12 = 144, not 114.

Page 154, line 4, "Titanic's fifty-nine year old master". E J Smith was born 27 January 1850, making him 62 years old in 1912.

Page 195. Fifth Officer Harold G Lowe: "...he died in 1964 at age sixty-one." Making him 9 years old in 1912??? Indeed, he was born 21 Nov 1882 and died 12 May 1944, making him 61 in 1944, not 1964.

I should mention that the age of E J Smith is often referenced as he bing 59 years old. I have no idea where this came from as he clearly was born 27 January 1850.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,325
185
338
I should mention that the age of E J Smith is often referenced as he bing 59 years old. I have no idea where this came from as he clearly was born 27 January 1850.

Smith gave his age as 59 when he signed on to Titanic. Oddly enough, he gave his age correctly when he signed onto Olympic the year before (he was then aged 61).

Best wishes

Mark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

MrBojangles

Member
Oct 18, 2020
3
0
1
Smith gave his age as 59 when he signed on to Titanic. Oddly enough, he gave his age correctly when he signed onto Olympic the year before (he was then aged 61).

Best wishes

Mark.
So that is where that fallacy originated from. I had wondered why so many authors got it wrong!

Maybe it was common for folks to lie about their ages back then. Could it have had something to do with retirement? By lying about his age E J Smith could work longer before reaching a mandatory age?

I know my one of my great grandfather's lied about his age all the time when alive, but not sure why he would have done so in Census records. He was born Dec 1885 and as he got older, his age became such that he was born in 1888 and then in the last Census he was recorded in he gave his year of birth as 1890.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,325
185
338
Maybe it was common for folks to lie about their ages back then. Could it have had something to do with retirement? By lying about his age E J Smith could work longer before reaching a mandatory age?

I doubt it. White Star were aware of Smith's age and he was already giving his age as 60 in 1910 when he signed onto Adriatic and then 61 in 1911 when he signed onto Olympic.

In later years, White Star had a policy of mandatory retirement at the end of the year in which the officer turned sixty. In 1929, for example, Olympic lost both her commander and chief engineer for this reason. However, that does not seem to have been the case in 1912. Had it been in force, Smith would have had to retire at the end of 1910 at the latest.

Best wishes

Mark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
2,246
1,136
308
I doubt it. White Star were aware of Smith's age and he was already giving his age as 60 in 1910 when he signed onto Adriatic and then 61 in 1911 when he signed onto Olympic.

In later years, White Star had a policy of mandatory retirement at the end of the year in which the officer turned sixty. In 1929, for example, Olympic lost both her commander and chief engineer for this reason. However, that does not seem to have been the case in 1912. Had it been in force, Smith would have had to retire at the end of 1910 at the latest.

Best wishes

Mark.
That's interesting. I didn't know that was issue in those days. I knew people would lie about there age in days gone bye but it was usually on the other end of the scale. As in young guys lying to get in the army/navy during wars. It was a practice that 15/16 year olds would write 18 on a slip of paper and put it in their shoe. That way they could swear they were "over 18". Common during the civil war or so I've read. But what you wrote does make sense. 60 in 1912 probably equal to an 80 year old today as far as life spans go.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads