National Geographic Disappoints


Dec 30, 2011
7
0
31
I was recently checking out the new Titanic photos, and watching some of the preview videos on the NatGeo website and decided to check out the store. I came across a photo, purportedly of the Titanic and signed by Milvina Dean. I was quite surprised to find that not only was the photo actually the Olympic, but in addition, someone had gone to the trouble to change the name on the bow! Come on, National Geographic, I'm very quickly losing any and all respect for you. How can they justify charging over $200 for an erroneously labeled photo? It might be expected of a less reputable publication, but not National Geographic. Makes me wonder if the Far Side which portrayed a bunch of scantily clad natives awaiting a National Geographic reporter may have been based on some fact! Check it out for yourself at
Signed Titanic Sailing Photo - National Geographic Store
 

glassary

Member
Apr 14, 2012
6
0
31
New Jersey, USA
If that's truly the Olympic thats sad and doesn't say much for authenticity. Who can say if the signature by Ms. Dean is actually real either. Right now I can't enlarge the picture to see any detail on the picture to compare. Hmmm wonder it Natgeo knows people are taking a closer look.
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,045
64
308
UK
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong item, but the ship in the autographed 'sailing photo' is certainly the Titanic. It's the background that's been doctored (very badly) to give the impression that she is on her way rather than moored at Southampton. This impression isn't helped by the unconvincing waterline, the absence of wake or smoke and the partial airbrushing that has left parts of dockside cranes hovering behind the ship.
 

Lana Baker

Member
Nov 8, 2008
35
0
46
I purchased the April issue of National Geographic Magazine. While the photos were spectacular and the articles well-written, I found it annoying that James Cameron incorrectly referred to John "Jack" Phillips as "Jonathan Phillips" in his article. He also gave the figure of 713 survivors, while I've always read that 705 survived.
 
Sep 25, 2004
44
4
148
I purchased the April issue of National Geographic Magazine. While the photos were spectacular and the articles well-written, I found it annoying that James Cameron incorrectly referred to John "Jack" Phillips as "Jonathan Phillips" in his article. He also gave the figure of 713 survivors, while I've always read that 705 survived.
The most accurate figures to date regarding survivors are 712.
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
1
73
Iowa, USA
According to "The Complete Titanic" by Stephen Spignesi c. 1998, page 66, here are the various figures multiple commissions, agencies, ect. came up with:

British Board of Trade report intial people in lifeboat: 854 saved

Official White Star list of survivors, Apr 20, 1912: 757

The FINAL figure reported to the British Board of Trade: 711

Number reported by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee: 706

Number of survivors Carpathia's Captain Rostron reported picking up: 705

Number of survivors British Board of Trade initially reported Apr 25, 1912: 703

703 to 854. Quite a contrast. Were some people counted twice? LOL.
 

Phenomenon

Member
Apr 20, 2012
3
0
31
I was recently checking out the new Titanic photos, and watching some of the preview videos on the NatGeo website and decided to check out the store. I came across a photo, purportedly of the Titanic and signed by Milvina Dean. I was quite surprised to find that not only was the photo actually the Olympic, but in addition, someone had gone to the trouble to change the name on the bow! Come on, National Geographic, I'm very quickly losing any and all respect for you. How can they justify charging over $200 for an erroneously labeled photo? It might be expected of a less reputable publication, but not National Geographic. Makes me wonder if the Far Side which portrayed a bunch of scantily clad natives awaiting a National Geographic reporter may have been based on some fact! Check it out for yourself at
Signed Titanic Sailing Photo - National Geographic Store
The image on National Geographic is most defintely that of Titanic and not Olympic. Ignoring the liner's name, starboard side on the bow, there is one very distinct feature that defines Titanic at a glance. That is the A-Deck, which unlike its sister ship Olympic was enlcosed on Titanic. Only does the deck become exposed towards the aft of the ship. Why this obvious difference is ignored when conspiracies pop up amazes me.
 
Dec 30, 2011
7
0
31
The reason the current image listed on National Geographic is currently the Titanic is because I contacted them and made them aware of the mistake. I received a very nice email thanking me for making them aware of the error. It was stated that they would contact anyone who had purchased the erroneously labeled item and offer to exchange it for an item depicting the Titanic.
 

Similar threads