The ADeck Lounge colours


Status
Not open for further replies.

Nigel Bryant

Member
Jan 14, 2001
532
8
263
Wellington, New Zealand
Hello everyone,

Are there any colour postcards of the first-class Lounge? As we know from historians the Titanic’s Smoking room differed in colours compared to the Olympic. Do you think there would have been any changes in colour wise of the carpets or the chairs in Titanic’s lounge compared to Olympics?

I was thinking about this when I saw the cutaway painting from Ken Marshall featured in “Illustrated History” and “ Inside the Titanic” and with the discovery from Ken Marshall of the smoking room tiles. As we have found out from historians and expeditions in the past and the just recent one from James Cameron in making of his IMAX feature, we have now learned there were a lot of differences internally compared to the Olympic.

So do you think Titanic’s lounge could have a completely different look compared to the Olympic’s lounge? I think the current theory is that Olympic’s chairs were green in colour-wise. But the thing is that I don’t know if there are any colour postcards of the Olympic’s lounge anyway, or are those colours just speculation? As Park Stephenson said he believed that the Olympic was done up in more earth tones and I believe this, but are there any sources to confirm what colour the chairs were in Olympic’s lounge?

As for Titanic do you think she would have followed in the same colour schemes? Or do you think her lounge would have of had a different look as well? This is also noting of the difference in the Smoking Room’s décor as well.

In Ken Marshall’s painting of the lounge in his cutaway, he shows that the lounge sofas and chairs are a peachy colour and the floor is a dark bagel.

Just some thoughts…

Regards,

Nigel
 

Nigel Bryant

Member
Jan 14, 2001
532
8
263
Wellington, New Zealand
Just a quick note,

Also When i was corresponding to Eric Sauder, he told me that changes in colours of sister-ships were not uncommon, so each vessel would have a unique feel. So what are your thoughts?

Regards,

NB
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,358
248
338
On a similar note, the carving over the forward entrance door (seen on Olympic) is different from the carving recovered after Titanic's sinking. There's no reason why other details might not have varied slightly I don't think.
 
Jan 31, 2001
1,190
22
233
Hello,

White Star obviously didn't want two identical twins. Titanic was a new ship, so people expected it to look new(by "new", I mean they expected it to differ from its sister), so if you want my opinion, I would say there was quite a few features that were changed on Titanic. The lounge, like the smoking room, was probably one of them. I would not be surprised if other rooms, such as the reading and writing room for example, may have also been changed. As for the alternate colors of the lounge, I can imagine red carpet and white furniture; but I'm no Martha Stewart!


Cheers,
happy.gif


-B.W.
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
14
313
I have no idea what Olympic's lounge colours were, I don't remember coming across any colour references. However several Titanic's passengers recalled Titanic's Lounge to be green (or I think jade green as Artagaveytia said). Here is a translated excerpt from his letter:

"I visited what I could of the steamer, its different rooms, and today to find this room to write in, there must be more than two, it cost me to know. The dining rooms are painted in white and some rooms like this one, have carved wood, i think its oak, with lounges and chairs covered in rich and elegant jade green velvet."

Elmer Zelby Taylor was one other person who mentioned the green cushions of the Lounge:

"We admired the especially designed cstom-made furniture, the floor coverings, wall decorations, palms and semi-tropical plants, the huge fat green pillows in the Music Room, of which I will have more to say later."

.... and he did ....

"There was little debris floating about ... Those huge green pillows previously mentioned were very much in evidence, because they scarcely touched the water to float; bits of woodwork and furniture ..."

I know Taylor didn't exactly call it the lounge, instead calling it the Music Room, but judging by what Artagaveytia said, and a look at photos, you can see the large pillows in the lounge.

As for the big differences in Olympic and Titanic I would disagree to an extent. As you can see Artagaveytia mentions a bit about the dining saloon, the reception room (both being white) the carved oak of the lounge etc. All as it was on Olympic. Considering that wood was carved manually, it is no surprise that the carvings may differ. However in the Lynch/Marschall book comparing the recovered Titanic oak to the picture of Olympic's, they look VERY similar, it is obvious the carvers were trying to follow the same design.

Mostly the styles of the rooms were the same. Even on Olympic, after the Titanic sank and after Olympic's winter (1912 - 1913) refit, when new features were installed on Olympic, such as the Café Parisien and the restaurant reception room, even then the same styles were used. Although Olympic's Café Parisien was more elaborate, the essence of Titanic was there. Although small, Olympic's restaurant reception room was fitted in the same style as Titanic's and used the same furniture.

Fr. Browne's photo of the dining room shows it to be basically a duplicate of Olympic's. Although we don't know the exact colours, recovered tiles seem to indicate they were either the same, or at least followed a very similar colour scheme.

The rare and few pictures of Titanic’s interiors show the same tile patters that were used on Olympic, the same carpet patterns that were used in period suites. Recovered tiles from the wreck also match was was once on the Olympic.

It doesn't matter whether Olympic had 5 pillars on either side of the reception room, and the Titanic had 7, the style of the room was still the same (as can be seen from wreck footage).

One picture that exists of Titanic's Verandah Café shows the room to be exactly the same as on Olympic, the only difference is that Titanic didn't have any round tables in these rooms.

My research into cabins, shows that even the styles of cabins had little variation. On both Titanic and Olympic cabins of the same style were in the same location on both ships, this was even carried through to Britannic to some extent.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that Olympic and Titanic weren't that different. The styles of rooms and places were very similar if not the same. Where the difference must have occurred is the colours of carpets and other colour scheme differences. Unfortunately in those days photos were only black and white, and the few colour post cards and advertisements from those days are of Olympic and give little help as to the colour differences used on Olympic and Titanic.

Regards,

Daniel.
 

Eric Sauder

Member
Nov 12, 2000
403
15
263
Hi, Nigel:

As far as I know, there were no color post cards printed of the first-class Lounge. Ken M. and I have talked about this in the past, and we both think it's odd since color renderings of almost every other first-class room were issued as post cards. It's very frustrating since Ken has been collecting for thirty-five years and has never come across one.

As for whether the Lounges on Olympic/Titanic differed in color, I would find it hard to believe they didn't since a number of rooms on Olympic had different color schemes from their counterparts on Titanic. As to what the colors on Titanic were, we can only guess.

Mark C. wrote: "On a similar note, the carving over the forward entrance door (seen on Olympic) is different from the carving recovered after Titanic's sinking."

That's not really true. The carving is basically the same (it's not a different design), it's simply one carver making a leaf or ribbon go one way as opposed to the other. The overall carving is the same with only slight variations. Many years ago, I wrote an article for THS about the wood recovered from the wreck site (which is in the collection of the Public Archives of Nova Scotia), which went into a bit of detail about this.

Eric Sauder
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
14
313
Hi Eric,

While you're here, I thought I'd just ask a few questions, you can reply either here or to me privately.

You say that Ken has been collecting and researching Titanic's interiors for quite some time, and in this regard, I'm surprised to see that inaccuracies still slip up in his paintings. He has the lounge done in red (and I have shown two accounts - above - that prove otherwise). He has the Smoking room in green. I don't know whether it is a recent speculation or discovery that it was in another colour, and whether this speculation arose after his painting.

I’m referring here to the big cutaway painting that can be found in the Lynch/Marschall book and in the “Inside the Titanic” book. On B deck, Titanic had 24 period suites. In Ken’s painting his period suites extended right to the end, to B97, where as in reality these aft 3 cabins on either side were not decorated in any period style, but were rather white cabins, I think in the same style as Fr. Browne’s cabin. Whilst we know what the forward three cabins on either side looked like (B57, 59, 63 and B58, 60, 64) so far as I know, neither of the other cabins’ styles are known - so on Ken’s painting they’re just speculation (I’m also going to go into this a bit more later).

His depiction of the private promenade shows it too long. The promenade was only 48’ long, however if you count the windows and know the measurements, it looks like it was about 53’ long! If you look at the starboard side photos of B deck, you can see the H&W screen windows that cover the promenade and the entrance. If you count from aft to fore, you can see one large window and then a gap (this gap is a gangway door) and then there are 11 more large windows before you again reach a gap, then window, then gap then window and the rest, the smaller looking windows are those of cabins and passageways. Back to the large windows; after the first large window and the gap, there are 8 windows over the private promenade, then the remaining 5 windows with the two gaps are over the entrance. This is correctly depicted in the painting where boat 7 is being launched, but for some reason is wrong on the cutaway.

Then there’s the cutaway that imitates Fr. Browne’s picture taken of the port side at Southampton. On C deck you can see cabins C66 through to C74 revealed. Cabins C70, 72, 74 were the “Dutch trio” (as I call them). However Ken here has them in the wrong order. C70 is correctly shown to be in Modern Dutch, however C72 and 74 have been swapped. C72 was in Old Dutch, while C74 was once again in Modern Dutch but in sycamore, whilst C70 was in oak. In fact the head or foot of the bed that is seen in the debris field that matches the foot of the bed from cabin B57 (see pg.181 of Ballard’s “The Discovery of the Titanic” book), is in fact from C70, Jack Thayer’s bed (I will later explain why).

On B deck for B58, 60 and 64 he uses the wrong colours. Pink, blue and green were not used in these rooms. In fact B64 most probably had panels of crimson silk damask.

Now later on in the book (“Inside the Titanic”) there’s the cutaway that shows the aft cabins B84, 82, 78 and I think 76. Some of these rooms he depicts as having the familiar style of Louis XVI and Empire, the same styles as for B58 and 64 (respectively). This is clearly incorrect. These styles were unique and only used twice on Titanic and Olympic. Once on B deck and once on C deck, no other cabins were decorated in these styles. I think these were some kind of special styles on Olympic and Titanic, and used as trios only once on B and likewise on C deck. This is more evident from Olympic’s plans than Titanic’s. However on Titanic’s B deck plan the cabins had double lines on the beds and no other cabin did, on C deck there were no double lines. On Olympic’s plans, there were double lines for these cabins on B and C deck. When Olympic was scrapped, the same cabins were decorated in these special styles as they were originally fitted in 1911. Of course by 1935 Olympic’s deck configuration was changed and some cabin numbers as well, however the physical location of these cabins never did. According to Olympic’s scrap book, which does mention most of the styles for those cabins that were decorated in a style, each trio was only used twice. Once on A deck and once on B (which by 1935 was originally B and C decks - respectively).

Thus my point about how neither Louis XVI nor that particular style of Empire was used again anywhere on the ship except for the twice mentioned places.

I’ll mention the “trios” here. On both Olympic and Titanic, their order never changed. From fore to aft, they went like this: Louis XVI, Queen Anne, Empire and Modern Dutch (in oak with a brass bed), Old Dutch, Modern Dutch (in sycamore with a wooden bed). Both on Olympic and Titanic, the Dutch trio was on the starboard side on B deck and on the port side on C deck. The Louis XVI etc. trio was on the port side on B deck and on the starboard side of C deck. These groups were opposite each other (on the plans, as can be seen that the cabins B57, 59, 63 - the Dutch trio, are exactly opposite to the Louis XVI etc. trio B58, 60, 64). Thus my point about the bed on the ocean floor and Jack Thayer’s cabin, C70. Since this style was only used once on C deck, and it was used in C70, there is no other possible cabin (other than B57) that this bed frame could have come from.

I know I’m challenging Ken Marschall here, and I may be wrong in some of the things that I say, but thus far what I’ve uncovered, this is what my research into interiors and especially cabins has shown me so far.

Regards,

Daniel.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Daniel,

Based on my analysis, you're wrong about the tiles in the Dining Saloon. The pattern used in both Titanic and Olympic was the same, but the colours were completely different, which would give each room its own unique character. I have reconstructed the Dining Saloon pattern based on the colours seen at the wreck site (which are closer to the original colours than those found in a recovered tile section that has gone through the "conservation" process). When I convert the finished colour pattern to black-and-white, I find it to appear almost as an inverted image of comparable B&W photos of Olympic's pattern. On the other hand, I find it perfectly matches a B&W postcard that shows the Dining Saloon tile used in the Belgenland (another ship built by H&W). Having established that the colours in the pattern are vastly different between the two ships, and given that the colours in Titanic's tile have been observed and noted at the wreck site, the question now becomes: what colours were used in Olympic's Dining Saloon tiles? Were they possibly the same as used originally in Nomadic? Were the artist colour renderings on period brochures and postcards fashioned after what was being planned for Olympic or Titanic?

Also, you mention that "recovered tiles from the wreck also match was was once on the Olympic." Which tiles are you referring to?

Parks
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Daniel Klistorner said "You say that Ken has been collecting and researching Titanic's interiors for quite some time, and in this regard, I'm surprised to see that inaccuracies still slip up in his paintings"

G'day Daniel, I can't say it's much of a surprise to me. Keep in mind that a lot of Ken Marschall's paintings were done years ago befor he either found the information or befor the information was even available to be known.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Daniel,

I have said this before, but it appears to be worth repeating...it's not wise to confuse Ken Marschall's commercial art for his knowledge of Titanic's interiors. The people who commission Ken's work put demands on him that somtimes causes errors to be introduced. Ask Ken sometimes about errors in his paintings and he will be quite forthright in acknowledging them and describing the conditions that led to the errors.

Sometimes, the errors are genuine. That's because all of us (Ken included) continue to learn about Titanic as more information comes to light. One would think that after 90 years that nothing could knock our collective knowledge for a loop. We are soon to find out how erroneous that assumption can be.

So, you've done some research...good for you. What do you intend to do with the fruits of your labour? Are you going to paint a painting, or write a book? That's what Ken did, back in the years before knowledge of the ship was as commonplace as today. In my view, Ken had to be pretty bold to paint Titanic back in the 1970/80's, when information about the ship was extremely scarce. He really put his reputation and credibility on the line. But, you know what? A lot of those paintings are still being used today by people who want to visualise what Titanic looked like when new. Try this experiment: check the dates on the paintings sometime (they usually follow his signature) and then put yourself back in that year. How much did we know about Titanic at that time? You might be amazed on how well Ken rendered the ship when the rest of us still had B&W images of Olympic dancing in our heads. Do you know that Ken hasn't painted Titanic for many years now, and since that time, his observations at the wreck have increased his knowledge substantially?

How would you know that? Have you tried contacting him? His e-mail address is listed on the dust jacket of Titanic: An Illustrated History (or maybe Ken Marschall's Art of Titanic...I don't have the books in front of me at the moment). I certainly wouldn't gripe about the accuracy of Ken's work in a public forum without attempting to extend the courtesy of discussing it with him first. With a proper attitude you might find, as I have, that Ken is extremely receptive to others' research, even if it proves his earlier work in error. Don't expect a response, though, if you take an antagonistic approach. Would you appreciate it if you were in his shoes?

However -- I will say this again -- Ken's paintings should never be used for historical reference. There are too many commercial considerations behind much of his published work for it to be considered objective reference material. His work can -- and has -- been used as a benchmark upon which individual researchers can base their research, but it's extremely bad form to then publicly criticise the artist for rendering a faulty benchmark. It only makes the critic look like they're disparging Ken to make themselves look better.

Daniel, for all I know, your observations about stateroom and public room styles may be correct (interiors, with the bizarre exception of floor tiles, are not my specialty). However, in my opinion, your point was lost amid your critical remarks. I don't speak for everyone here, and I'm certainly not speaking for Ken, but I thought it might be constructive for you to hear one man's feedback to your post above.

Parks
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
33
323
Parks,

I didn't read Daniel's post the way you did apparently. I didn't see his remarks as being critical in a demeaning or otherwise negative sense. Daniel is very detail-oriented and extremely careful over his research. He has done some top-notch work, quite impressive in one so young, and I believe he has a very bright future. He may not have had articles or books published as yet but he has them in him as much as any of us and I for one look forward to seeing his expertise in print.

Ken, great artist as he is, was once green too, Parks, like us all, and I'll bet he succeeded by asking a lot of questions and even challenging others. This is a part of growth, especially in a creative venue. Bear in mind that Daniel only wants to learn. I understand you're defending Ken, and you should, but really he's so mega, I hardly think he'll find questions from an aspiring researcher an insurmountable challenge.

Daniel,

My friend, as I've told you before, you can put me to shame when it comes to running on and on. That post to Eric was more than a FEW questions. Try and curtail that and be more careful how you phrase things, too. It's so easy to take offense over comments out here in cyber. We never know the heart behind the words.

Since I know you, I know how you revere Ken Marschall's genius, as I and anybody who knows good work does, but your above post did not reflect that. Parks is a friend of Ken's so consider that. He's defending him. I'm your friend and I'm defending you. Of course, its true I wouldn't be scolding you if you weren't more than 10 years my junior but I'm only trying to help. I realize you were just trying to learn. And you shouldn't be struck down for that.

All my best to both of you,

Randy
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Randy,

That's why I was careful to point out that I was expressing just one man's opinion...my own. Thank you for adding your perspective.

Parks
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
33
323
Parks,

You're welcome. And I wouldn't expect you to express more than your own opinion!
happy.gif
It gets complicated after that. Just sent a private "e." No combustibles.

Randy
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
14
313
Parks and All,

I really didn't think it would turn into this and I don't want another ET fight. I would agree with you all that I should try word my thoughts carefully so as to correctly express my points and avoid any misunderstandings. My aim was not to gripe about accuracy or inaccuracy of Ken's work in a public forum. I did think whether to send Eric a private e-mail or to post for all to see. I chose the latter (duh!). I did this because I knew I could get more responses about the accuracy or inaccuracy of my thus far obtained knowledge and perhaps may have developed this into a useful discussion. This would have allowed others to see the proceedings.

Parks, I understand how you feel about my "attack". Ken has done so much great (great isn't even a word good enough for it) research, that has seriously been a benchmark for many, especially myself. So much of my interior knowledge is thanks to Ken. I regard him very highly and respect him a great deal for his work and all his research. He has certainly done some incredible work at a time when so little on Titanic was available.

I don't know Ken personally and have never contacted him. I was judging his knowledge by his work. I'm sorry about that and I do apologise that I assumed some of his work may have been a reflection of his knowledge. I was unaware of constraints placed on him. I thought he might have been given ample time for his drawing or may have done them out of free will and sold them later.

Certainly, as you pointed out, more knowledge has come to light since his paintings and thus has shown how and why they may have been incorrect. This in no way reflects his knowledge, and does answer my question regarding why some things may have been depicted incorrectly.

As for my research, I haven’t got the talent nor the finances to do much about bringing it into public. But I am trying and a piece of it will be available for all to see in March 2002. I cannot draw or paint, and do not have the money to commission artists to depict what I have learned. What I’m trying to do is build a model of a particular room and take pictures. This is very time consuming and is also expensive, but I am trying to get there. In fact, researching Titanic is very expensive. One has to go outside of books and explore other avenues, which is what I’m trying to do. I have contacted various places and am trying to obtain all interior photographs that I can find. I have spent several thousand dollars doing this, and I’m only a university student with a crappy part time job. Not the best position to be writing books and painting.

Now I’ll try to go back on track to the discussion. About the dining saloon tiles, I did not say anything definite about the tiles or the colours. All I merely suggested was that they were possibly the same or similar. This is judging by your depiction of the tiles on your site, the colour brochure showing what we usually believe to be Olympic’s dining saloon and the picture of the tile from the recent Eaton and Haas book. To me the colours looked the same or at least similar. However, with your (above) evidence and research, as you point out, we are left wondering what Olympic’s tiles looked like rather than Titanic’s. Either way, one important issue would be that the actual tile pattern seems to be identical, it is the colours that vary.

>>"recovered tiles from the wreck also match what was
>>once on the Olympic." Which tiles are you referring to?

Specifically I was referring to the grand staircase tiles. Also looking at photos, the Gymnasium tiles on both ships seem to be identical. But as I mentioned before, the most important thing, besides the fact that the rooms had the same panelling and furniture, they had the same tile and carpet patterns, which basically shows how close the two ships were. Obviously as we’re learning there were differences, Titanic had more columns in the reception room and the tiles and carpets were most probably of different colours to the Olympic.

Best Regards,

Daniel.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Daniel,

Hopefully, Randy shared my private e-mail with you. I understand where you're coming from and have no intention of dragging this out.

Concerning tiles...yes, some of the more utilitarian patterns appear to be the same between Olympic and Titanic, with little or no variance in colour. What is interesting is that the more complex or decorative patterns do seem to use vastly different colours between the two ships.

H&W was in the habit of using the same accoutrements/fittings in various ships; for example, I have found Titanic's Dining Saloon tile pattern on at least 4 different H&W-built ships. This commonality of equipment makes perfect business sense, so I am not being critical of H&W in this instance. In fact, it appears that H&W made an effort to give each ship its own unique character by making subtle changes that returned as much "bang for the buck" as possible. Tile colours are a good example...my using the same pattern, but cutting from different-coloured linoleum stock, a room can take on a completely different character. In the Smoking Room, Olympic's grey-and-buff pattern would have made the room look lighter, more open. Titanic's red-and-blue pattern was more vibrant and darker, making the room seem a bit smaller and more intimate. Furniture covers may or may not have changed to accommodate the colours from the floor, but again, that's a minor change for the vendor to make. The same in the Dining Saloon. I suspect, based on a study of the photographs, that the background of Olympic's Dining Saloon tiles was a pale blue or egg white with either a red or dark blue border around the "cross." That is just a guess, though, which I'm not willing to commit to at this time.

As far as the colour brochure is concerned, I find it interesting that the colours used are similar to what has been found in Titanic. There are various reasons why this should be (one such reason could be that it was the original colour scheme intended for Olympic, but was subsequently changed and held off until the second ship), and it would be interesting to figure out which one.

I guess my point, though, is that a small change, like colours in a floor tile or the sequence in which certain stateroom styles can be found, can make a noticeable difference in the "feel" or character of the ships.

Parks
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
33
323
I've no intention of dragging anything out either. It's all settled as far as I'm concerned. But for the record I've received no e-mail from Parks.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Randy and Daniel,

I sent a lengthy reply to Randy's address (the address on his mail to me) last night. I have no indication on my end that there was any problem with the outgoing message. I just received Randy's e-mail telling me that he hadn't received it. I just now re-sent it to the same address, after checking that I did indeed have it right. Randy, please check your mail...if you haven't received it, please let me know soonest and we'll figure out where to go from there.

Parks
 
Mar 20, 2000
3,107
33
323
Parks,

I received just now your email which I have also just replied to. But since this has been played out publicly to some extent, I want to thank you here for your private words which are so heartening and insightful that, were it not for a natural concern for discretion, I would wish everyone could read and enjoy.

I can't think what happened to the email you sent last evening. It was a definite no-show.

I have however forwarded the re-sent message at your request to Daniel whom I am sure will be glad and encouraged to read it.

Thank you very much and best wishes,

Randy
 
Dec 7, 2000
1,348
14
313
Thank you guys, I have received all e-mails and have read them all. I too have no intention to drag anything out and so far as I go, all is settled. Daniel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads