I have to say that having looked as closely as I could at the photos in that link, that they are not of the Titanic.
The weather shielding on decks 'A' and 'B' look wrong to me and the name is so unclear as to be unreadable.
Anyone else have a view?
Was this an unpublished or very scarce or unique photocard? Something made after the disaster in some quantity, or something few or perhaps no one else owns? Original to the period? From a copy negative? I have no idea - I am not aware of who sold it and I make no statement at all against the seller of this photocard etc. I only collect Mauretania so I'd not know. However, I think those questions would be part of the answer to "what it is worth?" The paper and photographers stamp on the back might indicate something too. The copyright status, if not a unique photocard, would be indicated by the age of the print I think. One could interpret the bid history, and bidders, to mean it was not a unique photocard - that this would have been pursued much more strongly and to a higher level if it were. Why weren't there more bids from "heavy hitters"? But then there is the time I bought an early unique photo of Olympic for 25 cents......
Maybe someone will recognize the image or card and will chime in with more data. Image aside, does it share attributes of other vintage, perhaps one-off, photocards from the period? Is it actually Titanic? It seems to say so on the stern, but there are plenty of visual clues I am sure for those that know to find and comment on.
PS - I am hard pressed to think of any original photocard I have of Mauretania from before the late 1920's/1930's that has borders so sharp, so even or of that width. Offhand, I'd say most of my unique/low run photocards don't have a border at all, and those that do have uneven or wider borders on one end etc.
Hi John, looking at this piece under a magnifying glass it clearly reads "Titanic" on the stern.
As the underbidder on this piece, I inquired to the seller as to just how rare it is. The seller stated that in all her years of collecting and researching she has never seen a duplicate. In conclusion, she seemed to suggest that the photo is one of a kind- if not, incredibly rare
I'm going to have to find my magnifying glass now aren't I? ;-) From what I can see though, if anything the lettering looks doctored. We'll see.
What do you think of the weather shielding though? I can accept that if it's early Titanic then the 'A' deck one is not in place, but what about the extent of the 'B' deck shielding, that does not seem to come back any where near as far as it should.
John, now where have the kids put my magnifying glass?
Ok, I have had a look using my magnifying glass and to me I can not make out anything clearly. The more I looked the more I could see letters, like y and m. I have to say, I'm not happy about that stern picture at all.
The stern portholes on both the Olympic and Titanic are the same -- I've just spent some time pouring over photos of both. I copied and pasted the postcard into a Word document, then enlarged it in stages stopping at 500%. What I was looking for was the arrangement of the starboard side portholes -- they differ slightly from MKC to MGY. Because of the angle, I finally gave up -- the photo takes on too much of a blur. What I did see was an uncommon amount of blurring on the boat deck. To me, this looks like a solid line of lifeboats ... post Titanic. I'd be curious to hear other opinions on this.
Food for thought. Have a look at closed eBay item #6621264010 - same seller. "You are bidding on an original (not a reproduction) Photo POSTCARD of the White Star Line steamship RMS OLYMPIC, Sister ship of the TITANIC and dates from the early 1910s. The postcard is a rare view of the ship entering port and is in unused condition. The scans show the entire item. This great piece is a great find in great condition as shown in the scans below!" Taking a look at the reverse I see what is, to the best of my knowledge, a Kodak stamp box that dates from no earlier than 1950. Another photo postcard, also of Olympic - same seller - #6621961055, makes the same claim, but bears a K Ltd. stamp box dating from the 1930's or later (it has a more modern font than the ones I have seen) along with a photo agency stamp that I have not seen earlier than the mid 1920's and usually in the 30's or later. I make NO assertion that these were anything except honest mistakes. I saw quite a few cards that were produced nowhere near the dates stated in my humble opinion. It is for this reason I find the reverse and other characteristics of these cards often are more telling than any image on the obverse. The Titanic/Olympic card in question here has a blank back - no stamp box (sort of unusual) with a photographers stamp that is later than 1912 in my opinion. It would be good to see it in hand.
The ship is certainly Titanic. The giveway is the stern docking bridge. On Olympic, the docking bridge ends flush with the ship's side. On Titanic, it overhangs the sides by a metre or so. See Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge's book.
The age and provenance of the card I leave to others.
I clearly misspoke myself. I meant to convey the notion that "IF any mistakes were made" regarding the dating of any cards - IF. As I said, I don't know the seller and did not mean to make any comment per se - I was simply trying to share some information about dating photocards.
Any statements are just my opinions, nothing more.
Dave Gittins said,
"The ship is certainly Titanic. The giveway is the stern docking bridge. On Olympic, the docking bridge ends flush with the ship's side. On Titanic, it overhangs the sides by a metre or so. See Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge's book."
I would like some other opinions on this, maybe from Mark Chirnside if possible?
I see what Dave is aiming at, but I am still not convinced, I think the docking bridge is 'flush with the ships side' at least it looks that way on the Starboard side to me and I wonder if the reason for the Port side of it looking as though it over hangs the side, is because of the angle the photograph was taken from.
The photo in Titanic Voices (mentioned by Paul) is on page 57. looks like it was taken at more or less the same time, but from further along the quay to the right, with a better view of the starboard side. It's clearly Titanic.
Having looked at the photograph of Titanic on page 57 in 'Titanic Voices', I still remain unconvinced that the ship in the photographs, shown via the above link, is the Titanic.
I can see the place might well be the same, in fact I think it very likely, but there are differences in the full stern photo shown via the link and the one in the 'Titanic Voices' book.
In other words, the place may be the same, but not the ship.
Indeed in the postcard photo showing the ships starboard side, in my opinion, I feel enough can be seen of the 'B' deck weather-shield to show that it does not go back far enough, there was after all only a very short gap at the rear end of the weather-shielding on Titanic's 'B' deck.
"I enlarged to photo and it looks like there is a break in the row of lifeboats and around that area the promanade does get a lighter in color as if it were enclosed....anyone else see this?"
No, sorry, but I do not. I have enlarged the pictures using the computer and, more simply, a magnifying glass. But can not see anything that convinces me we are looking at Titanic.
I also wish to clarify my thoughts behind an earlier post I made where I said I would welcome an opinion from Mark Chirnside if possible. I wish to point out that I am not saying he is the only one who will know. I can see that, that part of the post might look that way.
Anyway, back to the photographs, I am not convinced they are of the Titanic, anyone else?
I can't see what the argument is about. Have a look at the little photo that shows the stern close up. You can see clearly that the docking bridge overhangs the hull. You can even read the name fairly easily. The port of registry is also legible. It's the Big T, sure as ferrets are ferrets!
A good trick is these old photos is to make a negative image. This makes the name more obvious.