You are correct. Lusitania at 13th Street with the new Chelsea Piers which were completed in 1910. I have not seen this oddly colored version of that card before. The pier building facades were actually a pink I believe.
The Lusitania's funnels were about 65 foot tall, and stood atop the Sun Deck, so that they towered some 75 feet over the Boat Deck. From the waterline to the peaks of the funnels was close on 120 feet. The funnels were elliptical in fore-aft shape, being 24 feet long.
I am somewhat unsure of the exact dimensions of the Titanic's funnels -- at least right off the top of my head. I do know that they were 24' 6" long in fore-aft shape, so that figure just about matches.
8 April 1937: With "guns peeping from her stern," Majestic II, now owned
by the Admiralty and named HMS Caledonia, leaves Southampton for Rosyth,
to serve as a boys' training ship. As she leaves, the ship produces a
blinding, tear-inducing smoke from her funnels, which, like her masts,
have been shortened to permit her to pass under the Forth Bridge.
(Sources: The New York Times, 8 and 9 April 1937; Chirnside's RMS
Majestic: The Magic-Stick; de Kerbrech and Williams' Cunard White
Star Liners of the 1930s; Bonsor's North Atlantic Seaway.)
I'm sorry... I had put together a whole response to your question, and I seem to have forgotten to hit the "submit" button after the preview!
Yes, it was the Majestic's funnels that were shortened; the Mauretania's masts (not funnels, masts) were shortened to the tops of her funnels when the time came for her to be scrapped.
I actually had someone argue that part of the Mauretania's history with me once -- and there are many, many photographs showing the Mauretania's masts shortened so that she could arrive at her scrapping destination.
yes, the masts are cut in all four photographs. I researched the dates for an article I am working on and for my own information.
I see I wrote the last date incorrectly - that photocard was taken Wednesday 7.4.35 at 6 A.M.
Ryan, the size of pictures which can be inserted into a message is limited to 35 Kb and no more than 400 pixels in height or width. Your photo is much larger than that and, if contained in a message, might well have been removed.
I don't know whether the "Insert Image/Document" function would have allowed you to post the picture, but even if it did, the "Upload Oversize Image" option, which produces a link like the one in your message, was the proper way to do it.
the photo you posted was taken on Tuesday, September 17th, 1907 by the local photographer Frank & Sons of 81 West Street, Gateshead, Co. Durham. The Mauretania is heading from the Swan fitting-out-basin to enter the North Sea for her preliminary trials. Taber/Alliance produced a lovely bas-relief real photo version of this photograph in both black and white and a tint.
Mark -- What about images that are hosted somewhere else and not uploaded to the site? Is the issue *huge* images that make threads hard to read, hence the limit?
Eric -- Wow.
I tried to look that up on Google Earth but it crash. Anybody else have this problem? Some friends of mine have reported the same thing, too. Google Earth freezes and jams their computer into 'Safe Mode', so you have to reboot, usually a hard boot requiring you hit the reset button or switching the computer off by holding the power button in. Google Earth has never responded to email asking about the problem.
What about images that are hosted somewhere else and not uploaded to the site?
Links to other sites are no problem. Hotlinking, though, is not allowed.
Is the issue *huge* images that make threads hard to read, hence the limit?
Yep. There are two issues: Oversized images can distort the appearance of the page, specifically by squeezing the left column that shows the name, username, etc., of the person posting and running off the right side. It also takes much longer to open pages on slow connections if there are a lot of images; ones larger than the limits make that process take even longer.