|Re: [TSL] Shipping Dilemma!|
|Alison Kennedy <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 12/08/2012|
Looking for some help from anyone with a historical nautical background or experience.
I'm currently drafting up some information regarding shipping and I've come across a newspaper article in the New York Times in 1875 which has got me slightly puzzled and I'm wondering if anyone can help clarify.
The article states: "............... On the same day the steamer passed a full-rigged British ship .......... with main and mizzen topgallant masts gone, and foresail in tatters. As usual in such cases, the disabled ship got out of sight as soon as possible in order to conceal her name."
I have often seen eye-witness descriptions of badly damaged ships where they couldn't read the name but just presumed this was because of weather conditions or not being close enough. The above appears to indicate that a disabled ship concealed her name on purpose - but why? I suppose the obvious reason might be so that information didn't filter back to the families onshore and send them into a blind panic but I'm wondering if there is another reason? Just seems a bit strange. Anyone got any ideas or come across this before?
visit TheShipsList Website
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to THESHIPSLISTemail@example.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Easy citation: highlight, copy, and paste the following into your wordprocessor:
|Re: [TSL] Shipping Dilemma! 12/08/2012: [Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org]|