Category talk:William Mackenzie Thomson

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mackenzie Thomson ships

[edit]
Oh, BTW, I have "width=960" as part of the bonhams image URLs above for faster download when previewing, but if you remove that part of the URL and go direct to the jpg, you get significantly larger images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I sort of noticed something going on, but couldn't fully work it out. I'm using fatkun, rather than inspect looking for src for expediency, but even then I think I would have missed it. Will look out for that from now on... Have you got a recommended method? Broichmore (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Just happened to notice it -- sometimes pays to look at the arguments on image URLs to see if they accept other values. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as for life dates on Thomson... a birth date of 1870 is almost certainly wrong. Every other site I've seen simply says "fl. 1870 1892" which means that was his work period, not birth date. I think the source you found for that was simply mistaken -- if he was painting ships in the 1870s, which is presumably what those "flourished" dates are based on, he was not born then. I would change that value to "work period start". As for his life details, I have found very little, but did come across this geni.com page. I have no idea how reliable that is, but it is regarding the naval painter and they do give some relations, and do name two of his daughter which they say were born in 1886 and 1887. That would again put his birth much earlier. Interestingly, there are some corroborating details from www.freebmd.org.uk . If you search on Thomson, Edith Annie, one of the hits is indeed someone born in December 1885, in Medway. Searching on the name Eleanor Mackenzie Thomson, the only hit is a birth in December 1887, also in Medway. Searching on "Mackenzie Thomson" as the name, there is one hit, which is a death in September 1905 at age 66, also in Medway. That would put his life dates born 1848 1838 or 1849 1839, and died 1905. Which would somewhat fit. I have not found any other obvious hits on the other people named on the geni.com page, though, so can't be sure it's the same person. But it's quite plausible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: One auctioneer (Charles Miller) says "fl. 1870 1892", and has a painting giving a location for him (along with a signature circa 1885) as New Brompton, which is in the Gillingham, Medway area. The fact there are photos of the married couple is compelling (given its from a family originated tree), his was taken by George Piner Cartland of Windsor, Slough (a prestigious photographer in his time); which is unhelpful. I don't think he changed his name by deed poll, so John Thomson is a difficult nut to crack. It's Mutualart that says born 1870; I basically agree with you, and the suggested changes. Incidentally his wife is the sister of Category:Harry John Symonds, she is in his house for the 1881 census. She is also a painter/artist according to that census.
Oh very interesting, thanks. The matches of that genealogy page with one area in birth/death records is pretty compelling to me, especially if we can tie the painter back to the Medway area, which you found above. And perhaps met his wife through similar interests, after 1881, and began having children shortly after marriage, where the dates would also fit. She had children via a previous marriage, one of which was born in 1874, which would also fit with her moving in with her brother after being widowed, and before marrying again. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that, this is the Edgar class? .... Broichmore (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not Edgar. Several differences. Much closer to the Pelorus class cruiser again, but... still seem to be a couple of differences. I think it's an Apollo-class cruiser; that seems to match a bunch of the small details. It's not the Pearl, Medea, or Astraea class ships, which have identifiable differences from this, and I think those are the most closely related ones to Apollo, aside from Pelorus, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks very close with the bow decoration stripped away. Broichmore (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Back to the man. I had to find first that he was born in 1840 as John William Thomson in Newcastle, then got to this. Notice the census of 1901. Mackenzie Thomson. Marine Artist (painter), Widower. Age 60, own account. Boarder in the house of William Richards (38), shipwright H.M. Dockyard. Address 24 Greenfield Rd, Gillingham. That leads to Age: 66, Sex: M, Died 29 Jul 1905 at: 27 Saxton St, Removed From: New Brompton, C/U: C, Death date listed may be the interment date. Grange Road Cemetery, Gillingham.
Oh, cool. My math was wrong, heh, being 66 years old in 1905 would mean being born in 1838 or 1839, of course. I don't have an ancestry account but what you found seems conclusive. I do see the findagrave reference, perfect. Died in late July, but not recorded with the county until September, I guess. Sounds like his wife had died by 1901. The same cemetery does have an Elizabeth Thomson who died in 1897, but at age 87, so presumably that was his mother. FreeBMD does have several John William Thomsons... one born in Newcastle that you mention in December 1840, another born in Marylebone in September 1840, and another born in September 1838 in Walsingham, which is the only one which would would fit with being 66 years old in July 1905. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an ancestry account, its possible to do limited viewing of certs via a library account (the library account doesn't let you create a tree or append records). You can create a tree in your own ancestry a/c but if your membership has lapsed (or no subscription) you cant view records and or append them to the tree. Elizabeth Thomson, maybe his daughter she died within hours of birth. Mum would have been 47. Kate died before 1901, I think. Connected event? The address of the child's death looks like it might have been destroyed during the blitz, the houses opposite look too affluent for this family. He died days after release from the poorhouse. The family contended he was the twin of Junius, that's the key to Newcastle as well as the census reports after his marriage which all give Newcastle as his birthplace. Broichmore (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are about a further six or so pictures on the net of unidentified naval pictures on the net, so you want to have ago at them? I'm fairly certain he painted from photographs, probably from Harry? Broichmore (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could take a crack at them, maybe later tonight. Does seem likely he painted from photographs; the paintings are very detailed and feel specific to particular ships. Entirely possible he learned enough from his wife or brother-in-law to take his own photos, as well. Would be interesting to find a source photo for one of his paintings, but have not run across one yet (not that I've looked, but have not run across one in the several I've looked up for you). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 6fca2f5e-0024-4f98-ae3b-ac980137d290.jpg file is a Category:Nelson class cruiser. I'm pretty sure it's the Northampton and not the Nelson, as there are a couple details in that painting (bow decoration, crow's nest or fighting top on the rearmost mast) which appear in photos of the Northampton but have not found photos of the Nelson with them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see this page already identified it as the Northampton. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: There's a suggestion here that lotsearch 801lot978.jpg is an Admiral class Battleship, possibly HMS Rodney, the painting has one large cannon front and back (two)? We have photos of supposedly Rodney with two front and back?, Wylie paints it the same. Think Wylie gets it right, unless a refit? Broichmore (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: That is indeed an Admiral class, and that would be the HMS Benbow (1885). That was the only one of the class to have single guns fore and aft (it went with larger, single guns since the other type was apparently in short supply). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He painted the three decker ship at least twice. See File:William Mackenzie Thomson - A three decker warship in harbour 653786 8.jpg. Exactly the same except for the background. Its definitely not the Victory or Victoria as also painted. No raised quarterdeck? Broichmore (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the lack of a raised quarterdeck has me rather confused. Have not been able to find any ship that matches. The lower gundeck, and I think all of them, have been replaced with windows, so this would seem to be a training ship at this stage. The two paintings are indeed almost identical; one is probably a study for the other. It's possible a quarterdeck was removed on one of the ships (Victoria, or her sister ship), but have not found any confirmation of that. And the bow doesn't seem quite right for either of that pair. It's also possible something was constructed on another ship to raise the general level up to a previous quarterdeck. But again, have not found anything to match it with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Brittania aka HMS Prince of Wales (1860)? The two hulk picture, might be her again? My other candidate is HMS Marlborough (1855). Broichmore (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two-hulk picture might, but that has a raised quarterdeck, and would be after the period in the painting since so much stuff was removed. Prince of Wales is a decent possibility. The Marlborough has far too many gunports to be this ship. I do find photos like this and this, of the HMS Impregnable (1810) (in later form as Caledonia) which show little quarterdeck, but... I think there are too few gunports and it has a more upright stern, so don't think that's it. There do seem to be many of those ships which were turned into training ships. Oooh.... just now though, I ran across File:HMS Britannia circa 1860s.jpg, and that looks *very* similar. Other paintings of that ship do seem to have about the right number of ports, as well. Ironically, that ship was replaced by the Prince of Wales (which was then renamed Britannia). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: The Two hulk with gangway picture Baron Fine Art circa 1900 William-Mckenzie-Thompson-Ships-at-Sea you think its the Britannia?
Same as H0346-L83559324 I've been thinking for a while this is the Britannia (1820)? File:HMS Britannia circa 1860s.jpg comes with the comment Believed to be the first HMS Britannia training ship, at Portsmouth. I think that comment came off the source, City of Vancouver archives, but has since disappeared. We could use the comment here?
@Broichmore: I think that H0346-L83559324 (and File:William Mackenzie Thomson - A three decker warship in harbour 653786 8.jpg) is definitely the same ship as in File:HMS Britannia circa 1860s.jpg, which is identified as the 1820 Britannia. The Vancouver source page is here where they just identify it as "HMS Britannia" but without saying which one it is. It came from an album of George Fowler Hastings, who died in 1876, and the source dates it in the 1860s. The 1820 Britannia was scrapped in 1869, so our two-hulk painting would be a different ship, as it still has the quarterdeck while it's definitely gone in the photo (which would be prior to it being joined with another ship). The 1820 Britannia was a hospital ship in Portsmouth as of 1855, then training ship in Portsmouth in 1859. Moved to Portland in 1862 and Dartmouth in 1863; the Prince of Wales replaced it in Dartmouth in 1869, not Portsmouth. So if the Portsmouth location stated in the photo is accurate, it must be the 1820 Britannia. Location is definitely not Dartmouth, and the later Britannia was always joined with another ship anyways, so I think the photo ID is accurate.
The Hindostan apparently was joined with the 1820 Britannia in Dartmouth in 1865, so I guess as of 1869 the pair would be the the ex-Prince of Wales and Hindostan. There is an 1878 photo of that here which shows a similar background to the "possibly Marlborough Baron Fine Art circa 1900 William-Mckenzie-Thompson-Ships-at-Sea.jpg" file, and two ships with quarterdecks, though it would be from the other side -- but Dartmouth seems to be a pretty narrow river at that point, with hills on both sides, so could easily be that scene. Ah -- there is another 1878 photo from the other side here, and the background seems to match quite closely, so I think the painting is definitely the ex-HMS Prince of Wales (1860) and HMS Hindostan (1841), but at an earlier date than 1878, as the Prince of Wales/Britannia still has all three masts and fewer modifications have been made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:William Mackenzie Thomson - Two hulks joined with gangway.jpg I think the scene is in the Hamoaze, or even off Upnor. Doesn't look like the Firth of Forth, far too serene & calm, and the hulks were larger and moored far off land. Unless a photo surfaces, they're to razeed to name. Broichmore (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: That ship sure looks a lot like the HMS Vernon (1832), before or after it was renamed the Actaeon (and was later renamed Vernon IV), in photos here. But I can't find a photo of it joined to another ship, yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: The easyliveauction 035fae5e-1f81-45c9-8278-ad9b00bbd8ab (1).jpg file is the HMS Centurion (1892). The funnel patterns on that ship are different then the sister ship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baron Fine Art circa 1900 William-Mckenzie-Thompson-Ships-at-Sea-3.jpg is an Audacious class battleship.
H4524-L147555933.jpg is a Majestic class battleship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
baronfineart mckenzie_thompson_2.jpg This might be impossible, since frigates did tend to look very similar. On the other hand, not sure how many sailing frigates were left in the 1870s and later. One very tempting possibility is HMS Endymion (1865), though -- that was one of the last ones built, and at one point its boilers failed so it reverted to being a sail-only ship, which may explain its appearance here with no funnels. There are some other paintings of it here and at File:HMS Endymion, unknown artist, 1873.jpg, and a photo of it here. A lot of details do seem very close, but of course not too many photos of that type of ship exist, so I'm not sure if those details are so common as to not really be a clue for a particular ship. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Yes. I think its the Endymion too. I'm noticing that while Thomson paints his ships from photos, he artistically adds sails, changes waters and backgrounds. Very likely tidies up the ships as well. He returns on occasion to the same subject. I'm thinking he only paints to order or where he's going to have an immediate sale, therefore all the work is all contemporary, photo based, within reason, there's no Golden Hind or Mary Rose. Broichmore (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: Very well done on the research. The last one baronfineart mckenzie_thompson_1, do you think the best we can do is American steam yacht or possibly more accurately Steam yacht? think it's flying an American flag, but it could have been built in the UK? Broichmore (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was the Diadem-class cruiser left -- maybe Cressy class too, but per this page there were a couple features that distinguished the second half of the Diadem class, and I think both those features were on the ship in the painting. The small wall around the forward turret I don't think was continued in the Cressy class, so I do think the painting was one of the last four Diadem class ships, either Amphitrite, Argonaut, Ariadne, or Spartiate. It might have been possible to pick one of those four -- not sure if you have uploaded that one or not.
@Clindberg: Are you talking about this one? I had sent you two (duplicate pics) of it. Says on that website that its Powerful class. Do you agree? Broichmore (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: Definitely not the Powerful class -- the four funnels on those were not evenly spaced apart, and there were more side guns, etc. The second copy of the one you had was titled "Diadem class?" and I think that is right -- it's either the second half of the Diadem class, or the Cressy class, and I don't think it was the latter (they are very similar, but some details on the side really only seemed to match a couple of the Diadems). The Diadems were scaled-down from the Powerful class, and the Cressy was a near-identical follow-on class but apparently more armor. We don't have a lot of good photos of those ships... oftentimes, the porthole patterns on those early ships were different even among sisters. I'm leaning Ariadne as the most likely of the four, but not very sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brassey and the single large gun on the front doesn't sway you to Cressy? Broichmore (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: The single gun should have been a dead giveaway, shouldn't it? Sigh, yep, Cressy class then, my bad. Those roundish protrusions on the side, two of them between the pair of side guns, I can't find exact matches in the Cressy class. There is a photo of the Ariadne which has them. But it must be a Cressy class, so maybe those were reconfigured at some point. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for that last one, yeah, I'm not even sure where to start, other than "steam yacht". I was not sure about the flag... it could be the Royal Navy jack too, or something else. Not sure the white area in the canton would be there if it was the American flag, but the resolution is not too good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the Warspite/Imperieuse one, the Warspite I think. I can't find any photo of the Imperieuse with a bow decoration, but File:HMS Warspite 1892.jpg has one. Thomson also painted the Imperieuse separately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ILN agrees with you. Broichmore (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Sovereign class

[edit]
The Royal Sovereign one does look a *lot* like File:William Mackenzie Thomson - H.M.S. Royal Sovereign at sea.jpg. Not the same painting though; maybe the one uploaded was a study for this other one. Agree it's Royal Sovereign class, though couldn't say which one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first similar painting of same subject is (I just discovered) identified with a label on the back. Broichmore (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great. There are other differences between the two paintings -- the earlier/smaller one has a yellow fence type thing on the floor below the bridge, and some other small differences in that area. But the many similarities would mean (at least) one was a study, since its' effectively the same painting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For File:William Mackenzie Thomson - HMS Royal Sovereign.jpg I uploaded the verso and label, this ship on the starboard side has two Hawsepipes and is decorated at the bow, the painting is dated 1895, though it doesn't follow that is the date of the reference photo. The other two port side pictures have no bow decoration, and only one hawsepipe; H.M.S. Royal Sovereign at sea has a (unpractical) porthole forrard of its hawshole, the other doesn't. As you say the main bridge is picked out in yellow and the other not. These small changes must be part of ongoing maintenance programmes, that deleted the porthole, got rid of the bow decoration and the yellow. I think? File:HMSRoyalSovereign1897.jpg is the Royal Sovereign. Broichmore (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... with a quick look, the only members of that class with a bow decoration seem to have been the Royal Sovereign, and the Hood (which was an easily distinguishable ship from the rest of the class, much lower freeboard and old-style turret instead of barbette). Seems like many UK ships of that era had two hawsepipes on the starboard side, while only one on the port side. Seen that pattern in many/most of these other ship classes too. Unsure they removed the bow decorations though. Can we find any photos of the Royal Sovereign without one? File:HMSRoyalSovereign1897.jpg still has it, dated 1896/7. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice photo allegedly dated 1913. No decoration, but what's clearly an experimental bow. Don't think we can trust any dates on photos, they're probably dates of publication in a particular book or mag as opposed to when the photo was taken. The bridge looks like it may still be yellow in that photo. I reckon every time she was in port there would be a minor mod, probably had shipyard people on her at all times too. Broichmore (talk)
@Broichmore: That photo shows the stern, not the bow, which is obscured by a wave splash. I imagine mods were made from time to time, for sure, but would expect to find *some* photos without the decoration, if it was removed during the ship's career. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I see it now. Time for bed!. I'll look some more. Broichmore (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there are several pictures of the ship here, and the bow decoration is gone in some of them. And per File:HMS Hood (1891) Bows-On Mediterranean 1901.jpg, the Hood also had it removed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A photo of Royal Sovereign with no bow decoration and pre 1904 livery, and a photo from Symonds possibly used by WMT as a main source. Broichmore (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant class cruiser

[edit]
The HMS Wren file looks like an Category:Arrogant class cruiser. No idea where the "Wren" name comes from; does not look like the Royal Navy had a ship with that name anywhere near the Thomson era. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Portholes look like Arrogant herself? Broichmore (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but... not sure. Not a ton of photos of those ships, at least that I can find, and also unsure how exact Thomson was on those details. Best photos I can find are: Furious, Gladiator, Vindictive, Vindictive #2, Arrogant #1, Arrogant #2. The painting shows a porthole over the embrasure for the side gun near the bow; the Arrogant does not, and not sure the Vindictive does in that photo (but quality is not great). The Furious and Gladiator have one, but more in the middle of the embrasure, and they also have a porthole behind the embrasure. The Vindictive photo is the only one I've seen with the white stripe -- the others have photos with a black or dark hull, but no stripe. That could just be a coincidence though, given the few photos available. The three portholes on the bulkhead under the bridge seem to be in the middle of that area in most of the photos, but more to the top of the bulkhead in the painting -- though the Vindictive's might be higher like the painting. The painting has evenly-spaced portholes for the bottom row near the stern, most of the photos show a couple of pairs with different spacing. Maybe the Vindictive does not, but the photos aren't really good enough. That could also just be a painting detail which was not exact. So... probably either Vindictive or Arrogant, and may be leaning Vindictive. What details were you looking at? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think I was looking at File:Protected cruiser HMS Arrogant - IWM Q 75396.jpg. Broichmore (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a distinct possibility that the original photograph used by Thomson was from his brother in law, Harry J. Symonds (1852-1911). Harry was the prime marine photographer in the family. Broichmore (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse-class cruiser

[edit]
Lotsearch639716_8.jpg is an Eclipse-class cruiser. Not Talbot, not Dido, not Isis, but have not narrowed any further. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo-class cruiser

[edit]
Lotsearch 233.jpg is another Apollo-class cruiser. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding query - Emerald or Bristol class frigate?

[edit]
For Lotsearch Rochester original.jpg, not sure how to tell those ships apart. Many don't seem to have the right number of gunports though. The only class I've found so far which looks correct is the Immortalite class. Of the photos on that site, the only one with a funnel like the one in the painting is the HMS Undaunted (1861), though the placement of a lifeboat does not match. (Or, maybe it's of the Bristol-class, of four completed ships, with Immortalite part of the Emerald-class per other sites, though it was a bit longer than the others there, but I think that ship also has the right number of gunports). A lot of that type of ship was gone by the time Thomson started painting, from the looks of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Immortalite class picture and the Emerald-class 1856 picture are in fact the same photograph. The former has had its left hand side cropped off. The two photos come from separate sources and were both cropped separately from a larger complete original plate which must have been identified as the Immortalite. One's been cropped on 3 sides, 2 more than the other.
Think World Naval ships.com and its Immortalite Class is wrong and the ships mentioned are in fact the Bristol Class (less than HMS Immortalite). Wikipedia needs correcting in places too.
Think Navypedia is right with its Emerald 4th? rate sailing frigates.
So our pic is Emerald 1856, Melpomene 1857 or Immortalite 1859?
I'm certain that I've seen photos where the funnel has been lowered (tilted over) so they are unseen, on similar ships of the period.
I've created Category:Emerald class frigates and Category:Bristol class frigates, please let me know if you agree with it, its contents, or if I should change the name etc.
HMS Immortalite and Undaunted look almost identical apart from the stern, near the rudder; and that's nuanced to the point of imagination? I'm veering toward Immortalite. I dont think the position of the lifeboat in the photos is defining, do you? Broichmore (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the photo File:HMS Undaunted (1861).jpg, which comes from worldnavalships -- that's the only photo I've seen of ships of either class which has a funnel which comes close to matching the painting. The position of the forward lifeboat does not match, but not sure that is a definitive detail. So it could well be the Bristol class too. The other Emerald class ships were a bit shorter -- one engraving of Melpomene I've found has one too few gun ports. Though, a photo supposedly of the Emerald does have the right number, although a much shorter funnel. Also, the Emerald was sold in 1869, so not sure it would have been around for Thomson to paint. The Melpomene was sold in 1875. The Immortalite lasted until 1883, and the four Bristol class ships were sold late 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1889 (the latter being the Newcastle). Some ships of that era did have retractable funnels, but not sure they would have the shorter funnels as seen in the Emerald photo, and File:Hms glasgow 1861.JPG. Feels more likely it's one of the Bristol class, or the Immortalite specifically, but hard to be sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed photo is from the IWM who say its the Immortalite. It seems per the reddit text the individual Emerald-class vessel hulls may vary one to the other dimensionally. Can we rely on the funnels shapes and paintwork, I imagine they would be modified fairly often with experience. Broichmore (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nice find on that photo. So the Emerald may well have had fewer gunports too (and by the plans in the ship category, it did). Paintwork can always change, and while funnels can change too, not sure how often that would happen. I did run across separate photos of the German SMS Arcona (1858 frigate), one with a short stub funnel, and another with a taller funnel, probably later in the career, so it's certainly possible. This site has an interesting take on the class situation -- says Immortalite was the lead ship of her own class as originally ordered as sailing ships, but when converted to screw, she became the tail end of the Emerald class, and the rest of the original class then was the Bristol class. So... some argument each way :-). I do wish we could find more images of the ships, which might help with identification. Not sure what other details to key on, beyond the number of gun ports. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice clear one of Bristol class Newcastle, shows the funnel base. Broichmore (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nice, they have one of the Bristol too. I'm not sure the angles are all correct, but the painting and some of these photos look pretty much right on the side, and maybe matching where the masts are in relation to the gun ports might get us somewhere. Given those two photos, not sure either of those ships match. The photos you found of the Immortalite, not sure they do either. The Undaunted photo is from the other side... though if the gun ports are exactly across from each other, those might match up. Can't really find any photos of the Glasgow. There is an illustration at gettyimages, but it seems to have the wrong number of gun ports, so not sure how trustworthy it is. It does depict a higher funnel though. Getty seems to have many illustrations of that ilk, so they may be more recent renderings from a book or something. But other than that, I'm just not sure what other details we have to key on, so we may just have to say "Bristol class" (with a possibility of the Immortalite). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misidentified Royal Sovereign class battleship

[edit]

Do you agree this is not correctly labelled?. Broichmore (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is from a September 1892 publication, and the Royal Sovereign was the only completed ship of the class at the time. Some of the others had been launched, but the next one to be completed was the Hood in May 1893, and that is definitely not the Hood. The Empress of India was completed September 1893, a full year later, so unlikely a photo of it in largely finished condition could exist a year earlier. Also it has a bow decoration, though somewhat different-looking than most photos of the Royal Sovereign -- but again, the only ships of the class I've seen with a decoration at all are the Royal Sovereign and the Hood, and it's not the latter. So, I'm guessing it is correctly labeled. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, take that back a little -- File:HMSEmpressofIndia1897.jpg does have a bow decoration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your right. The American magazine refers to an even earlier original version (don't know what date) from the en:The Engineer (UK magazine); probably 1892 too. As you say its's correctly labelled, however like File:HMS Royal Sovereign First Class Battleship RMG PU0309.jpg the bow decoration shown predates actuality, and is the artists imagination. The Army and Navy headline photo from Wikipedia is correct with the lozenge design, as is WMT's version. During this period, royal family crests are lozenges. Gives us an ideal opportunity to use WMT's for the main wiki article. I found an item from The Graphic. It's a work of pure invention, but he makes sure he gets the crests right. Broichmore (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, they may have gotten the crest right, but they show the ship with one funnel, and one gun in a turret instead of two guns in a barbette, etc. Not sure they got the Royal Arthur bow decoration quite right either (File:HMSRoyalArthur1897.jpg ). But yes, much more artist imagination at that stage. The Hood was completed with a turret, but had a much lower freeboard to compensate (the extra weight of the turret meant the guns had to be closer to the water to keep the balance right). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:William_Mackenzie_Thomson&oldid=758463602"