# Mystery tramp



## TripleX (Nov 17, 2005)

To my eternal shame and possible expulsion from the website, I posted a doctored photo of SS Romanic here with the following request

"Sorry about the photo quality but can anyone help to identify this British cargo ship photographed in Auckland around 1957? It looks about 6500 tons and has a two tone funnel. Cheers. Triple X"

The photo was taken by a shipmate in NZ about 49 years ago. I made five changes to the original, but several members commented on a 'Star of David' on the funnel. This is a complete mystery to me - another miracle perhaps. Towards the end of a lengthy and learned discussion which you can follow in the posts below, I sneakily replaced the doctored photo with the original.

If I have offended anyone (apart from any geeks) I do apologise. I can definitely recommend this site as the members' knowledge of ships is most impressive; I certainly learnt quite a lot about the Romanic. (Applause)


----------



## ronnie r (Mar 15, 2006)

*no tramp! looks like a blue funnel.*

looks like one of those flat bottom class of ships used on aussie coast !!
China boat experts will know this one .
Ronnie


----------



## John Rogers (May 11, 2004)

Is it a Bank Line Ship.??
John


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Not a 100% certain but it could be a China Nav Vessel possibly Chengtu or that class


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

The Funnel marking looks like a Star of David struck through with something.


----------



## David Wilcockson (Jul 10, 2005)

Could it be a rebuilt Liberty, hull form looks similar, think the Italians had a go at a couple. Another oddity is the enclosed bridge wings pointing to possible Scandinavian origins.I can`t make out the funnel markings well enough to pass any comment.
David


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Santos said:


> The Funnel marking looks like a Star of David struck through with something.


Chris
The only company I can think of that would fit that descripion would be Lucy Borchard Shipping Of Israel


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

Its certainly a teaser and a challenge Gdynia, thanks for your thoughts.

Chris


----------



## David Wilcockson (Jul 10, 2005)

TripleX
What information do you have that makes you think it`s British.
David


----------



## TripleX (Nov 17, 2005)

*Mystery ship*

David, I think it was on charter to Shaw Savill at the time. TripleX


----------



## Hugh MacLean (Nov 18, 2005)

*Mystery Ship*

How about Romanic

http://www.shawsavillships.co.uk/bolton.htm
Rgds


----------



## Gulpers (Sep 8, 2005)

Hugh,
I think you have solved the mystery. (Applause)


----------



## Aldinga (Aug 29, 2005)

*Romanic*

Hi Triple X
It looks very much like the “Romanic” 9927 t.d.w.
Built in 1954 by Smith Dock & Co. Ltd. Middlesbrough for the Bolton Steam Shipping Company.

Ron


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Well done Hugh anothery mystery solved


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

is the mystery solved,or has the ship had some work done on it,count the windows/ports on what would be the old man's deck ,and check the fore part again,sorry dom.


----------



## Gulpers (Sep 8, 2005)

Right enough dom! Well spotted - back to the search guys! (Ouch)


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

did the bolton S.S. Co have a white band around the hull,maybe a clue there,also if whoever has the original photo try looking at the name with a mag.glass see if you can get one or two of the letters,it appeares there are seven letters


----------



## Frank Holleran (Nov 11, 2005)

All pics seem to have a broad letter for 3rd letter in name..but if she was chartered to Shaw Savill for 7 years 54/61, she is carrying the Shaw Savill line on hull... can't pick out a signal flag on middle pic..but suggest to me she is on speed trials and the port/window arrangement looks the same on middle and bottom pics, so if original top pic was taken in 57 why do away with line while still on charter and change structure..just my two bobs worth..tricky one????


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

could go along with the 'M',on the ship in question is the first letter in the name smaller eg, eIKMHJK


----------



## Mac (Apr 26, 2005)

Gdynia
All the China Nav "C,K" class ships of the late 1950's and early 60's had goalpost masts with the exception of the last of this class "Kweilin" of 1962 which had bipod masts. Also China Nav did not start their NZ service until 1962, so I think we can rule out "Chengtu"

Mac


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

any proof she is/was british looks like some dannish [butter]boats fom the early 50s


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Gents
I had the surveyors blow the photo up onboard. The Vessels name 3rd 4th and 5th letters are MAN the funnel markings have a Star of David on similar to this.


----------



## backsplice (May 23, 2005)

*mystery tramp??*

I,m no expert but I think ROMANIC is hot favourite ...chech out the mast house Vents .........thats my tuppence worth..... Backsplice (Read)


----------



## Tony Breach (Jun 15, 2005)

Agree with Backsplice on the vents. Also the mast tables are distinctive & the ports on the masthouses as well.

Let us imagine that the wind blowing through those bridgefront cutaways would upset the old man's afternoon bronzy session. We must not underestimate what a good chippy can do with some old grain feeder plywood sheets.

Funnel is more difficult but has 50% of the Compass Line in it. Didn't a Hamburg tug company have something similar?


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Our theory onboard its the Romanic on a CRUSADER SHIPPING COMPANY Charter then sub - charterted to Lucy Borchard Shipping hence the funnel markings as my previous post. Heres abit from NZ Shipping Index for that period in time.

ROMANIC 
Vessel ID: 500123221 
Vessel Type: Steamship 
Tonnage: 6,320 gross 
Owner: Bolton
Built: 1954 
Date of Fate: 1976 
Type of Fate: Broken up 
Vessel Abstract: Visited Auckland 8 times between 30 Sep 1954 and 25 Feb 1960
Renamed PLATE CLIPPER-1961, renamed MARAZUL-1969, renamed MIONIS-1971, renamed CHRYSSOSTOMOS-1971, renamed BOSPHORUS-1974.


----------



## Hugh MacLean (Nov 18, 2005)

*It's Romanic for me*

Hi Guys,

For me there are too many similarities for it not to be Romanic. I have looked again at all the Shaw Saville ships of that period with seven letters and come up with nothing. I acknowledge what Dom says though.

Rgds (Thumb)


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

which ship is the imposter,the ship qoted in 'ships photos'is not the one in auckland,almost the same ,yes even with cosmetic work done as was suggsted,the bridge front looks to me to be a bit more shaped at the ships side,maybe the angle of the photo,the after end of the allyway is shaped,whereas the romanic of ships photos and franks two photos is not,could be but i would'nt eat my hat.

sometime i sits and thinks and sometimes i just sits (Thumb) dom.


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Hugh MacLean said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> For me there are to many similarities for it not to be Romanic. I have looked again at all the Shaw Saville ships of that period with seven letters and come up with nothing. I acknowledge what Dom says though.
> 
> Rgds (Thumb)


Hugh
Think it will be one of Lifes Mysteries as alot for and alot against


----------



## Baltic Wal (Jun 27, 2005)

Gdynia
The 1954 Romanic was never owned by Shaw Savill, so you had better correct your records. She was built for, owned and manned by Bolton's staff. She was my second ship as an apprentice and when I first saw the photo I thought it was the Romanic, everything is identical but as mentioned the bridge front is different, it did not go all the way across on the old man's deck. She was never modified while with Bolton's and certainly never had a Crusader charter, with a speed 10 knots and minimal frozen cargo capacity she was usually used as a fill in ship.

With the outline and, mast configuration so similar and nothing else appearing in my 1959 edition of Talbot Booth's book it is suspicious as a doctored photo


----------



## Hugh MacLean (Nov 18, 2005)

*Near but yet so far*



gdynia said:


> Hugh
> Think it will be one of Lifes Mysteries as alot for and alot against


Gdynia,

You are right. It would be nice to pin it down but I think we gave it a good shot.
Maybe someone will come along later and give us the answer.

Rgds


----------



## Polarum (Nov 14, 2005)

It certainly looks like the Romanic but from the various photos in this thread, the crosstrees on the mast for'd of the bridge would appear to be higher. I have blown it up but can't see a Star of David on the funnel. Could it be something attached to after end of the monkey island?


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Baltic Wal said:


> Gdynia
> The 1954 Romanic was never owned by Shaw Savill, so you had better correct your records. She was built for, owned and manned by Bolton's staff. She was my second ship as an apprentice and when I first saw the photo I thought it was the Romanic, everything is identical but as mentioned the bridge front is different, it did not go all the way across on the old man's deck. She was never modified while with Bolton's and certainly never had a Crusader charter, with a speed 10 knots and minimal frozen cargo capacity she was usually used as a fill in ship.
> 
> With the outline and, mast configuration so similar and nothing else appearing in my 1959 edition of Talbot Booth's book it is suspicious as a doctored photo


Wal
Thanks for that I had Shaw Savill on the brain all day as was researching a couple of vessels my Father sailed on. Cheers for that. The thing thats confusing us is when you blow up the photo the funnel appears to have a Star of David on it(Thumb)


----------



## Doug H (Oct 2, 2004)

I just have to add my comments to this discussion. If it's of any interest, I joined ROMANIC in Middlesborough for Sea Trials in July 1954 and sailed on her continuously until May 1957 (a few months before Baltic Wal joined her I believe). All of that time she was owned by Bolton's and crewed by Bolton staff (except for me as R/O, employed by Marconi).
ROMANIC was a regular visitor to Auckland as she was on the NZ-Australia-Africa-Australia-NZ run. If the photo was taken in Auckland "around 1957", it may be relevant that ROMANIC arrived in Auickland on 18 December 1956 and left on 4th January 1957 for Australia-Africa-Australia-Panama-Curacao-Dunkirk-Manchester, where I signed off.
Certainly, in my time, the bridge front on the Old Man's deck was not closed in and there was certainly never a Star of David on the funnel. For those with sharper eyes and superior shipbuilding knowledge that I, I attach a prhoto taken in Port Adelaide in September 1956 and one in drydock in Durban in October 1956.
Does any of this help??? I'm enjoying this thread!


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

Doug
Weve got access a top class lab and theyve blown the photo up several times. They reckon the photo has been doctored at some time as the Star of David is quite prominent but does not blend in with the rest of photo.


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

did they have stoddart and pitt cranes in auckland in 57


----------



## azimuth (Jun 13, 2006)

*Star of David*



gdynia said:


> Doug
> Weve got access a top class lab and theyve blown the photo up several times. They reckon the photo has been doctored at some time as the Star of David is quite prominent but does not blend in with the rest of photo.


Doesn't the Star of David have six points, ie. two intersecting equilateral triangles?


----------



## jaigee (Feb 8, 2006)

At the angle the photograph is taken the so called 'Star of David' is in the centre of the funnel. A straight side on view would therefore put it forward of the funnel centre line. Every funnel emblem I have ever seen is equal about the centre line which leads me to believe that this is something on the superstructure, or a mark on the photograph!

On all the photographs there is another structure just under the 'Star', it appears to be behind the monkey island and just forward of the funnel, radio room perhaps? It is difficult to say, but it also appears to be over to the starboard side.


----------



## Baltic Wal (Jun 27, 2005)

*Big drydock little ship*

ROMANIC (1954) in drydock 1960, no change to the front of the accommodation and she was nearing the end of her charter. 

The other is at Port Said, shows the accommodation forward of the funnel clearly


----------



## john shaw (Jun 23, 2006)

I've followed the thread with interest, it's certainly got you all going--I can't help with the ship,but can I put forward a couple of questions which might help in the investigative work (or you might just shoot me down!)-- more Qs than answers I realise,but you seem to be getting bogged down with the is it/isn't it specific to one ship.Others seem to have masses of research material which could be utilised?

TripleX says "around 1957"-- how is this approximate date fixed ie did he take the pic etc,if not is it known who did, can they be identified/contacted etc- what leeway is there in the time frame?

If the time frame is not precise, do any photos exist of the ship (if it IS Romanic) in her later guises,by when she may have been modified? 

Aldinga says the ship was built 1954 at Smith's Dock-- anyone got access to the records as to whether similar were built?

Were there any sisters/near sisters/developments of the design?Doug H says he sailed CONTINUOUSLY in this ship 54/57, including on her trials-- were any similar under construction at the time?Did he see/learn of any sisters

gdynia says the 3/4/5 letters are definitely MAN-- were there any other similarly named ships of that period with a 7 letter name using the 3/4/5/ MAN?

Again, more Qs I realise, but everybody seems fired up to solve this one! Now I'll put my head beneath the parapet again!


----------



## Doug H (Oct 2, 2004)

From my raqther simplistic point of view, every genuine photo of ROMANIC shows the white line on the hull at a level below the name ROMANIC. However, on the photo of the ship that started this whole thread from TripleX, there is no white line at all.


----------



## john shaw (Jun 23, 2006)

oops, putting it over the parapet again.The following link:
http://3277.e-printphoto.co.uk/skyfotos/index.cfm?z=z&y=y&p_id=93921&c_id=5491&action=view

shows "plate clipper" (ie Romanic later on in life), and still seems to show the" little perforations" which are so problematic re the picture comparisons.

Doug H seems convinced the image has been tampered with-- what does TripleX say about that?-- and why would it be so altered?


----------



## jaigee (Feb 8, 2006)

I've just noticed another detail difference on the original photograph, which seems to point to it having been retouched at some time.

The rear of the superstructure angles down from the boat deck to the main deck on all the photographs except for the original, where it is cut off and finishes perpendicular to the deck?


----------



## Baltic Wal (Jun 27, 2005)

John,

The ROMANIC was built in 1954 by Smith's Dock for Bolton Steam Shipping. There was a near sister built by Smith's for Bolton's in 1956, the RAMSAY. However although the hull and structure were similar the difference was in the King posts. the RAMSAY had the mast between No 1 and 2 holds with the king posts against the bridge structure. No other sisters were built.

I did see the PLATE CLIPPER ex ROMANIC and there were no structural changes, and she did not leave the Atlantic as she was owned by a small company trying to break into the River Plate Europe service.


----------



## TripleX (Nov 17, 2005)

I appreciate all the effort that is going into identfying the vessel. The photo was taken by a shipmate but I'm not 100% sure that we saw the ship in Auckland. Though it looked rather small and a bit scruffy, for some reason I connected it with Shaw Savill. I don't remember a Star of David or I might have thought it was something to do with Zim Line. The star is possibly an illusion and hasn't been imposed on the picture.


----------



## Frank Holleran (Nov 11, 2005)

TripleX <The star is possibly an illusion>

Looks pretty obvious to me.
Regards
Frank


----------



## Polarum (Nov 14, 2005)

*Mystery star*

When I enlarge the funnel, I get a square object above what appear to be a liferaft - the kind they used to show one man lifting and throwing into the sea in the instructions (some hope!).


----------



## makko (Jul 20, 2006)

*ROMANIC - I think so*

I've followed this thread with interest. I admire the speed that the initial ID was made.

I feel that the "Star of David" is a bit of a red herring. If you look at the pattern of "spray" on the pic, something has dripped at sometime. The SofD is centred on a prominent split in the photo. I feel that, as such, it is a stain on a drop mark mixed with the split. The SofD doesn't exist! It is the human effect (remember inkblot tests!)

It looks to me that the hull has been "painted" or "coloured" in, due to damage. The vessel is down on her marks. If you look at the hull from stern to stem, there is what appears to be two distinct possibilities for the white hull band, one at mid stern that stops at the first vent and one that appears immediately below and continues just short of midships. Further forward "brushmarks" appear to "repair" the hull.

For me it is ROMANIC and the picture has been maltreated and repaired in the ensuing 50 years of its existence.

Best wishes to all,

Dave


----------



## Thamesphil (Jul 22, 2005)

I too have found this a most interesting thread. I would agree with Makko. If you look closely at the hull there are a lot of what appear to be crayon or brush marks that have wiped out the white band.

Phil


----------



## Baltic Wal (Jun 27, 2005)

It is not the white band that is of concern, the ROMANIC was a rusty tramp that was on long term charter and the band would quite often be covered with rust, particularly towards the end of the charter. When we were in Liverpool during the 1960 unofficial seamans strike it was embarrasing to go ashore of the rust bucket past the pristine liners.

The strange thing is the filling in of a gap on the old mans deck.


----------



## jaigee (Feb 8, 2006)

jaigee said:


> At the angle the photograph is taken the so called 'Star of David' is in the centre of the funnel. A straight side on view would therefore put it forward of the funnel centre line. Every funnel emblem I have ever seen is equal about the centre line which leads me to believe that this is something on the superstructure, or a mark on the photograph!





jaigee said:


> The rear of the superstructure angles down from the boat deck to the main deck on all the photographs except for the original, where it is cut off and finishes perpendicular to the deck?


I think this thread may be in it's death throes, however that's not going to stop me! (*)) 

The window where the port 'cut-out' would be is higher than the adjacent window, when the progression of the line of windows dictates that it should be lower.

Definately a re-touched photograph of the Romanic. 

I'm off to the pub before my eyeballs turn square! (Pint)


----------



## makko (Jul 20, 2006)

*Death Throes*

Lucky you Jaigee - Its 20 to 12 here and I'm at work!

Look at the original, there appears to be a whiter rectangle around the "window" where the cut-out should be.

Dictamen Final - Repaired picture of the ROMANIC!

This has been a good one! (Applause) Regards to all!

Makko

Dave R


----------



## gdynia (Nov 3, 2005)

OK Lads lets have a vote for and against it being the Romanic.

My vote its Romantic 1 - 0


----------



## makko (Jul 20, 2006)

*Score*

Romanic

2-0


----------



## Baltic Wal (Jun 27, 2005)

*ex Romanic man*

ROMANIC but part doctored

3-0


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

Romanic 4-0 agree doctored photo


----------



## Frank Holleran (Nov 11, 2005)

Romanic 5 -0 (Doctored)

Regards
Frank


----------



## Hugh MacLean (Nov 18, 2005)

Romanic 6-0 

Rgds


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

before i dump all my grog can someone please explain the switch in photos, the ship in question in the first posting had no white band and a full faced bridge-front,this morning it is a photo of the original Romnic with the cutout on the fore part and a white band


----------



## john shaw (Jun 23, 2006)

yer right dom, and with the same scratch and mark across the funnel-- is somebody pulling somebody's p***er here?


----------



## dom (Feb 10, 2006)

*dom*

cant stay,must catch the wife before she dumps my brandy


----------



## Frank Holleran (Nov 11, 2005)

john shaw said:


> yer right dom, and with the same scratch and mark across the funnel-- is somebody pulling somebody's p***er here?


Agree with you John..the star looks like one from the Black Star line...which could have been pasted from another pic...see TripleX did some posts on the BSL LINE

Regards
Frank


----------



## jaigee (Feb 8, 2006)

Nice one TripleX, you had us all going there. (Thumb) 

Nevertheless, an enjoyable few days in which I think we sussed out what it was but never realising that it was a spoof. (*)) 

Thanks for bringing us all down a peg or two!


----------



## Doug H (Oct 2, 2004)

Quite obviously, as I spent three years of my (early, impressionable) life on ROMANIC, I have followed this thread with great enthusiasm.

I'm not so sure that I'm happy about being set up (along with all of the rest of you) by TripleX but I'm prepared to grin and wear it! At least I now have a few more (genuine) photos of ROMANIC.
Fortunately for me and my records of this thread, I made a copy of the original photo that was posted and used it to compare with others, so I can reproduce a factual reproduction of the development of the "saga". 
However, what happens in a few days, weeks, months or years when somebody who hasn't followed it over the past three or four days calls it up and starts with the photo which is now at the beginning of the thread???? They'd reckon we're all a bit barmy!
TripleX: Is there any chance that you'd make a posting explaining the hoax - and what was behind it???


----------



## john shaw (Jun 23, 2006)

fortunately, post 18 shows the "doctored" original, but all I can say Doug is, in the modern idiom, "reeespec' man", you were sure it was a doctored Romanic ,stuck to your guns and you were proven correct.Let's hope TripleX does as you suggest and gives an answer as to how, when it was "_taken by a shipmate_"(post 44) it got to be doctored , to round it all off nicely-- perhaps a little disingenuous of him to say _"The star is possibly an illusion and hasn't been imposed on the picture"_ but what the hell-- I was really impressed at the depth of knowledge out there that you could between you actually ID a disguised ship.


----------



## Hugh MacLean (Nov 18, 2005)

*Grin and wear it!*

Triple X,

OK, maybe a bit of fun to you m8. But consider this, the next guy that posts a genuine request to find the name of a ship may not get the same kind of interest that this thread has produced.

I am sure many of us spent some time trying to help (maybe more fools us). 
But like Doug H says we will grin and wear it.

Rgds


----------



## TripleX (Nov 17, 2005)

*Spot the difference*

I am so glad that you all took it in such good spirit but the boot is on the other foot now as I just cannot explain the star that appears to be on the funnel. The taller mast, the alterations to the bridge front and the accommodation, yes, but the star is a complete mystery. I'll amend the introduction to the thread as suggested but that star is going to drive me insane.


----------



## Frank Holleran (Nov 11, 2005)

Read your amended intro....I think a double DR for this trip..then pick yourself up and start again.

Regards
Frank (*))


----------



## john shaw (Jun 23, 2006)

TripleX, I certainly trust and hope that you are not expelled-- well , maybe a little keelhauling, or a flogging around the fleet, but nothing as severe as having to suffer SN withdrawal pangs! Regards, John


----------



## Doug H (Oct 2, 2004)

TripleX: By editing your original post to explain your subterfuge, you've (now) done the right thing as far as I'm concerned. In fact, if there had to be *one* such hoax (and let's hope there aren't any more, for reasons suggested by Hugh MacLean), I really pleased that you chose ROMANIC. For me, it stirred lots of nostalgia - and that's what this great site is all about - after all, it was fifty years ago! By the way, can you remember whether your friend took the photo in early or late 1957?
My thanks also to all who have participated. Kind regards, Doug H


----------



## aleddy (Apr 8, 2006)

*aleddy*

Gentlemen
I am one of the audience who have been totally and completely entertained.
The character and deductions of all participants has been sensational, all facts worthy of the fiction of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Any rerun would most probably be an anti-clamax
Cheers
Ted


----------



## TripleX (Nov 17, 2005)

*Spot the difference*



Doug H said:


> TripleX: By editing your original post to explain your subterfuge, you've (now) done the right thing as far as I'm concerned. In fact, if there had to be *one* such hoax (and let's hope there aren't any more, for reasons suggested by Hugh MacLean), I really pleased that you chose ROMANIC. For me, it stirred lots of nostalgia - and that's what this great site is all about - after all, it was fifty years ago! By the way, can you remember whether your friend took the photo in early or late 1957?
> My thanks also to all who have participated. Kind regards, Doug H


Doug H: The photo just says "July 1957 Auckland?" 

Gentlemen, you are too kind to this wretched lost soul and I shall take my leave. (Fly)


----------



## Hugh MacLean (Nov 18, 2005)

Triple X,

Although you played us all very well, it has already been stated that quite a few members enjoyed the thread and also learned a lot about the ship. You have amended the intro to the thread so there is no problem.

I hope you don't take your leave.

Rgds (Thumb)


----------



## Baltic Wal (Jun 27, 2005)

Excellent thread with nearly 2,000 visitors but the ship was recognised early on, keeping quiet made it more interesting and it was certainly followed more.


----------



## jaigee (Feb 8, 2006)

It also gained a 5* rating (Thumb).

I just hope no one tries to emulate it, I think it was something which can only be done once to any great effect.


----------

