Attribution Boundaries

Attribution is the art of saying what the evidence supports—no more, no less. In ocean liner collecting, the most common error is not “being wrong,” it’s being too specific. This section maps where responsible claims usually stop, how to phrase uncertainty cleanly, and how to avoid turning probability into fact.

⁂ Guiding principle: If a claim cannot survive scrutiny without the story attached, it is not a strong claim. Let the object (marks, materials, documentation) carry the weight.

The Three Levels of Attribution

Most objects can be supported at one (or two) of these levels. Pushing beyond that is where over-attribution begins.

1) What the object is

Type, material, maker, construction, and period signals. This is usually the strongest, most repeatable foundation. (“Silver-plated serving spoon by X,” “Printed menu, dated,” “Brass cabin key, hollow shaft.”)

2) What system it belonged to

Line-level context or institutional context: company marks, supplier contracts, pattern families, and documented service usage. (“White Star Line issue,” “Cunard fleet pattern,” “hotel/rail overlap possible.”)

3) Which ship it came from

Ship-specific attribution is the hardest claim to support. It usually requires primary documentation or a defensible chain of custody. Without that, the responsible conclusion often stops at line-level or period-level attribution.

Why “Ship-Specific” Is So Hard

Standardization: patterns and suppliers were reused across multiple ships.
Refits and transfers: objects moved, were replaced, or were reissued over time.
Market incentives: famous ship names inflate value, encouraging story drift.
Documentation scarcity: most everyday items were never recorded at the object level.

Collector’s caution: When a listing’s “evidence” is mostly adjectives—“rare,” “museum quality,” “from Titanic”—treat the attribution as the weakest part until primary support appears.

Phrase It Like This (Clean, Defensible Language)

A good description preserves useful information without upgrading it into certainty. These templates keep your cataloging honest and readable.

Marked by [maker]; consistent with early 20th-century production. (Strong: object-level evidence.)
Company-marked; supports line-level attribution, not ship-specific. (Strong boundary statement.)
Accompanied by a tag/COA stating [ship]; no independent documentation confirmed. (Records the claim without adopting it.)
Consistent with known examples of [line/pattern]; exact ship unknown. (Good when pattern match is real but not exclusive.)
Attributed to [ship] in the market; evidence supports [narrower claim]. (Separates story from support.)

When to Stop Narrowing

Narrowing is useful until it becomes story-making. These are common “stop signs”:

No ship-unique marks and no primary documentation.
The object appears across multiple ships (shared pattern families, shared suppliers).
The only ship link is narrative (tag, dealer story, auction text without citations).
The proposed ship claim adds value but does not add evidence.

Practical takeaway: “Unknown” is not failure—it’s a disciplined conclusion. It keeps the record clean, and it keeps future research possible.