When to Stop Narrowing

Narrowing is the collector’s instinct: you want to move from “old spoon” to “White Star spoon” to “Titanic spoon.” The problem is that most objects only support the first one or two steps. This page is a practical set of “stop signs” that prevent story creep and keep your cataloging defensible.

⁂ Guiding principle: The narrowest claim is not the best claim. The best claim is the one the evidence can carry without assistance.

The Most Useful Question

Before you push the attribution further, ask: What would I still believe if the story disappeared? If the answer collapses without the narrative (tag, COA, auction text, dealer pitch), you’ve reached your boundary.

A Simple “Narrowing Ladder”

Use this as a default workflow. You stop at the highest rung you can actually support.

Identify type: what it is, materially and functionally.
Identify maker/supplier: marks, hallmarks, pattern codes, printer, foundry, etc.
Identify period: date marks, address marks, design language, regulation era.
Identify line/system: company marks, documented fleet patterns, supplier contracts, known examples.
Identify ship: only with ship-unique marks or primary documentation/chain of custody.

Stop Signs (When You Should Not Narrow Further)

1) The only “evidence” is similarity

“It looks like” is a clue, not proof. Shared patterns and supplier reuse are common. If your case is mostly visual resemblance, stop at the level of pattern family or period—do not jump to a ship.

2) The attribution increases price more than it increases evidence

When a ship name adds significant value, the incentive to over-attribute rises. If the listing’s confidence scales with the famous name rather than with documentation, stop narrowing.

3) You have no ship-unique marker

A ship name stamped into the object, a ship inventory mark that can be contextualized, a documented removal record—those can justify ship-level claims. Company marks, date marks, and maker marks usually cannot.

4) The claim relies on a single narrative artifact

A handwritten tag, COA, auction description, or “family story” may be worth recording—but it is rarely enough on its own. If the story is the whole case, stop at the strongest object-based attribution and note the claim as unverified.

5) The line-level case is strong, but ship-level is not

This is a common and respectable landing point: “White Star Line issue” with unknown ship. If the evidence cleanly supports the line but not the vessel, stop there.

6) You cannot explain the access logic

If the story implies a person removed an object, ask: would that person plausibly have had access to this category of item? If the access logic is thin or undefined, stop narrowing.

7) Your conclusion requires too many “maybes” in a row

One inference can be reasonable. A chain of them becomes a story. If your argument depends on multiple stacked assumptions (maybe this supplier, maybe this ship, maybe this year, maybe this service class), stop at the last supported step.

How to “Stop” Without Losing Useful Information

Stopping doesn’t mean discarding context. It means labeling it correctly. These phrasing patterns keep your record honest:

Supported attribution: “Company-marked; supports line-level attribution.”
Claim recorded, not adopted: “Accompanied by a handwritten tag stating [ship]; unverified.”
Ship unknown: “Consistent with known fleet pattern; exact ship unknown.”
Boundary statement: “No primary documentation confirming ship-specific use.”

Practical takeaway: The cleanest catalog entries are not the most exciting—they’re the most accurate. Accurate records age well; inflated ones collapse under scrutiny.