This page summarizes the research standards used throughout Ocean Liner Curator. The full handbook remains available as a PDF reference.
Core principles
Evidence-first
Claims follow what can be checked. Story and resemblance are treated as leads until supported by marks, documents, or verified comparatives.
Restraint is a method
“Unknown” is a valid conclusion. When the evidence ceiling is reached, the correct outcome is to stop—not to fill gaps.
Separate object from narrative
An object may be authentic while the attached story is wrong (or untestable). The two are evaluated independently.
Ship-specific is a high bar
Many lines used fleet patterns and long-running supplier contracts. Specific ship claims usually require documentation or a verifiable identifier.
Evidence hierarchy (strongest to weakest)
- Primary documentation: dated records identifying the specific object (invoices, logs, deaccession papers, photographs showing the exact item).
- Object-mark evidence: maker marks, assay marks, property marks, stamped identifiers, serials—interpreted in context (what they do and do not prove).
- Material / construction cues: manufacturing method, materials, fasteners, printing process, wear patterns consistent with use.
- Verified comparatives: matching to museum catalogs, archival photos, or reliable documented collections (not a lone image online).
- Oral history / listing narrative: potentially useful, but treated as a lead unless independently supported.
Attribution levels (how conclusions are phrased)
This site prefers explicit attribution language, so readers can tell the difference between what is known, what is likely, and what is only suggested.
- Confirmed: supported by primary documentation and/or unambiguous identifiers.
- Strong: multiple independent supports (marks + comparatives + date/production fit), without contradictions.
- Probable: plausible and supported, but missing a key piece (e.g., no direct documentation).
- Possible: consistent with the evidence, but not enough to prefer it over alternatives.
- Unknown / untestable: the evidence ceiling has been reached; further certainty would be speculation.
Confidence ladder
How conclusions are expressed (stronger at top)
Comparative method (how matching is done)
- Compare dimensions, not just motif.
- Compare marks and backstamps (placement, font, punch shape, period conventions).
- Compare construction details (casting seams, rivets, printing method, edge profiles).
- Prefer multiple verified matches over single-image resemblance.
- Record what differs: a near-match may indicate a pattern variant, a different contract, or a different era.
Provenance discipline
Provenance is treated as a traceable history, not as a synonym for “a story.” Useful provenance usually includes dated paperwork, identifiable people, or a chain of custody that can be checked.
- Strong: documentation + continuity (e.g., estate papers + photographs + identifiers).
- Moderate: plausible chain with partial documentation.
- Weak: family claim without dates, names, or object-specific linkage.
- Unsupported: listing lore, copied narratives, or “came from a captain” with no details.
Common red flags (prompts for verification)
- No photos of marks; evasive answers when asked for them.
- Over-specific claims that outrun the evidence (“one-of-a-kind Titanic”).
- Claims built on a single generic motif (“any star = White Star”).
- Condition that conflicts with the story (e.g., “shipboard use” but unrealistically pristine in wear-critical areas).
- Mismatch between alleged era and manufacturing cues (modern fasteners, laser etching, wrong paper/printing method).
Language & confidence (how uncertainty stays visible)
Ocean Liner Curator avoids “proof by tone.” When a claim is uncertain, the language reflects that uncertainty rather than hiding it. Preferred phrasing includes “attributed to,” “consistent with,” “likely,” “cannot be confirmed,” and “unknown.”
