Talk:Drake's Plate of Brass

Hole

Why does the caption on the image say "Note the hole in the lower left" when the hole is in the lower right? Nvinen 22:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because I am an idiot? Must have been late. Nice catch. Chris vLS 00:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Drake description

Are we able to add a short description of who Drake is and why he is important? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)\

That's what the hyperlink on his name is for, surely. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:13, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Ultraviolet

Was the ultraviolet inscription ever found? Rich Farmbrough 17:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No it never was, thats why the wikipedia authors were able to write about it. But seriously, it should be mentioned how they found out about it. (unsigned, by 64.160.183.20)

It's a HUGE question mark about the 2002 story -- there's no mention in the article of anyone checking for it, or for the authors going asking for the Bancroft to examine it. Of course, the plate when found was pretty dirty -- the hoaxsters had burned it a couple times -- but someone cleaned it up, since it looks shiny now . . . perhaps removing the paint? . . .

Anyway, the source for it is the account's from Noll and the ECV "Preposterous Plate" book.

Chris vLS 20:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Satisfactory...credo quia absurdum

I'll add that the paint isn't there now. Not that I know anything about this excellent story, but you implied it above. Tempshill 18:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In footnote 13 to the 2002 Von der Porten et al. article in California History, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 116-133, which is the definitive public exposure of the hoax, it is stated that tests for the fluorescent paint were conducted in 1994 and 2002. These showed that "small spots of luminescence, not natural to brass, firmly adhere to indentations in the back, around the hole which had been cut out as if to hold an Elizabethan sixpence. No luminescence appeared in the many letter grooves on the front of the plate, showing that the fluorescent material had not come from the soil or the artificial weathering process [performed by the hoaxers to make the plate appear old]... The fluorescent material survived only in fractures around the hole for the coin grooves because William Caldeira and Beryle Shinn had scrubbed the plate and a group of printers had cleaned the plate with kerosene..." WMThomas (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing

Can the intro sentence to 'Origins: a practical joke gone awry' be rephrased: the original DPB article was written in 2005 and 'only recently' may now be less so. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty - add new discussion section

The original English version of Richard Hakluyt's Famous Voyage in 1589 does not reference any specific author. The Hakluyt Society reports that Hakluyt's second edition credits Pretty for the account of Thomas Cavendish's voyage. An early French version of Famous Voyage ascribes the Drake Account to Pretty. Since then, this mis-attribution has been widely reprinted.

The World Encompassed is believed to primarily come from Drake and his chaplain.

Therefore, I proposed to remove the Petty reference and just attribute The World Encompassed.MikeVdP (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. The original journals are lost and it's not clear who authored what parts of the story. I would just reference The World Encompassed. Glendoremus (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed name change

I suggest that this article be given a new name: Drake's Plate of Brass forgery, The forged Drake's Plate of brass, or the like. This article is not about Drake's Plate of Brass. It is about the forgery. I would like comments before pursuing the matter further.Hu Nhu (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see your point about changing the title, but I think I'd rather keep it the way it is in part because the 2002 primary reference on the subject is "Who Made Drake's Plate of Brass? Hint: It Wasn't Francis Drake" WP should stick with how the sources refer to the subject and not WP:RIGHT WRONGS (I agree that the title is not a great wrong here... :-) ) It would also be useful to look the List of Hoaxes and see how other articles are titled. For example, we have Piltdown Man not Piltdown Man Hoax etc. There are a few items on the list that including forgery or hoax in the title, but most do not. So, we should probably keep it the title the way that it is. 16:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)~

Thank you for your prompt response, Cxbrx. I had not thought of that. Looking at the list of hoaxes, there seems to be no firm pattern; there are various ways to indicate the article title.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

And on another matter Cxbrx (since the name change idea is effectively dealt with as I do agree with you), the top of this Talk page seems in disarray. The info box is out of place and there is an odd website link that lacks context. I am uncertain how to handle this and wonder what you think.Hu Nhu (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the suggestion of the name change. These things are worth considering from time to time. I'm not completely familiar with cleaning up talk pages, but I have started using WikiProject templates on talk pages, so the templates should probably stay. One thing to do would be to archive the current talk page and be sure that the templates for California and dytalk remain. Feel free to set up archiving for this talk page if you wish. 22:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)~

I appreciate all your kind attention, Cxbrx. I made edits and believe the page is better served with them. I read the template page and wonder if it might be appropriate for the article I am currently editing, New Albion. I will check at the Teahouse. And what does dytalk mean?Hu Nhu (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Feb 15 edits to this talk page

I've edited so to tidy the page. This also involved removing a website solicitation. My understanding is that Wikipeidis is not a place for such. Of course, that editor could seek a second opinion of RfC. Please first, however, look at the WP:SOAP entry.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxers' Names?

The section titled "Creation" references people named "Wheat" and "Barron" with no first names, and in Wheat's case, no explanation of whether he was involved in the hoax or is just being identified for his role in the organization.

Also, it says that Clark told his wife that the C.G. preceding Drake's name was in effect his own signature. But in both the transcription in the article and the photo of the plaque, no C is visible.Ajericn (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• I fixed the discussion regarding Wheat and ECV. Looks like a key connection was deleted during some previous edits. Hope this helps. Glendoremus (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Boulton as creator of the plate

A series of edits changed this to have Boulton as creator of the plate. No sources were identified. Eva Taylor is mentioned, but no sources are provided.

The Melissa Darby idea that Drake careened north of California is rejected by the Oregon Historical Society, Oregon State Parks, the National Park Service and California State Parks.

Boulton was certainly deceived by the hoax, but nothing points to him as the perpetrator.

I will update the Origins portion.MikeVdP (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)