Talk:Star of India (ship)

I coreected the statement that this is the 2nd oldest afloat. This may (uh, not that I know for sure) be the third oldest afloat) in the US (Constitution and Constellation), but it is not the second oldest afloat in the world. See HMS Trincomalee (1817) and HMS Unicorn (1824). There may be more, but I didn't spend much time researching it. 24.160.199.161

The article for USS Constitution says that *it* is the oldest seaworthy ship in the world. I'm in no place to judge the seaworthiness of a ship, but at most one of these pages is correct. - Molinari 20:18 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Constitution page should be fixed, probably my fault - ability to move under own power in a quiet bay on a calm day is not really "seaworthiness". Stan 21:55 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

According to the Constitution's events page, it was scheduled to at least leave port six times in 2006, which seems seaworthy enough. Obviously they only sail it in good weather, but I wager they only sail the Star of India in good weather, too. 207.171.180.101 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to post a photo of the ship though I need to ck on copyright laws... any guidelines? I took the photo... -- 00:24, 2004 Aug 31 User:DennisDaniels

Try Wikipedia:Image use policy. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 06:00, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

The articles for the Star of India and Euterpe are redundant, since they represent the same ship at different points in history. These articles ought to be merged into one. Willy Logan 05:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Agree - should be one article for the same ship. Either Euterpe (ship) is the lead article with a re-direct from Star of India (ship) or vice versa Boatman 11:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

• Agree - Star of India seems the most appropriate choice as lead article. Although this is not the ships given name, it is certainly the one by which it is currently best known (everyone who lives in San Diego knows it); this would also help avoid confusion with the Muse of Greek mythological fame. joe

Good work on the merge. -Willy Logan 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hello

I'm an Australian historian and by chance my Great Grandfather came from Liverpool UK to Sydney Australia with mother and brothers and sisters in 1883 on The Star of India. Which is my reference point. What I read when I read this article is I get a sense of several committed nautical types who know much about this ship as it is today. Perhaps not a lot about its Star of India time. Actually the sub-heading star of India, suggests the ship had it's name changed around 1901-04. So I am puzzled there as this ship like the famous clippers (Lightening 1850-60s Etc.) shows up almost annually sometimes biannually, on the migrant run to Australia in the 1880s and early 1890s. Which gives rise to my next perplexity. I believe the voyages to Australia not New Zealand were its main trade, as the current populations would suggest; four fifths of passengers were bound for Australia in the 1880s. This would seem to suggest that someone with a strong New Zealand connection has been responsible for many of the edits here?

The article title is rightly linked to the Star of India because of its main role carrying thousands of immigrants from England to Australia and New Zealand before settling into a role as a salmon transport. I guess it fits with the same MO of also having the British Trans-Atlantic liner The Queen Mary in San Diego. This MO never fitted with me until I read the heated and sometimes desperate debate that took place in the city back in 2000 over that ships preservation. So I don't really understand why these ships have ended up where they have but hats off to the city for doing the restoration work and both these ships would otherwise have ended their days like the SS United States. My last point is that back in 2000 I worked with people in Sydney restoring the "James Craig", originally named Clan Macleod, a 1874 iron hull barque. [1]

It regularly sails out of Sydney and I wonder about the statement about this particular category of ships early in the article. Thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.191.31 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Euterpe, as the ship was then named, was owned from 1871 to 1897 by the company Shaw, Savill and Company, which seems to have been primarily engaged in trade between the UK and New Zealand. In 1882 Shaw, Savill & Co then merged with the Albion Shipping Company, at the time the dominant British company in the New Zealand trade, to form the Shaw, Savill & Albion Line. Lubbock, B. (1921) The Colonial Clippers 34 MB download, see pp 346-365 of the original book; there is a brief mention of Euterpe on p 351 (which is p 477 of the PDF version) Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

where in the world is it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:F900:71C:D1F2:AA39:5378:A367 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply