Part 1 registry - is the name always on the transom?

[KompetentKrew]

I have the Carving And Marking Note here, but it's all gobbledegook.

I thought I read that the boat's name should go on the transom _except when it would be obscured by a tender hanging from davits_. Now I'm unable to find reference to that, so perhaps I was mistaken.

I do have a tender hanging from davits, by the way, which does obscure the name (where it and the former Dutch port of registry are marked).

A boat nearby has its name on the topsides, aft quarter, but it's on the SSR.

Also, Iris was taken, so I got "Iris of Ipswich". Does that have to be marked as "Iris of Ipswich, Ipswich"?

I think the forum for its patience once again.

 

[wrr]

In a word "yes".
Schedule 3 of the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993 states:
4. A pleasure vessel which is under 24 metres in length is to be marked as follows:—
(a)
the official number and registered tonnage are:—
(i)
to be marked on the main beam or, if there is no main beam, on a readily accessible visible permanent part of the structure of the pleasure vessel either by cutting in, centre punching or raised lettering, or
(ii)
to be engraved on plates of metal, wood or plastic, secured to the main beam (or, if there is no main beam, to a readily accessible visible permanent part of the structure) with rivets, through bolts with the ends clenched), or screws with the slots removed;
(b)
the name and port of choice (unless an exempted ship), are to be marked on a conspicuous and permanent part of the stern on a dark ground in white or yellow letters, or on a light ground in black letters, the letters being not less than 5 centimetres high and of proportionate breadth, or, where this is not possible by the alternative methods given below:—
(i)
by engraving on plates of metal or of plastic or by cutting in on a shaped wooden chock. Where a shaped wooden chock is used it should be secured to the hull through bolts, the ends being clenched, or
(ii)
by individual glass reinforced plastic letters and numbers approximately 2mm in thickness .These to be fixed to the hull with epoxy adhesive, and painted with suitable paint and coated with translucent epoxy resin;
(iii)
where metal or plastic plates have been used these must be fixed by the use of epoxy adhesives. Metal or plastic plates secured by adhesives should be coated with translucent epoxy resin after they have been fixed in position.

 

[KompetentKrew]

Yes to both questions, you mean?

 

[macd]

Yes to both questions, you mean?

There can be no requirement to have the name/home port on the transom, since not all craft have one. I can't imagine anyone would quibble if its on the stern quarter if it would not be "conspicuous" on your transom.

Iris was taken, so I got "Iris of Ipswich". Does that have to be marked as "Iris of Ipswich, Ipswich"?

Only if it's registered in Ipswich There's no reason it must be.

 

[jwilson]

There can be no requirement to have the name/home port on the transom, since not all craft have one. I can't imagine anyone would quibble if its on the stern quarter if it would not be "conspicuous" on your transom.

If it's Part I it must also have and show the port of registry. Ipswich is one of the permissible ones - not all ports are allowed. In practice for yachts minor variations in markings are vanishingly unlikely to cause a problem.

 

[Beneteau381]

If it's Part I it must also have and show the port of registry. Ipswich is one of the permissible ones - not all ports are allowed. In practice for yachts minor variations in markings are vanishingly unlikely to cause a problem.

My experience is that in areas in and around the Med they want to know the port of registry and they dont care if it is an official port or not!

 

[macd]

If it's Part I it must also have and show the port of registry.

Which is effectively what I wrote in the bit you didn't quote

 

[[176172]]

Yes to both questions, you mean?

I feel sure your boats name 'Iris of Ipswich' has nothing to do with the port of registry. But check first.

 

[Graham376]

I feel sure your boats name 'Iris of Ipswich' has nothing to do with the port of registry. But check first.

Just place Ipswich under the name Iris and leave out the "of". That's what I've done with ours and didn't get impounded along with the 24 who did

 

[Old Bumbulum]

The formula "name of place" stems from the Part 1 requirement for vessels' names not to be duplicated. There can only be one "Iris" on part 1. A formula has developed whereby anyone else wanting to call the boat Iris has to add something to it, eg "Iris May" (or indeed "Iris may Not") but the easiest way to retain the name while not actually changing it fundamentally is to add "...of portname" where the portname is unique in the register. If someone else already has "iris of Ipswich" you'll get your Part 1 registry returned - and you can try "Iris of Pin Mill" or "...of Levington" instead.
This formula has of course spread to where it is not a requirement - on the SSR for instance. In either case it is the boat's name and in theory at leasy should be displayed in full.
You may then add a port of choice beneath if you wish, but

"Iris of Ipswich"
Cowes

sends an odd message.

Iris
Ipswich

would not be correct on any register if the vessels name was "Iris of Ipswich".

I was also intrigued to read in the regs above the requirements of lettering to be black or white - presumably not coloured. I wonder how many people don't comply with that and whether anyone has ever objected?

 

[Daydream believer]

There can be no requirement to have the name/home port on the transom, .

If you go to Belgium, you could end up with a fine for not having the boat name on the transom. If you have a canoe stern, the name still has to be visible from aft.

 

[KompetentKrew]

I feel sure your boats name 'Iris of Ipswich' has nothing to do with the port of registry. But check first.

The two are the same since I was initially of the belief that the "of" had to refer to the port of registry. So it has almost everything to do with it.

 

[pvb]

The two are the same since I was initially of the belief that the "of" had to refer to the port of registry. So it has almost everything to do with it.

It doesn't have to refer to the port of registry. I had a boat on Part 1 registration some years ago called "Freia of Orwell", with Harwich as the port of registry.

 

[pvb]

I was also intrigued to read in the regs above the requirements of lettering to be black or white - presumably not coloured. I wonder how many people don't comply with that and whether anyone has ever objected?

Looking around, it seems lots of people don't comply with the "black or white" rule (including me), but I don't think anyone cares as long as the name is legible.

 

[KompetentKrew]

It doesn't have to refer to the port of registry. I had a boat on Part 1 registration some years ago called "Freia of Orwell", with Harwich as the port of registry.

Indeed. Hence my choice of the word "initially".

I ended up discussing this with the MCA and was surprised to learn that Iris of Ipswich, Plymouth, would be allowed. It seems ripe with potential for confusion.

Freia of Orwell, Harwich, makes sense (to me) as Orwell is not itself a port of registry.

 

[macd]

If you go to Belgium, you could end up with a fine for not having the boat name on the transom. If you have a canoe stern, the name still has to be visible from aft.

I think you fell down a logical hole there. How is it possible to have anything on a transom that does not exist? Very many merchantmen have nothing resembling a transom, but few craft have no stern. (I wonder how the rules might apply to double-ended ferries.)

International maritime law requires that a vessel's name and port of registry by visible at the stern, and Belgian laws (and fines) no doubt reflect the same.

 

[rogerthebodger]

International maritime law requires that a vessel's name and port of registry by visible at the stern

Would you know what International maritime law says about the display of the registration number issued by any countries registration authority

 

[macd]

Would you know what International maritime law says about the display of the registration number issued by any countries registration authority

I wouldn't know, Rogershaw, but imagine that national regulations generally reflect international conventions to which that country is a signatory. That's not to say this is always honoured: I believe that there is a prescribed format for ICC documents (credit-card-sized, not unlike a euro driving licence). Mine, from the RYA, is not compliant :ambivalence:

 

[Daydream believer]

I think you fell down a logical hole there. How is it possible to have anything on a transom that does not exist? Very many merchantmen have nothing resembling a transom, but few craft have no stern. (I wonder how the rules might apply to double-ended ferries.)

International maritime law requires that a vessel's name and port of registry by visible at the stern, and Belgian laws (and fines) no doubt reflect the same.

I just know that on one particular visit to Ostend, I was told that I should have the name of the boat on the transom. I ignored it, because I felt that it was not a legal requirement in the country that I was registered in.
2 years later I was asked to help Belgian authorities do a TV documentary about a combined drug initiative between Dutch, Belgian & the British authorities.

A stuck up official noticed that the name was not on the stern & said that I was due a 2000 euro fine. After they played the film & saw that the transom did not come into view, they decided to let me off with a warning. There was a lot of hassle in between, which I will not relate here, but the official was a real a..hole.

When I mentioned canoe stern,(i did try to argue- as one does!!) I was told (as I relate above) that the name has to be visible from aft. A distance that it had to be legible was quoted. I think it may have been 50 metres, but I am not sure about that.

How you deal with that is up to you but I posted the comment as a warning.

 

[[176172]]

The point I was making is that the 'name' of the boat can of course include the port of registry

eg: 'Sally of Southampton' with the the registered port below it which could be SOUTHAMPTON which would show below the 'name' whatever it is.

I still contend that the boat in questions 'name' 'Iris of Ipswich' sound like it is, just a name, and not to include its port of registry.
If could of course be IPSWICH, which would then appear beneath the 'name'

The port of registry is purely that, where it is registered.