Documenting the provenance of the 1100 sailboats built by HMCo is one of the main functions of The Herreshoff Registry. The research required to do this entails compiling evidence from old newspaper articles, manufacturer’s records, extracts of museum archives, recollections of owners, observations of builders, yacht club yearbooks, race records, Lloyd’s Register entries, government registration documents, and so on. It can be somewhat painstaking, and it is not uncommon for discrepancies to exist between the various sources.
Recently called into question is the issue of what evidence, and how much of it, is sufficient to make a decision regarding a particular boat’s hull number. It is something of a balancing act. If the criteria used are too lenient, many errors will be made. If the criteria are too strict, many assignments that should be made won’t be, along with the discoveries they facilitate.
To help address this, I would suggest a “Confidence Factor” be associated with each hull number assignment, as summarized in the table below. The Registry would use a hull number if the “CF” is 3 or above, and assign a 9000-series number if the “CF” is below 3 (or entirely unknown.)
Any comments, thoughts, or suggestions?
| Confidence Factor | Description | Characteristics |
| 1 | Nearly Certain | The plate is with the boat. Corroborating evidence exists and/or there is no reason to believe the plate is not original to the boat.
|
| 2 | Highly Probable | The plate is with the boat. Corroborating evidence does not exist, leaving the possibility that the plate is not original to the boat, and/or there is a question as to whether the plate is original to the boat.
|
| 3 | Probable | The plate is not with the boat, but corroborating, concrete documentary evidence exists.
|
| 4 | Possible, with questions | The plate is not with the boat. Corrobrating evidence exists, but it is circumstantial and questions may exist.
|
| 5 | Possible, but unlikely | The plate is not with the boat. Corrobrating evidence does not exist.
|
