Talk:First-rate

message: These should maybe be "first rate", without the hyphen. I don't know of a rule, noun vs adjective or whatever, but usage seems to lean more towards omitting the hyphen. Stan Shebs 18:38 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
The article claims the lowest deck was useless in all but the calmest weather. That would be true when attacking (from windward), but surely the lowest deck would often be usable when defending against a windward attacker because the heel of the ships would then be favourable? The article also claims that "first-rate" meaning "excellent" derives from "first-rate ship". Is that really so? Gdr 19:06, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
:Ship bobs up and down, and likely needs to turn at various angles to the wind, plus the heel would only raise the gunports by a couple feet. It would be an exceedingly bold captain who would run the risk of being swamped, especially with the admiral glaring at him. Etymology of "first-rate" as an adjective is attested by OED - in fact the first references in literature begin appearing within a couple decades of the introduction of the rating system. OED reports without attempting to explain, but one can imagine captains at parties and balls bragging or complaining about the rate of ship they got, and sharp-eared wits picking up on it, just as today's writers use computer slang for their own purposes. Stan 21:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: Please do not remove the first paragraph as it functions as a quick navigational aid to the other articles in this series. Thank you. Petersam 03:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph is navigational aid

message: I have a source here (The Wooden World by N.A.M. Rodger) which says that (in the Georgian Navy at least), first rates carried 90 guns or more, had complements from 780 men and had tonnages from 1,800 tons. However, I can see that the round figures are more dramatically powerful, and will understand if someone reverts my edits.  --David.Mestel 14:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: As it now stands, there is nothing in the article that refers to the most common usage of the term "first-rate", which means of high quality and has no reference to a former naval vessel. Is there somewhere a verifiable reference to this term being of naval origin? This would seem to be important to the article if verifiable, especially since "second-rate" and "third-rate" mention the modern usage of the terms and their context of inferior quality.  75.200.37.120 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; sorted. Shem (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Other usage

message: The page on the HMS Royal Charles indicates it was a first-rate ship, but had 80 guns. The indication on this page, that a first-rate ship needs to have at least 100 guns is therefore incorrect. Or the number on the page of the HMS Royal Charles is incorrect, but since that is a more specific number, I'm assuming that one is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.168.219 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  80 guns minimum 

message: The article states "There was also too little storage space to stow provisions for long voyages, and the ships themselves routinely proved unseaworthy in winter weather. As a consequence the first-rates were restricted to summer cruising, and then only in the English Channel and nearby waters".  This would undoubtably be surprising news to Admiral Nelson, who sailed HMS Victory from Toulon to the West Indies, back to Portugal, to England, and back to Portugal to fight at Trafalgar, at the end of October.  I suggest those lines be removed, or at least properly qualified that they apply to first-rates of the 1600's, not those of the Napoleanic era.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:380:130B:0:0:0:4CF3 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor description of first-rate's usability 

message: The HMS St Lawrence does not "survive intact" as mentioned in this article, but instead has rotted to only the keel and ribs of its frame. The dedicated article for the HMS St Lawrence says as much, and the same is clear from videos of the wreckage. I suggest the wording is changed to reflect the actual condition of the ship. 198.208.47.92 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS St Lawrence