Talk:Nuestra Señora de la Concepción

Spitfire

I have put this explanation separately from Spitfire and HMS_Spitfire because the euphemism needs explaining, but even now some people object to unexpectedly coming actoss the word "shit". Anthony Appleyard 05:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm just confused as to what this has to do with 'Spitfire?' 75.75.110.235 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert the page move?

I do not think that the present title is very apt. I believe, it should be reverted back to Cacafuego. Or, perhaps, Cagafuego, for that matter. Any objections? --Dart evader 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As no one objected, I've moved it back to 'Cacafuego'. Dart evader 06:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

More importantly than the title; this page has no sources cited. Network57 05:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

O'Brian Reference

Cacafuego was a rather common name for Spanish ships, and was applied to dozens of various vessels. Given this, the Master and Commander reference in this article seems extraordinarily tenuous. Fell Gleaming^talk 11:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Disposition of its Treasure

The second paragraph of this section twice refers to the Cacafuego. This should be changed to Cagafuego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregontsunami (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Source-National Geographic

There is an article in U.S. National Geographic that appears to be about this vessel,

September 1990, Vol. 178, No. 3, pp. 38 - 53, by William M. Mathers

Which says it sank on September, 20, 1638 off Agingan Beach on Saipan. However this page says Drake captured it in 1579. 59+ years seems a long life for a ship in those days, or an I wrong there? Says gold artifacts from the galleon were first found by divers from the recovery vessel Tengar on March 10, 1988. 220 of ^Borg 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are to separate ships with the same name obviously, beside the fact of the capture, the ship that Drake took had only 150 tons (average-big for 1570s) while the HUGE galleon sank at 1638 had 2000 tons!!!. The spanish ships during XVI and XVII century, specially those in transoceanic routes used mostly religious advocations names, virgins, saints, etc and as the number of ships was so numerous (5,000 ships for the 17,000 voyages in the Atlantic route only between 1505 and 1650, e.g.) the names repeated constantly. There were SEVERAL different ships with the same name in few years and sometimes even inside the same fleet. By the way, the usual life for a spanish ship in the transoceanic routes than didn't sank was around 5-10 yeas, 20 for the exceptionally old ones, the absolute record don't even reach 30 years in the Atlantic route, while in the Manila Galleon case, the huge galleons used, among the biggest used by Spain before XVIII century and travelling in a longer and harder route usually only completed 2-4 voyages at max.31.222.101.67 (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC

I deleted the section about a totally different ship

Some user included wrong info about a totally different ship. The first ship captured by Drake was an average-big ship for the 1570s with 150 tons, while the second one used in the "Galeon de Manila" route was one of the biggest ships in the world at 1638 with 2,000 tons. Beside that and the fact the first was captured by Drake we have the fact that close to 60 years! passed from one event and the other. No ship in spanish fleets during XVI and XVII centuries had so long live, in fact not a single one is documented with 30 years for the Atlantic route, e.g.

The Nuestra Señora de la Concepción Galleon (1638) have been referenced dozen of times with its 2000 tons, for example:

- Fish, Shirley. The Manila-Acapulco Galleons: The Treasure Ships of the Pacific, AuthorHouse, 2011, p 673.

- Giraldez, Arturo. The Age of Trade: The Manila Galleons and Dawn of Global Economy, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015, p.159 31.222.101.67 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)