Further information on the geographicaJ. distribution of risks 

 is offered in tables 21 to 23. In many cases, the association of 

 a vessel characteristic with loss experience ratio may be spurious, 

 due to several other variables. In some instaaices, however, the 

 consistency of relationship is striking. It is interesting to note 

 that vessels with "Scandinavian" officer personnel and crews (table 

 21), equipped with dredges (table 22) and engaged in scalloping 

 (table 23), had as much relatively unfavorable loss experience 

 ratios for both hull and protection and indemnity insurance as 

 all vessels whose home port was New Bedford. 



Again, with regard to favorable or unfavorable loss record of 

 vessels, some differences in the physical characteristics of vessels 

 are interesting. For example, lost wood vessels, with a hull insur- 

 ance loss ratio of ^37. 7 in New England and 2^12. 7 in California 

 (table 18) were likely to be much older — 32 years old in the former 

 and 21 years old in the latter area — than active wood vessel8--17 

 years old and ik years old, respectively (table 2k). From the 

 viewpoint of rating. It is equally interesting that the average 

 age of lost wood vessels in the Gulf Area (12 years old), with a 

 loss ratio of 8^+9.9, did not differ significantly from the average 

 age of best (13 years old) and worst active wood vessels (11 years 

 old). 



In the case of protection and indemnity Insurance, worst 

 vessels were larger than best vessels in New England--99 average 

 gross tons and 8.9 crewmen, compared to 51 gross tons and 6.6 

 men- -with no significant difference in average age of vessel 

 (table 2k). In contrast, there was no significant difference 

 between best and worst vessels in California -vrith regard to age 

 eind gross tonnage, although the average reported crew of best 

 vessels was 8.6 men compared to 7.2 men on board the worst vessels. 



Reported crew size seems to be associated with the different 

 practices for determining premium in the two areas. It should be 

 remembered that, as far as It was possible to ascertain, protection 

 and indemnity insurance premium was leirgely determined on the basis 

 of crew size in New England while in California, size of crew 

 seemed to be of little or no consideration. However, there is 

 no way of finding out whether crew size differences in New England 

 and nonconsideratlon of crew size in California are the result of 

 premium determining practices or whether these practices are the 

 result of experience. 



97 



