The professional opinion of Ocean-Going Master Murat Çifci was sought in order to evaluate the news reports and Persian's records. The comments below are the inferences of an expert ship's master, and are separate from the facts directly reported by the sources.
The mizzen mast. The sail inventory in Persian's survey report, made while she was under construction, lists only the fore and main mast sails. Captain Çifci interprets this as a two-masted auxiliary sailing rig (schooner/brigantine). He states that under Lloyd's survey practice a ship's mast arrangement had to be entered in the record, and therefore, had a mizzen mast been added to Persian later, it should appear in the records. The press of the period, however, reports that the mizzen mast fell. The increase of the ship's registered tonnage to 636 net tons in 1857 may point to a modification, but it may equally stem from re-measurement; the record does not state the reason. It is also possible that local alterations went unrecorded because there was no Lloyd's Register Surveyor in Istanbul at the time. It therefore remains unresolved whether the press statement reflects a loose use of the term for the aftermost mast or an unrecorded modification.
The nature of the contact. The newspapers give no information on the angle or speed of the collision. Based on the fact that the 600-ton iron-hulled Persian did not break in two and stayed afloat, and on the existence of her watertight bulkheads, Captain Çifci judges that the contact was not a right-angled broadside blow but a low-speed, tangential scrape. It is also part of this inference, on the assumption that Ganges had a high bow structure, that this structure struck the after accommodation and caused the death of Lieutenant Singer, who was sleeping in his cabin; the newspapers report only that Singer was crushed in his cabin.
Storm and fatigue. If the sky was covered with storm clouds, visibility must have fallen considerably when moonlight and the effects of rolling are considered together. Even with a clear sky, despite the bright moonlight, the rolling and the roll periods would have been a major factor. Taking into account the fatigue of the watch personnel, and of all personnel exposed to heavy weather, it is indicated that these causes led to the accident. Had the ships been proceeding at full speed, it would have been much harder to reduce their momentum, and the real disaster might then have occurred. The reduced speed, under the influence of the storm, averted the catastrophe. Rolling, low speed and inertia: according to the captain, these three concepts are very important for understanding the event.
During rolling, supervising deck equipment becomes harder, lashings work loose, and navigation lights can become indistinguishable amid wave spray, which may have weakened decision-making. The sources of the period, however, cite only the weather as the cause of the accident; they give no information on the condition of the crew or on the lights.