omahaclass

She's carrying the Engineering "E" on her second stack, I believe.

Possibly an OMAHA-class cruiser.

Either a crash, or testing flotation bags?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Memphis_(CA-10)

If this is indeed USS Memphis (it is certainly an Omaha-class Light Cruiser), it would be CL-13, and the photo would date no earlier than the mid-1920s, not 1910 (or thereabouts). USS Memphis (CL-13) was launched at the William Cramp & Sons shipyard in Philadelphia in April 1924, and commissioned at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in February 1925. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Memphis_(CL-13)

I have to respectfully disagree. The USS Memphis (ex-Tennessee) (ACR-10/CA-10) was a very different ship than the one photographed above. USS Memphis (ex-Tennessee) (ACR-10/CA-10) featured a tumblehome/ram bow and casement gun positions along her hull, and, while approximately 50' shorter in length than an Omaha-class cruiser, was almost 20' greater in beam and twice the displacement . Also, an identifying feature of the Omaha-class cruisers (such as USS Memphis (CL-13)) was the relatively unique placement of casement guns in the superstructure (four each fore and aft), as depicted above. Of course, radical changes to a ship's appearance may come about after various refits and upgrades, but that was not the case with USS Memphis (ex-Tennessee) (ACR-10/CA-10). Here's a link to a photo of USS Memphis (CA-10) as she meets her demise in Santo Domingo harbor: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Tennessee_ACR-10_-_photo_N... I would still maintain that the ship photographed above is the later USS Memphis (CL-13), and if not, one of her Omaha-class sister-ships.

Yes, the photos definitely show two different ships. And I confess that I know virtually nothing about Navy ships -- or any ships, really. So the explanation we are left with is that the Bain negative of the Memphis has been filed more than ten years out of order -- something that happens infrequently, but does happen, perforce.

Wystan: The filing is all Bain's doing! The Library obediently follows the photo agency's original order, indicated by the identification number scratched into the glass plate -- in this case 3019-3. Significant date anomalies have appeared before, though. It's speculation still, but we're wondering if the Bain agency sometimes replaced an old view of a subject with a newer view and kept the same number. Their card index already cited the ship "Memphis" as "3019-3," and when a new boat became the "Memphis" they kept the same index number and replaced the old negative with a new photo to avoid publishing a picture of the wrong boat. I'll try to track down the other example and send it along.