Later recollections of the shoe varied, Clark stated that it was "probably branded "CROWN BRAND PTY 4", although he had some doubts about "CROWN" and "4". Captain Smith, recalled a canvas shoe of a brand named "McCOWAN PTY" or "McEWAN PTY", which carried symbols representing a crown and/or a broad arrow. A sergeant with the party who recovered the raft later contradicted the finding of a shoe stating that a 'pair of boots' were found on the raft. In Smith's opinion, the life raft was a naval Carley float, which had come from Sydney. The wooden decking was manufactured and branded with the word "PATENT" while the metal framework was branded "LYSAGHT DUA-ANNEAL ZINC. MADE IN AUSTRALIA" inside. The float had been damaged by gun or shellfire, with shrapnel embedded in the outer covering, and the underside was covered with barnacles and other marine growth, indicating that it had been at sea for some time. On 23 April 1949, the Director of Naval Intelligence wrote to the Director of Victualling (DNV) with regard to whether the uniform worn by the dead man and the Carley float were consistent with the crew and equipment of Sydney. With regard to the uniform, the DNV stated, in a hand-written note that, while boilersuits with press studs had not been issued by the RAN at the time, officers could purchase their own boilersuits, usually white or brown, with press studs. (Navy issue boilersuits worn by ratings were blue, but did not have press studs.) The shoes could "definitely" have been of RAN issue, especially if they were leather (not canvas). There is no record of a reply regarding the Carley float. Controversy regarding raft The RAN claimed that the covering of the carley float did not match those used by Australian warships and thus could not have come from Sydney. The historian Tom Frame was also sceptical about the raft and that its connections to the Sydney were circumstantial. For many years, other authors, like the historian Barbara Winter (1984) and independent researcher Wes Olson (2000) disputed the official view put forward by the RAN. According to Olson, it was unclear how the RAN decided that the float cover was anomalous, as contemporary accounts of the float were often vague and/or contradictory. Olson said that the only detail of the covering in witness descriptions appeared to be that it was grey. Winter suggested that