I'm not sure that "Grlstne" is Gorleston. I've seen it written many, many times on documents through the 1800's and it rarely has an 'e' on the end. I'm not saying it is never written Gorlestone, but 'ton' is the usual ending.
Perhaps because (at least in the part of the world I grew up in) it would normally be pronounced with short 'stun' at the end, not a longer 'stone'.
If you had to shorten the name to 7 characters to get it to fit in the column then why would you add an 'e' which isn't normally there? The contraction "Gorlstn" would make more sense, being quite an accurate representation of the way it is pronounced, and also avoiding confusion with places starting with 'Garl..'
A second issue, though on the basis of my impressions not factual evidence, is the nature of trade at Yarmouth/Gorleston. I've always understood Yarmouth to be primarily a fishing port and for goods to and from the area served by the waterways in the area including Norwich. E.g. coastal trade of coal from the North-East and agricultural products to London.
From the examples given the Waterville sounds like it was involved in far more exotic trade than Gorleston generally saw. So whilst it isn't impossibe, would it really make sense to pick a home port for a ship which was on the East Coast of England and predominantly engaged in different activities?
Just some thoughts, not necessarily facts!
