Kenchington

Lee Valley's catalogue can have that effect. There is no known antidote, except for enforced abstinence. But at least you are safely distant from the temptations that await anyone who enters one of their stores 😀

Nice!

True enough. And he also says nothing of where the navel hoods terminate, only where the carved work on them terminates. Like Scott, I read where the carved work terminates to mean that there was no navel-hood carving beyond the aftermost part of the angel (i.e. the feet), though I don't deny that there is some ambiguity. But you are right that the structural timber of the navel hoods could have continued up to the angel's shoulders, as in Glory. Certainly, there was some sort of heavy timber there. As you say, the figure could not have been supported by its feet alone. (And I see to justification to suggest some sort of supporting ironwork, though that would have been technically possible.) Trevor

Steady on, Rob! As I have pointed out before, that is a reference to the hood ends of the planks and nothing whatever to do with the navel hoods, either in the original meaning of that term or the unique McKay structure. Yes. But that is the upper, forward end of the structure in question. My point concerned the lower, after end. From the quoted text, that seems to have surrounded the hawse holes in Flying Cloud but, as seen in photographs, it clearly did not in Glory. Because, I suspect, in Flying Cloud the structure was as McLean described it and stretched from hawse holes to the feet of the figure, whereas in Glory it reached from above and forward of the hawse holes out to the figure's shoulders. You have not (yet) offered evidence that McLean used the "navel hood" term for the McKay structure as it was in Glory, though it is a convenient one for modern discussion of the unique McKay structure. As so often with complex nautical technology, we can get confused between things and words. What "is" is the structure that McKay seems to have included in the bows of his clippers, apparently with evolution of its details from ship to ship. "Navel hood", in the generally understood meaning of the term, is something right around the hawse holes. Originally, it was there to take the wear and tear of the cables but hawse holes were not infrequently decorated and shipborne decorations often took the name of the structural piece that underlay them. I'm not surprised if some people took to using the "hood" term for the decorations around the holes. With no known term for the McKay structure and an example of it, in Flying Cloud, that stretched up from the hawse holes, McLean seems to have adopted the "navel hood" term for the whole thing, right up to the feet of the angel. Which (to mix my metaphors in a poor attempt at a pun) has left us arguing over how many of those angels could dance on the head of a pin! Trevor

I would agree with you, Scott, except for the wording that ClipperFan posted last night: So at least one contemporary saw the figurehead as placed where the carved work on the navel hood ended. Hence, the structure reaching out to the figure and underlying the carving was perceived as the navel hood -- albeit a very different structure from what that term was conventionally applied to. And that may well be a hint that McKay had come up with something different, something lacking its own term, that extended from the conventional navel hood into a substitute for archaic head rails. But that complicates things further with Glory of the Seas, as her version of the structure in question did not encircle the hawse holes at all. There seems to be agreement that we are looking at a signature feature of (maybe a feature unique to) McKay's ships. In Flying Cloud, it encompassed the hawse holes and was given the (not entirely appropriate) term "navel hood". In Glory, it ended above and forward of the hawse, so an evolving feature -- as you have said). Rob and ClipperFan have chosen to apply the "navel hood" term to all variants of the McKay speciality. Maybe there's something better that would more clearly identify the McKay structure, but I'm not going to be the one to suggest what that should be called! Trevor

You are very welcome! I doubt that is possible. Free-swinging means no glue. I used one nail and peened the end, forming a river-like arrangement. The kit-supplied rope (really a fine cord but rope at scale) is very slippery and does not hold knots well. You did well to pick Ashley's #290 as it is an angler's knot, chosen because it holds in the stiff, slippery lines typically used with road and reel. Half-hitch and glue should work but I got very annoyed trying to lash down the tack of the sail using the kit's material. For most else, I just pushed the kit-supplied cordage aside and used better material. From what I see on MSW, that's often the best solution with even high-quality kits. Skimping on cordage seems the first way to economize for many manufacturers. If the hole is little larger than the line passed through it, a single overhand knot is fine. For a rather larger hole, use a figure-of-eight (Ashley #520) for seamanlike neatness, though two overhand knots will do just as well, if the second is tied on top of the first (not two knots in line, each as thick a the other), so long a they are tucked out of sight -- such as under the stern quarter knees of the pram!). Ashley has many alternatives for still-larger stopper knots, though most would not be practical in a model. Trevor On the endless learning about ships, seamanship and seafaring ... The professionals would tell you that, even after a lifetime at sea, they never stop learning. The rest of us can only struggle along in their wakes. But a lesson for today: "Rope" is a material. Once some length of it is cut off, given whatever treatment it needs (ends spliced around thimbles, perhaps), at sea it is rarely "a rope" and more often "a line" (as well as having its own name, such as sheet, shroud, stay etc.). There are "ropes" on shipboard, foot ropes, manropes and the like, but generally "rope" is a material from which "lines" are made. But not everything that looks a bit like rope is properly called "rope". At the upper end, there are cables (made by twisting ropes together) which are arguably not "rope". At the lower end, there are sizes that cascade down through cords to twine and threads, which nobody would call "rope". That gets even more difficult with models, as a heavy cable at full size gets represented by a thin cord at scale. I tend to fall back on calling the whole lot "cordage", which does for everything from twine to cable at full size. (I doubt that anyone would call sewing thread "cordage", until it is used in modelling as a representation of cord.) Enough pontificating for one morning!

I hope you don't, Rob! Requests for clarity in your account of what you have found and for your evidence shouldn't be disheartening. Not half as much as your discovery will be to all of those people who have built models of McKay clippers and must now face the probability that those models are badly wrong 🥲 Sometime soon, I may finish an extended essay on Sovereign of the Seas (the 1638 one) which, among other things, will argue that just about every model yet made of that remarkable ship has very badly misrepresented the prototype. I'd say they are all "laughably wrong", except that I see no amusement in demolishing the achievements of others. How many thousands of people (many far more skilled than I will ever be) have spent how many millions of hours, and millions of dollars, on those models? Yet I can't find even one that I wouldn't dismiss at a glance. That's a lot of people who have reason to be disheartened. I think what you are saying is that the arrangement clearly seen on Glory of the Seas, which you (and I think you are saying that it was you, in the plural) have called a "navel hood", was a McKay signature feature, used on many (all?) of his clippers but not by other builders. I'm assuming that you have reviewed the available evidence, so I'll accept your conclusion. (I'm certainly not about to repeat your research!) The structure is clearly more than just decorative and provides enhanced lateral support for the uppermost part of the stem -- far more support than Great Admiral had, to cite only ClipperFan's recent example. Do you think it may also have given some extra lift when the ship plunged into a head sea -- as a step towards the flare that could more easily be built into a steel ship than a wooden one? Yet, as I have argued before, there was nothing secret about that navel hood. It was right there before the eyes of every sailor and shipwright in every port that a McKay clipper visited. So why wasn't it replicated by other builders? Did others not see the point? Or was it professional courtesy and professional pride, discouraging each builder from copying a fellow artist's signature? Maybe there is a comment in a letter or notebook somewhere that could provide answers but I rather doubt that we can ever know. Trevor

That I can answer. You "bend" a sail to a spar. That's true whether you use a continuous lacing, as in the pram, or separate lengths of twine or rope at each eyelet or cringle, which is normal for large sails. If the lengths are separate, they are called "robands", probably a shortening of "rope bands". Trevor

You have studied the primary evidence concerning McKay's ships and, from what I can discern here, you have studied the material closely. I'm interested in the conclusions you have reached but not interested enough to drop other research and delve into the evidence myself. So I can comment (hopefully helpfully!) on what you say but I'm limited and, in the end, can only defer to your judgement. As to why a draughtsman leaves something blank: There are probably too reasons. Either he thinks it very important and does not what to reveal his secrets (and I could point to examples of that) or else the thing left out had no interest for him, at least in the particular drawing (and lots of examples of that too!). The image you posted last evening, labelled "original plans", shows the lines plans. Maybe McKay simply didn't want to engage with purely decorative detail when drawing the lines of his creation. I do agree that any figurehead must be firmly fastened to the hull, or it would swiftly be lost. (Attached to the hull and not, I strongly suspect, to the bowsprit -- though if someone produces evidence to the contrary, I would not be shocked.) 2D imagery can fudge the details of the connection but 3D models should have some realistic structural link. If you find that past models lack that (maybe have only an angel's feet resting on solid timber), then they are clearly deficient. I applaud your efforts to do better! A thought: Some figures, once moved to museums and examined off their ships, prove to be sort of 3-sided, with a deep slot running where a human spine should be. If one of the various pieces that make up the upper stem (the stem itself, gammon knee, cutwater etc.) was extended forwards, it would be possible to insert that piece into the slot in the figure, bolt all together and have the figure well attached without a casual viewer noticing how the attachment was achieved.

I've been bending sail to spars since I was a kid, but I can't answer your question! I don't know whether I would call the lashing "rigging", though I tend to think not. But I have no idea whether that could be considered "correct" or not (in so far as any terminology can really be "correct" or "incorrect"). I think you mean the luff (the leading edge of the sail). That won't be parallel to the mast at all. It is a lug sail, meaning that the yard projects forward of the mast. The upper part of the luff will necessarily be ahead of the mast and the lower part abaft it. Nothing parallel. Trevor

I'll offer a couple of wild guesses: Companionways strike me as the kind of thing that would be decorated in whatever way the current captain of a ship wished (and, in Nelson's day, was willing to pay for out of his own pocket). I also suspect that they were the sort of thing that got worn out and replaced by the ship's carpenter at intervals, besides being discarded overboard when going into action or else shattered by shot if kept in place. I'll go beyond guesses and say that it is near-certain that no 1805 companionway survived aboard Victory for modern study, so the examination of deeply-buried paint chips (which has informed understanding of her external colours) hasn't been possible. So ... there may be no good contemporary evidence and no standard to apply. Maybe I'm wrong and someone else can point to something more definite, but I'd say that it's up to the model builder to choose something that looks right. Maybe something that looks like oak that has been both well-oiled and well-rubbed (by seamen's feet!)? There are a lot of contemporary illustrations of life aboard warships of that era, some by professional artists, others by officers sketching for their journals. At least one shows a companionway, so there is some evidence of their shape and form, though the companionway from quarterdeck to wardroom was, very likely, far more elaborate than the ones between the lower and main decks! Trevor

There is an old adage to the effect of : "A ship is her own advertisement". Ships move around the seas, visiting the ports where there is trade for their particular kind. They are big, impossible to hide, and draw the eyes of seamen. Thus, there were (and are, for modern vessels) no secrets in the external appearance of a ship -- none that can be kept for long anyway. I have no doubt that McKay developed, then kept to himself, ways to draught the lines of a ship that produced a shape which was efficient as a fast cargo carrier. Many another shipwright has kept the secrets of his craft to himself: Pett famously valued his "models" (likely 2-dimensional ones) above the actual ships that the Dutch burned in the Medway in 1667, to give but one example. Also, long, narrow, wooden ships with sharp ends pose extreme structural challenges, made no easier when internal volume for stowing cargo was a key concern. The solutions to those challenges are not visible externally and McKay may well have kept quiet about the built-up keelsons, diagonal bracing, maybe even hogging trusses, that he used. Amongst other unique ideas, he may well have added additional bracing to the uppermost stem, then hidden that behind a decorated elaboration of the navel hoods. But he would not have had any reason to delete any of his ships' external appearance from illustrations, because all of his competitors were free to examine the real thing to their hearts' content, while standing on a wharf. So, I cannot agree with: Trevor

Getting a rudder to work in the broken water flow at a ship's stern was always a major challenge -- hence the fining away of the sections far aft, which then led to problems of hogging, with the weight of the after castle not supported by buoyancy directly below. The leading edge must certainly be as wide as the post, lest little eddies break off the sides of the post and coat the rudder (which would have the same effect as stalling an aircraft's wings). Curiously, there was some opinion in the 18th Century that the trailing edge of the rudder should be thicker than its leading edge -- the opposite of modern notions of hydrodynamic efficiency. They may not have been wrong: At the low speeds normal for sailing vessels, eddies shed off the trailing edge may have created some sort of suction effect, adding to the turning force. Boat rudders were a bit different, as the blade could be proportionate longer (leading to trailing edge). They could have escaped the problem entirely by projecting below the boat's keel, but that doesn't seem to have been normal until the yachting world got involved. Trevor

If you are trying to represent the treenails of full-size vessels, those are about an inch or inch-and-a-half in diameter, so a bit less than 1/32 at 1:50. That would be close enough to be going on with though. Trevor

Looking good!

Fantastic, JacquesC! I dream of one day finishing the half-hull much as you have. For me, it is only a dream but you have succeeded. Fabulous! Trevor

I agree and not only for protection from seas: You don't want any of the ship's other gear bashing a boat's rudder, nor the obstruction of the rudder when moving other gear around. Come to that, when putting a boat overboard, using tackles from the mainstay and yard-arm, you don't want anything sticking out and making it even harder to avoid getting hung up on the shrouds, braces and all else. Rudders and tillers neatly shipped, while a boat is aboard, annoy me nearly as much as flags streaming aft while a ship is sailing with her yards squared. Of course, any model is a stylized, simplified representation of full-size reality. Hence any model builder is free to represent that reality as he (or she) pleases. But some things still grate me the wrong way 😖 Brady's "Kedge Anchor" ought to have some comment on how boats were stowed in USN practice, but I can't find much in my reprint. He does say that the bo's'un must inspect the boats on the booms every day after sunset. Also he recommended that, in the tropics, the boats should be uncovered after sunset "in order that they may benefit by the dew and air", the covers being "made up" and placed in the bow of the boat -- all of which strongly suggests that, under other circumstances, the boats were covered, as Dowmer suggested! Trevor

Too small for a man to stand up in: Tell him to sit down and stop acting like an idiot!

There is a danger to including painted figures in a finished model. Unpainted "ghosts" seem useful for giving a sense of scale, particularly during a build, but a finished, painted figure in the wrong clothes, the wrong posture or engaged in the wrong activity will stand out like a sore thumb -- something like putting a post-1803 white ensign on an 18th Century British warship, an ensign on the jackstaff or the union flag at the mainmast truck. Which means that the model builder doesn't just need to study period ships, their rigging, guns, boats, the handling of their sails etc. etc. but must also engage with costume studies and the social history of the kind of ship presented. To take Nelson's Victory in 1805 as an example: Commissioned officers did not wear boots but buckled shoes, silk stockings and knee breeches. Common seamen were invariably barefoot. Midshipmen and gunroom officers probably followed their betters but most petty officers went barefoot. The officers' uniforms were not very uniform, while the common herd had no uniform at all (aside from the crew of the Admiral's barge or the Captain's gig, who might be dressed up at the expense of the officer in question, if he so chose). And that's the easy stuff, for which historical evidence exists. How would you dress the crew of small trading or fishing vessels of the same era? Or the men aboard an Elizabethan galleon? For those willing to do the research, then develop the skills needed for modelling human figures, there's a huge open field for talent. But it's a big field 😀 Trevor

Different prototypes too. The Model Shipways dory is a model of a longer, hence proportionately narrower and shallower, boat. Trevor

I have been following your discussion with interest, though without enough detailed knowledge of McKay's creations to judge amongst the disagreements. However, there is one point at which I fear a misunderstanding has crept in. Maybe it's just terminological confusion but I think those are two entirely unrelated things. "Hood end" usually means the end of a plank that fits into the rabbet on stem or post (or else a similar end elsewhere in a ship's structure, such as on a wing transom). I have no idea of the etymological derivation of that. Maybe from something Dutch?) In contrast, "Navel hood" seems to have originally meant a "hood" (analogous to a head covering) around the hawse holes -- though I do not doubt you are right that McKay extended the decorative elements of the original into a covering for timbers bracing the upper stem -- timbers replacing the old "cheeks of the head", between which the original navel hoods filled a space to prevent the cables from chafing on the angles of the cheeks. "Navel", in that setting, probably meant simply "centre" (from which English separately derives the anatomical navel), as in "between the cheeks". Which brings me to: That is to say that, at the load waterline (hence far below the navel hoods) the horizontal angle of the outer planks, relative to the centreline of the ship, was so narrow that it continued the bevel of the cutwater. It's a bit of a meaningless, almost journalistic, superlative, as the cutwater could readily be given a 45-degree (or even wider) bevel. What is clear is that it has nothing whatever to do with the navel hoods. Likewise for: That describes the bolting of the ends of the planks -- each pair (one starboard, one port) through-bolted with the bolt passing through the stem. Nothing to do with navel hoods. Trevor Related (by marriage) to Nova Scotian McKays -- though from the opposite end of the Province from Donald's birthplace!

Yup. Especially if you wrap them around the bit of tube, as the instructions suggest. Trevor

Very nice!

It does look a bit lifeless, while the link between blade and shaft looks weak, for something that has to transfer the oarsman's pull. The vase images present some interesting blade shapes, probably stylized but maybe something to work with in developing a shape. Otherwise, oars always look better with the shaft, loom and handle suitably tapered. But that's a lot of work with so many to make! Trevor

You're getting ahead of me, Venti! I'm still trying to shape a piece into the tiller I want for my pram. I'm not sure that anyone else has either. I should be ready to try this weekend. If it works, I'll explain my solution in my log. If it doesn't, I'll keep the swearing private! You'll have seen how the kit instructions keep swerving between describing the model and describing the full-size prototype. I'm fairly sure that "bolts" is intended to mean the full-size equivalent of the kit-supplied nails ... except that most of the kits that have reached MSW members seem to have been supplied with a size of nail far too large for the task! Trevor