Jump to content
MORE HANDBOOKS ARE ON THEIR WAY! We will let you know when they get here. ×
Model Machines LLC – Byrnes Model Machines - machines to be back in production soon. ×

rwiederrich

NRG Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,502

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rwiederrich

  1. rwiederrich
    I've done that already. Ron's depiction shows the waterline 3ft higher then the 22' recorded and his curve of the stem is all off because he does not take into consideration the Naval hood above the figurehead. So his stem curve become the top of the Hood. I've done some redraws over the 1/8" example Mike gave me and I left the original lines drawn by Ron so one can see the difference. I'll post this when I get home. Rob
  2. rwiederrich
    The key to a firm conclusion was to eliminate the usual incline of the ways...which I determined was roughly 3deg established from plumb derived from her port anchor shank and martingale. Establishing that, I could determine the horizontal..by which I was able to work out the true plumb/vertical of the hull. From there, easily determine that the inclination of the bow below the radios of the stem(57%) was -7deg. All of this combined with your own assessments and observations/impressions...places the truth of her bow within our grasp. This...being evidenced by Mike's own admission that he wants Ron to readdress his own drawings. Success favors the prepared mind...and we have several minds working in concert. I will again apply my measurements to a 1/8" enlargement of the bow Ron drew to see the corrections necessary. Rob
  3. rwiederrich
    I think that might be a great idea. I did ask Mike what images he was referencing that he said he gave Ron. Are they from his extensive collection, or are they some that we have been drawing? I hope the latter. Rob
  4. rwiederrich
    Robert....Mike is sending Ron images via snail-mail...and he informs me that he just sent some to him and he doesn't expect to hear from him for several weeks. He communicates via email and snail-mail. Mike is requesting that Ron revisit his drawings and use some of these new images to aid him. Rob
  5. rwiederrich
    This image shows the bow clearly and almost to the keel foot... Rob
  6. rwiederrich
    Dang Michael....you've spoiled us with your perfect example of woodworking.....and metal working. Rob
  7. rwiederrich
    Richard...remember the Donald McKay's lines are pretty close to Glory's...apart from the more vertical stem below the waterline. So close but not full enough.
  8. rwiederrich
    Just for giggles....here are some more images of her bow...photos and paintings Though in the painting, her cheek ornamentation (beneath/behind her figurehead) did not extend onto her hull.
  9. rwiederrich
    I wish to share an edited email I received from Michael. It sheds some light on our discussion. The main reason why I want to be patient. "We have to remember that both Patterson and Walters were both professionals but that they were not infallible (Other artists such as Charles Waldron, George Ekren---who commanded Glory in 1902, William Coulter, and several others also made paiintings of her. Whereas, the actual photos do not lie and the launching image which distinctly shows her stem as straight below the waterline can be discerned when you put a straight edge next to the photo image. That is one of the images Ron Haug worked from when he did his drawing and he has the skills developed from being a shipwright for all of his working life (he is 83 years old). I will be writing him a letter this coming week and I will send him copies of photos (I don;t recall what ones I sent to him ten years ago) and ask him to see whether he sees anything different than what he did. Please note that I have close to 80 drawings which Ron has done over the years and this includes his preparing drawings of many of McKay's clippers. He not only worked from builder's models but also worked from offsets preserved in U. S. Customs records held by National Archives. These offsets, derived from Custom House admeasurements are the actual dimensions derrived by government employes to establish gross and net tonnages by actually measuring the interior of a hull according to Custom House regulations. Unfortunately, the original admeasurement for Glory was burned in a filre at the Boston Custom House in the year 1893 so we have to 'guess' what she looked like other than photo analysis. My 'challenge' is indexing all of my existing photographs and catagorizing them by period. When you figure, I first started gathering information on Glory of the Seas back in the year 1957 and thereafter have accomulated photos of her besides getting copies of plans drawn by a number of people My goal is to incorporate this into a revised set of plans similar in format to those I drew in 1979" Rob
  10. rwiederrich
    The ultimate consequence of using the medium of wood to construct your creations. All I can suggest is that you, as myself, wait for Michael to provide photographic evidence to aid in any conclusive decision concerning her lines. Physical evidence(such as what we are gathering) is tough/hard evidence....and we both see the same things in each photograph....but Michael assures me there are so many more images to scour through that any premature conclusions....regardless of how convinced we may be from what we have already gathered, so we must be patient to gather all available data. And Brother...we haven't seen everything. But if this is all we had...then I think we could be close. Keep at it...your tenacity is assuring. Rob
  11. rwiederrich
    One reason why I am holding out from making a final decision...waiting on Michael to provide more images to aid in either aiding in our conclusions or diminishing them all together. Tell Michael we are so excited and the passion for accuracy is what drives us to be as precise as possible. Rob
  12. rwiederrich
    Michael tells me that her gunwal was over 6'....Evidenced by first hand accounts of her crew commenting on how high her sides were from deck level...making a simple look over her sides a near impossibility for the average sailor. This causes one to conclude that all those folks hanging over her rail amidships in her launching image..must have been standing on something on the deck....possibly finishing lumber or kneeling on her pin rail. See how tall her sides were. Great sleuthing..... Rob
  13. rwiederrich
    Here are some more measurements. thangle hasd to be reversed from the line drawn down from the martingale. the 90deg is established from the line of the keel. Note the 90deg on the hull. All of the angles are noted. Remember the ship was on her ways..probably(from my measurements was roughly 3deg. It appears from my measurements that the incline of the stem was roughly 83deg, I noted both angles for the stem curve from the cutwater to the figurehead. One from true plum(from the martingale) and one from the actual 90deg. from keel horizontal. Upon further eval it appears the curve of the stem is a slight paraboloid. But photographic anomalies might be at play..due to the angle of the photograph. Your view/opinion up to now? Rob
  14. rwiederrich
    Isn't it interesting that in the top picture..she retains her royal masts....but this is after she received her helm house up in the mizzen....but when she was first hauled up to Alaska she didn't have the helm house nor the royal masts..not to mention the backstays required to maintain them. Just another weird mystery. Rob
  15. rwiederrich
    Where did you get that...I want one. Just found one and bought it...yeah! Rob
  16. rwiederrich
    Here is another image with some elevations and measurements...note the slight angle to the bow from true perpendicular/vertical. Rob
  17. rwiederrich
    Indeed your arguments are compelling for sure..and one who has a keen eye myself..can't find fault in your evaluation, however I still think it best to wait for further images coming from Michael before we conclude anything. I made some further measurements to the Launching image and found the curve of her prow is spherical from the foot of the figurehead to the cutwater/coppers edge..then flowing at a slight 5 or so degrees aft and down to the keel head. This is so fun, I hope our enthusiasm doesn't fail us for impatience. Rob
  18. rwiederrich
    Thought I had that book...but I do now... Thanks. Rob
  19. rwiederrich
    Either plum will provide adequate reference. Good thing we are not trying to compensate for Chromatic anomalies that were prevalent in the lenses of cameras of the period...such as coma and astigmatism. It takes an educated and attuned eye to compensate for all the aberrations we are working against...but I think we are roping her in. Rob
  20. rwiederrich
    Clipperfan....I took your original image that we all know of Glory on the ways...prior to her launching, and added plumb lines off the anchor and the martingale. then I drew the keel inclination. It is clear the horizon point is evident in the progression to the distance. Now you can see the stem inclination...it is evident it is NOT vertical...but as you can see the right angle established from the conjuncture of the X and Y axis is slightly off...due to the horizontal incline...formed from the angle of exposure. Basically a distortion from the angle were the picture was taken. I believe you were attempting to describe this effect yourself. Any input? Rob
  21. rwiederrich
    I wanna see... Rob
  22. rwiederrich
    Ashore...it was socially prudent and morally acceptable to be respectable and honorable of the female figure....Buuuut when at sea me hearties were bold, brash and lusty. I think clipper ships were far more accepting of partially nude figureheads then any military vessel. They tended to burnish military , animal or inanimate subjects. Clipper figureheads represented the physique of the vessel...Beautiful! Rob
  23. rwiederrich
    Clipperfan.....for as much work that has already gone into devising the most accurate hull for Glory...your position is far from without merit and I agree. Because I, as you recall, made the same measurements and calculations as you did and presented them myself...but with evidence like the new beach image of her profile it makes determinations that much unclear. Too much distortion for sure. Before I make my final decision, I want tot wait and see more photographs from Michael. Beautiful work by the way....I appreciate your efforts for sure. Rob
  24. rwiederrich
    Vladimir, I know too well your own interest in Glory since are conversations last year. Michael Mjelde has been so gracious and he is truly a Vault of information. Still...it is hard to settle on a final drawing until one is fully confident it represents the most accurate depiction...again..this is difficult because it is based on photographic and artistic evidence....which is highly subjective.....relying upon the observers perceptions and perspective. Then again Michael has informed me that he possesses many more photographs of Glory that have never been published...one in particular of a head on view of her in Donald McKay's yard before launching. This may show us the true sweep of her bow curves. Waiting for these additional photographs of Glory from Michael(and there are over a hundred), I am hesitant to make any final conclusions of her true dimensions. Michael is considering allowing me to correct the models stem that he brought to my house and also to finish her...that will be a thrill for sure. Thanks for the fine compliments Rob
  25. rwiederrich
    Several point I’d like to make. One, I think the new drawing doesn’t represent the curve of the stem nor the hood very accurately. Though that may not be the focus of the corrected stem and entry compared to Mike’s original drawing. Secondly, I think the unclear example you presented can’t be held without its own issues.......namely the ever exaggerated sweeping cut water. , which I think is too extreme, based on other photographs. Apart from some minor corrections to the foot of the figurehead and the length of the hood , I think my representation mostly mimics that of the last image I posted of her on the beach...and that of her launching photos. Please remember, I still need to correct the curve of her rail. Please correct me if you find fault in my assessment.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...