ClipperFan

When both @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa did a re-evaluation of their aft forecastle deck height, we were looking for a little more supporting documentation to prove a higher bulkhead. In an aft scene on Glory of the Seas a ship's boy atop the boy's cabin faces us as we look forward. We discovered the ship's carpenter in a low crouch repairing a ladder. The molded forecastle bulkhead towered behind him. It was much higher than on their models. Michael Mjelde once again gave us the evidence we needed. He sent us an article with proof that internal height of the forecastle deck was precisely 5 feet 9 inches. Measurement was precise as done by surveyors who had to be accurate for new windlass installation. Putting forecastle deck height above at 6 feet, (since deck thickness was 3 & 1/2 inches) exactly as described by Duncan McLean in his article. That was also the Glory of the Seas main rail height. Which means, even if Crothers' statement that decks were kept level to maintain a safe working environment, they still followed main rail heights most likely by rising in increments. As a result, Rob and my assertions that McKay's earlier clippers with low forecastle heights had to have had sunken decks to create sufficient space for crew accommodations and enough space to mount a windlass below are still accurate. Providing such accommodations would mean the aft forecastle bulkhead would have been enclosed with windows to provide light and ventilation. We realize this may be considered controversial but it fits with historic documentation.

@sob Scott, fair enough. Just to reassure you, I doubt that the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston would include this piece as part of 84 other works by Kern if they couldn't have verified the provenance thoroughly.

@sob Scott. I don't quite understand what you meant by you're not sure "the artist was in the right place at the right time." The actual inscription is on the painting itself done by the artist: "sketch of the AM. Clipper "Flying Cloud" laying off Whampoa" June '54 Kern delt. (artist: Edward Mayer Kern per Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) What brings you to be unsure of anything about the accuracy of this piece?

@sob Scott, as you're now starting to recognize, all these beautifully crafted models (Lloyd McCaffrey's is definitely the finest miniature) suffer from being inaccurate when compared to historic documents and original contemporary art. It's like the computer analogy "garbage in, garbage out." A shame too because there's no finer miniature craftsman then Lloyd McCaffery. In the case of Flying Cloud she again has a bare stem, no navel hood or percievable cutwater and as a result her angel figurehead sits awkwardly below the bowsprit. In addition, her hawse hole is typically too high and lacks the iron molding seen on Glory of the Seas which looks unfinished. I remember seeing deck scenes and her forecastle has no accommodations for crew either; with a windlass stuffed underneath where it would be practically impossible to service. He does model a correctly small rear portico entrance to the poop deck however. All these inaccuacies helps to drive home why Rob and I both feel so strongly that where possible the record needs to be set straight for current and future modelers. As your well developed site is a big draw and resource we hope you will ally with us in promoting these corrections. We believe that our years long investigative and slavishly faithful Glory of the Seas reconstruction can lead the way. Thanks in great measure to Michael Mjelde's six decades of research and help supplying us so many historic photographs. We believe this can lead all of us to a greater revelation as to the authentic appearance of McKay's clippers. It's the reason why I consider Glory of the Seas to be the "Rosetta Stone" of McKay clippers.

@rwiederrich Rob, I suspect the sheer dimension was supplied to McLean by the McKay shipyard. It's the lowest point of the vessel between bow and stern. In the case of Glory of the Seas I reviewed many different photographs to ascertain the location of that point.

@sob Scott, by any chance did Bruce Lane describe what colors this piece was originally painted in?

@rwiederrich Rob and @sob Scott, by the time McLean wrote his article, Flying Cloud would have been already launched. The line of the planksheer would have been fancy molding which continued as the upper molding of the navel hoods which both gradually curved inwards to a point just above and behind a figurehead's shoulders. The starboard broadside on Glory of the Seas shows this perfectly while the earlier Champion of the Seas daguerrotype confirms this but it's much harder to see due to the great distance and more oblique angle.

@sob Scott, as I said earlier, I do have great respect for the in-depth documents you have gathered for everyone in your terrific subco website. Case in point are these ultra rare paintings. Chinese export paintings are a favorite of mine since they're usually very colorful. It would be lovely view this piece in its original colors if it's possible. Meanwhile, again this monotone reproduction shows the sleek hull Flying Cloud had, again with a gracefully curving prow. Here her winged angel figurehead is unfortunately so blurry that she has a bird like appearance. The vessel's portrayed with all topsails set, courses and royals fueled, two jib sails and her large spanked sail set. Old glory flowing backwards indicates she's sailing against the wind. Chinese export works like these usually had pre-painted backgrounds. The artist would paint the ship in according to the captain's wishes. Again a beautiful portrait of a lovely tall ship.

@sob Scott, since the museum said these are free to download, I felt it's OK to share them here. This is the June 1854 watercolor sketch of Flying Cloud anchored at Whampoa. As you said, very few on site paintings exist of her. Not surprising when you consider the busy life of a clipper and the fact that in order to capture a complete image, the artist would have to be a great distance away. That's taking into account that they're staring at a vessel which is over 200 feet long with an approximately 60 foot long bowsprit. At such a distance, specific details would be very difficult to make out. Having said that, it's still possible to discern a long, apparently carved and gilded device which terminates just behind and above an outstretched winged, trumpet bearing angel figurehead which appears to be all white with a golden trumpet. Note too how her razor sharp bow profile includes a gracefully curving cutwater which enhances her stem. Another fact which indicates this was drawn on site is that her jibboom has been retracted. What I find interesting too, is that she also had wooden ladders on her starboard hull similar to those on a man-o-war. This also shows she had a pure black hull with white painted stanchions supporting a rear poop deck rail. Since the artist's viewpoint is apparently at sea level, there's practically no deck details to make out. Overall, this is a lovely restful watercolor. It would be fascinating to see if this artist did any other works of this beautiful McKay extreme clipper.

Stad Amsterdam is a quite lovely scaled down clipper replica. I really appreciate seeing how the yards have been stepped to take better advantage of the winds higher up.

@sob Scott, if you have any pictures of those other models, I'd love to see them. Meanwhile, I tried to lighten up the Champion of the Seas daguerrotype to make some details easier to see. This is the only other bow photo there is of a McKay clipper. Rob and I see a great similarity between this 1854 vessel and Glory of the Seas launched 15 years later. This tells us that, while he constantly revised his hull profiles in pursuit of improvement, Donald McKay was remarkably consistent in his bow treatments.

@sob Scott and @rwiederrich the large 1900s Boucher Flying Cloud models are my most favorite replicas. The realistic, lifelike depiction of her billowing sails is the most impressive I've ever seen. The second one is in the library of the Addison Gallery, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA. There are slight differences in the sail arrangements. Still, typical of all models, she has a few mistakes. Starting at the bow, there's no navel hood, practically no cutwater, her trumpet bearing angel figurehead, besides lacking wings is out of scale too large. The hawse hole is too high. She has no accommodations for crew in her forward forecastle which has a windlass stuffed in an area that's unworkable. Further back she has a rear portico which doesn't match that of Stag Hound described as a small square portico. Basically a simple entrance way to stern apartments below. Finally, she has dual poop deck capstans which were not mentioned by McLean.

@sob Scott, I applaud your efforts to reconcile these obviously erroneous plans with the factual account. As you correctly point out, Flying Cloud had no trailboard. You'll also note that this plan lacks any form of a cutwater or navel hood. I suspect that these type of plans were intended for mantle piece decorations and so attention to accuracy wasn't high on priorities.

@rwiederrich Rob, another confusing issue has to do with the hawse hole location. On 1854 Champion of the Seas and 1869 Glory of the Seas the hawse hole location is located just below the carved navel hoods. There are many images of Glory of the Seas which prove this but only the one daguerrotype of Champion of the Seas which is harder to see. However all modern plans of Flying Cloud, Flying Fish, Sovereign of the Seas and Lightning have their hawse hole mounted much higher, leaving no possible room for a navel hood as seen on the only two clipper ships we have evidence of. Possibly another reason it's hard to envision these navel hoods because of this higher hawse hole placement interference.

@sob Scott, regardless if you have a different interpretation of three components that comprised the bow on McKay's extreme clipper Flying Cloud it's impossible to deny that the ship was equipped with them. Stem, cutwater, navel hoods, all three somehow are described by Duncan McLean a fellow sailor Scottsman and friend of Donald McKay who's shipyard supplied exacting specs to him for publication. In addition, he specified that whatever you envision navel hoods to be, they had to be external and large enough to support some form of carvings as well. Using the Alexander Hall lines of Mary McKay's historic tracing, I have clearly demonstrated how it's feasible to incorporate all three components and still provide for a full-sized trumpet bearing winged angel. Disagree with my interpretation? Fine. I have no bone to pick with you. But I do strongly feel that in order to do justice to specifics published way back in 1851, you do need to devise your own interpretation to incorporate these components beyond just a bare stem. Since I'm not a modeler I usually am not involved in these groups but I would like to learn more.

@sob Scott, before I forget to do so, I just want to acknowledge the spectacular job you have done on accruing the most substantive library on the McKay extreme clipper Flying Cloud. Besides Lars Bruzelius' excellent nautical site, I've relied on yours for in-depth research on McKay's record setting clipper. As for Rob's craftsmanship, besides his incredible talent, what I really credit Rob, as well as Vladimir for is their dedication to achieving meticulous accuracy in our group effort to reconstruct Glory of the Seas. I also give great credit to Michael Mjelde for his surprising humility in recognizing a critical mistake in his initial erroneous sheer and bow profile. When given updated information he readily embraced it and worked graciously with us to correct his oversight. As for sheer, in both articles McLean actually describes sheer on Stag Hound as being 2 & 1/2 feet and on Flying Cloud as 3 feet. Why you state other vessels didn't sink from a split bow escapes me. All I did was share word for word McLean's evaluation of the bow structure on Flying Cloud. He merely stated that loss of her cutwater wouldn't affect her safety or cause a leak. Your final statement is even more confusing to me. Nowhere in his write up did Duncan McLean ever mention an extended navel hood. It's Rob and I who have been using a phrase that the navel hoods were an extension of the bow configuration. One of the challenges we do face is that McLean writes very sparsly in his descriptions. Facts that we do know are this: Flying Cloud, Stag Hound both were equipped with a stem, a cutwater and navel hoods. That for sure is included in both descriptions. A singular cutwater is the curving extension piece beyond the stem and attaches directly to it. Thats what creates the vessel's sharp profile. We believe what possibly contributed to the reputation of McKay clippers being consistently fast sailers could be this stalwart bow construction allowing them to part strong seas more effectively. One item that may be a bit confusing, leading you to think it's improbable to have McKay's early clippers equipped with navel hoods is an apparent lack of depth to accommodate them. Rob helped me out with this issue. While the internal main rail height was 5 feet, due to a 1 foot high internal waterway at the base, an external sheerline molding attached to that would have been about 4 feet deep instead. In conclusion, we have great respect for your enthusiasm for McKay's clippers. We're just honestly trying to share discoveries which will further improve accuracy of the models of his magnificent ships.

Trevor, last summer on the way to spending a long Anniversary weekend at the Break Hotel, Narragansett, RI my wife Peggy and I detoured to Hyannis, Cape Cod to view Athene, the classical Greek goddess figurehead which once graced McKay's last clipper Glory of the Seas. The owners were gracious enough to allow me to take multiple pictures and at the husband's insistence, was able to even touch her. He also pointed out the remains of a thick iron bar which pierced her back to which she was mounted to the stem-navel hood combination behind her. I know there's some dispute about where the devices we call navel hoods terminate. Here's my take on it. By having hoods mount up to a figurehead's shoulders (apparent on both 1854 Champion of the Seas and 1869 Glory of the Seas) they do double duty. They give shelter and a sturdy mounting point. Meanwhile, the figurehead's feet are mounted to the cutwater below, creating a dual point protected mount. Here's how I see the structural components. The stem to which all strakes mount has a cutwater attached to it. This is the graceful curving component which extends the bow profile about 7' outward. These two components are in turn sandwiched between by the large wedge shaped nautical devices which we believe McLean refers to as navel hoods. They are laminated, curving tapered pieces that are roughly 14' long and large enough to support carvings. As seen on Glory of the Seas, the cutwater also had gold leaf embellished carvings as well. This complex design since it adhered so closely to the ship's hull was an ingenious extension of the vessel's prow. It also provided a substantial support for the massive bowsprit and jibboom spars installed just above. As I pointed out before, such a clever design bears no resemblance at all to naval hoods which usually didn't mount so tightly to a vessel's hull.

@sob to substantiate the success of our intensive investigation into virtually every section of McKay's final clipper, here's just a few pics of @rwiederrich 1:96 scale replica Glory of the Seas. After viewing this magnificent piece in person, non other than author Michael Mjelde himself declared that Rob's recreation is the finest model ever produced. To give you an idea of the evolution involved in this, to me incredible achievement, I'm sharing Michael Mjelde's own highly detailed deck and sheer profile. As well thought out and carefully researched as this was, it unfortunately was also inaccurate. At different times, Rob and I both concluded that this error was due to reliance on one particular scene: the 1869 Glory of the Seas fitting out in East Boston harbor. I've included the original as well as a close up of her hull. You'll note how closely the photo's sheer profile matches the sketch. This also demonstrates challenges faced in trying to accurately capture these magnificent ships. If you've ever seen these vessels in person, you realize you need to get a great distance away in order to view the whole ship, especially a tall one. This presents a particular challenge as perspective distortion gets introduced. Recognizing this, we set about to compensate for it. Before the 1907 scene of Glory of the Seas docked at San Pedro became available, I sketched this conjectural sail plan of her. Note how her prow more accurarely reflects her actual appearance. The point I'm making is that a bare stem alone can't possibly achieve this gracefully curving prow. A hallmark of McKay's clippers. Here again are the lines of Flying Cloud which I'm sure you'll recognize and which you apparently staunchly still defend. In your construct, the angelic figurehead tacks onto the notch in the bare stem. That gives no room for either cutwater or devices which we refer to as navel hoods. Such a configuration totally ignores the specific description given in McLean's article which not only states existence of a cutwater but also a navel hood large enough to support carvings. It's the prime reason why Rob and I are so insistent that current models are inaccurate when matched up against historic evidence. Even an impressive model which is quite beautiful yet still inaccurate. However you may interpret cutwaters and navel hoods, you must admit that current Flying Cloud models lack either of these nautical devices and still only model a bare stem. I submit to you that by continuing to stubbornly adhere to this contradiction, it promotes a fallacy in modeling and robs McKay models of their more accurately graceful profile. As a result, we continue to see models being produced with bare stems and figureheads awkwardly tacked on in a quite vulnerable position. Compare that somewhat sparse treatment to the more substantial and refined treatment as we see in multiple historic images of the Glory of the Seas. Finally, as a means of comparison I share the 1907 starboard broadside of her at San Pedro with the painting of Flying Cloud. What I see is that the nautical structures practically disappear when seen from a great distance but the vessel's sharp projecting profile is still readily apparent. Once again, however you want to name these devices, a lone cutwater would be too vulnerable without reinforcing protection of those stiffening devices.

@sob my apologies for mixing up my description of navel hood with McLean's historic articles from the 1850s. To clarify what I mean by these devices twisting to adhere to the hull here's a series of Glory of the Seas scenes. They're in chronological order from her shortly before launch in 1869 to approximately 1911. In comparison, I've also included the 1854 Champion of the Seas daguerrotype. Rob and I clearly see the gold-leaf embellished devices behind her sailor figurehead as the same navel hood, cutwater combination as seen 15 years later on Glory of the Seas. This proves that McKay was consistent in application of this unique bow structure. When examining traditional naval hoods, what I have seen is that they're structural pieces but unlike McKay's navel hoods, they're usually not adhering so closely to the ship's hull. It's the main reason why we consider McKay's structures as integral bow extensions.

@sob Scott, that particular quote is mine, as I attempted to help others envision the complex nature of those nautical devices which can be clearly seen in Glory of the Seas photos. Instead what I'll do is share excerpts from the two ships where McLean described the bow arrangement. I apologize in advance if this is material you've already read but I'm also sharing it for others who may not be as familiar with these passages. I'll start with Stag Hound and then proceed to Flying Cloud. After these two, McLean doesn't repeat a description of this bow again. However, based on his sailor's observation of how durable this new design was, we see no reason why McKay would just abandon it. One trait I've noticed in McLean's works, typical I suspect of a fellow Scottsman, is his no nonsense approach to describing these vessels. He doesn't waste much time on carvings or embellishments. So when he describes Stag Hound as a model which may be said to be the original of a new idea in naval architecture, that's saying something. He repeats this assertion near the end of his evaluation. In his description of the McKay bow, he briefly mentions hood ends. Blink and you'll miss it. If you're familiar with the Cornelius McKay hull model you'll see that Stag Hound had a near vertical bow. Yet McLean describes a gracefully curving cutwater which projects beyond the bow. McLean refers to this structure not just as cutwater but her bow too. This is where the genius of the navel hood design joins both stem and cutwater into a powerful prow capable of smashing into the toughest seas on earth. A singular cutwater would be too vulnerable alone. McLean's greater description occurs with Flying Cloud. Here's where he first uses the term navel hood to describe these nautical constructs. However one wants to interpret these navel hoods, they were large enough to accommodate carved work which precludes a simple molded piece like we see on Great Admiral. McLean also states that these vessels had neither head nor trail boards, ruling them out. Further on he makes his most insightful evaluation of the clever ruggedness of this unique bow when he observes that even loss of her cutwater wouldn't affect her seaworthiness. That is saying something.

@Snug Harbor Johnny your words and insight are great encouragement. I may be incorrect but it's my estimation that our small group's recent three year reconstruction of Donald McKay's clipper Glory of the Seas involved the most in-depth and exhaustive investigation into a McKay clipper ship in history. I was inspired by Rob's desire to accurately create a model which merged with my wish to finally see McKay's magnificent vessel be given her true appearance. Our efforts eventually drew attention of author Michael Mjelde who's unquestionably the world's foremost authority on McKay's final clipper. It was his knowledge, guidance, and input involving numerous documents and amazingly clear photos which proved invaluable in our efforts. This discipline led me to re-evaluate other McKay related vessel descriptions by McLean with specific focus on construction dimensions. While studying McKay's premier clipper Stag Hound I read that her forecastle had accommodations for her crew, described as being lofty, well lit and ventilated. Yet forecastle deck height was set at the 5' main rail. That doesn't match with a description of lofty. Further to provide crew accommodations the aft section of the forecastle would have to be enclosed. Windows would be necessary to provide light. Later in the description, stern quarters are 3' below. Rob and I concluded a similar arrangement was set up at the forecastle. Now there's sufficient room for crew. The same quarters were also provided for on the Flying Cloud & Flying Fish. Which means the windlass on these vessels would have been mounted below along with water closets. This makes for a much cleaner working space forward. Another misinterpreted aspect is on the rear coach house on clipper Sovereign of the Seas. Models show a small house yet McLean's description says plainly that the coach house was large with working space on both sides and sufficient space at the stern for steering. Meanwhile, here's a picture of the bow of the Great Admiral which shows that she had an impressive cutwater with carved embellishments but no substantive navel hood as seen on McKay clippers. (Arthur D Edwarde's photographic collection in the State Library of South Australia. They have hundreds of historic images of dozens of clipper ships).

@Kenchington probably the best evidence we have been able to reliably evaluate is a treasure trove of Glory of the Seas historic images. Author Michael Mjelde quite generously shared many rare and in some cases never seen before images of her. Included were multiple views of her complex bow structure. Elements Rob and I interpret to be navel (not naval) hoods are very tight configured devices which are literally an extension of the upper hull. They gracefully twist from a "V" configuration to gradually arrive at a vertical curving point. Contrary to more decorative moldings on other clipper bowed ships and barques, these are three times as big and offer a substantial perch for the large bowsprit-jibboom spars installed just above. Both @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa build logs feature many of these crystal clear images. In fact, true to Duncan McLean's evaluation of the unique toughness of these structures, clipper Glory of the Seas survived a collision when a steam ship accidentally backed into her bow. The only damage she sustained was a cracked upper starboard rail and loss of some cutwater carvings. In his description of the bow construct on Flying Cloud McLean stated that the ship would remain seaworthy even with loss of her cutwater.