ClipperFan

@Rick310 Thanks for the compliment. These incredibly beautiful photos come singularly through the kind generosity of Lori Fidler, Associate Director of Collections, Old State House, Old South Meeting House, 310 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108. This spectacular 173-year-old antique is in storage at their warehouse. Personally, I doubt that it's available to the general public to view but I sent her a request to see if it's a possibility. Perhaps a supervised visit could be arranged. I will let you know her response to this inquiry. Originally, she quoted me $40/hr for maybe a couple hours for two curators to take the artifact out of storage and take pictures for me. However, when she discovered that it wasn't in complex wrapping, she took these photos and waived the fee. Since I'm still attempting to get port broadside photo, head-on fore and aft photos too. The idea is to make best use of this truly unique connection to Donald McKay's visionary inaugural, extreme clipper Stag Hound which Cornelius McKay brilliantly named "the Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet. I'm still trying to chase down the drawing which originally accompanied this remarkably crafted, sole surviving authentic Builder's model. I will also share the 1850 Chinese export painting that Lori kindly shared too. For $25 it's possible to get a copy without the watermark. She was kind enough to send me both low and high-res images for that modest fee. I have her contact info, if you want to message me.

@druxey you're quite welcome. These were all sent to me by a very generous lady at the Old State House Museum, Boston, MA. She also sent me the Chinese export painting of Stag Hound off Hunan Harbor.

Since I can't get enough of this awesome model, I've reoriented, cropped and organized them to improve their viewing.

Rob, You're welcome. I'm still trying to get my ideal fore, aft and broadside pics. This set may be the limit of what's achievable but we'll see. I'm still in awe of how beautifully finished this replica is. I'm not a wood veneer specialist but my best guess is the main lifts appear to be cherry separated by elm with flat black hull finish, possibly on an oak plaque.

While these images aren't very helpful towards our goals of reproducing the most accurate clipper Stag Hound replica, I feel they're still worth seeing. Here, probably for the first time since 1928, is Cornelius McKay's beautifully crafted clipper half hull model. Since he wrote that it was actually modeled while the ship herself was under construction, we know it was built in 1850. For an antique, nearly 174 year old sole surviving Builder's hull model, she has held up very well.

Rob, To answer your legitimate concerns, I first went to the McLean description of Glory of the Seas. What shocked me was that, contrary to expectations, he actually wrote that the focstle deck height was 6 feet! My first thought was "how did I miss this?" I'm glad that we finally, through a convoluted evaluation process, arrived at the correct conclusion. Unfortunately, it required you and Vlad to both do challenging tear downs to achieve the proper scale height. It goes back to the old carpenter's adge: "Measure twice, cut once." I agree with your concept Rob. Just as our "North Star" in the Glory of the Seas project was to create the most faithfully authentic replica, I'm just as fully committed to doing the same for our Stag Hound project. Unless there's documented proof to contradict McLean, I still believe in the historic accuracy of his descriptions. So, while my personal direction was to think of the deck height of the focstle as being at the monkey rail, that's not what McLean says. So, the height is at the main rail. That being so, this leads me to reverse my position and accept that fact. This would necessitate a solid focsle bulkhead, with dual entry port and starboard companions. It makes sense to protect a newly patented, most likely heavier complicated gearing windlass mechanism.

@Rick310 beautiful work on your built lower masts. I particulary appreciate your specific, detailed rendition of each material you used and how you crafted them for your modeling needs. I love the look of your hull. Your's is the closest profile to the gorgeous work of JE Buttersworth, specially commissioned by her owners to celebrate her remarkable firat place win in the Great Atlantic-Pacific Deep Sea Derby of 1852-53. Combined with her lofty rig, your Flying Fish is shaping up to be the finest ever seen!

@Richvee great advice! I've never heard of that approach before. You learn something new every day.

Rob, Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. It's always appreciated. Next, I'll rush to the foscle deck and profile. It all has to fit just as logically as the poop deck does.

Rob, A couple days late and not fully finished to my full standards (missing railings around portico and at least the fore end of the poop deck). But, this layout fits the bill enough for you to proceed. One small addition: another prism light above the rear heads. Since it's unlikely a porthole would be fit in, I figure something had to let in light. As for dimensions, it's a tight fit but 3' wide fits in neatly with all other specs which match up with a 32' great room sometimes also referred to as a salon. I suppose the heads could be made wider and possibly act as inset walls for the large stern double occupancy apartment fit for a family. Regardless, unless you're modeling apartments below, none of this pure speculation matters. Other revisions include a foot deep seating area on all four sides of the skylight. Since I used a 3" overhang, the indent is 9". As the base is 5' and length is 10' that brings inside house dimensions to 3 & 1/2' wide by 8 & 1/2' long. There ends up being exactly 8 equally divided glass sections, which like would have had wooden venetian blind type slats for weather protection, reinforced with brass rods. Both sides would be capable of being propped up and opened in warm weather as well. Further back, I scaled down the companion length to 5' with a 2 & 1/2' sliding top and 1' ends, making it 4 & 1/2' wide. That gives 3' space between the aft of the skylight and companion fore. Exhaust stove fit midway leaves 6 & 1/2' to companion entrance. The space in front of the companion is now 3'. Everything else just looks right now. Note: lines on the illustration are arrow straight. Bends are due to paper not being on a totally flat surface.

Rob, McLean was wrong. McKay's ships all had their focsle deck heights at the monkey rail height. Of that I'm now positive. In every description of a McKay focsle, there's plenty of room for off-duty crew. That's impossible unless the bulkhead height is at the monkey rails. Looking at Crothers' illustration, the "wcs" look overly small, probably not to scale. As far as pushing them back, why not set the focsle bulkhead wall just behind the foward hatch, instead of pushing it back. I need to sketch it out to envision spacing. The patented windlass also appears to be taller but more compact. Another reason the interior focsle deck height is about 6'. Somehow, I'm sure it all works out.

Rob, You're right about the added touch of class that mahogany adds to your skylight seating. It looks very elegant. Nicely done.

Rob, Other than the patented windlass, I'd say yes. In this example the windlass is under the focsle deck but outside fore bulkheads. With all the complex gears of Emerson-Walker patented windlass, I would think McKay would have wanted it enclosed. To leave room inside for crew, I would think a separate enclosed room inside of the focsle would be made. Your thoughts?

Rob, Believe it or not, Crothers' illustration proves part of my point exactly. Look at the lightly dotted line above the windlass beneath. Now notice the twin ladders? They both end at that dotted line, showing that both "wc's" are fully beneath the forecastle deck. Either that or those ladders end up in midair... From the illustration, while the wc's are actually outside the forecastle bulkheads, like you said, they are both fully underneath the forecastle deck, which was my point. So, it looks like we're both half right.... 😉 I lightened up the drawings to make this easier to see. Just like I suggested doors to inside of forecastle are both inside, adjacent to each "wc" too. I would place both ladders a little closer to "wc" walls to make entrance doors to forecastle a bit easier to access.

Rob, It's harder for me to concentrate right now. Somehow, I strained my neck and it's a tough distraction. From what I've read, where McLean refers to forecastle height being at the main rail, he's dead wrong. As you and Vlad learned on Glory of the Seas, that's too damn low. It has to be at monkey rail height. Then, like with Glory there would have been an 18" splashrail, with a 1' waterway type shelf at the base surrounding the forecastle with the same elegant curving point for belaying pins as seen on Glory. One difference I have with portrayal of waterclosets is their being outside of the forecastle. To me, being in the wings of the forecasle implies a flush bulkhead with the 3' wide waterclosets being fully under the forecastle deck. As I've read, the area under the forecastle was sleeping quarters for use of the off-watch crew. As I now see this there possibly was two separate entry doors just inside the wings of the waterclosets and bigger sliding doors for windlass maintenance. If entrance to the waterclosets were inside, then twin ladders could be mounted on the outer edges. Now, since the entire area is closed in, would there have been some windows of any type for light?

Rob That makes total sense. So, essentially her forecastle would be entirely enclosed. I would follow the bulkhead moulding style like we saw on Glory of the Seas. My only caveat would be, in case of a mechanical failure, would they have kept a windless hand crank mechanism as an emergency back up?

Rob, Michael Mjelde told me that, as each Captain took over their craft, they could and often did change the appearance of their ships. Mike once recounted a dizzyiing number of times that had the colors of her structures changed at the whim of each ship's new commander. I can look to verify McKay's use of rich hardwoods in his packets but I'm sure that he did from everything I've read.

Rob, A mahogany top makes perfect sense. Certainly in keeping with the concept of McKay wanting to make a profound statement with his launching the then largest merchant vessel in the world.

@Rick310 Cool book. I wonder if this is still a available? What simply amazes me is that while the hull's sheer and body plans may have been traced directly from McKay's own lines, critical components were entirely omitted. That, despite Duncan McLean's very specific descriptions of the seaworthy nature of these innovative rugged, nautical structures. I greatly admire the beauty of the Boucher models but they're still featuring a bare stem. The first model is from Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. The second is a twin at Addison Gallery, Phillip's Academy, Andover, MA. They look remarkably similar but their sail arrangements are different. In a way, Boucher Mfg. can't be faulted since, Donald McKay quite likely posthumously, pulled a Houdini on everyone with his unique bow construction.

Rob, Just a reminder that the top of the base had the same extended molding as seen on the base. If I'm jumping the gun on reminding you, my apologies in advance. I suspect all these furniture moldings had to do with eliminating sharp edges which could cause serious injuries.

Rob, Drawing something up and actually building it are worlds apart. I respect the work you're doing. It will be a fine replica by the time you're done and will also be the first accurate Stag Hound miniature ever crafted too.

Rob, This certainly looks more compact and advanced then the more traditional barrel shaped ones we're used to seeing.

Rob, You're right about McKay's freedom. The other issue is that per contract stipulation, once signed the ship had to be entirely finished within 90 days, literally from when the ink was dry! Would it be quicker to build your own or pair two ready made units?

@rwiederrich Rob, I took another look at the Boston Daily Atlas description of a 13' skylight installed on Staffordshire. It wasn't a single one as I first thought, but actually a doubled up 6 & 1/2' skylight pair. That gives me the impression that for some reason, the maximum length for such structures might have been 6 & 1/2'. Next, I will see if it's possible that two back to back 12-13' skylights will fit on the poop deck instead. The wheel house on my layout looks like it can be moved back a bit which just might make everything else fit. Just give me a day or two and I should have an answer for you.

@rwiederrich Here's an 1855 Scientific Magazine article on Emerson's improvement of his own windlass. This article's material does refer to the windlass's ability to "ungear." I also noticed that the alternative windlass I just shared doesn't even illustrate use of a capstan. It's looking more likely that Emerson & Walker's patent windlass is the correct choice.