ClipperFan

Rob, To be technically astute, at 1:96th scale 1/16" = 6", 1/32nd" = 3" so actually a "skoch" above 1/32nd" would do the trick 😉 ! Maybe you could use a teeny-tiny phillips head. Just poke a little bitty hole and fill it with green colored ink....

Rob, Meh... bitts, bollards. Neither one is edible. 🙂

Rob, My preliminary Google search for 1900s era sailing ship deck prisms consistently resulted in the hexagonal green version I shared. The round prism you favor appears to me to be more modern.

Rob, This question of winches mounted or not, sounds like a perfect topic to discuss with our author friend Michael Mjelde. If anyone would be most confident in such details, it has got to be him. After all, just like those pesky iron bollards, you wouldn't want to introduce something anachronistic on your replica.

@rwiederrich @Vladimir_Wairoa @Luis Felipe Rob and I discussed deck lights described as being installed on Stag Hound. Actually, besides on the poop deck, these nautical ceiling prisms were also installed on the roof of the long house abaft the foremast. Whether you want to model these or not is up to you. They're not exactly huge. This authentic 1900s deck prism off a sailing ship is 4.5" wide x 4.75 deep. They're 6-sided (hexagonal). I would imagine besides being flush mounted they would probably have had some sort to round wooden moulding surrounding them. I also believe to provide maximum lighting, these little lights would have been centrally mounted for each individual apartment. Of course for the captain's 12' × 18' fore state-room, there could have been more than one, two maybe three.

Rob, I think what's led to this confusion is Duncan McLean's use of terms like "exceedingly plain" and "lacking head boards or trailboards." Such terms, whether intentional or not has most likely led maritime researchers to conclude the absolute plainness of McKay's bows. Who knows how things would have turned out for us if we had no bow pictures for Glory of the Seas? Then again, what did other researchers make of the terms "navel hood" and "cutwater?" Still, it baffles me how for literally 170 years, McKay's uniquely rugged prow treatment has remained a secret. Actually hiding in plain sight.... It's one of the revalations I cover in my second article, referring to our in-depth research into Glory of the Seas. She has proven to be the absolute "Rosetta Sone" of McKay's magnificent clippers.

Rob, I never realized that Mr. Crothers was so active into his 100s. That's true passion for his subject matter. I need to get a bibliography of his works. Right now, I just have two. It's also just plain stunning that with his meticulously detailed investigation of all facets of ship building construction, that he completely missed what we now call McKay's "secret" navel hood, cutwater bow. It floors me that everybody up until us never recognized that unique feature. And yet, as we now see, it's been there right from the beginning...with Stag Hound.

Rob, That sounds amazing. It would be quite an accomplishment for you to exceed your Glory of the Seas standards.

Rob, I didn't mean to make your life more difficult when I gave you those dimensions. Here's actual outer stubbier turned stanchions from an enlarged Glory of the Seas detail. I now wonder if the kind of out of place iron railing ending might have been originally encased in wood at some point. The other photos are of actual turned rail stanchions taken off the McKay clipper Flying Fish by her captain Simeon Jones. He has his Home, still intact, in Barnstable, Cape Cod, Mass. By their slender build and height, they must have at one time been mounted to her coach house. It strikes me that they're too tall to have surrounded the poop deck. These might have been similar to ones on Stag Hound as Flying Fish was launched just a couple years later. They're closer together than Glory of the Seas which launched 17 to 19 years after these two clippers.

Rob, What I wonder about is why Bill Crothers didn't make use of the existing authentic 1850 builder's model by Cornelius McKay. Do you think it's possible that he wasn't aware of it since it can only be found in the 1928 publication "Some Famous Sailing Ships and Their Builder Donald McKay" by his relative Richard McKay? It's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have known about this encyclopedic book about all of McKay's ships but I suppose it's possible.

Rob, While working on fore and aft portico profiles, it occurred to me that my arches are more pronounced than those Michael Mjelde did for the Glory of the Seas coach house front fascia. I'll finish those sides with a more modest arch and see which looks best, then share results here when I'm done.

@Luis Felipe Early this morning, @Vladimir_Wairoa messaged us that he had done 1/2 of the Stag Hound bulkheads and the rest would follow soon. Just tonight he told us that the rest of the bulkheads were done and shared a few more of his results. He asked specifically for your response. In case you haven't seen his progress yet, here's what Vlad shared with us. I've tried to keep these in the same order that Vlad did. In all fairness to him, I brought up a couple concerns I still had with the sheer plan as it related to what I call our "gold standard." That's still the 1:48th scale Stag Hound model constructed by Donald's own son Cornelius. It was derived right from actual mould lines taken from the lofting floor. And that's while the ship herself was under construction. Personally, I have never heard of such an event happening before! It implies that Donald McKay himself must have known about Cornelius' intentions. He then gave him full access to the lofting floor in order to accomplish this. Cornelius mentions a drawing he did which accompanied his model given to Captain Arthur H Clark. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to locate it. So, we have a photo of an exact replica of Stag Hound to authenticate her sheer lines. But there's no such body plan to accompany it. Vlad has been doing unenviable yeoman's work on his computer. He has cobbled together several body plans in order to create the best prototype for bulkheads. Vladimir's relied on sources from an 1881 Hall plan, 1967 Chappelle lines and a most recent, more highly detailed Crothers body plan. My concerns are from a perspective of a non-modeler and I readily admit this. Rob and Vlad have reassured me that their final version will match the McKay model. But here's where I still see room for slight improvement. As computer plans exist right now, keel and stem depth both appear to be larger than statistics show. As an artist, this troubles me. Rob and Vlad say as experienced modelers, this is adjusted during their builds and I have nothing to be concerned about. After seeing both of their spectacular Glory of the Seas builds, I trust them. In answer to my other concern, as to how closely the sheer profile matches the McKay model, Vlad was kind enough to accomodatecme. He's shown an overlay in gray of the Cornelius model to his computer plans. They are impressively close, as can be seen by the image. I told him that the foot curve of the McKay version appears to be more subtle than the Crothers line. The bigger variance is the stern. I must admit that the one weakness in the McKay hull picture is the stern. It appears to be smaller than other plans of Donald McKay. For example, take authentic lines of Flying Fish. Still, the model's rear stern rake is slightly different. Yet again, we're working off a photo of the model too. So Rob's excited to proceed and I'm about 99% there too.

Rob, You're welcome, I think (?) Did my explanation clarify the issue or are there still doubts?

@rwiederrich Rob, As I read it, poop deck height is 5 feet. The additional 18 inch monkey rail surrounds the ship's hull but not the front of the poop deck. Outer turned stanchions should be 10", rail above 4" added to 18" monkey rail brings total height to 32". As far as I know, that's standard height for safety rails. Meanwhile, since the poop deck front lacks a monkey rail, as does the portico roof, those turned stanchions would, of necessity be taller at 28", plus 4" rail on top for 32". Makes sense now?

@rwiederrich as usual your work is delicate, beautiful and quite consistent. I believe these will be for the outer rail surrounding the poop deck? Those in front and on the portico roof should be 28" tall, giving 4" for rail depth totalling 32".

@BANYAN Pat, Thanks for a new reference source. In this case, as height is 32" divided by 8" = 4 steps, so actually 3 with the last being the top itself. Unless Rob and Vlad disagree, I think that's how I'll illustrate it.

While trying to find the elusive Stag Hound lines plan described by Cornelius McKay in his letter to Captain Arthur H Clark, I came acrosd this nice rendition of her by Edward Zeliff on his website.

@Vladimir_Wairoa One of my favorite quotes comes from late, brilliant Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. I'm quoting from memory but this was essentially his sentiment "I love the Americans, they always do the right thing, after they've tried everything else!" The late, legendary nightly CBS newscast anchor Walter Cronkite, after witnessing the carnage of the 1968 "Tet Offensive" by the Viet Cong eloquently concluded that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. Turns out, "the most trusted man in America" was also our national conscience. As a high school, later university student I participated in nationwide Anti-Vietnam War protests. After bloody carnage at Kent State it actually galvanized the Peace Movement and stiffened our spines. "Four dead in Ohio!" was just one of our emotional slogans. We knew momentum was changing when John Kerry, leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War testified to Congress asking his memorable question "How do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake?" Ultimately increasing public pressure succeeded and USA finally withdrew entirely from Vietnam. Winston Churchill was right.

Rob, The only other step to take is contact moderators and ask for their assistance. Meanwhile, your title does refer to an 1850 vessel. Besides, being lauched 10 days before year's end just about puts this into 1851 anyways.

@rwiederrich Rob, at the risk of being redundant, did you have any success in your attempt to enact instructions given in post #13 from @Knocklouder ?

@druxey today's residential standard is 7" rise x 11" tread. If you're familiar with older homes, stairs were steeper. I would think 8" rise × 10" tread would be more in keeping. As for upper portico rails, since all 4 sides have a 6" overhang, they're straight, with a break in rear for steps. I'm still working on front and rear and will have them done soon.

@Vladimir_Wairoa That's great news! I hate to be a "gadfly" about this but, oh well, here goes. As long as we're sticking with the Cornelius McKay Stag Hound sheer profile, I will be thrilled to see these replicas realised. It just bothers me to see the more stylized but inaccurate Crothers bow alongside the body plan. Again, I reiterate my reasoning for wanting to adhere as closely as possible to the McKay half-hull is the documented fact that the son stated emphatically that his model was built directly from the mould lines taken right off the lofting floor even as the ship herself was under construction. Cornelius also stated that no other authentic builder's models existed, since they all had been destroyed. To me, this is a gift from 274 years ago. I wish I could locate the drawing that he confirms was done at the same time, because that would most likely include an authentic body plan too. If you need my help to further reconcile the Crothers body plan with the McKay sheer plan, just let me know.

@rwiederrich Rob, This is a 1:24th scale rendition of the 7' square portico. Height is just enough to allow fore poop rail to mount into the upper molding. Note: I include placement of a side rail turned stanchion so you can see how it mounts on poop deck front. Uppermost oval represents how the rail matches portico height exactly. A neat development is how the portico sides divide into two halves. The front half side door portion, as I envision it, projects just slightly forward to give an impression of a potico section. Two tall pillars surround the door and support the arch. The rear section is the real wall but appears recessed in comparison. Three short pillars support smaller dual arches and the upper section also projects just slightly to continue the profile of the fore section. I call these "faux" pillars since they're basically half profiles. You can also see that the door molding has been lowered to match the fife-rail intersecting beam. That will allow enough room for both fife rail beams to mount in front to. I will do that illustration next. I see a central ladder in back, since the structure is only 7' wide, with similar faux pillars supporting the same arches. To me, this definitely gives an impression of a portico, with a lot of gothic elegance in a surprisingly small space. Interestingly enough, it gives an impression of being a larger house than it really is. Incidentally, in the description of the three decked packet ship Staffordshire there's actually a large skylight that's 13' long. I think that would fit on the rear poop deck of Stag Hound.