ClipperFan

***Update Again!!!! **** Mike sent another email to Rob and I asking to see progress on both models. With Vladimir's permission, I would like to send his computer profile and laser cut bulkheads developed from them. Then I want to send progress pics which compare your models in the same positions as the many rare photos we've been sent. Mike already mailed to Ron Haug the two photos of someone's model in progress with comparisons to Glory in the same position. Maybe Arina shared those with Mike? If so, it's most likely Rob's model. I'm hoping by sharing these images of 2 highly accurate Glory models with Mike who plans to mail them to Ron Haug, he will convince Ron to radically rethink his own approach to his vision of Glory being a "throw back to McKay's 1830s Packet Ships". So guys, if you want to do some additional real sharp "beauty shots" that would be very much appreciated!

Rob, how's that old saying go? "Ach, The Haggis is in the fire for sure nae!" Turns out, I was copied on your most recent email from Mike. I took the opportunity to diplomatically say that Ron Haug's latest interpretation of Glory being a throw back to McKay's 1830's Packet Ships is in complete disagreement with the discovery I made that Glory's ratios in 2 important categories matched "Flying Fish almost exactly, with Glory having a 2' sleeker LOA ratio. I explained how you and Vladimir are creating 2 of the most accurate Glory models ever seen before, using laser cut bulkheads created from a profile developed by our months of collaborative efforts. I offered to send Mike progress photos, should he wish. Finally I told him if he would like, I can send him a copy of my 1:96 scale sketch of Glory's Hull which he could then share with Ron. We'll see what develops... **July 28th 2021** EXCITING UPDATE! In his most recent email Michael Mjelde requested I send him a copy of my 1:96th scale "GLORY of the SEAS" ship's lines drawing once completed. Finally it will be possible to have at least an opportunity to share what we've all developed over the past year. For me personally it could be the culmination of a previously inconceivable 12 year journey to correct a wrong made to Donald McKay's beautiful final Clipper. I owe it all to you Rob, in your own dogged determination to finally realize an accurate recreation of "GLORY of the SEAS!" That drive of yours brought myself, Vladimir and many others to join your vision. Ultimately that drew in Arina "TheAuthorsDaughter" who then got her dad, the great author Michael Mejelde involved. From the marvelous crystal clear photos he had gathered over 40 years ago, we have had the rare opportunity to visually inspect practically every inch of Glory. Vladimir lent his amazing computer talent and now we have not one but two beautiful models both being built simultaneously, on different continents, no less. These are heady days indeed!

Vladimir my apologies, I forgot to ask if you were using the metric system. All of my calculations have been on, I guess it's called the Olde English measuring system. I'm glad you resolved your issue. Yes, when the docking port is the appropriate size it make the ship appear bigger. Kudos to you for reconfiguring it. By the way a new detail I just noticed, which actually makes sense is that the entire docking port is surrounded by very thin wood, like a picture frame. It makes sense that this port would be finished like that so that vulnerable strakes wouldn't be damaged. You have to look closely but it's visible in the scene of Glory on the Ways as well as in her fitting out scene.

Vladimir, Rob's probably very familiar with the true shade of Muntz metal aka yellow metal. Here's an ongoing chat in Model Ship World that I thought might be of some value. There's actually a fellow who worked on "Cutty Sark's" most recent restoration who confirms the shiny golden hue is correct Muntz metal. In comparison copper is nowhere near the same. I've read that over time, due to extensive exposure to salt water it does turn green but what shade is beyond me.

Rob, a trick I've learned to allow me to avoid upside down photos is to edit them slightly. In this case, I reduced both sides just enough to take out the white edges. Now when it's posted, voila! right side up! As for the confusion on Glory's coppering line. When she was originally launched in 1869, her copper line was specified as being 22'. Later, that line was increased by adding an additional line of copper sheets. Michael Mjelde has said since each sheet was 14" tall, this raised the height of her copper line to 25'. It would make sense that after a few years at Sea, the Captain being concerned about protecting his vessel's Hull integrity made a recommendation to add the additional line of coppering. It's actually referred to more accurately as yellow metal, but in America was it Muntz or something uniquely American that I'm till unsure of.

Rob & Vladimir, due to my "anal retentive" preoccupation with keeping all things as accurate as possible with "GLORY of the SEAS" I have repeatedly counted strakes on her side (which is possible with a clear enough image) below her sheerline molding to the top of the starboard loading dock is exactly 7 strakes. Per Duncan MacLean's 1869 description, all strakes were 6 1/2". So 7×6 = 42"+7×1/2 = 3 1/2" more. Top of loading dock is exactly 45 1/2" (3' 9 1/2") below the lower sheerline molding. Since the side is exactly 4 strakes, that makes her side 4×6= 24"+4x1/2 = 2", making the side 26" (2'2") It's harder to tell whether there are 9, 10 or even 11 strakes below the dock, since the thin white line which denotes the coppering line is so hard to make out. Basically that puts the lower dimension between (1) 9×6=54"+9×1/2"=4 1/2" or 58 1/2" (4'10 1/2") (2) 10×6"=60"+10×1/2"= 5" for 65" (5'5") (3) 11×6"= 66" + 11× 1/2" = 5 1/2" for 71 1/2" (5'11 1/2") Where this gets even more interesting is the final dimensions we get to the top of the exterior Monkeyrail Molding. We're now sure the exterior of the Mainrail Bulkhead from sheerline molding to Mainrail Molding is 48" add 18" to top of Monkeyrail Molding equals 66" or 5 1/2'. Adding this to the other 3 measurements gets these results = 58 1/2"+ 26"+45 1/2"+66" = 196" or 16' 4" putting it below the 17' we estimated as the lowest point of her sheerline midpoint of her Main shrouds. Since we know that Glory's sheer was 7' and I count the height at her Jibboom as 24' & an additional 1' for the Quarterrail Cap for Rob's 25' total height. Adding an additional 6 1/2" for 10 strakes puts us closer at 16' 10 1/2". Adding another 6 1/2" to that gives us 17' 4 1/2". So the only useful measurement that fits neatly into every other one is the highest, being 11 strakes above the coppering line. Next I'll try to convert these actual dimensions into usable 1:96th & 1:72nd scale.

Rob, I made a suggestion that Mike should see the amazing work you're doing on Glory's Hull but I personally haven't sent him anything. If it is yours, that's a very good thing because, as I've repeatedly said, your 1:96th scale model and Vladimir's 1:72nd scale version are currently the two most accurate reproductions of "GLORY of the SEAS" I have ever seen. I hope Ron Haug is really open to reassessing his version because it looks nothing at all like Vladimir's excellent computer profile. I shared my most recent effort in comparison to Vladimir's and immediately recognized that my sheer was nothing like his. I've completely revised my plans and they're finally starting to look more like Glory herself. I actually traced her Bow, which almost exactly matched my sketch but was a little sleeker. I've also lowered the height of her Stern which now matches the angle more like the Stern section. The Stern now looks very similar to the photo which looks more graceful now. Her outer railing is also slightly higher than I first thought, so that will allow me to do a better job illustrating them. Now that I'm feeling improved, other than still very weak, I'm racing to get this done properly "Shipshape & Bristol Fashion."

Vladimir your planking work continues to amaze me. Glory's true form is really looking beautiful. You and Rob are both doing incredibly beautiful work. It's exciting seeing your projects develop. Great work!

In my continuing pursuit to finally get an exhaustively accurate lines plan of "GLORY of the SEAS" it has been a particular focus not to repeat the same mistakes which resulted in the less than successful first attempt at a large scale drawing. Since Vladimir and I had such a successful collaboration at realizing practically all of Glory's Hull dimensions, I decided to compare his computer drafted print with my own work in progress. Since both Bow & Stern still seem not quite right, images of both were included too. This image is decidedly difficult to see. Due to extreme length of over 3' including Bowsprit, I had to stand on my bed & shoot it with my cell phone from my 6' height. Between balancing on a mattress and trying to concentrate on keeping all elements square to the tiny viewfinder, this was the best result I could get. Not surprisingly when I looked at my sketch & Vladimir's document, it became rapidly clear that our Hulls don't match at all. So it's back to the "drawing board" as I struggle to match as exactly as possible my Hull with the Vladimir print (which to me, other than some rough spots Bow & Stern, represents the closest we've gotten to Glory's true Hull form). Besides which I also caught some inaccuracies with the calculation of 250' between perpendiculars. I originally thought the entire roughly 10' difference between 240'2" Keel & 250' length was all part of the Bow. I was wrong. When I looked at the "Flying Fish" draft taken from Sweden, I realized my mistake. A small section of the upper Main Deck projects beyond the Stern Rudder. The Rudder also isn't totally verticle, it cants slightly inward. Correcting these oversights resulted in a slightly more verticle Stem below the waterline. As can be seen by the Bow photo, my Cutwater still is too "beaky" in comparison. The actual Prow is more graceful. Finally the Stern rises just a little too high and its shape still doesn't quite match the more lithe one in the photo. The relentless pursuit of perfection continues

Rob, this part of your construction process is just so lovely to observe. The dramatic contrast of shiny copper plating with black upper hull has always looked so beautiful to me. Excellent work! Since you usually proceed at warp speed, it won't be a long wait to see finished results too!

MrBlueJacket you are absolutely correct. I mistakenly referred to Vladimir's 1:72nd scale when I meant to say Rob's 1:96th scale. The drawing has been painstakenly accurately done to 1"=8' or as you more correctly said it 1/8th" = 1' both to 1:96th scale. Thanks for catching my mistake so I can correct the record. As mentioned this is still very much a work in progress. I wanted to share my process to get feedback from the group. When finished it will include a legend indicating the 1:96 scale nature of the drawing, plus call outs in reference to every detail where it was developed from in support of the accuracy of the final plan. I'm still debating whether to finish it in pen since the pencil is so difficult to see too.

Rob, welcome back! I hope you enjoyed your trip. The coppering process is so beautiful, even at this short beginning.

Vladimir, your Stern looks quite impressive, especially how you've run the planks up so snugly, very accurate to Glory's Stern herself. By the way, I'm curious to hear your feedback of the new 1:72nd scale ship's lines which I just shared on Rob's site.

Rob & Vladimir I'm finally feeling well enough to go back to completing my vision of how "GLORY of the SEAS" truly looked. This sketch is precisely to 1:72nd scale err, oops per MrBlueJacket this is actually 1:96th scale (1" = 8' or 1/8ths"=1'). 1:72nd scale is 1/6ths"=1'. I don't have large enough paper to do one continuous drawing, so I've taped 3 ledger sized pages and added a section to include the entire Bowsprit & Jibboom. When you lay out the Keel to exactly 240' & Main Deck between perpendiculars of 250' it results in this Bow profile. With a 10' Stern, the distance from Taffrail to Knightheads of 265' matches precisely the profile as seen in the 1911 Seattle close up. FYI Glory's Grecian Goddess 'Athene' is exactly 7 1/2' from head to toe. This is still very much a work in progress but I wanted to share my progress with you and hear what your responses are. My eventual goal is to share this radically different interpretation of Glory's lines with Michael Mjelde to give him what I feel is a more accurate ship's plans than Ron Haug's still disappointing version.

Vladimir, it's your project not mine. You're correct that the opening is tiny. I just get carried away sometimes. I know, I should build my own version some day instead of bothering you guys.

Vladimir, I don't know if you recall seeing this before from the article I shared a few months ago. It's Michael Mjelde's "GLORY of the SEAS" - Medium Clipper Ship' article in Jan/Feb 1992 Vol III, No 1 SEAWAYS Ships in Scale publication. This actual internal image is of Glory's deck (my estimation is it's most likely deck 2 just below the main upper deck). A correction by the way. Main hatchway is 12' x 10' and the lower one is 14' x 12'. There are sufficient details about 16" sq waterways, 16" beams, stanchions, etc to do a very credible job, should you wish. Otherwise I won't bother you with any more minutiae.

Vladimir, you're welcome for the calculation. I figure after driving you nuts with all my other insistence on accuracy, you might just appreciate a helping hand, when I can. Figuring you're leaving the docks open leaves an opportunity to create an insert of sorts to give an impression of Glory's internal structure. For instance, each verticle rib is described as being exactly 28" center to center to the other. In the lower section they were 11" × 14" tapering to 10" × 12" towards the upper levels. More interestingly, each pair of ribs were cross trussed in between, corner to corner. The deck with these loading docks is described as having a hatch way 11' × 14' slightly larger than the main hatch way above which I believe was 10' × 12'. Of course, Hanging Knees would also need to be included as well as stanchions and upper deck beams. It wouldn't have to be too big. An insert could be built with hidden mirrors on both ends to create a greater sense of depth. Glory's criss-cross wooden beams were a unique construction alternative to iron lattice work or composite iron construction. It's just a thought to enliven this section of your Hull.

Vladimir your planking is very beautiful. Your framing of her loading docks is very nice. I think having the open loading docks adds an extra dimension of authenticity to Glory's Hull. If you need help constructing the interior, I can sketch some of it for you. I'm particularly impressed with your run at the Counter which mimics the real vessel herself. As to determining the height of her coppering, Glory was originally covered with yellow metal up to 22' from her Keel. I ran calculations. At 1:72nd scale, 22' becomes 3 5/8th".

Vladimir, planking looks very nice, I love how Glory's beautiful lines are emerging from her bulkheads. From your glue supply situation, it sounds like you may need to invest in major bulk purchases! That or buy your own glue factory.

Vladimir, look closely at the Bowsprit detail from the 1869 Glory on the Ways scene, notice the Bowsprit Bees appear solid? Then enlarge the 1911 close up of Glory & her lovely Figurehead at Seattle, at both ends of the Bee, you'll see carved molded ends, which are parallel to both the end Cap & iron bands. Since we know the enter of the 7th iron band is 18" from the end Cap and distance from band 7 to 6 is 3', these Bees are around 5', since the distance is measured center to center. The inner end of the Bee is just beyond and parallel to the 6 band while the outer end abuts directly and parallel to the end Cap. The Old Ironsides scene looks very dramatic with lots of steam and what looks like some fire too. When I get a chance, I'll share a pic from the article.

Vladimir, gotta say I seriously dig those 70s 3D vibes I got from that wooden dowel coming right out of my phone! Far out, man, far out. Anyhow, all silliness aside, I just have to echo Rob, wow beautiful work on your Bowsprit. I love the look of your iron bands. An article I read about the 90s Constisution restoration showed how the metal bands were put on hot and then cold water would be poured on them to rapidly cool and permanently shrink them down for tighter fit. Since you're not fully satisfied with your Bowsprit Bees, I figured I'd toss in my 2c to help (hopefully not annoy) you. If you look closely at the front and rear angle of the devices, which appear to be wooden to me, the edge isn't 90 degrees to itself but actually angled to be parallel with the Cap and Bands. Rob can correct me if I'm wrong but it appears other than sheeve holes, the rest is probably solid wood.

Snug Harbor Johnny, Rob should definitely get a write up in the Modeler's forum. Something to really give him a swelled head, you know, like Duncan MacLean used to do? For, like every Clipper Ship that slid down the Ways. Superlative! Incredible! The bestest, fastest ever! Uncanny design! Nothing will beat it!! (never mind he just said precisely the same thing at last month's launch!) Honestly though, it's reassuring to know Rob's little group is getting noticed. On that note, I would also strongly encourage everyone to be ready to pre-order Michael Mejeld's incredible 3rd publication on our favorite topic "GLORY of the SEAS". It's going to be titled "Down East Captain." Maybe if we all do a group order, we might be able to score early autographed copies as well!

Well ain't that just "the Bees knees!" You learn something new every day

Rob, that makes perfect sense when you explain the way you do. When it comes to attempting to describe all of these varying details, I'm beginning to feel like a "Landlubber!" So you referred to the shelves that these lines run through as Bowsprit Bees? Is that the correct nautical term for these devices?

Rob, Vladimir, I have no idea how crazy detailed you want to make your replicas but since the information is available for a Keen eye to spot, I'm going to share it. I think it befits the genius of Donald McKay in the most minute details. While reviewing the 1911 detailed Bow picture, I spotted another device which I hadn't noticed before. There's a very long thin iron bar which mounts into the prow, runs parallel to the Bowsprit and appears to attach to bottom of the rear end of the shelf device tucked neatly at the Cap. An added detail I couldn't include yesterday is that the 2 round bolts which attach the shelf to the Bowsprit mount just in front of band 6 and band 7. There also appear to be 2 diagonal lines, the innermost has a Jibsail attached, which also mount to this Starboard shelf. I took a closer look at the 2 Bobstay links. What first impressed me as being iron, upon closer inspection now looks much more likely to be thick rope. Another fascinating niggly detail is on the innermost side of both, there's a very long, thin line that attaches to the chain links. It appears to be about 20 links down. What its function is, I have no idea. There are also similar block & tackle devices which attach to the chains which spread apart and mount to the Bow of the Ship, out of the range of this scene. You can see how they mount in the 1869 Glory on the Ways picture. A couple more fascinating but significant items. About a foot or so below Glory's Figurehead is a preventer coupling that mounts to the lower carved arch on the Cutwater and with proper tension, would mount to the inner Bobstay chain link. It must be there to prevent damage to the Figurehead. Finally, at least to me, I get the distinct impression that the end of the Naval Hoods are slightly angled forward. There's a line which runs down from the first recessed section of the quarterdeck rail and goes down backwards diagonally which mirrors this feature precisely. Another small supporting detail is the triple lower moldings of the Naval Hoods also stagger slightly inward from bottom to top. It's very subtile but definitely there.