ClipperFan
-
Posts
1,961 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by ClipperFan
-
Rob, Vladimir Gina Bardi came through big time for me! Here's the series of images she took of "Glory of the Seas" nameboard. I've enhanced the one image of the entire board so it can be seen close up. Details I noticed are that it appears like both ends of the board with the lovely oaken leave scrollwork were damaged. The fore end lower innermost section looks like it was detached but somehow saved to be reattached at a somewhat awkward angle. Upper fore section appears to be unmarked. Sadly the aft section didn't fare as well. The bottom seems to be missing some parts and there is a large double crease in the center. Still, all in all for having survived possibly from 1869 until 1922, potentially 53 years this artifact is a wonderful tribute to the durability of the cedar it was crafted from. My impression is that this port Bow nameboard is the original device but Michael Mjelde said it couldn't be verified if it had ever been replaced. With the close ups thought, you can clearly see that it was all hand chiseled. He described this as remarkably difficult work due to the somewhat rubbery aspect of the nautical cedar.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, My apologies, the 1st artist's last name is Walters not Warren. He's a very famous contemporary British Ship Portrait artist. His broadside for view of 'Glory of the Seas' is probably the finest depiction of her for accuracy. I think I hot his last name confused with the 3rd artist's 1st name which just happens to be Warren.
-
Rob, I wonder if Samuel Walters did this same topic in more than one painting? These 2 works look remarkably similar. Either it's the same one with different exposure resolutions or he did this same work more than once. Most likely it's the same one taken in different lighting. One of my favorite art galleries has closed. I just learned in conversation with Russell Jinishian, previous curator, that the Mystic Maritime Art Gallery closed last year. As serendipity turns out, he recently moved his own Maritime Art Gallery to Stonington, CT and has invited us to tour it tomorrow. Apparently it's in an old dress manufacturing factory and according to what I've read, fills every space. Here's a link to his website which features some of the most beautiful contemporary nautical artists: jrusselljinishiangallery.com I hope he'll give me permission to take some gallery shots to share a general feeling for his place.
-
Rob & Vladimir, Here's another special treat from Gina Bardi, Reference Librarian, San Francisco Maritime Museum courtesy of Michael Mjelde who was kind enough to forward my contact information to her. (1) my personal favorite is the entire framed oil painting by Samuel Walters (2) a smaller watercolor by Alcott (3) a well known painting by Warren Shepherd.
.jpg.02da4186bbc2ef145fa6fd69aed8d467.jpg)
-
In his most recent email, Mike included this neat diagram by genuine, now retired shipwright Ron Haug from "Down Under." I love his jocular commentary about how further revelations of Glory's sleeker Bow has been giving him migraines! To make it easier to view, I've enlarged that section of the paper.
-
Vladimir, thanks for the "heads up" on slightly low bulkheads 15, 16 & 17. It looks like there's a pen mark at the base of 14 too but it's almost even with the base of the keel. As for your "little" project. Wow! Not being a woodworker myself. I haven't carved a thing since making neckerchief slides in Boy Scouts as a teen. I love all the careful interlocking pieces. I believe it's referred to as "mortise and tenon." There also appear to be round wooden pegs in use too. I'm also impressed with the care to be sure these lovely wooden studs are all elevated to prevent moisture laden wood rot. All in all a very impressive shelter. Just one question. What will it eventually be for?
-
Rob, your 2 day US mail also has a tracking # with insurance which I emailed to you. There should be no worries about it arriving on time. Vlad, I know you also plan to do your own Glory. I look forward to viewing your progress too.
-
Vlad, As I told Rob, June 1st is a good omen as it happens to be Peg and my 36th Wedding Anniversary too!
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vlad, If 2 day mail can be believed, Rob should get his package by next Tuesday. I too am very excited to see his warp speed progress once he gets started.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, I sent you and Vlad an email. Our bulkheads arrived in the mail yesterday; too late to be resent. Your kit went out in today's mail and you you should get it Tuesday, June 1st.
-
Rob, you're welcome, of course. I'm hoping they arrive before June 10th. That's the day I go back into Yale New Haven Hospital to have my bladder removed and rebuilt. I will leave instructions to my wife to take care of the mail if I can't. I too look forward to your remarkable progress on McKay's lovely last Clipper "Glory of the Seas."
-
Rob, The day our package arrives, I will send yours out by 2 day usps tracked mail.
-
Rob, furthering our evaluations, a 60" internal mainrail bulkhead would actually be 4' 8 & 1/2", topped by 18" monkeyrail results in 6' 2 & 1/2" with an external bulkhead dimension of 4' topped by the 18" external monkeyrail.
-
Rob, whew. That's a relief. It will probably satisfy Mike too since he was referring to MacLean's reference of Glory's bulwarks being "about" 6'. I think 6' 2 & 1/2" meets that criterion nicely.
-
Rob, I think I follow. A technicality is that while two lower deck waterways were 16", the upper deck waterway was 12". Based on your description, the difference would be 8.5" instead of 12.5" (12" - 3.5" deck height is 8.5"). That would mean a 60" internal bulkhead height would be 51.5" or 4' 3.5" externally. Based on the measurements taken from her broadside photo it looked like 3' 8.5" maybe 4' at most, measuring from lowest molding to upper molding. Adding 8.5" to that would result in 4' 8.5" if we add back in the 3.5" deck gets us back to 5'. So it looks like an internal bulwark height of 5' was not counting the 3.5" thick deck height. Adding 18" to 56.5" gives us 74.5" or 6' 2 & 1/2". Does that now sound about right?
-
Rob, Vladimir, Rick the closest exterior measurement I can get for Glory's bulkheads was 3' 8 & 1/2". IF that's accurate and that's a big if, that would lower her mainrail bulkhead height from an even 5' to 4'8 & 1/2" with a monkeyrail height of 18" that would end up with a total height of 6'2 & 1/2". With a lesser monkeyrail height of 16" it would be 6' & 1/2". Personally my inclination is to believe that McKay wouldn't make his mainrail bulkhead that low so I'm still more inclined to believe in a 5' interior bulwark topped by an 18" monkeyrail for total height of 6'6". I'm seriously beginning to think this could also be trying too hard. I'm curious as to your thoughts.
-
Rick, that's helpful information to know. It means that instead of subtracting 15 & 1/2" from exterior bulkhead height (having 3 & 1/2" added for deck height) in reality we should only be reducing it by a foot instead.
-
Rob, I'm in complete agreement. Probably what led to the Extreme distinction more than anything else was the sharpness at half floor. In fact, I've read how some historians consider McKay's first Clipper "Stag Hound" his only truly extreme Clipper mainly due to her incredible 40" deadrise at half floor. No subsequent McKay vessel ever had such an extreme dead rise. McKay's second Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud" already lowered that extreme deadrise by 25% to 30". Still she twice set an unbeatable record of 89 days from New York to San Francisco for a sail powered merchant vessel (other extreme racing yachts finally bested "Flying Cloud's" times but they weren't designed to carry cargo and it took over a Centurty to do so). McKay's third Clipper Packet "Staffordshire" and fourth Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" as well as "Sovereign of the Seas" even the massive "Great Republic" and "Westward Ho!" all had a 20" dead rise at half floor, fully half that of "Stag Hound." Meanwhile "Champion of the Seas" further dropped dead rise at half floor to 18" continuing McKay's gradual lowering of his Hull profiles. Most likely what prompted McKay to further flatten his dead rise at half floor was lessening in demand of California for materials to be delivered as quickly as possible, resulting in a drop in costs of goods. Considering that "Glory of the Seas" had roughly an 8" dead rise at half floor, this to me is the main reason she's logically considered a Medium Clipper. Still she has the distinction of being the last Clipper to traverse from New York to San Francisco in under 100 days and holds the record of 35 days from China to Australia. Not too shabby for a "Medium" Clipper.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, What I'm driving at again, is that contrary to images which give us a sense that "Glory of the Seas" had a more conservative verticle bow, the few reliable broadside pictures we do have contradict that false assumption. Much like the erroneous conclusion that her quarterdeck profile was more blunt, when you look at her profile it's actually sharper than first suspected. This is why the ratio comparisons I did now make more sense. While Glory had the identical keel to deck profile as "Stag Hound" and "Flying Fish" her keel to overall length was actually 2' longer than McKay's first Extreme Clipper and 3' further forward than "Flying Fish" also considered an Extreme Clipper. I strongly suspect that the primary reason she was considered a Medium Clipoer has to do with her virtually flat floor. Otherwise in every other metric she more strongly resembles a true Clipper.
-
Rob, Vlad, Taking a closer look at the tip of her bow to where her monkeyrail terminates, it appears to be more forward than we previously estimated. Coincidentally the line of Seattle Grain Co Warehouse behind aligns almost perfectly with this sharp joint. Following it down, there's a small space between Glory's bowsprit and her naval hood where the line of that building continues. Visually, to determine where this projecting line meets at her cutwater, there are some curving lines which almost exactly meet that juncture. I encourage anyone planning to build a model of her to reassess this aspect, since this near perfect broadside in such great clarity sheds new light on this important facet of her beautiful bow.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, You're sincerely welcome. I only regret that your bulkheads are taking a slight detour of Connecticut first...
-
Rob, I wanted this to be a complete surprise but somehow my communication with Vlad got garbled. As a way of expressing my appreciation for your generosity in giving me Michael Mjelde's autographed book, I paid for your bulkheads. Since Vlad apparently has sent both parcels to me, I will make sure to get yours out to you as soon as I receive them. Unfortunately, I'm going to undergo surgery in early June. If I can't personally send your bulkheads, I will make sure my wife does. My apologies for this confusion and extra delay to your project.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
As promised, here's my further research on the most accurate dimensions for Glory's exterior hull. Using the previous 7/16ths" = 1' determined by the Goddess 'Athene' figurehead, here are my results. In this particular image, since the ruler isn't exactly right next to the base of her naval hood, the count is either 24 or 25/16ths, which translates as 3'3" to 3'6". Since Rob previously determined the dimension to be 3'6" and another bow image confirms that, I tend to agree with his result. As for the controversial main rail height, it's a bigger challenge to calculate this as accurately due to the damaged monkeyrail impeding into it. However, counting from the lower sheerail molding (the identical one which is the lower molding of the upper naval hood, as they overlap) and not including the top molding below the monkeyrail, since it butts up to her name board, I get 26/16ths" (1 & 5/8s") which translates as 3' 8 & 1/2". Reexamining the "around" 6' internal bulkhead height of Duncan MacLean, it's impossible to have that with an exterior of nearly 4'. With her exterior moldings mounted to the top of 1' waterways, resting on 3 & 1/2" decks, it subtracts 15 & 1/2" from internal bulkhead height. That means at minimum, assuming a 16" monkeyrail height, her interior bulkhead height would have to be 6'4" with 18" monkeyrail that of necessity increases bulkhead height to 6'6". I'm sending the same information to Mike for his critique as well.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, this pic, which really saddens me, really appears to support at least a 6'4" if not 6'6" high bulkhead from the deck. Clearly men standing wouldn't be able to see above these bulkheads. It's a damn shame how McKay's last Clipper was so shabbily treated. Cutting such a long gap in her hull shows such disrespect. Meanwhile, her hull also displays serious hogging too. From a modeler's viewpoint, we can also easily see the difference in height of exterior molding compared to interior deck bulkhead height, proving Rob's observation that those moldings are indeed mounted on the waterways.
Our Emblem ®
