ClipperFan

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Point it out Rich on the real vessel

Rob, it looks like a linear shadow. It's below the sheerline. What cinches that it's a structural feature, for me at least, is that when you look at the outer edge of the Stern, there's a noticeable change in profile at that exact line. 

If you re-examine McKay's twin Packets, count down 5 lines at the Stern, there's no molding but the line goes clear across the entire Hull. It appears to be about a 3'6 " drop below the double molded sheerline, which would align it perfectly with the lower Naval Hood molding. 

Vladimir saw it too. Somehow he even caught it in the 1869 fitting out scene. It's definitely there and may help account for the complex geometrics in creating such a graceful Stern.

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich...I wanted to paint the waterways the blue....but the grey(pearl) I selected for the gunwale was far too grey.....so I had to repaint the entirety.  And I wanted the grey to slightly *bleed* through the white to give the allusion of a slightly blued pearl color.   I took your advice knowing it was the right choice.

 

I think the final result is acceptable.  See them on the port trim image

 

Rob

 

Rob, it is beautiful.

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Smarty.....I know about those moldings and I am adding them as well.  If you review the port side, you will see them present.  I just didn't add them to the starboard side yet (Still working it)....One thing at a time bro.....

 

I had a deep suspicion that you might catch that and again I suspected it might be assumed I *forgot* the extra trim.  I mostly appreciate your forbearance and keen eye to be able to point out the inconsistency...and the  apparent oversight    You 're keeping me honest and true to Glory.

 

Rob

Rob, while I appreciate the joke, in fact the particular line I'm referring to has no molding at all. It's just a line that Vladimir & I identified a while ago. Below the sheerline molding, it's visible if you look closely enough.

14 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Spent a bit of time in the shop today and I first painted the starboard gunwale and I took Rich's advice and painted the waterways blue.

 

Some images.

Rob, I appreciate your humility in altering your choice of painting the waterways blue. I think later on when all additional deck structures and details are added in, this will make a lovely, distinctive contrast.

Rob, while your Stern is probably the most accurate ever realized in a Glory model yet, it is lacking one distinctive component of the real ship. Look closely below the sheerline and you'll see another more subtle line. I now believe this is a 3'6" drop, coinciding with the lower Naval Hood molding. That would mean that while it isn't so clearly distinguishable across her entire Hull it's still there. If you go back to McKay's illustration of his Twin Packets "Star of Empire & Chariot of Fame" that same thin line is there too. I surmise that perhaps this might be a mounting line for all of the wrought Iron shrouds as well.

10 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Comparative hulls

Rob, that is spot on! You simply have to share these with Michael Mjelde. I have a feeling he will be blown away! I completely agree with Vladimir's expression, as he put it succinctly and perfectly "My God, it's her!"

16 hours ago, gak1965 said:

 

ClipperFan,

    The included picture (and the others at the link) are a great set of photos related to the Fish. FWIW, the idea to paint the ship green came from Stephen Ujifusa's book Barons of the Sea and their race to build the world's fastest clipper ship. In the book, he relates that McKay had wanted to paint the ship green, obviously this was not translated into life, but I decided to try to build it the way McKay had originally envisioned. The biggest problem now is that it appears VentureTape which is the major supplier of copper and brass foil tape to the stained glass community has stopped making the brass variant. Since the Fish had Muntz metal rather than copper plates, I was hoping to use that. I have heard of people painting the copper with metallic paint to get the Muntz look, but not sure I'm going to bother as I wonder about the longevity of the painted copper.

 

     The Model Shipways plans shows a flat surface on the after end of the stern cabin, with slightly curved port and starboard sides so that would seem to be compatible with your observations. Your observation about the cutwater is interesting. I'll have to see if there are any references that show the cutwater clearly enough to add it to the stem.

 

Thanks for the insights!

 

George

gak1965 thanks for sharing something new with me. I never read the book you mentioned. It comes as a complete surprise that McKay originally considered painting "Flying Fish" green. Perhaps that's why Duncan MacLean made the wry observation that like Clergy, Clippers always come in Black. 

As for the Cutwater, that's a nautical device that always mounts on the Stem. Unfortunately, while this is an impressive kit which builds into a beautiful model, I believe the Bow is inaccurate. A figurehead tacked on with nothing to support it would be lost with the first wave. Better to have it incorporated into the end of the Cutwater, which is how Buttersworth has depicted her.

12 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

It almost seems beyond comprehension that anyone could arrive at any other conclusion then what we arrived at.    The rub of the inconsistency lys in the fact we used 3 heads and we bounced ideas and observations off one another.  Ron with all his years of experience simply had himself (though that in of itself is significant).  It still did not allow for a peer review.  I think, if for no other reason, we had the advantage of numbers.  Not to mention the original author himself,  Mike Mjelde.   I’m satisfied with my representation, based upon our conclusions,  In spite of the current apparent mischaracterization.

Rob, the very fact that your Hull form, even incomplete bears such an amazingly close resemblance to various contemporary photos of "GLORY of the SEAS" is all the proof we need to validate that the lines our combined group arrived at are accurate. I am thrilled to observe you and Vlad's inspiring progress.

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I’m glad you are pursuing the issue further, however, I’m going to move forward in the direction we had already agreed upon.  My model will reflect what this group has skillfully uncovered.  The photographic evidence is, in my view beyond contestation.  I continue to hope your recovery is as uneventful as possible.

Rob, I deeply appreciate your well wishes. As I painstakingly recreate my understanding of Glory's true lines, I will share them here first. I intend to include references to every single piece of photographic evidence which supports the lines drawn. Hopefully, it should be such a compelling body of documentary evidence that it will lead Mike and Ron to reevaluate Glory's true appearance.

guys, I am so frustrated by this stupid situation. I'm determined to finally get Glory's lines right but I'm still battling post op pain to recover and can't seem to concentrate on drawing. So maddening. Two days ago, I was so frustrated with my lack of progress that I went "cold turkey" and quit taking pain meds. Dubious decision for sure with expected results that I hurt like a son of a bitch but I feel like if I can just get beyond this grueling crucible my return to normalcy will accelerate. Then you will once again see my contributions of how Donald McKay's last, longest lived beautiful Clipper Ship "GLORY of the SEAS" (NOT an 1830s Packet Ship) truly appeared.

Rob, Vladimir, honestly how can anyone see the two clear pictures of the lovely, sleek prow of "GLORY of the SEAS" and come up with these proposed lines??? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I know Ron's a highly accomplished artisan, as witness by his gorgeous half Hull of "Donald McKay" but he just still seems to be so far of the mark for poor Glory!

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

I think I would have a tough time reconciling steel wool and Brill pads in any *NEW* construction technique I might try to justify.   I'm out in left field...but not that far out. 

 

I talked to Mike and he says Ron is continuing to modify his stern drawings of Glory.  Also he said, he will keep us abreast of any info on his new publication and how we can acquire a copy.  I am....oh so looking forward to it.

 

Rob

Rob, while I'm relieved that Ron is reworking the Stern, quite frankly I as usual have a huge problem with his interpretation of Glory's Bow. My God, he actually has her prow bulging slightly forward below the waterline! What's up with that??? His Naval Hoods don't match and that should easily be fixed by looking at the lovely close up which clearly shows both the hoods and her Cutwater. Then there's her 7' sheer, which I see nowhere in his lines. I do not in anyway want this to turn into a p--sing match but his latest effort still is so far off from where we've arrived at. However I strongly feel Mike needs to know the truth. Especially if he plans on publishing these in his latest book. 

Honesty to me is always the best approach but how do you gracefully tell an experienced shipwright that his lines totally suck, again???

9 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Smart phones…….that is surely a typo.  I meant steam bending the transom.  You are correct.   I picked up some micro drills and some micro table saw blades to aid in construction 

Rob, I was trying to envision you somehow using steel wool or brillo pads, which obviously made no sense. Thanks for clarifying it.

6 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Thanks Vlad, she’s does look like the photographs.  Still lots of sanding work.   I still need to add the monkey rail cap, but both sides need to be scribed before install and I will wool stem the transom prior to adding it

Rob, I'm unfamiliar with the wool stem process for the transom. Is that a typo? I know about steam bending but not the procedure you described. Can you please enlighten me?

6 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Rich allow me to refrain from racing narrative.  it was meant like humor, im not a man of competing in this hobby at all.  besides, i cant compete with Robs building  ability not speaking of american composite masts sails etc so its pointless topic. yes i was surprised to see email after 1+ year , but unfortunately i dont have ship nor track record of it atm, but hopefully person i sold model to... this is vaguely offtopic but here it go....

even If i had the ship and i would certainly donated it to museum i assume it would cost me a fortune  even to deliver it to them ( due to shipping over size etc) ando there would have to be mutual agreement on shipment and tremendoul liking from their side to have it  nevertheless, its a fair bit of satisfaction for model builder to get such email for sure i never dreamed of when building it. sepaking of- its far from standard or perfection with planking etc...but sum up  seemes that cathegorical rigorous fashion of building and laying all planks as shipwrights do is not necesarrily needed to get reaponse from museum ...  lesson learnt. i remember i just put all my love to that vessel fro 1 year of my life . and photos are to stay  forever here at msw  so i will try to point her to person owing ship now. and now pls lets back to Glory.  

 

 

Vladimir, my sensitive wife Peggy is constantly on me for my dry humor. She's right of course. More often than not, others don't realize I'm merely joking. It's tough to tone it down because I'm having harmless fun when I do it and can't seem to accept that people hear it differently.

Of course I wasn't serious about you and Rob being in any kind of a modeling race, that would just be plain silly. Besides which, as I've mentioned more than once, I personally have never seen a modeler produce such impressive results in such short time. 

In my own dumb way I was attempting to encourage you in your own endeavours as you build what I'm sure will be a fine model of "GLORY of the SEAS."

On 7/9/2021 at 9:05 AM, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Wishing you steady recovery progress indeed Rich, i hope you can get some amusement from our friendly racing with Rob :)). Just so you know, it echoed again in my head when fairing a bulkheads that I have to be more precise as Rich wouldnt like to see some bumps etc...you see how effect those hours in front of computer had thru spring ;)....

Vladimir my friend, after seeing how the actual "Cutty Sark" Museum, Greenwich, England has requested the honor of placing your massive 1:24th Clipper "Cutty Sark" for public display, I have no doubt you will give Rob quite a "run for the money!" Just remember too, especially in modeling at this fine level of meticulous accuracy, entirely scratch building from self developed ship's lines, sometimes slow & steady wins the race too. .

gak1965

I'm friends with Vladimir & just stumbled on your impressive build.

I hope you don't mind my sticking my 2c in but I might have some fascinating historical information to enlighten you about the amazing accomplishment of the Clipper "Flying Fish" you're currently building. Being a Scottish Immigrant from Nova Scotia, Donald McKay was very conservative and remarkably consistent in his paint schemes for his Clipper Ships to the point of being boring. Non other than Duncsn MacLean, the Boston Daily News publicist even made a jocular observation that all of McKay's Clippers, like Clergy came in Black. There are others that were painted quite differently. For instance the fast Clipper "Galatea" which had a distinctive full running thoroughbred painted on her fore topsail, was painted deep Sea Bronze. Of course it's your vessel, you can paint her as you choose but I thought you might appreciate knowing something about the Historic nature of this particular McKay Extreme Clipper. I've attached a gorgeous painting done by the famous contemporary artist James Buttersworth commissioned by the Ship's owners to celebrate this McKay vessel's triumphant win in the "Great Deep Sea Derby".

The painting confirms that, like "GLORY of the SEAS" where we actually have photographic proof, the large rear cabin does indeed overhang about 3' from the rear poop deck. The painting also verifies that the rear of the cabin is flat, not curved. Another fascinating detail is her sea bronze & gold trimmed flying fish figurehead. It is most likely smaller than the kit supplied version. If you observe closely, you can see it is apparently embossed on the vessel's Cutwater which mounts over the stem. The beautiful model kit much like "Flying Cloud" seems to include only the Stem not the Cutwater which mounts over it. Since these Clippers were built to take on the heavy seas of Cape Horn, Donald McKay made the Bow extremely rugged. This arrangement makes for a much more stable and graceful Bow than the rather awkward way the figurehead is sort of tacked on with nothing to support it. 

https://www.vallejogallery.com/item_mobile.php?page=item_page&id=487#lg=1&slide=4

Rob, this is indeed Donald McKay's Clipper "GLORY of the SEAS" shaping up in all her glory. To see his last Clipper come to life in three dimensional miniature like this is so thrilling to observe, especially after spending the last year viewing tantalizing images of her. Two dimensional photos just don't do her Justice. I've selected two of my favorites of the many pics you've shared. Most impressive is the top one where you can see the graceful transition from sharp Clipper Bow to full bodied Merchantman. The bottom image has been flipped in order to better appreciate the loveliness of her form.

My one request, I know it's purely a matter of taste, is that you reconsider leaving the waterways light blue. I personally appreciate the contrast with pearl and white trim, besides which it seems to have been a preferential hallmark of practically all of Donald McKay's Clipper Ships

19 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

She's sure looking good....love those curves....and yes...it does take a lot if work to make it right....but that is part of the fun of it all.

 

What an honor that the museum wanted to show your Cutty Sark.  It might belong to another now...but it was your construction and interpretation they wanted.   Congrats!

 

Rob

Vladimir, CONGRATULATIONS!!! on the Cutty Sark Museum request to display your impressive, large scale model. While you no longer possess this magnificent creation, I encourage you to contact whoever holds it to see if they might like to honor the Museum's request. Knowing how most collectors feel, it's almost a sure bet they too would appreciate the opportunity to see their miniature in display at the home of the actual vessel herself. If nothing else, besides raising monetary value for any potential future resale, bragging rights alone would also be a positive motivator. If you haven't informed the new owner, I strongly encourage you to do so. They might be thrilled and thank you for letting them know. Good luck!

11 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Thanks Rich.   I pray you are recovering well?      I think my new corrections will be beneficial.   I’m extremely excited with your approval of my progress.   More sanding and fantail work and possibly I can move to the starboard side soon 

Rob, recovery progress is continuing to be the toughest of my life but I am slowly, determinedly improving. I also want to admit Rob that I am truly humbled by your generous compliment. I had no idea that you held my viewpoint with such high regard. Meanwhile, I personally continue to be in awe of your rapid, yet beautifully accurate modeling skills. Such careful attention to small details like the multiple moldings of Glory will result in what I am now convinced will be the most impressively accurate miniature of "GLORY of the SEAS" ever produced so far. Lacking anywheres near the modeling skills of either you or Vladimir, I want to only act as a guide to assist you both in realizing your objectives to achieve the most accurate reproductions possible. It has been the thrill of a lifetime to collaborate with other fans of Donald McKay's incredibly beautiful Clipper Ships, especially being able to communicate with one of my favorite Maritime authors as well.

So It's damnably frustrating to be sidelined by my slow recovery, especially since I feel an even greater sense of serious urgency to redo accurate lines of "GLORY of the SEAS" to finally do her true justice.

After doggedly pursuing real genuine faithful reinterpretation of Donald McKay's last glorious Clipper Ship for just over twelve and a half years now, I refuse to accept seeing another set of unfortunately crappy lines be published that do McKay's brilliance such an injustice.

What we have learned from over a year's worth of intense study and exhaustive evaluation of practically every inch of McKay's longest lived merchant vessel has been so encouraging and enlightening. Our mutual approach has consistently relied on precise, scientific, measured investigation of every incredibly clear image so generously shared by author Michael Mjelde. I personally am firmly convinced that what Donald McKay accomplished in his final effort was the culmination of his decades of single minded pursuit of excellence in creating a very swift merchant vessel with an extremely sharp Clipper Ship entrance and exit coupled with an enormous capacity for storage as well. Remember this amazingly durable Clipper was the very last vessel to accomplish the arduous Cape Horn journey from New York to San Francisco in under 100 days (1873-74 in 96 days - Pacific Marine Review). She also still holds the record for sailing from San Francisco, California to Sydney, Australia in 35 days, a feat accomplished despite poor vessel condition, as the Ship herself was crank due to insufficient ballast. With a strong beam wind Glory was practically on her beam ends. As a result the crew had to send down her stunsail booms as well as royal yards. Yet despite such poor vessel condition, she sailed with very favorable winds and weather (Pacific Marine Review). Imagine what she might have accomplished if she had been in proper trim.

Now it's time to pull all that intense detailed research we have done together into one coherent whole and produce a recognizable blueprint of what she truly looked like.

Rob, your progress is so exciting to watch. "GLORY of the SEAS" is now definitely looking like the Clipper Ship I see in the many impressive images Mike has shared with us. I'm glad you revised the scrollwork for her Cutwater and Naval Hoods. This image here is my favorite one of your latest ones. The form is simply beautiful. Great work!

Ron Haug's proposed new line impressions for Donald McKay's Clipper Ship "GLORY of the SEAS" as sent to Rob and I a few days ago. Ron told Mike that in this design, he believes that somehow McKay has "drifted back to his old Packet Ship days of the 1830s even with the stem" with this design. 

Honestly, I'm personally very sad to say "here we go again." My impressions of Shipwright Ron Haug's lines are that he either never saw the incredibly detailed photos Michael Mjelde's shared with us or he doesn't see the same svelte vessel we see. Our past year's collaborative effort has led me to hope for so much more than... this. While this group has been concentrating on reconstructing Glory's true form for about a year, my own journey of discovering Donald McKay's last Clipper Ship has now been just over a dozen. I don't know how Mike will react but as I've always consistently said, my first loyalty is to the memory of Donald McKay and his lovely vessel. Mr McKay deserves better.....

        1869 Donald McKay Clipper

    "GLORY of the SEAS" 2,102 tons

                     Specifications

Length of Keel: 240'2"

Line of the wales between perpendiculars: 250'

Overall length, Knightheads to taffrails: 265'

Breadth of beam: 44'

Depth of hold: 28'6"

Height between decks: 8'2"

Deadrise at half floor: 8 1/2"

Overall sheer: 7'

As I race to incorporate all the particular specifics Rob, I and others of our dedicated group have confirmed, these are the historic, published specifics I will be relying on. Besides length of keel, sourced from Glory's official registry admeasurement, all other measurements are from Duncan MacLean's 1869 published description of the vessel in the Boston Daily Atlas.

Fortunately, Mike's going to be concentrating much of his time promoting his latest book "Down East Captain." That should give us valuable time to build a strong case to refute, then hopefully refine Ron Haug's interpretation of Glory's Hull, section by section. Meanwhile I have far more confidence in the vessel's lines as we have scientifically arrived at through full utilization of every possible resource available to us. After seeing Ron Haug's stunning half hull of "Donald McKay" and his beautiful model of the Downeaster "Benj F Packard" I respect his talents and ability. How he has so far so badly misinterpreted "Glory of the Seas" is maddeningly frustrating.

Rob, I just now opened up Mike's email & viewed Ron Haug's "Glory of the Seas" lines impressions. After our solid year of exhausting, in depth research, utilizing some of the sharpest, clear images, courtesy of Michael Mjelde's incredible collection of images of Glory's Hull, I have to admit I'm disappointed and somewhat baffled as to how Mr Haug has come to his conclusions. It makes me seriously wonder, is he even seeing the same pictures we have been given? I hope this doesn't upset Mike but I vehemently disagree with Ron's Bow interpretation. His rough drawn Nava Hoods alone don't match the crystal clear image of that device as seen in the 1912 extreme broadside close up. The Cutwater is way too thick below. Then the graceful flowing curve of the Cutwater which transitions to the sharp, slightly backwards angled prow is completely missing. Instead, Ron's prow appears to bulge slightly forward which completely contradicts the 1912 Seattle scene where Glory's sharp Clipper prow can be evidently seen, with much of her re-coppered below waterline Hull visible as well. Meanwhile, I also totally disagree with Ron's much thicker Stern as well. Again, it's like he's not seeing the slimmer, graceful refined Counter and Stern that we have worked so hard to replicate. There's definitely a defining line most likely 3'6" below the sheerline which can be clearly seen in both the Alaska towing scene and even the 1869 fitting out image. Then there's the sheerline itself. Again, the amount of drop from the Stern going forward appears to be more significant than that seen on the vessel herself. 

Then there's the ship's dimensions written on Ron's lines. Keel, depth of hold and beam all agree precisely with those published by MacLean but deck length of 235' is 20' shy of that published and 258' overall length is 7' shorter than that published of knightheads to Taffrail of 265'.

I'm going to redouble my efforts to produce lines of my own, incorporating everything we have discovered with our concentrated efforts to realize a far more accurate Clipper Ship. Donald McKay deserves to finally have his last Clipper Ship done faithfully.