ClipperFan

Vladimir, Isn't it fascinating how our perceptions can get biased by misleading or misinterpreted evidence? Good luck with your revisions. I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Vladimir, Perhaps these two close ups will help you with the Stern. It took me a while to understand that while it looks curved, two out three sections are not. They're really straight. If you look closely at the Monkey Rail above the Main Rail, it's a straight component which angles out just slightly. Look below it and you'll see that the Main Rail too is straight, not curved as you would suspect. In reality the only curved section is from below the Main Rail molding and this section is not purely a concave one it starts out convex and then becomes concave. I know this is more challenging but it's accurate.

Vladimir, Some observations of Glory's condition in the sharp close up might help us in our efforts to recreate her original appearance. There's a sharp break in the wood just in front of her name board on the right side. The front of her previously neat cap rail, just above her Monkey Rail is missing entirely. When you consider how ruggedly this vessel was constructed, it must have been a serious wave to do such impressive damage to her Starboard Quarter Deck Bulwarks. They appear to be pushed out and slightly down. Compare this to her original launch photos. You have traced the Bowsprit accurately from the photo. However, since she's had her 31' Jibboom cut off outside the Cap, it makes sense that the missing heft of that spar has allowed the Bowsprit to lift up. A more accurate angle would be to extend a line from the top of her Naval Hood. When she was fully rigged, it's certain that those massive dual chain bobstays beneath and two iron bars tied into tips of her Naval Hoods would be cinched down tight to strengthen all her Masts against powerful effects of wind and waves. If my previous measurement is correct, it should be 20.60 degrees, exactly the measurement of 4 1/2" rise to 1' run. The Naval Hood is practically perfect now, great work on that. Where it originates from her Hull would match the sharp entrance of her Bow. In the photo, there's a hawse line coming from a notch in the Cap Rail which neatly follows the three bottom moldings of the Naval Hood. If you trace that line, it appears to be a perfect match for the beginning of the Naval Hood. It's very difficult to see because it's neatly matched to the Hull. The Carved Arch on her Cutwater is also much improved. Look real close at the left heel of Athene, you'll see what looks like a small pedestal for her to step on, just above the billet head of the arch itself. Another refinement is the drop of the arch line itself. Again, peer closely at her launch scene, the arch line appears to mirror the Naval Hood above and ends slightly below her anchor hawes hole. As for a still verticle appearance of her prow, my personal suspicion is that we're still coming to grips with dual challenges. Her later condition due to significant keel hogging looks like it flattened her sheer while exaggerating her Prow. It's most likely from her entrance becoming more verticle not less. Meanwhile, the 1869 scene of Glory on the Ways is on a slight rise as she towers high above us, which coincidentally exaggerates verticle appearance of her Bow entrance. Rob has measured her Prow as having a negative 8 1/2 degree inclination from 90 degrees using her Anchor and Dolphin Striker as Plumb lines, offsetting her angle of inclination on the Ways. Meanwhile, it looks to me that Glory has a slight, almost unnoticeable forward curve below the waterline. I really need to hold a clear ruler over this section on a good sized enlargement to confirm my suspicions. What's clearly obvious though is a graceful curving entrance at the base of her Stem which joins the keel. Observing your overall profile, the base of her 7' sheer drop should be at the center of Glory's Main Shrouds, which are just about even with the back of her lower Main Mast. Her Stern looks like it should probably be about a foot lower and still slightly smaller, possibly less pronounced overhang. I refer to her beached at Endolyne which gives a decent view of her Stern silhouette. To confirm this Hull configuration will require a perspective reconstruction of her 1877 San Francisco dock scene. A verticle plumb line could be dropped from the end of her Mizzen Spencer Spar. Then the center line of her prow could be connected to that spar, running through centers of all three masts to identify the perspective center of the vessel. perspective horizontal lines could be extended to the end of her Stern. Effectively, this should give a sense of the difference in height of the Stern to the lowest point of Glory's sheer at the midway point of her Main Shrouds as well as the much higher Fore Quarter Deck. All of this is such a challenge because we're trying to ascertain a two dimensional profile using three dimensional images in multiple photos.

Rob, using my cellphone, I measured Glory's figurehead at 18mm, above the waterline measured 6.1cm and below was 5.3cm. That translates to 25' above and 22' below. It will be interesting so see if your results come out similar.

Sailor, I had the same idea but using an old fashioned ruler and plotting out her keel length as specified in the diagram. The sketch is very rough, probably just enough to give an impression of old Glory's under Hull condition. There are locations where a 16' deviation is specified more than once but the sketch has one lower than the other. Once an accurate 'connect the dots' drawing was done, at least the original keel length should be reached. It's just like straightening out a rope. As for her Cutwater, my suspicion is that it became more verticle with keel deviation, not less. Have you ever sat in a raft and watched what happens to the ends?

Rob, as we're all committed to acquiring the utmost accuracy and this is an ever evolving project towards achieving that goal, I see no reason to apologize for revising your calculations based upon more precise resources. If I'm correct, our new dimension for Glory's Naval Hoods is 17 1/2'. Does that sound correct? Meanwhile, if it's not too much to ask, can you calculate Glory's coppering up to the waterline from her 1869 on the Ways scene? There are now two conflicting statements. Something Mike pointed out to me happened a lot. According to American Lloyd's, large ships like Glory had 24' waterlines. Mike added a 14" strake to her previous 22' waterline and revised it to 25'. An accurate number would help a lot.

Another item to be refined is Glory's Stern. If you look at her magnificent 1877 dockside photo, it's readily apparent that her Stern, while slightly higher than her lowest point, midway of the Main Shrouds, is much lower than her Bow. I now believe that the dramatic rise of her Bow seen in later years such as my favorite 1907 San Pedro Broadside is partially due to severe hogging keel beneath which has flattened her previously lovely 7' sheer. Incidentally that drop would be counted from her highest point at the Bow to the lowest, mid center of her Main Shrouds, not from her Stern. From dead reckoning, I estimate the difference in height from her Bow to Stern is about 4'. From looking at images of Glory's Stern, from scenes of her being towed out to Alaska and beached at Endolyne, Glory's Stern is more subdued than your current plan shows. It consists of an 18" Monkey Rail on top which is just slightly curved in from verticle, than she has a 5' Main Rail which appears to be almost straight rather than curved. In fact if you look closely at this section, where the crew are relaxing sitting on her Stern quarter rails, it actually appears to be indented slightly, possibly due to the effect of her moldings too. Speaking of her Stern quarter rails, the turned stanchions aren't verticle either, they too appear to tilt slightly outwards. They are the opposite of her rear House rails which tilt slightly inward. In fact her Quarter Deck House and Wheelhouse also aren't verticle but also have a slight cant inwards too. Their decks and roofs aren't flat either but arch slightly upwards towards their centers. As for the rest of her Stern below the Main Rail it is much smaller in its curving drop to the rudder head. Again, take a look at the section just below her Main Rail. Again, I believe the scene of Glory's Stern seen from below where she's beached has caused another case of visual misperception. By viewing multiple images from varying angles, a more accurate comprehension can be accomplished.

In regards to the carved arch onto which Glory's figurehead mounts, it's about the same width as the section of the Naval Hood above. However, pay attention to the 1869 close up of Glory on the Ways, you'll see that it actually widens slightly as it terminates at her Bow. It's confusing to the eye because the Naval Hood above is much wider. Incidentally, the Hood's end isn't verticle as it mounts to the Bow but angles slightly to match the curve of the Ship. Rob has calculated that her Hood is twice the length of her 7 1/2 figurehead, making it 15' overall. About 9' is beyond her Bow and ends 18" behind her figurehead's outstretched right hand and veil. This can now be precisely verified by counting the 7 iron bands which are each 3' apart with 18" on each end for a total of 24' to the Cap.

Vladimir, I reposted the Bow images as a way of helping you understand how visual perception can be subtly deceptive. Looking at the upper scene, it's clear the Naval Hood, which mounts just above the carved arch on Glory's Cutwater and immediately behind her figurehead, is almost a straight line after departing from her Bow. As an integral part of her Bow structure it makes nautical sense too. This component is what the massive 24' Bowsprit and outside the Cap, the 31' jibboom both rest on. Having it curve would weaken it, so it's essentially straight. However when this same device is viewed from below, as seen in 1869 Glory on the ways, it appears to be much more curved. Why? Because it's actually curving out to match the section of Glory's Bow. Look carefully though at the section that supports her straight line Bowsprit, you'll see they evenly match.

Vladimir, you definitely are headed in the right direction. To clarify your confusion on the waterline coppering, the answer is that both are correct from different publications. According to American Lloyd's, large vessels had waterlines of 24'. Since yellow metal plates are 14", Mike has added an additional line of plates to 22' resulting in 25'. Later on in the same Seaways article Mike quotes verbatim the works of publicist Duncan MacLean which on the second line of page 10 refers to Glory being coppered up to 22'.... My idea: we know now for a fact that Glory's figurehead is 90", 7 1/2' tall. From the scene of Glory on the Ways, we can use her figurehead as a measuring stick and approximate her depth up to the waterline and above. Whether it's 22' or 25' I do know that her height above at the Bow is more than below.

Rob, you're right about Glory's sharper prow. Part of McKay's design brilliance was his ability to draft for significant stowage ability while at the same time optimally designed for speed. Look at the deck profile of Clipper "Lightning" for a comparison. After seeing the surprising graphic of her dramatic keel hogging, courtesy of Mike's recent email, I'm beginning to think much more emphasis on investigation of Glory's condition in her very early years will give us a more accurate view of her true Hull form.

Ahh, Vladimir, that's so nice of you. As I said in my explanation, if we can determine different distances from photographic evidence, these figures may have to be revised. I look at this effort as a collaboration, which in the end should give us results we should all be proud of.

Rob, How Michael Mjelde determined that the scene attributed to "Glory of the Seas" was not her I don't precisely know but he was very emphatic that it's not her. As for the confusing skylight placement, if you look at this scene of her beached at Endolyne, it's clear that her rear House only has two skylights, both behind her Mizzen Mast.

Vladimir, In Lars Bruzelius's excellent website there are many descriptions of Clipper Ships of many nations. Much of Duncan MacLean's articles for Boston Daily Atlas are included. The specific distances of all three masts of McKay's Extreme Clipper "Staghound" are precisely listed. Distance between perpendiculars on deck was 215'. Here are the distances, (c) = center: Stem to Foremast (c) 50' Foremast (c) to Main Mast (c) 67' Main Mast (c) to Mizzen Mast (c) 56' Mizzen Mast (c) to Sternpost 42' Math determines percentage of deck results with these calculations for "Glory of the Seas" known to have had a 250' distance on deck between perpendiculars: 50' ÷ 215 = 23% x 250 = 58' 67 ÷ 215 = 31% × 250 = 78' 56' ÷ 215 = 26% × 250 = 65' 42 ÷ 215 = 19.5% × 250 = 49' Of course, this is making an assumption. McKay followed same formula for placement of masts. If he did, then these would be the same distances for "Glory of the Seas": Stem to Foremast (c) 58' Foremast (c) to Main Mast (c) 78' Main Mast (c) to Mizzen Mast (c) 65' Mizzen Mast (c) to Stern Post 49' Of course, if there's photographic evidence that clearly contradicts these conclusions, I would say that would be our most reliable source.

Vladimir, Michael Mjelde confirmed he used the 1869 fitting out broadside photo as primary resource for his plans. He admits that in doing so that perspective wasn't taken into consideration nearly enough and as a result inaccuracies occurred. Definitely noticable have been the lower compressed Bow, more verticle Stem, diminutive figurehead, emphasized Stern and I'm sure Mast distances would be off too, since closer masts would be emphasized while those in the distance would be closer and slightly diminished. Rob and I have been working to counteract these discrepancies in order to get a more accurate set of plans.

Michael Mjelde just sent Rob and I a copy of an email he sent to Ron Haug's daughter Annie. In it, Mike refers to a 1935 India House publication "The Marine Collection at India House." (reprinted in 1973 by Wesleyan University Press, co-publisher's of Mike's first book "Glory of the Seas"in 1970). Page 51 details Glory's Goddess 'Athene' figurehead. It too confirms what I discovered in a recent Antiques Carving Magazine. "Glory of the Seas" indeed had a figurehead of exactly 90" (7 1/2') tall. Mike said verifying this fact will allow us to attain a higher degree of accuracy in our combined efforts to recreate "Glory of the Seas" He thanks Annie for her dad's attention to detail, which should satisfy everyone involved in recreating "Glory of the Seas."

Rob, Since this image originates from Michael Mjelde's first book I accept that it's genuine. Mike assured me in one of his emails that his process to verify every photo involved talking to members of the crew to verify their credibility. I do remember reading that in her long years of service, Glory went through multiple refits. The most logical explanation is that at some point, her Fore and Main Masts were replaced with 'solid sticks' and later replaced again with correctly built ones.

Vladimir, I commend you on your enthusiasm in wanting to create your model of "Glory of the Seas." It also impresses me when I see the precisely clean lines computer aided drafting can accomplish. It's not my intention to dissuade your excitement but I want to point out some easily observable corrections you might want to make. If you look at a detail section of Glory's Bow, even without measuring it's apparent that her section above the waterline is taller above than below. Rob and I calculate that she's 25' above and 22' below at the apex of her Bow and she has a -8 1/2 degree from 90 degree verticle Stem. Since that's been calculated from her 1869 scene on the Ways, it can be considered more reliable than later images which we now conclude are marred by up to 16' keel hogging. Your profile has Glory's Bow being lower above than below. If you add 3' to the 22' waterline, you'll have the accurate Bow height. Rob has also calculated her Naval Hoods to be 15' from her Bow to tip just 18" behind her 7 1/2' Grecian Goddess 'Athene' figurehead. Athene has now been determined to project 7 1/2' from the #1 iron band of the Bowsprit and 9' from where the Bowsprit emanates from the Bow. Then her flower endorned carved arch on the Cutwater actually has a larger width at its base than the section of Naval Hood above. While it seems to stay the same width, it gets just a little wider closer to the Bow. The 1877 image of Glory at a San Francisco dockside show this and also gives a clear indication of her graceful sheer which drops 7' at the center of her Main shrouds before gradually rising at a lower level at her stern. Mike, myself and Rob have had a spirited debate about the 22.30 degree Bowsprit steeve. As I've constantly highlighted using other McKay Clippers, that angle of inclination doesn't fit evenly into an inches to feet measurement, which every other one of McKay's vessels do. For that reason, I still favor a 4 1/2" to 1' steeve or 20.60 degrees. That's about exactly the measurement of the latest crystal clear Bow and figurehead close up. At the base of her Stem there's a small, graceful curve which transitions to her keel. There's some confusion as to actual length of Glory's keel. In her actual registration it's given as 240.2' while the length in her Dry Dock measurement is 235'. Mike told me he believes the discrepancy is due an inability to place a keel block under the curve at the base of her Stem. One last observation is that your stern post appears to incline slightly backwards into her Hull. Maybe it's the angle at which your picture was taken, it's hard to tell. Either way, McKay's ships all had verticle sternposts or slightly inclined out. The last image shows Glory being towed to Alaska as a Salmon processing barge. If you look very closely at her Stern it's not flat across it rises ever so subtly towards her center. You'll see also that her Stern is more lightly formed than current plans, another issue I'm working to get corrected. I realize it's frustrating the pedantic pace we are going at but my sense is if you allow this process to evolve you'll be much happier with the more accurate model you'll get as a result.

I tried to upload these in progressive order but the site has a mind of it's own. Oh well, they're all here anyway.

Jan/Feb 1992 "Seaways - Ships in Scale" has a very nice writeup on Medium Clipper 'Glory of the Seas' including a complete 1869 contemporary description of the vessel in specific details by Duncan MacLean, Boston Daily Atlas, article written by Michael J Mjelde. Final image is another rare picture of her Goddess "Athene" figurehead, probably one of the raciest ones so far. It's amazing to admire the carving work on her grecian gown, once you can get beyond admiring her other, uhm assets....

Rob, no need to apologize. After all, the picture literally identifies the ship in the image as "Glory of the Seas." I actually thought it had to be her, due to that. My wondering if Glory had a third skylight had me question Mike which led him to clear up the mistake.

Rob, I just asked Mike to clarify my observation. With a 238' WL waterline and 235' SK Stern to Knightheads, it would have to mean that Glory's Stem at this point was not only severely verticle but actually tilted backwards 3 feet! If that were the case, it would make sense that her prow would be angled upwards which would also affect her Bowsprit steeve too. What also surprised me was what precipitated this poor condition was an entire loss of her protective yellow metal cladding and poor repairs done after she ran aground on a sandbar. In fact in 1910 Glory actually began to sink after having been anchored from March 1909 until February 1910 when her sinking condition was discovered. That led to a mandated Dry Docking.

Rob, I sent you the entire pdf page and then got creative. Using my wife's phone I took a picture of the diagram on her device, then emailed it to mine and viola! here it is for everyone to observe.

Rob, As it's a pdf file, I will have to forward it to you in an email. Look for it.