ClipperFan

@Jared It's hard to tell for sure but from your stern view, it looks like the mizzen topsail mast has a slight left lean, besides the lower mast. How it will appear once the lower mast is corrected might clear it up.

Rick, From the few contemporary accounts that I've read about the weatherly qualities of Stag Hound her Captain gave her high praise, stating there wasn't another ship that could pass her. He also said she was a very stable and dry ship. What came as a surprise to me though was that the 3 decker Webb California Clipper Challenge had an even more extreme 43" at half-hull.

@rwiederrich it's not a great image, for which I apologize. However, 8' before the stern taffrail on my poop deck plan lines up exactly with the fore of the steering wheel box. It also happens to be aligned with aft walls of the stern waterclosets. Width at that location is 24 & 1/2' as described in Duncan McLean's Stag Hound article. Midpoint of the skylight appears to be 35' across, compared to the 37' width of the poop deck fore. At the companion, it appears to be 30'. If these sketched dimensions don't match with the bulkheads, then let me know what your actual lines are. I know the lines on the poop deck fore look crooked. The sketch is actually arrow straight. Since the pape is 14" × 17" it's hard to get the entire image correct.

@KeithAug enjoy them while you may as Rob works quickly and efficiently. Pretty soon, the magnificent hull of Stag Hound will appear in all her svelte glory!

@rwiederrich Strap in. The Rob dragster of production is just firing up! I can barely contain my excitement. Meanwhile, the maritime historian in me just can't help but resist a comparison from your past future production. As a way of comparing McKay's inagural 1850 extreme California Clipper Stag Hound with his final 1869 medium California Clipper Glory of the Seas here's a couple scenes of her in the similar bulkhead stage. From Rob's past build June 3rd, 2021 almost exactly 3 & 1/2 years ago to his current post, Friday, November 1st, 2024! Since I couldn't locate images of her in the same exact angle, I flipped one to give an approximate comparison. You can see how the extreme 40" deadrise at half hull for Stag Hound was greatly reduced for Glory of the Seas which had a practically flat 8" deadrise at half hull. Still both have quite noticeably sharp clipper entrance and exits.

@Jared I didn't remember that these plans were from the solid hull version and not the plank on bulkhead one. This one dates back to 1953 and is from Model Shipways, Bogota, NJ. I selected these since they refer to the Norway plans, so that should match up. There are scales, they're just not identified very clearly. However, at the base of the Norway tracing you'll see call outs with spacing. It's hard to see but it looks like the scale is written as 1/4th" = 1' in the lower right corner, which would make it 1:48th scale. It makes sense, since that's the identical scale which Cornelius McKay crafted his impressive Stag Hound builder's hull model. Then, on the 1st sheet of the Model Shipways hull plan, there's a similar scale identified as 1/8th" = 1' making it 1:96th scale. I would be curious to see how your plans compare to these.

Well, well, well that comments going to go a long way in helping this poor fellow write his thesis... 😉

@Jared It still baffles me how such supposedly careful research, even involving NRG could possibly get so many details wrong. Her bowsprit is listed as being 18' outboard, with each iron band being 3' apart, there should be 6 bands for 5 each 3' spaces, with 18" going into the bow and 18" before her cap. From plans, it appears the bowsprit is about 3' short. Jibboom is 20' inner, 15' outer and 5' end for a total of 40' outside an 18" cap. Total should be 59'6". Other than appearing a bit short, Model Shipways plans I found contradict the plans you shared as the bowsprit diameter remains consistent. They state that they're based on tracing of original plans in the Sjøfortsmuseum, Bergen, Norway. The first major disagreement I have with her erroneous bow treatment is a complete lack of any support for her flying fish figurehead awkwardly tacked onto her bare stem. It completely misses unique McKay navel hoods and elegantly curved cutwater which even the Buttersworth oil profile portrays. Donald McKay introduced his revolutionary bow with Stag Hound his "Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet." That's how McKay's son Cornelius described her. Duncan McLean went into more detail evaluating these devices on McKay's Flying Cloud. His record breaking second California Clipper. It defies logic that McKay would abandon this for his fourth clipper but his third California Clipper. I've attached the Norway tracing, more natural flying fish figureheads, an overlay of the tracing to show how her bow would have really appeared. This also move the hawes hole further down, just below the base of the navel hood. Even the Butterworth's piece shows a more pronounced bow than just a bare stem. The first of three Model Shipways plans refers to the Norway tracing and admits use of the Boston Daily article as well. This is where I also differ greatly with their interpretation. McLean very clearly states that her topgallant forecastle provides lofty, well lit and ventilated accomodations for crew below. There are also twin companions in the wings leading to those quarters below. Before, meaning ahead of those companions are waterclosets for use of the crew. That places the waterclosets below, just ahead of companionway ladders. Since her total bulkhead height, including monkey rail was 5'10" how can you possibly stuff a windlass into such a short space? Forecastle height was set at the 4'6" main rail height, surmounted by a 16" high monkey rail. Since her decks were 3 & 1/2" thick, that makes space underneath maximum 4' 2 & 1/2". Meanwhile, to provide a sheltered area for the crew beneath, the entire forecastle bulkhead must be enclosed. This alternate plan from Stag Hound and Flying Cloud would look very similar, but for Flying Fish it would be 6" shorter. This also eliminates both wing structures outside the forecastle and places her windlass below out of sight. Spacing of masts are precisely described: 52' stem to foremast center, 62' to mainmast center, 52' to mizzenmast center and 44' to sternpost. All masts rake alike at 1 & 1/4ths" per foot. While not specifically described, her bowsprit steeve was most likely 4" to the foot, identical to that of her earlier sister California Clipper Flying Cloud. All specs are listed in McLean's detailed article. The longhouse abaft the foremast is described as being 33' long, 15' wide and 7' high. From Michael Mjelde's descriptions, these are internal dimensions. Configuration of the aft coach house is accurate for the outline which conforms with her outer bulkheads, leaving clear working space for crew. There's no evidence that a raised central companion existed. It's most likely the coach house height was 7' with a slightly curved roof. Since poop deck height was at main rail height, it would have been 2'6" above the poop deck. The offset port side aft companion is correct according to Michael Mjelde's plans. Mounting it in the center interferes with the aft deck companion while being offset to port doesn't. Another significant difference is a more ornate front fascia as portrayed in the Buttersworth oil. This is confirmed by pictures of the quite ornate fascia on Glory of the Seas coach house. Lastly, lubber's holes in solid tops are longer and wider than plans. All of these revisions are completely in line with all specifics as provided by Duncan McLean.

@JacksonMcG welcome to ship modeler's central! In an attempt to contribute to your research, I will share part of my own ongoing remarkable journey. For the past several years, I have been a member of a remarkable group of dedicated craftsmen who have built two of the most accurate miniatures of Donald McKay's final California Clipper Glory of the Seas. Our years long investigation into the true appearance of this remarkable vessel caught the attention of Arina @TheAuthorsDaughter. She introduced @rwiederrich to her dad, Michael Mjelde, the world's foremost authority on McKay's longest lived clipper. He generously shared his decades long research with us. Eventually, this intense research allowed @Vladimir_Wairoa to generate scale accurate scratch-made bulkhead kits to construct a 1:96th scale and 1:72nd scale replica of this beautiful ship. While I haven't built a model in years, I contributed 1:96th scale accurate reconstructions of deck fittings and her entire hull. That's from her bowsprit and lovely figurehead to her aft spanker boom. Since the ship was 265 feet long with approximately 65 foot bowsprit, that's over 3 feet at 1/8th inch equals a foot. Both Rob and Vlad's finished models are in the 1851-1900 scratch build logs. Rob's in particular has some of the rarest photos of this incredible ship shared with us by Michael Mjelde. As for my involvement, I have made an email friend of Michael Mjelde, a dream come true. My first of hopefully three installments on our project was published in the Winter 2023 Nautical Research Journal. Even more remarkable, just this past Summer, my wife and I were able to visit the new home of "The Lady." She's the stunning original nearly 8 foot tall figurehead which graced this clipper's bow. Sadly, the ship herself couldn't be saved. A true loss for humanity. By building models of her, we can visualize what these spectacular vessels originally looked like.

@rwiederrich knowing how much additional work my mistake cost you and @Vladimir_Wairoa I was mortified to discover it was just a matter of not carefully reading everything thoroughly the first time. Now, to me "measure twice" means to be sure nothing's been missed.

@rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa both were inadvertent victims of a missed line in Duncan McLean's in-depth article. Years after they both courageously tore down and rebuilt their respective forecastles to achieve correct 6' height, I literally stumbled on the truth. While researching correct topgallant forecastle height for Stag Hound I reviewed specs of this same section for Glory of the Seas and there it was all along. 6' high was the correct spec in the article and I just missed it. That's even though I was the one who shared it with our group. It drives home the importance of the sage saying "Measure twice, cut once!"

@Jared as Rob said, it's not our intention to belittle efforts of anyone building this Model Shipways kit, which builds into a beautiful model. We're just trying to improve accuracy for anybody wanting to build this beautiful ship. It's just that as I see increasing inaccuracies, the more critical I become of plans as compared to the actual vessels themselves. Then again, in all fairness to Ben Lankford, I have no idea what resources he used to create his plans. It does appear more and more likely that he relied quite heavily on the layout of Cutty Sark then anything else. As I consistantly state, the single best resource for accuracy remains Duncan McLean's November 4th, 1851 Boston Daily Atlas article. He recites precise details obviously supplied to him by Donald McKay's shipyard itself. I encourage you to compare specs from this article to the commercially supplied plans. Where they differ, I would definitely rely on McLean's since they come directly from McKay himself. This is not to suggest you tear down anything you've already done but for future reference in what hasn't been constructed yet. http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1851-11-04).html

Rob, I cannot exaggerate how appalled I am at the complete irresponsibility of these plan designers. It just handicaps modelers desiring to create beautiful replicas. I already see another exposé for Nautical Research Journal as an overview of all these inaccuracies in order to offer correctly accurate details.

@rwiederrich @Jared is doing an excellent job rigging his model. However, he's being hampered by inaccurate instructions, making his work more tough than it should be. He shared a section of his commercially produced bowsprit-jibboom plans for his Flying Fish model. Quite frankly, I am appalled at irresponsibility of designers to saddle would-be ship modelers with such badly illustrated spars! When compared to actual ships, this is just so misguided! To be fair, this is no critique of Jared or any other person constructing a Flying Fish model. They're carefully following instructions. Which are dead wrong! There is no lower tapering of the bowsprit, it remains consistent in diameter. Just before it enters the bow, it squares out to prevent any chance of rotation. The jibboom also remains consistent in diameter until the very tip, as seen in these scenes of Glory of the Seas docked at San Francisco. Then there's an image of the bowsprit in 1869 while she's on the ways. Another of her prow in 1913. It does narrow but from the top down and it too becomes rectangular as it enters the monkey rail at the bow. Finally, I've included my scale accurate bow sketch to show how these spars really appeared. I hope this helps anyone building this kit recognize a stark difference between reality and just poorly conceived and drawn plans. There's nautical logic to each design and build of every aspect of these magnificent clipper ships which just seems to escape designers of these poorly executed plans. Crafting your models after the truth will result in more realistic and durable replicas.

@Jared advanced copies of my lengthy artice were sent to @rwiederrich Michael Mjelde and @Vladimir_Wairoa as a courtesy and to elicit any feedback they offered. The only correction recommendations came from Michael and had to do with revising a few references. I can say without exaggeration that this article is the most in-depth recitation of Rob's systematic, piece by piece rigging process including scratch building masts, yardarms, pre-rigging sub-builds off the ship and even inventive creation of the most authentic tightly furled sails I've ever seen on a model ship. I just can't say when the article will be published. A third installment, devoted to Vladimir's patient, perfectionist build is in process to meet a January 1st 2025 submission deadline.

@Jared My best recommendation for an excellent how-to rigging resource from a nearly 50 year veteran of museum quality replicas is to review @rwiederrich build logs for his Great Republic and Glory of the Seas builds. My entire 2nd Nautical Research Journal submission covers Rob's highly systematic, eloquently creative and consistently thorough rigging process of his Glory of the Seas miniature. His results can be seen both on Model Ship World and Ships of Scale. Ed Tosti's Young America build is second to none. Rob on the other hand is more relatable to the everyman modeler. Good luck!

@Jared Rigging is probably the most tedious, challenging and time consuming step in creating a beautiful sailing ship model. Yet, a well done rigging job is what I believe separates a museum quality replica from an ordinary one. I'm sure Rob would echo that sentiment too.

@rwiederrich fortunately you have about 13 months to get to that point. No need to rush anything.

Rob, Just do your thing at your own pace. Whatever level of completion you achieve is whatever it is. I meant no pressure to push you, only my enthusiasm for the coincidence that our project just somehow happens to coincide with the Anniversary of the launch of a spectacular career for a man who now remains largely forgotten.

Snug Harbor Johnny, That's a very insightful revelation. Unfortunately, it appears like Donald McKay's fortunes had decidely turned sour almost from the moment he had launched Glory of the Seas. By the time she arrived in San Francisco in 1870, McKay's shipyard was already in Bankruptcy, she was siezed to turn her over to her creditors.

@Rick310 Wow, just wow! Please share that editorial with us. I've always admired the beautifully illustrated Chapelle plans but had no point of reference to compare his layouts to. As a result of years of concentrated research into recreating a historically accurate Glory of the Seas Rob and I have developed keen insights into the descriptions of these ships. The first time I corresponded with author Michael Mjelde I was concerned about insulting his work. He couldn't have been nicer or more encouraging about our efforts. Years later I learned he began his dedicated research into McKay's splendid clipper decades ago. Yet he was genuinely humble enough to recognize and admit that he had made errors in his plans of the ship. He then generously shared documents and historic images to help us in our exhaustive investigation. It now appears he is the exact opposite of the apparent example Chapelle demonstrated. When we began our research we all agreed that our "North Star" would be devotion to facts as best we could develop them. More than once, we had to revise our plans as more accurate information was revealed. But we always remained true to that conviction. I feel the same way about researching accurate layouts of any ship, regardless if it's a McKay vessel (my favorites) or others like Nightingale or Challenge. The facts are there, we just need to have the patience to read them and follow them intelligently. That and be fully willing to admit when a mistake was made and implement corrections as they're warranted.

Rob, The point I was making was that Donald McKay, pre-eminent designer of inspirational record breaking clipper ships was impoverished in his later years. Tragically, his destitution was so severe that he couldn't even afford to secure decent firewood to heat his home. As a result, he couldn't even spare destruction of dozens of the finest now priceless heirloom builder's ship models ever created. What an immeasurable loss to posterity.

@Snug Harbor Johnny and @rwiederrich the sad reality was that Donald McKay stubbornly persisted in his devotion to sail alone. Why that was is a bit of a mystery. The big tragedy was that in the end when he was cold, Donald McKay resorted to cutting up and using his precious, one-of-a-kind builder 's models of all of his ships as firewood.... That must have been heartbreaking.

@rwiederrich at first, I thought the only omission was the unique McKay bow treatment, now as we get more in-depth into studying actual descriptions of these vessels, I am stunned how casually inaccurate commercial plans are in comparison to the real ships themselves. Just using plain common sense shreds a lot of these blatant inaccuracies. Now the question is this: how willing would producers of these plans and modeling kits be to revising them to reflect these many discoveries???

Rob, It's a shame too because Chapelle did some beautiful illustrations. It makes me wonder if Howard ever had a chance to read the Boston Daily Atlas article? With such easy availability to all of these highly detailed articles through the internet, it's a challenge to see if these were tougher to locate and read in the 60s. If they were located, they unfortunately weren't given much credence. Ben Lankford definitely referenced the Boston Atlas article more than once, yet he apparently missed the entire passage referring to Flying Fish having twin companions in the wings of the topgallant forecastle leading to crew accommodations below. Now it appears the same mistake was possibly first initiated on the Chapelle Challenge. The more I carefully read context and visualize actual descriptions of these masterful vessels, the more I'm surprised to discover how inaccurate current plans and models are as compared to what I've read! Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how cavalier treatment of deck arrangements on clipper ships were in comparison to modeling historic military vehicles. Can you just imagine the reaction if someone put twin tails on a B-17 Flying Fortress? Yet I have a 1930s book on how to build a model of the Sovereign of the Seas which gives modelers multiple figurehead options, including a female mermaid and a fiddlehead but none of which includes her original merman one actually installed!