Vladimir_Wairoa

yes its true. I think I didnt take that into consideration. I think i was a bit wrong here. . Im more convinced now, and think her bottom of stern is definitely rounder than i thought.. and surely rounder than upper rail. thanks for your remarks. V.

Wow Chuck, watching continuation on the bow is super exciting. just beautiful. i remember that part was difficult. I cant wait to take out my winnie after almost year sleeps my gosh she is almost empty comparing with what is there on deck. Winter months seem pretty excting, watching is enough:) . back on track with great gang of folks. cheers, Vlad

Good stuff Rob, but still. From photographical perspective I would still be reserved to draw conclusions for various reasons - im not 100 percent certain to which extent is curve took from that view accurate. it looks of course very round this way. but there are two dramatic aspects that may totally mislead us and we know nothing of them. 1. seems photographer is very near waterlevel. but - presumably not far - but glory looks very tall - so two options are on tabe - was photographer very nearby * therefore he must have used very wide lens ! dramatically changing perspective or he might have been far and therefore use ! normal or rather long lens and in that case your assumption would be eprfectla correct.... i cant say now many feet or meters is photo taken from - if someone made such experiment with existing vessels and sterns of various curvature from same angle distance etc...that would be epic..... it does look very roundish but i can tell quite confidently ! it can be pretty steep from other view. for this I personally call this photo Most decieving and almost hellish or cursed in a way of taking assumptions :))

Many thanks Richard. Regarding sketch no not yet. But I think I may have few items at post office from last week as per notice so I plan to go this week to pick it up, presumably one of those might be as well it. i will inform in return. Vlad.

Hello Rob, yes i found tíme today i swapped incorrectly a wide rail and installed properly thick one. i must say IT changed view considerably. I Will continue slowly further installing proper planks on long cabin and hatch opening on Wheelhouse etc...

Lets hope folks there wont be same neglect or no interest for modeling her as there was of real ship itself in her late years. i hope we are not last ones McKay surely doesnt deserve that

Rich, this photo can be measured from left to right but from top to bottom it is useless dont forget that. its extremely distorted from top botom vise perspective it would give you only very false picture. but for whats you measure its ok i think. speaking of stern , nothing is late, im proud of mine its 95 percent of this picture - accurate depiction of this flat. nothing to be reworked. or? I am now reworking top rail to male it properly thin so it will look exactly as on the photo. i will post pic later

Beautiful hatch Rob. amazing.

Great stuff Rob, and knowing yout mast and rigging treatment it will be all pleasure and praise to watch. as i know myself You will even hook me up to follow on mine .

I underline. fascinating.

Rob I like it enormously. you made ornamentals stand out at your scale, even that tripple strip not to mention gorgeous figurehead. i have still to finish anchor hole. how the hell you could paint those ornamentals, im sure under loupe. just wow.

Very nice Bob. Congratulations!

I continue adding comparisons of famous photos. ..

Thanks Rich, one more Discovery as well- my rail is very wide and should be slimmer. Which im going to change

I am surprised what blind chance could do. First. To my limited knowledge and experience, gosh i never thought of british clippers as šport of yacht profile untill you pointed IT out and only now i realised how much so. Strange Because i looked at cutty fór oné year - but Revell model IS so screwed in this regard as if i was looking ať yacht America. To the famous photo. Honestly, that photo was hunting me for a long time fór reason i couldnt take exact view or photo of my ship. I think i finally found out where was the problem. If you look carefully you see stern and rail rather diminished and Wales and sides of ship are visible so perspective IS very very narrow . Which implies only one fact no matter how far was photographer. IT was taken with Telephoto Lens! Im not sure how much extended those were at that time Apart of štandard Lens that was used always but It sure was Telephoto. I finally managed to take almost Exact proportions with more less sams angle- first with standard and slightly wide Lens and second with Telephoto of quite a length. You Can see even with štandard focal length there IS no chance to see sides of ship raising from water ( its all burried far below and behind stern as it is not brought close by lens quite opposite. stern is on other side portayed bigger than should as what is nearest is always bigger with wide lens . and stern IS also not narrowed quite opposite enhanced - exactly what wide Lens does. tele Narrows and diminish whats close and enlarges and brings closer whats far. Opposite of wide angle- that widens enormously close objects and diminish narrow ones..... first is with between moderáte wide to štandard 35-50 focal Lens Interesting observation - my stern looks ! round even IS very flat in reality ! Experiment was done from rather SE view slightly from above of Boat framing že Area of Boat. 5 measures of waterlevel ať rudder and on other side trying to get samé portion of mizzenmast as on original photo. See that on wide len s such framing was not even possible from samé positionso IT was not wide( very my j unlikely ať that tíme anyway) This oné is with tele : im quite shocked . you can observe how similar are now ships in their respectful view . how fat became her butt and sides fattened grossly her stern finished and got narrowed and her profile became shorter - back of photo rised . Its pretty much samé angle- and focal length as original photo... Here: ...sometimes i feel like Sherlock point is : now we only need photo with same tele lens and from same position of more rounded stern to see if there is difference. it there is visible we know her prern 99 percent no matter Crothers or whoever ! hay hoo....:)

I agree with your suggestion.

i got it Rich. Though I think from that very horizontal view it would appear rather even if it was a little rounder I think. But i got your point. i also think if rounding in center just about above rudder its very very subtle - rounding is so small or decent that in the center it can be flat for whatever lenght we may assume:) from that pic....one more observation I made if i understand it dorrectly - or you may correct me if i am worng, curvilinear at counter doesnt mean deck level must look exactly same. there is place for tweakong to the infinity. well rather decent than infinity this makes me try another experiment of photography perspective experiment from which we could definitely proove how much flat it is in deck level - i will try to photo from same view and same focal lenght mine glory - which is in fact flat upper stern and cutty sark of revell which is on fact round as hell at counter level and rounder at deck level. just for my own curiosity if i can spot clear difference between flat and round at deck level.

Thanks Rich, maybe I unnoticed that photo Rich. Which one is it please?

Thanks Rob, i believe we pretty much fit handsomly . put it other way cross of our both in my opinion woudl be possibly ! epitome:) as mine miss a bit of essential roundness in counter ! where you recreated i would say perfect or identical copy or prototype thus its vice versa at the rail profile or deck. speaking of details... i just wanted also Rich understand one thing. even slight more sanding at execution can lead slightly other direction when building stern therefore i believe those little details. otherwise speaking of - that we had to at the same time MAKE sure looking at 3 dimensional aspect of stern ! ATTHE SAME time not 2 dimensianal like on pics - i believe we did fine considering complex 3dimensional asepct of stern. its shape is quite complicatec meeting varoius corners at different thickness - its different look at picure and draw conclusion and actually make one ! we had to watch also horizontal size of stern and entire roundness and rise of it. its easier to aepak than make! im glad you found it underestandable ( with my language etc...) in my opinion. V.

Recreation of stern and various observations. Folks, this will be quite a long post, with lots of pics so beware. I will try to be as much cohesive as possibly could with clear demonstration of every aspect of it. First explanation what made me go to this elaborative effort and so on. As Richard is heading to NRJ article, I wanted to point out certain aspect of our research and ! execution of our research. I believe honesty is a paving stone of every valuable research and I would be suspicious reading whatever text pointing out perfection or definite conclusions. Honest research is never definite in universities studies and leaves windows open for future research and so on. I am therefore very much interested in Richard article as its quite weight of responsibility and wisdom lying on his shoulders. However, I have no doubt knowing his experience and so on. I would not be happy reading something of definite apraisal as I will demonstrate our both slightly different execution than reasearch of sterns that wont escape notice of naked eye. are rather outcome of individual approach of our both are not last words in this resort - reminding we are not designing a kit. Hence I am thankful to Rich for his meticulous effort to watch evey slight bit but at the same time I would like to point out not to lost whole picture. I would be sad if this would turn out pessimistic as outcome is quite contrary. I will show recent model expo profesional plan of flying fish and its outreagous findings regarding stern and it will conclude rather compliment how thoroughly we dvelved in our painstaking research. observation 1. Im not that good with numbers but i like curves... we had 3 famous photos of stern / i would point our each of rather missleading than helpfus due shooting angle. its logic as noone would climb mast to take pic with bygone camera / impossible. Few paintings and one word of describtion at launch - CURVILINEAR. thats it. Speaking of whether stern is round seems to me quite strange as we need to establish defining Authority. If we had better pics I would challenge article from 1869 newspaper. I believe we shouldnt as its given ship data written by that time PROS taken from McKay himself. Therefore Curvilinear .... observation 2. I take for granted what Crothers describes as curvilinear in his american clipper "bible" please note what slight moving curve leads to oval or round. - its not that easy to spot by untrained eye and notable rather by comparing actual curve than by eye.....its quite shockingly difficult to see difference but little can be enough move from curvilinear....but round as Mr. shipwright says? definitely nope. pic below / 3. Actual comparison. Please dont mix counter with shape of deck or rail. i will come to that later. now we speak about counter that defines stern and from where poop cabin is build up. I outlined Crothers definition of Curvilinear shape and compared to our glory Michaels and plan of Flying fish by model expo. results are quite interesting. we need to remember we didnt have agreed on plan on paper how stern would look like. as we both individually built our sterns as natural outcome of bulkheads - [probably we should as it will be uniform but isnt it nicer to see execution of two differnt eyes on same theme? its quite interesting how small curve shape of goose liner matches round of curvilinear shape / not surprising as those natural curvatures of mathematics and tools were used at that time we speak of.... 4. actual comparisons. my glory. at this point I dont have Robs from that period of build unfortunately. from observatin I believe its even truer than mine. I dont have pic but Michaels haf counter in book matches as well. 5. now comparing complete stern curvatures at deck level. first itneresting observation. I came to conclusion that Crothers portrays McKays stern curvatures something as his sign / many show pretty much same characteristicall overall notable shape / few from the book here.... 6. comparing deck level curvature of mine glory Robs glory Michael glory , model expo flying fish. michaels - Very accurate with Crothers flying fish of moel expo - note how drastic outway from curvilinear. extreme. I must note - was there something like Mckay halfmodel to portray such extremity that creators relied on ? at counter level its even more extreme look flying fish at counter ! i wouldnt say its authentic unless i see half model . its extreme work of model expo. mckay wouldnt took such stern of flying fish to portray glory... finale & my concllusion. I pic mine and Robs execution of stern at deck level. its obvious what implies. Mine reached slightly towards wider - flying fish of model expo. Robs reaching more to rounder feel than middle prototype of crothers and Michael. again kudos to michael drawing but mind you. These are pretty slight derailing of details of very solid sterns toward what we call curvilinear. both. remember we dont have photo and what I oserve paintings lean toward extreme portrayal - as model expo flying fish. photo of alaska canmery rather to rounder . and very photo from the back implied thgere is solid straight line in thge middle saying its not round stern. speaking if commertial plan like flying fish derails as much...we did splendid ourselves. so that is my conclusion. thanks for patience. maybe it helps Rich with his article somehow as well. for me interesting observation indeed. mine Robs

Congrats to this milestone Matt. You took your time and patience with those angled narrowing strakes. Pretty awesome. V.

Thats perfect Rob, pretty sufficient, very nice. V.

i meant upside down of this exact view but its not probably necessary. counter of stern is visible from other pics.

good idea Rich.:) this view Rob

not from water level Rob, stright down from the top if possible .like if you were sitting on mizzen mast looking down .... and same exact opposite stright up from bottom hull side im doing ineteresting comparison of various Mclays ships Crothers and ours glory as well. thanks much