Vladimir_Wairoa

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

Rob could you please post pic of stern from vertical position ? from the top. and aso turned around from bottom vertical if possible so I can see counter stern ...I do some interesting study and would be helpful i fail to find one such from vcertical directly. with masts it wont be possible anymore......Thanks V.

sweet progress Rob. it will be really beautifull with all miniboats in place. not speaking when she starts up with rope.

Thanks much for compliments Brian. She is naked finished at this point, even though figurehead needs replace. must be bigger. i wanted her portray as at launch.

I am with you Rob !

Ah Well thats tiny bit.ibelieve je IS more than Happy with what goes behind. Fullness of body I underscore Richs words Rob. By the way I am about to make second attempt as figurehead goes - having it made larger. There IS always place for corrections of something which IS part of every work. Im railing off some modelers nature - not showing mistakes. Its natural part of life. Ať least i view IT that way matter fear I stop in eyes of "masters" i dont really care a slightest bit...

Thanks for daring comment John, im glad you like her. i still male some corrections though as probably changing masts to composite ones as originally adding some ladders and so on. but wont make lifeboats etc...highly apreciated advices, all considered...well lets see how it all turns out...all good. V.

Naval hood error? did i miss something? thanks for previous comments Folks, looks im still commited to oher as I uplifted rear companionway to the height of rail. ill post the pic soon. im thinking of updating masts to composite ones as well. will see :))) Im really looking forward enormously for how Rich puts it into NRJ. great stuff indeed. Keep looking at Robs from now on.

beautiful Rob.amazing. looks a bit wider than mine V.

Its middle october 2021. Coincidentally. I have to mention Mr.Mjelde and quote my most loved direct passage from his book about launch of the ship. Thursday, october 21, 1869. Donald McKay went down to his shipyard early that morning to attend to last minute duties. This was a day of enormous import to him and he had prepared carefully for the grave and proud occasion. Dressed in black suit, a white shirt with winged collar a large bow tie, and sporting a black top hat, he was conspicuous among his workmen. During the hours before the crowds started assembling, McKay men raised long poles at glorys fore main and mizzen mastholes, since she was being launched unrigged and then decorated her with bright flags and streamers. A United States Jack flew from the pole made fast to the outboard end of her bowsprit. A huge American flag flapped aft in the brisk morning breeze. For nearly five months Glory of the Seas had taken form through the painstaking craft of her creator . Now the time had come for her to leave the security of McKays shipyard. A large crowd started to gather. City dignitaries, friends, yard employees and their families began climbing up the building ramp on her starboard side. On reaching the top of the ramp, just under the fore channels, they mounted a ladder that connected the ramp and ships bulwark and were aboard. Shortly before noon Mary McKay came out of their home, Eagle Hill, at 80 White Street, with five of her six children, all especially well-dressed for the occasion. The youngest , one year old Wallace,made the teip to the shipyard via baby carriage, while three year old Guy and five year old Anna walked by their mother down the hill to Border Street. Although Frances, fifteen and her brother Lawrence nine should have been in school, their mother had obtained permission for them to forgo lessons and attend this family event. At noon, the tide in Boston harbor was at its highest. To Frances fell the honors of the day. She stood on the building ramp alongside the ship. Her father gave a command, and the remaining spurs and shores were knocked out. The harsh sound of hammer bows and splinters wood were replaced by gentle squeaks and squeals as the stately ship slowly began to move. Clutching the traditional bottle Frances swung it saying "I christen The "Glory of the Seas". Loud applause and shouts from hundreds of people echoed over the water. Gathering momentum, Glory majestically slid down the ways into Boston harbor all her flags and streamers snapping proudly in the wind. It was most successful launch. At this point the future held desperate hopes for Donald McKay... ------ I have to put down few words adressing my fellow Companions on this journey. Disputing quality of work and usuall obsession to cleanlinees or opticall preferences, I set those aside at this moment. Lines, and curvatures are for me the most important parts of every ship. As one person said. is ship pbuioding difficult? i dont know but be aware in all elegancy, there is not single right 90 degrees angle. ! that is what makes is Unique and - difficult. I wont post as many pictures as all was posted so far and more they are more it puts off. Only few i like the most. I want to get sentimental and look back at crucial part of build. I want to thank everyone watching or anything but especially to Rob and Richard. I want to stress one thing. There will never be definite shape of Glory of the seas no matter how many milion photographs ever appears... .but There will be few very close. I believe mission was accomplished and we should be proud! When it all started almost three quartes of year now, I feared one thing. Most of, despite of digital drawing which gave us some balls countles measurements and predictions... whether changes assumes observef and provided to existed bulkheads with shape curvature wont fail us in regard of bow and stern approach elegancy correctnes and cohesion. I was nervous myself and not satisfied up to the point of planking. We were safe. It surely was not Kit building. There will be many observations whether stern should be slightly a tad more curvilinear or slightly more rounded at the bottom or at the rail part. I look forward to ever attempt. I am from noncoastal country. I compledted my passion. And more . I contributed to Michaels Mjelde legacy to Keep alive legacy what was left out of Blunt ignorance of not coppering hull in her late years...of vessel that could easily surpass cutty sark in beauty ...Because AS much beautiful IS outline profile of so called americam clipper. But not me - we built her! i will carry this year and collaboration with you guys with warm and friendly feeling, thoughtfull respect and wisdom included. Thank you no matted who pointer or helped with what. evefy single one was crucial. Last surprising part. I decided i will part with my 1:72 glory. I was thinking a lot about it with heavy heart. but its a natural part of me as I long for something to possess to thepoint I dont reach it, and my inner self is no more fulfilled with owning something. after that it always goes as hard IT IS for me . As with every other build I make. . Saying this it was not easy decision even i have certainty i can give her almost for free not owning royalties and considering engineering her, time material out ome and so on. for the most part i wish more people could see her in reality not in pictures and i feel she belongs to American people more than to me or my country or to someone who dont give a dumb what it is...besides - not only that photos are like sex thru the window comparing real exeprince same with modeling or seing painting in gallery or reproduction...beauty of 3 D is real feel ...some photos are always wide lens - in order to squeeze ship into the frame - and it surely distorts her overall beauty and proportions to such extent its almost shamefull of what naked eyes see. when having ship in front in reality. its differene between 3D and 2 D objects... ... if you knew about anyone who would probably want her for very little- and will be surprised how little. please let me know...otherwise i would sell her in Slovakia..speaking of deck laying differs. but i know i built her body with my heart commited - precision and care to show original plank layout and complete moldings ornamentals and so on...

Rob, are those bars above doors already bottom - first layer of triple composed roof? if so its perfect but if you plan starting roof entirely from the top windows would be very low. V.

Thanks Rich for valuable comment and praising words. I think youre right. it looks odd with rail . I will definitely raise companionway to the height of rail that would be correct. i will try to photo her with cleaner background without mess behind her after she is finished. V.

Here you go

Rob of course i am not offended to any slight criticism or remark or disagreemet from you Rich or anyone knowing its only meant in regard to help to acheive true depiction of thing. Thanks for your meaningful words i take is as from more experienced fellow modeler. wow my gosh i really didnt know that small kitchen was added later. did i misslook in Michaels book? well well lets also wait for Richards opinion about it i am curious what he things as well. This evening i glued also second skylight and everything else in shape except of flase masts - as for future masting decision. . i am about to finish rudder hinges this weekend and voila...:) and those two endings on pooprail - i guess i lost them i have to mak new ones good weekend! . V.