Bob Cleek

Ah yes, "two peoples divided by a common language" as they say.  
 
In Cangarda's case, it's entirely proper to allow her bronze to acquire a patina. Hers seems to have turned a verdigris green. Often, the bronze weathers to a "tarnished penny brown," but i suppose the verdigris is a function of the amount of tin in the alloy. Her iron fittings require chipping and repainting. (The modern zinc paint undercoaotings would save a lot of work in this regard!) I did also note that there's a bolt missing from the steam line union on the anchor windlass. That definitely requires replacement before steam pressure is put to that union! On a "gold plater" of Cangarda's quality the original blocks on the anchor crane tackle would have been internally bronze-strapped varnished teak or lignam vitae-cheeked or all cast bronze open-web-cheeked. There wouldn't have been any stainless on her as built in 1901. It's this old sailor's "bosun's eye" that catches such details.  
 

 
 

She's hanging an anchor light in the above picture, but in the below much earlier picture she appears to be carrying a steaming light on the foremast. I presume this was a permanently mounted electric light. Note that on the flying bridge she is carrying a large electric spotlight.
 

Ah yes, "two peoples divided by a common language" as they say.  
 
In Cangarda's case, it's entirely proper to allow her bronze to acquire a patina. Hers seems to have turned a verdigris green. Often, the bronze weathers to a "tarnished penny brown," but i suppose the verdigris is a function of the amount of tin in the alloy. Her iron fittings require chipping and repainting. (The modern zinc paint undercoaotings would save a lot of work in this regard!) I did also note that there's a bolt missing from the steam line union on the anchor windlass. That definitely requires replacement before steam pressure is put to that union! On a "gold plater" of Cangarda's quality the original blocks on the anchor crane tackle would have been internally bronze-strapped varnished teak or lignam vitae-cheeked or all cast bronze open-web-cheeked. There wouldn't have been any stainless on her as built in 1901. It's this old sailor's "bosun's eye" that catches such details.  
 

 
 

An interesting point, Roger. Of course, were she repowered with diesel and lost her steam power, the historic value of the vessel would be reduced tremendously. The steam engine is an historic thing unto itself. With respect to our questions about her hailing port and registration and McNeil's decision to "electronically automate" her steam plant, there may well be a few flies in the ointment. I know a bit about steam power and am relying on my memory here, so don't hold me to it, but, as I recall, under the USCG regulations, at least, a steam powered vessel over fifty feet in length used for any commercial purpose (which would include charter service) must operate with a USCG certified  marine steam engineer on duty in the engine room and, as might be expected, the steam plant must be thoroughly safety-inspected on a regular schedule. Then there's the issue of obtaining insurance which would add a big chunk to her annual operating budget! I doubt she's capable of anything other than coastal voyaging, as she can't possibly carry enough fuel for ocean crossings. She's not a toy for anyone on a budget, so I doubt even giving her away would be an easy task, let alone trying to sell her for anything remotely close to what McNeil put into restoring her. We all can thrill to the accomplishment of her restoration, but in the end she may turn out to be a very expensive white elephant. Then again, as "the rich get richer," maybe another billionaire just might be crazy enough to take the bait.  

They certainly didn't have stabilizers like that when she was first built, as far as I know, but she probably required them, particularly when she was carrying the top hamper of two masts. I wouldn't be surprised if she was quite a "roller." What surprised me in this regard was the absence of a bow thruster. These are a simple bit of kit these days, particularly since they were essentially building a whole new welded hull.  It would make a huge difference when bringing her alongside a dock or quay.

It wasn't the brass to which i was referring, but rather the exterior varnish work. (Which may also be a crew duty, depending upon the management of the vessel and the skills of the crew.) There may be a difference between American and British English. On this side of the pond, we generically refer to brightly varnished woodwork on a vessel as "brightwork." Brass is just "brass" to us, e.g. "...polish the brass..." vs. "varnish the brightwork." That said, the brass looks like it hasn't been regularly polished, but that wouldn't be unusual if she were laid up for the winter. The varnish takes longer to show the ravages of UV and, given that she was certainly wearing a professionally applied "eight coats" when she was restored, the fact that it is wearing through to the wood on the horizontal surfaces indicates she probably was in the sun with the brightwork uncovered for a couple of years, at least. Once it gets to showing bare wood, it must be entirely stripped and a new thick coating of varnish coats must be applied to restore a uniform finish. To maintain brightwork, a light sanding and a coat or two every six or eight months depending on the UV exposure is necessary and even more is needed in the tropics.

The deck appears to be a veneer product made by Teak Decking Systems ("TDS" - World's Premier Teak Decking by Teakdecking Systems — Teakdecking Systems) The structural deck would be welded steel, TDS is laid out on a sheet of plywood and then the teak veneer is glued to the plywood in the configuration designed and shipped out of the factory as an exactly cut prefabricated sheet. (Note the absence of fastener plugs in the teak deck planks.) What you are looking at in the pictures is a modern "faux" laid teak deck, not a real one. I don't know how the original deck was laid out, exactly. It was probably much thicker (and wider) teak planking bolted to the deck beams or through the steel plate deck, then caulked and it was probably laid out to coincide with the bases of the deck furniture. The modern layout and narrow strakes of the restoration planking are an anachronism.  Quality teak in sizes suitable for "old school" deck planking is virtually unobtainable today, which probably explains the decision not to replicate the original teak decking. 

That was Keith Black's question that I was answering, actually. Your answer raises another question: "Why plank the hull at all?" It's an iron ship, not a wooden one. A "bread and butter" hollowed out solid hull is entirely appropriate. It's your call, of course, but If I were building her and had your skills, I'd be thinking in terms of a metal hull. Carve a pattern and "tap, tap, tap" to get the plates shaped as laid out in the plating schedule, if you have the plans. The late Gerald Wingrove, MBE, undertook as his magnum opus an exact sectional model of the Falls of Clyde in brass (I believe.) (His website, which contained something of a log on his Falls of Clyde build, seems to be no more. The below photo is from https://www.modelengineeringwebsite.com/Gerald_Wingrove.html ) 
 

I'm a "woodie," too. I also followed Gerald's build and was in awe of his jigs. He must have spent a tremendous amount of time conceiving, designing, and building them. That man was a genius, for sure. His Techniques of Ship Modeling is one of the best books on the subject that I've ever seen. I go back for a re-read every so often, along with Underhill's modeling technique books, just to refresh my memory. Looking back on his build log, though, I see where all of his links to his own website are now dead. Apparently, nobody maintained them after his passing and all of it is probably lost, including things like the plans for his jigs. Sigh. 
 

Being as Cangarda is blind-riveted, there would be little point in not painting it, would there? Then again, there were some pretty spectacular builder's models of early 1900's metal steamships which were built of wood and finished "bright" with all hardware of yellow metal (sometimes even gold-plated.)
 

 

 
https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/media/cangarda-as-found.97579/
 
Or, build it all of copper and brass and leave unfinished:
 

 
 
 
 
 

Ah yes, "two peoples divided by a common language" as they say.  
 
In Cangarda's case, it's entirely proper to allow her bronze to acquire a patina. Hers seems to have turned a verdigris green. Often, the bronze weathers to a "tarnished penny brown," but i suppose the verdigris is a function of the amount of tin in the alloy. Her iron fittings require chipping and repainting. (The modern zinc paint undercoaotings would save a lot of work in this regard!) I did also note that there's a bolt missing from the steam line union on the anchor windlass. That definitely requires replacement before steam pressure is put to that union! On a "gold plater" of Cangarda's quality the original blocks on the anchor crane tackle would have been internally bronze-strapped varnished teak or lignam vitae-cheeked or all cast bronze open-web-cheeked. There wouldn't have been any stainless on her as built in 1901. It's this old sailor's "bosun's eye" that catches such details.  
 

 
 

One thing's for sure, they need to brush up on their flag etiquette and strike that yacht signal from the stern staff. That place of honor is reserved for the national ensign only.
 

 
Then, later, here she is flying the British "Blue Duster" in Canadian waters.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ensign
 

 
And in 2011 in Brockville, Canada, flying an outdated (of 1957-1965) Canadian ensign, the "Blue Duster" with  Canadian of defacement. (As of 1965, the Canadian ensign is the red and white "maple leaf" national flag.)
 

 
So, as for a home port, perhaps she has none and sails hither and yon under false "flags of convenience." (See: https://naylorlaw.com/blog/flag-of-convenience/) Might she be switching national registries to keep one step ahead of the taxman? That could arguably make her a pirate, raising the question of whether MSW would condone a build log for a model of a pirated ship or whether its prohibition only extends to pirated models of ships.     

Ah yes, "two peoples divided by a common language" as they say.  
 
In Cangarda's case, it's entirely proper to allow her bronze to acquire a patina. Hers seems to have turned a verdigris green. Often, the bronze weathers to a "tarnished penny brown," but i suppose the verdigris is a function of the amount of tin in the alloy. Her iron fittings require chipping and repainting. (The modern zinc paint undercoaotings would save a lot of work in this regard!) I did also note that there's a bolt missing from the steam line union on the anchor windlass. That definitely requires replacement before steam pressure is put to that union! On a "gold plater" of Cangarda's quality the original blocks on the anchor crane tackle would have been internally bronze-strapped varnished teak or lignam vitae-cheeked or all cast bronze open-web-cheeked. There wouldn't have been any stainless on her as built in 1901. It's this old sailor's "bosun's eye" that catches such details.  
 

 
 

An interesting point, Roger. Of course, were she repowered with diesel and lost her steam power, the historic value of the vessel would be reduced tremendously. The steam engine is an historic thing unto itself. With respect to our questions about her hailing port and registration and McNeil's decision to "electronically automate" her steam plant, there may well be a few flies in the ointment. I know a bit about steam power and am relying on my memory here, so don't hold me to it, but, as I recall, under the USCG regulations, at least, a steam powered vessel over fifty feet in length used for any commercial purpose (which would include charter service) must operate with a USCG certified  marine steam engineer on duty in the engine room and, as might be expected, the steam plant must be thoroughly safety-inspected on a regular schedule. Then there's the issue of obtaining insurance which would add a big chunk to her annual operating budget! I doubt she's capable of anything other than coastal voyaging, as she can't possibly carry enough fuel for ocean crossings. She's not a toy for anyone on a budget, so I doubt even giving her away would be an easy task, let alone trying to sell her for anything remotely close to what McNeil put into restoring her. We all can thrill to the accomplishment of her restoration, but in the end she may turn out to be a very expensive white elephant. Then again, as "the rich get richer," maybe another billionaire just might be crazy enough to take the bait.  

They certainly didn't have stabilizers like that when she was first built, as far as I know, but she probably required them, particularly when she was carrying the top hamper of two masts. I wouldn't be surprised if she was quite a "roller." What surprised me in this regard was the absence of a bow thruster. These are a simple bit of kit these days, particularly since they were essentially building a whole new welded hull.  It would make a huge difference when bringing her alongside a dock or quay.

It wasn't the brass to which i was referring, but rather the exterior varnish work. (Which may also be a crew duty, depending upon the management of the vessel and the skills of the crew.) There may be a difference between American and British English. On this side of the pond, we generically refer to brightly varnished woodwork on a vessel as "brightwork." Brass is just "brass" to us, e.g. "...polish the brass..." vs. "varnish the brightwork." That said, the brass looks like it hasn't been regularly polished, but that wouldn't be unusual if she were laid up for the winter. The varnish takes longer to show the ravages of UV and, given that she was certainly wearing a professionally applied "eight coats" when she was restored, the fact that it is wearing through to the wood on the horizontal surfaces indicates she probably was in the sun with the brightwork uncovered for a couple of years, at least. Once it gets to showing bare wood, it must be entirely stripped and a new thick coating of varnish coats must be applied to restore a uniform finish. To maintain brightwork, a light sanding and a coat or two every six or eight months depending on the UV exposure is necessary and even more is needed in the tropics.

The deck appears to be a veneer product made by Teak Decking Systems ("TDS" - World's Premier Teak Decking by Teakdecking Systems — Teakdecking Systems) The structural deck would be welded steel, TDS is laid out on a sheet of plywood and then the teak veneer is glued to the plywood in the configuration designed and shipped out of the factory as an exactly cut prefabricated sheet. (Note the absence of fastener plugs in the teak deck planks.) What you are looking at in the pictures is a modern "faux" laid teak deck, not a real one. I don't know how the original deck was laid out, exactly. It was probably much thicker (and wider) teak planking bolted to the deck beams or through the steel plate deck, then caulked and it was probably laid out to coincide with the bases of the deck furniture. The modern layout and narrow strakes of the restoration planking are an anachronism.  Quality teak in sizes suitable for "old school" deck planking is virtually unobtainable today, which probably explains the decision not to replicate the original teak decking. 

Thanks for the back story, Roger! I was unaware that McNeil had died. (I've yet to get to my copy of the latest WoodenBoat ) Looking at the photos and unaware of your post until I reached it, I kept wondering why Cangarda wasn't being properly maintained, at least considering what had been put into her restoration. (The Harken stainless steel and plastic racing blocks on the anchor cranes really blew my mind.) Somebody's going to have to put some bucks into refinishing a lot of that brightwork. Once the seams open up and water gets under the varnish, it's toast. It's a crime, really. The cost of regular routine maintenance was probably peanuts in the context of McNeil's overall estate. 

That was Keith Black's question that I was answering, actually. Your answer raises another question: "Why plank the hull at all?" It's an iron ship, not a wooden one. A "bread and butter" hollowed out solid hull is entirely appropriate. It's your call, of course, but If I were building her and had your skills, I'd be thinking in terms of a metal hull. Carve a pattern and "tap, tap, tap" to get the plates shaped as laid out in the plating schedule, if you have the plans. The late Gerald Wingrove, MBE, undertook as his magnum opus an exact sectional model of the Falls of Clyde in brass (I believe.) (His website, which contained something of a log on his Falls of Clyde build, seems to be no more. The below photo is from https://www.modelengineeringwebsite.com/Gerald_Wingrove.html ) 
 

An interesting point, Roger. Of course, were she repowered with diesel and lost her steam power, the historic value of the vessel would be reduced tremendously. The steam engine is an historic thing unto itself. With respect to our questions about her hailing port and registration and McNeil's decision to "electronically automate" her steam plant, there may well be a few flies in the ointment. I know a bit about steam power and am relying on my memory here, so don't hold me to it, but, as I recall, under the USCG regulations, at least, a steam powered vessel over fifty feet in length used for any commercial purpose (which would include charter service) must operate with a USCG certified  marine steam engineer on duty in the engine room and, as might be expected, the steam plant must be thoroughly safety-inspected on a regular schedule. Then there's the issue of obtaining insurance which would add a big chunk to her annual operating budget! I doubt she's capable of anything other than coastal voyaging, as she can't possibly carry enough fuel for ocean crossings. She's not a toy for anyone on a budget, so I doubt even giving her away would be an easy task, let alone trying to sell her for anything remotely close to what McNeil put into restoring her. We all can thrill to the accomplishment of her restoration, but in the end she may turn out to be a very expensive white elephant. Then again, as "the rich get richer," maybe another billionaire just might be crazy enough to take the bait.  

They certainly didn't have stabilizers like that when she was first built, as far as I know, but she probably required them, particularly when she was carrying the top hamper of two masts. I wouldn't be surprised if she was quite a "roller." What surprised me in this regard was the absence of a bow thruster. These are a simple bit of kit these days, particularly since they were essentially building a whole new welded hull.  It would make a huge difference when bringing her alongside a dock or quay.

It wasn't the brass to which i was referring, but rather the exterior varnish work. (Which may also be a crew duty, depending upon the management of the vessel and the skills of the crew.) There may be a difference between American and British English. On this side of the pond, we generically refer to brightly varnished woodwork on a vessel as "brightwork." Brass is just "brass" to us, e.g. "...polish the brass..." vs. "varnish the brightwork." That said, the brass looks like it hasn't been regularly polished, but that wouldn't be unusual if she were laid up for the winter. The varnish takes longer to show the ravages of UV and, given that she was certainly wearing a professionally applied "eight coats" when she was restored, the fact that it is wearing through to the wood on the horizontal surfaces indicates she probably was in the sun with the brightwork uncovered for a couple of years, at least. Once it gets to showing bare wood, it must be entirely stripped and a new thick coating of varnish coats must be applied to restore a uniform finish. To maintain brightwork, a light sanding and a coat or two every six or eight months depending on the UV exposure is necessary and even more is needed in the tropics.

An interesting point, Roger. Of course, were she repowered with diesel and lost her steam power, the historic value of the vessel would be reduced tremendously. The steam engine is an historic thing unto itself. With respect to our questions about her hailing port and registration and McNeil's decision to "electronically automate" her steam plant, there may well be a few flies in the ointment. I know a bit about steam power and am relying on my memory here, so don't hold me to it, but, as I recall, under the USCG regulations, at least, a steam powered vessel over fifty feet in length used for any commercial purpose (which would include charter service) must operate with a USCG certified  marine steam engineer on duty in the engine room and, as might be expected, the steam plant must be thoroughly safety-inspected on a regular schedule. Then there's the issue of obtaining insurance which would add a big chunk to her annual operating budget! I doubt she's capable of anything other than coastal voyaging, as she can't possibly carry enough fuel for ocean crossings. She's not a toy for anyone on a budget, so I doubt even giving her away would be an easy task, let alone trying to sell her for anything remotely close to what McNeil put into restoring her. We all can thrill to the accomplishment of her restoration, but in the end she may turn out to be a very expensive white elephant. Then again, as "the rich get richer," maybe another billionaire just might be crazy enough to take the bait.  

They certainly didn't have stabilizers like that when she was first built, as far as I know, but she probably required them, particularly when she was carrying the top hamper of two masts. I wouldn't be surprised if she was quite a "roller." What surprised me in this regard was the absence of a bow thruster. These are a simple bit of kit these days, particularly since they were essentially building a whole new welded hull.  It would make a huge difference when bringing her alongside a dock or quay.

It wasn't the brass to which i was referring, but rather the exterior varnish work. (Which may also be a crew duty, depending upon the management of the vessel and the skills of the crew.) There may be a difference between American and British English. On this side of the pond, we generically refer to brightly varnished woodwork on a vessel as "brightwork." Brass is just "brass" to us, e.g. "...polish the brass..." vs. "varnish the brightwork." That said, the brass looks like it hasn't been regularly polished, but that wouldn't be unusual if she were laid up for the winter. The varnish takes longer to show the ravages of UV and, given that she was certainly wearing a professionally applied "eight coats" when she was restored, the fact that it is wearing through to the wood on the horizontal surfaces indicates she probably was in the sun with the brightwork uncovered for a couple of years, at least. Once it gets to showing bare wood, it must be entirely stripped and a new thick coating of varnish coats must be applied to restore a uniform finish. To maintain brightwork, a light sanding and a coat or two every six or eight months depending on the UV exposure is necessary and even more is needed in the tropics.