Glory of the Seas 1869 by rwiederrich - FINISHED - 1/96 - medium clipper

[rwiederrich]

4 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, if the correct angle is 22.5. 23 or 20 degrees doesn't matter to me. I just want to be sure we're accurate. You bring up a good point though, about being unable to determine the vessel's orientation to the building in the 1911 shot. I didn't take that into consideration. To place the compass on the 1907 shot, I measured the exact distance from 3 reference points on the compass from the bottom of the page and figured that gave me a 90 degree angle. If that approach is flawed, can you measure the angle you get from the 1907 close up? 

Also, I admit to being confused about the site line you used for the midshipmen reading which isn't parallel with the keel line, it's more of a perspective line. How is that angle determined? 

Michael referred me back to Glory's 1869 fitting out photo at McKay's yard as a reference for her Bowsprit steeve. I still think that's a tough one. That viewpoint is much closer to the Stern than the Bow and that alone shifts the angles of everything.

Several things Rich, You can’t use any of the buildings as references for plumb. Because in both images you cannot be sure of the hulls trim, nor it’s relationship to the buildings or pier.    Next , I established the amidship waterline by extending the copper water line forward.  It will not be parallel to the keel line because of vanishing horizon line.  When viewing any object from any vantage point it always has a distant vanishing point.  The visual deception is made when the curve of the ships hull bends the copper waterline in to the curve or round bow.  But if you were viewing the hull at a waterline profile the waterline and keel lines would be parallel .  By doing this math,  I created an internal horizontal plane to establish the inclination of the bowsprit . If you look at the image you will see that the hull grows smaller as it travels down the ways to the stern.  Every line you draw down the hull, though they maybe parallel , they always appear getting closer as they reach the stern.  This is the horizontal vanishing point.  See how I figured it out?

[ClipperFan]

Rob, 

Michael Mjelde just shared these 4 amazingly sharp images of Glory at San Pedro 1907. He again reminded me to make sure we please credit him as the source of these images which I assured him we would. These are a set of enlargements done in the 80s by a professional developer made from Mike's original contact print from which he made 5x7 negatives. He actually has 2 sets of these prints. Mike said he describes the image in a current sequel being reviewed by a potential publisher.

[rwiederrich]

You can easily see the add on additional 2 backstays.  Wonderful clear example.  Thanks Rich and Mike

[ClipperFan]

Lars Bruzelius' excellent online resource for Clipper & Packet Ships has a good number of Duncan MacLean's detailed descriptions of McKay's vessels. His first Extreme Clipper 'Staghound' is described as having a Bowsprit steeve of 4 1/2" to 1' 20.6 degrees. Every other Clipper Ship description I could find which listed Bowsprit steeve after that was no higher than 4" to 1' 18.4 degrees. The closest vessel to dimensions of 'Glory of the Seas' where I could find the exact Bowsprit inclination was the 'Sovereign  of the Seas' with a steeve of 4" to 1'. Nowhere did I find a description of a McKay Ship with Bowsprit Steeve higher than 4.5" to 1' and that's his initial Extreme Clipper Staghound. 

To have a 22.3 degree angle would require a Bowsprit steeve of 4.96" to 1' and to accomplish 23 degrees requires a steeve of 5.1" to 1', neither of which I read in any description of McKay's vessels.

Somehow I was under the impression that 'Glory's' Bowsprit steeve was 3' to 8' 20.6 degrees, probably because to me it made logical sense to follow McKay's own progression. 

[Sailor1234567890]

I looks like a big part of figuring out her shape is determining angles, lengths, distances etc. from photos that may not be exactly  angled perfectly parallel, or perpendicular to whatever you're trying to measure. Has anyone tried building a 3D model of her then viewing it from the angle in a given photo to see if it looks the same thereby confirming your best guess as to what the angle of say the steeve of the bowsprit is? 

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Sailor1234567890 said:

I looks like a big part of figuring out her shape is determining angles, lengths, distances etc. from photos that may not be exactly  angled perfectly parallel, or perpendicular to whatever you're trying to measure. Has anyone tried building a 3D model of her then viewing it from the angle in a given photo to see if it looks the same thereby confirming your best guess as to what the angle of say the steeve of the bowsprit is? 

Sailor,

If you have 3D CGI capabilities, my request is to please take on the challenge. I never learned those computer abilities but fully respect the results that can be accomplished with them.  

[rwiederrich]

I agree.  A computer aided design of her would yield useful info.   I had the idea of building a small model of her and comparing it to actual photos of her from similar angles as you suggested.

 

I have a pretty good eye...so I always use imagery of her when measurements are not available.   It all is close estimations anyway....until someone unearths her actual drawing made by McKay himself from some lost attic or cellar.

 

Rob 

[Sailor1234567890]

I don't have the skills. I am hoping to build them up soon but I don't think Glory is in my future. More a suggestion in case someone else with the skills might be interested. I think it would yield some good/interesting information though. 

[ClipperFan]

I found more images of previous research. The first silhouette is from an 1912 article discussing Glory's life as a floating Salmon processing factory. There's no way of knowing if she's sitting level or Bow down. It's helpful to see the relationship of her figurehead, naval hoods and the portion of her Cutwater that goes just below her Bobstay mounts. 

The close up of her Bow is the source of my sketch which is a reverse of that picture. The dimensions of the figurehead get close but she's too close to the Naval hood.

The last sketch is probably one of my earliest. It's probably the most detailed effort to capture her intricate carvings. I'm sure Rob will be the first to notice her Bow is too aggressive and stretched out. Compared to more accurate images available now, it's very easy to see now. 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

Its fascinating to follow this log ... some real dedication there.  Right now I'm gleaning what I can from available Thermopylae photos - another ship with quite a history.

[rwiederrich]

4 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

I found more images of previous research. The first silhouette is from an 1912 article discussing Glory's life as a floating Salmon processing factory. There's no way of knowing if she's sitting level or Bow down. It's helpful to see the relationship of her figurehead, naval hoods and the portion of her Cutwater that goes just below her Bobstay mounts. 

The close up of her Bow is the source of my sketch which is a reverse of that picture. The dimensions of the figurehead get close but she's too close to the Naval hood.

The last sketch is probably one of my earliest. It's probably the most detailed effort to capture her intricate carvings. I'm sure Rob will be the first to notice her Bow is too aggressive and stretched out. Compared to more accurate images available now, it's very easy to see now. 

 

Wonderful images...I took the liberty to make an observation of the figureheads curved dimensions.....and how she's a bit under sized.

 

Great drawing by the way.

 

Rob

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

 

Wonderful images...I took the liberty to make an observation of the figureheads curved dimensions.....and how she's a bit under sized.

 

Great drawing by the way.

 

Rob

 

 

 

 

Rob, it's a tricky challenge to get Athene in proportion to Glory's other elements. Of course, in my own defense, this sketch was done in Summer 2004, well before I learned off her dimensions being 90". Knowing that now helps us to calculate her Figurehead's relation to the inner Bobstay, and the 24' Bowsprit above her, which then should enable us to reconstruct her Naval Hood and Cutwater below. 

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

Its fascinating to follow this log ... some real dedication there.  Right now I'm gleaning what I can from available Thermopylae photos - another ship with quite a history.

Snug Harbor Johnny,

David MacGregor has an excellent sail plan in his publication "British & American Clipper Ships. Cyril Hume created probably the finest scale miniature of this fine Aberdeen Clipper. One of the best images of her Spartan Figurehead of Leonidas is a front scene where she's loading lumber thru Bow ports. Unfortunately she's painted white instead of her distinctive Aberdeen Green.

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, it's a tricky challenge to get Athene in proportion to Glory's other elements. Of course, in my own defense, this sketch was done in Summer 2004, well before I learned off her dimensions being 90". Knowing that now helps us to calculate her Figurehead's relation to the inner Bobstay, and the 24' Bowsprit above her, which then should enable us to reconstruct her Naval Hood and Cutwater below. 

Oh, I assumed as much.  I only posted not to be critical, but to show exactly what you just pointed out.  Many measurements we do know can aid us in figuring out the measurements we don’t know.  This entire exercise has been just that.  I’m hoping our Australian friend can incorporate some of what we discovered into more accurate drawings.  Or possibly we will .  I think if we couple Mikes overall body plan ,with our corrected bow details, we might have an extremely close representation.  The best one could hope for.

[ClipperFan]

Rob, my intent wasn't to be defensive but to clarify how difficult the evolution process has been to get everything right. I like your Figurehead guideline though. It gives an area in which to fill out the 90" form of her Goddess figurehead.

I'm still not sure I agree with the 22.30 to 23 degree steeve (angle of inclination) of Glory's Bowsprit. It makes more sense that it's 20.60 degrees, since it aligns exactly with a 4" rise to 1' run. The closest vessel in tonnage, although being launched 16 years earlier is the Clipper "Sovereign of the Seas" whose Bowsprit steeve is published precisely as 4" to  the foot. Another reason I struggle with higher angles, is the fact that besides his first Extreme Clipper "Staghound" which had as steeve of 4 1/2" to 1', to arrive at the higher steves means having to use fractions of inches, which none of McKay's vessels were described as ever having done. 

What would be an interesting exercise to do would be to sketch the Bowsprit at both angles and see which more closely matches photos.  Incidentally, I recently managed to buy 'The Outlook' March 23rd, 1912 which has an article "Fish, Fur and Forest, and a Few Other Things' by WD Hurlbert which has the silhouette of "Glory of the Seas" at the head of the article. If there's a better image in the magazine, I'll share it.

[rwiederrich]

Oh Rich, in that silhouette of Glory....it appears odd....Why is her forward left leg missing and appearing absent and why is there light coming in from behind her back?  I've actually never seen this image before.  Another note....the steeve can be determined from the angle of the bowsprit and either the waterline or the keel.   Now if the waterline...one has to hopefully assume the hull is trim.  However, that method can be wrought with error.  I would tend to use the solid keel line for sucha measurement.   When I made my measurements...it was based upon the assumption that the amidships waterline was true parallel to the keel.  But  distortions induced by the vanishing point made the attempt more an endeavor of hope then sound mathematics.  The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

I was under the impression her entire back and toga were affixed to the hood?

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

17 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

What would be an interesting exercise to do would be to sketch the Bowsprit at both angles and see which more closely matches photos. 

That would probably not be a bad idea.  The process of elimination...no matter how minor can yield valuable information.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

46 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Oh Rich, in that silhouette of Glory....it appears odd....Why is her forward left leg missing and appearing absent and why is there light coming in from behind her back?  I've actually never seen this image before.  Another note....the steeve can be determined from the angle of the bowsprit and either the waterline or the keel.   Now if the waterline...one has to hopefully assume the hull is trim.  However, that method can be wrought with error.  I would tend to use the solid keel line for sucha measurement.   When I made my measurements...it was based upon the assumption that the amidships waterline was true parallel to the keel.  But  distortions induced by the vanishing point made the attempt more an endeavor of hope then sound mathematics.  The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

I was under the impression her entire back and toga were affixed to the hood?

 

Rob

Rob, her left lower leg and part of her heel appear to be missing in this photo. I've learned from images like this and her Salmon packing label that there was indeed an open area behind her entire back down almost to her exposed buttocks, heightening the raciness of her overall appearance. Look closely at the crew member in the picture of Glory where there is a grouping of men around her Bow. He has his arm behind her back. Something that would be impossible unless her toga is clear from her back.

By the way, I laid a compass over this silhouette too. Guess what result I got for the Naval Hood? Another 20 degree reading. 

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

I laid a compass over this silhouette too. Guess what result I got for the Naval Hood? Another 20 degree reading. 

And that is the hood on its upper edge..under the bowsprit?   Interesting...and images show her bowsprit at a slightly greater angle from that of the hood.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob, I suspect her Bowsprit is elevated due to loss of the extra weight of her 31' Jibboom. Chances are when she was fully rigged for sailing, her Bowsprit would have been cinched down tight to the Naval Hoods. In fact I believe Donald McKay had a somewhat unique Bow design that he jealously hid. Duncan MacLean described this area as being so solidly constructed that if a massive wave washed away the Bowsprit, her Hull would still remain intact. My suspicions go back to illustrations of Clipper 'Lightning' which leave this entire area completely blank. 

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, I suspect her Bowsprit is elevated due to loss of the extra weight of her 31' Jibboom. Chances are when she was fully rigged for sailing, her Bowsprit would have been cinched down tight to the Naval Hoods. In fact I believe Donald McKay had a somewhat unique Bow design that he jealously hid. Duncan MacLean described this area as being so solidly constructed that if a massive wave washed away the Bowsprit, her Hull would still remain intact. My suspicions go back to illustrations of Clipper 'Lightning' which leave this entire area completely blank. 

Further study reveals that the root of both the bowsprit and the jibboom were squared off as they entered the hull.  the clear images of her bow and figurehead reveals this.

 

I'm sure some *spring* was evident in both bowsprit and jibboom.

Masts could become *sprung* when they became loose in the seats...caused by excessive force applied by extreme weather.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

32 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Further study reveals that the root of both the bowsprit and the jibboom were squared off as they entered the hull.  the clear images of her bow and figurehead reveals this.

 

I'm sure some *spring* was evident in both bowsprit and jibboom.

Masts could become *sprung* when they became loose in the seats...caused by excessive force applied by extreme weather.

 

Rob

Rob, agreed. In fact it's also clearly evident in the most recent Starboard Bow close up that the inner Jibboom slims down when it squares off. From the position of the Bowsprit bands it looks like the first 6' are beveled at a very gradual angle before rounding out. 

A surprising feature of Frigate USS Constitution is that her Jibboom had steps let into the upper section to facilitate sailors heading out to handle rigging and sails. It's actually a very sensible arrangement and it wouldn't surprise me if something similar was done in Merchant sailing Ships too.

As for masts being sprung, if you've read passages of Clipper Ships especially McKay's, Captains were constantly dealing with upper masts being sprung at the hounds. In fact in her record setting maiden voyage around the Horn from NY to San Francisco of 89 days, for a large portion of her incredibly swift voyage 'Flying Cloud' was sailing with a lot of her upper masts and sails on deck until the Ship's Carpenter and crew managed to repair them and remount them. When she was limping along in this condition, the rest of the vessel had to make due under reduced sails to ease up on stress to damaged rigging. Imagine being a passenger on board looking up to see large amounts of sky where masts, yards and sails should have been....

Edited March 3, 2021 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

I redrew the small scale plans and made the corrections to her bow and stem and cut out a template that will be used to begin the cut out on a block of soft wood.  I will also cut out templates in card stock to make sectional hull templates that I can place along the hull to use as I carve the hull.

 

I'll mimic my small scale brothers and glue the top view onto a piece of wood and then glue the profile on the side and  then begin the carving.

Kinda like carving in 3D.  Top....side....and profile.

 

I hope to have  something begun before the weekend.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

37 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

I redrew the small scale plans and made the corrections to her bow and stem and cut out a template that will be used to begin the cut out on a block of soft wood.  I will also cut out templates in card stock to make sectional hull templates that I can place along the hull to use as I carve the hull.

 

I'll mimic my small scale brothers and glue the top view onto a piece of wood and then glue the profile on the side and  then begin the carving.

Kinda like carving in 3D.  Top....side....and profile.

 

I hope to have  something begun before the weekend.

 

Rob

Rob, is this your 1":50' small scale replicas you mentioned earlier? I'll take this on to give you my alternate vision using as much of the dimensions and relationships we've been unearthing in this project. As always, I mean no offense but your Bow still looks too stubby, especially in comparison to Glory's 1907 San Pedro image. To demonstrate what to me appears to be a more sweeping Cutwater, I've included a series of Bow shots. The 1907 shot still represents the closest photographic image to a bold "dashy rake" described by the newspaper writer who viewed her upon launch. The next 1912 silhouette, is reversed to make it easier to identify similarities. There's definite observer distortion since the photographer is much closer. Still the angle of the figurehead and projecting Naval Hood, at least to me, is more pronounced than your revised Hull design appears to be. 

The next image is again reversed to align with all others. It's most likely sometimes in the 20s as Glory is now a full factory canning vessel. If you look at the faded waterline she's clearly on a stern down attitude, most likely due to an uneven balance of heavy equipment in her holds. My single sketch is the closest approximation to that scene.

The last picture is the extreme close up in drydock 1912. It's probably the best shot of her lovely figurehead but only captures a small amount of her curved Cutwater. I hope these help steer you more in the direction I see Glory's truly beautiful form emerging.

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

If you just trace Glory's 1907 bow details and compare it to your proposed revised Hull, I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

[rwiederrich]

14 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

As always, I mean no offense but your Bow still looks too stubby, especially in comparison to Glory's 1907 San Pedro image. To demonstrate what to me appears to be a more sweeping Cutwater, I've included a series of Bow shots.

One item we can't overlook...and it appears we have.  Is perception.  All the images you provided only permit perception to be made from a limited aspect of the hulls entirety.  This can give the false perspective that the rake of the bow is swifter then she may otherwise be.  but if you place the entire hull, above and below the waterline, to include the entire length of the hull.  Just a snippet of the bow cannot place it into the entire perspective.

The example I created was taken from the corrections I made on the 1/8" drawing.  I corrected the 7degree incline of the stem and I induced greater forward ark above the cutwater of the stem...lengthening the naval hood and *beak*.   Taking just a small piece of the picture, doesn't place it correctly within the entirety of the hull....which can cause us to see it in a different light...and even make it appear larger or smaller dependent on our perspective.

 

I cut out a waterline portion of my 1/8" redraw to demonstrate how singling out just a small portion of the hull can overaccentuate it dimensions.  

 

The beached image that Mike gave us demonstrates how powerful perception is and it makes the bow look nearly flat/vertical at the stem, which caused us to think the image was somehow distorted...because the other images at San Pedro make it look far more raked or sweeping.

 

Something to think about.

 

Rob

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

One item we can't overlook...and it appears we have.  Is perception.  All the images you provided only permit perception to be made from a limited aspect of the hulls entirety.  This can give the false perspective that the rake of the bow is swifter then she may otherwise be.  but if you place the entire hull, above and below the waterline, to include the entire length of the hull.  Just a snippet of the bow cannot place it into the entire perspective.

The example I created was taken from the corrections I made on the 1/8" drawing.  I corrected the 7degree incline of the stem and I induced greater forward ark above the cutwater of the stem...lengthening the naval hood and *beak*.   Taking just a small piece of the picture, doesn't place it correctly within the entirety of the hull....which can cause us to see it in a different light...and even make it appear larger or smaller dependent on our perspective.

 

I cut out a waterline portion of my 1/8" redraw to demonstrate how singling out just a small portion of the hull can overaccentuate it dimensions.  

 

The beached image that Mike gave us demonstrates how powerful perception is and it makes the bow look nearly flat/vertical at the stem, which caused us to think the image was somehow distorted...because the other images at San Pedro make it look far more raked or sweeping.

 

Something to think about.

 

Rob

 

 

Rob, it sounds like we're both describing the same phenomena two different ways, sort of like "you say poh-tah-to & I say poh-tay-to". Same problem, two similar approaches to identifying it. If I'm correct, I think what you're calling "perception" I've been referring to as "perspective distortion." Basically an object changes it's shape based upon relative distance of an observer: near or far, angle of observation: above or below horizon and relative position: side, front, rear, etc. As an artist, my eye always pays attention to this so that I can more a accurately reproduce on 1 dimension: paper or canvas what I see in 3 dimensions. That way you avoid a child's drawing of a house, where front & side are equally represented on a drawing. Cute but not realistic. 

To me the easiest solution to this challenge of, let's call it "perceptive perspective distortion" is employing a scientific method of using angles and specific measurements to most accurately rebuild what we're seeing from multiple vexing angles. We now know a lot of specifics a out exact distances of her Bowsprit, her Figurehead etc. Those measurements won't lie to us.

As you see, I've included 4 full images of old "Glory" to demonstrate how this phenomena still persists. 

What I see in her 1869 East Boston fitting out scene is a stern that seems to be as high, if not higher than her Bow, which is sharply verticle with a stubby "beak" and very short bowsprit. 

The 1907 image (which I favor not because her Bow is "faster" but because it's the closest to a true broadside view of her Hull. Now her Stern is noticeably lower than her Bow. However she hardly resembles the same vessel pictured in 1869. If you looked at both images side by side, without knowing these were the same Ship, would you know?

The 3rd picture of Glory which I reversed to align all images, appears to reveal an even more pronounced Bow and now the Stern looks much lower. It reminds me how if you look at Goal Posts in a football field, you know darn well both are of equal height and dimension but the one at the other end looks so much smaller.

Finally the 1922 Glacier Fish Hull is barely recognizable as the same Clipper Ship from over a half century ago. Notice though, all images show a graceful semicircular curve at the Cutwater and all demonstrate a long sheer across the entire Hull. 

 

 

[rwiederrich]

Rich...I believe we are on the same page.  Each image showing her low in the water exacerbates a low fast, sleek, sharp entry.....however...images showing her high or nearly out of the water, exacerbates a tall(war ship like), boxy posture.   This, I believe is the crux of the observational perceptions we have been struggling through.  If you were to include the prow of her hood and curvey figurehead into the entirety of her silhouette...they become lost(such as in the full boxy views of her) .....where as, if you exclude the entirety of her boxy hull from her sleek, fast sharp entry.....it becomes a conclusion in of itself.

Perception, perception, perception....is EVERYTHING.

 

Here is an image of my 1/8" redraw just showing her prow at the waterline.

Rob

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich...I believe we are on the same page.  Each image showing her low in the water exacerbates a low fast, sleek, sharp entry.....however...images showing her high or nearly out of the water, exacerbates a tall(war ship like), boxy posture.   This, I believe is the crux of the observational perceptions we have been struggling through.  If you were to include the prow of her hood and curvey figurehead into the entirety of her silhouette...they become lost(such as in the full boxy views of her) .....where as, if you exclude the entirety of her boxy hull from her sleek, fast sharp entry.....it becomes a conclusion in of itself.

Perception, perception, perception....is EVERYTHING.

 

Here is an image of my 1/8" redraw just showing her prow at the waterline.

Rob

 

Rob, as we get closer to her true dimensions I believe the entire beauty of her design will show through. After all, even riding high like she is in her last pic, she's still an impressive ship. As I've said all along, my goal is to recreate Donald McKay's last Clipper as a accurately as possible. By the way, your picture isn't visible, you'll need to repost it.

[rwiederrich]

I reposted them.  These are of my cutouts I will use for the model.  Notice how sleek she looks when I only portray her at water level and only the bow.

 

These drawing are from the 1/8" drawing I superimposed over the San Pedro image.

 

Like you, I feel, if several of us are satisfied with with her dimensions and overall look, then we are probably as close as we're ever going to get.  We'll have to run this all by Mike, of course.  but from what he has been telling us he thinks the last drawings that were made need some refinement....particularly of her bow and entry.

 

Rob