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

[rwiederrich]

Confirmation, confirmation, confirmation.  Looks like we are sittin pretty when it comes to these dimensions now.  As far as the height of the bulwarks are concerned....and it remains a matter of translating known measurements to unknown to gain a full grasp of a pretty darn close hull of Glory.

 

Good job everyone! 

I got another order of planking(deck and hull) in the mail and all my stanchions are made.  I'll finish up some clamping ideas too.

Figurehead is in hand and now I will begin on constructing the composite lower masts.

 

But first I will build a miniature table saw to cut the 4 recesses in the stock dowel.

 

I'm trying to build as much as I can prior to getting the bulkheads from Vladimir..such as constructing the house and cabin windows.....gathering the belaying pins/chain....trucks for the yards...etc..things like that.

 

Rob

 

 

 

 

[ClipperFan]

Rob & Vladimir,

In his most recent email, Michael Mjelde reminded me that on page 235 of his book, the last sentence reads that Duncan MacLean said Glory's bulkheads were about 6' from the deck. 

My reply was that it was my impression that the word "about" left the bulwark height open to some interpretation. I told him I would reexamine the photo of her 90" figurehead and use it to compare to other components in that image.

The clear ruler I used, laid over a 14" × 17" ledger enlargement gave a result of 3 & 1/4" for total height of the Goddess 'Athene' figurehead, from base of her extended left toe to tip of her diminutive crown. 7/16ths" = 1' at least as best as I can calculate. Using that measurement, I confirmed Rob's calculation that her Naval Hood at the widest is indeed 3'6". I then calculated her outer Main Rail Bulkhead height, which came in at 3' 8 1/2". While it's clearly damaged, measuring from the lowest (Sheer Rail?) Molding to the tip of the Quarterdeck Cap Rail resulted in exactly 6'. 

I've attached the images I shared with Mike. Without attempting to be too contradictory, I shared all of my research with Mike, including precise measurements. By the way, in more than one occasion, usually in regards to combined Keel backbone depth, I've totalled all precise dimensions he's given and they don't match his own estimates. I will let you know Mike's reaction when I get it.

Edited May 12, 2021 by ClipperFan
Grammar correction

[rwiederrich]

OK...if we know that the bulwark is 6ft from Duncan...and your measurements from the top trim of the hood to the forecastle rail is 6ft...then simply mark a piece of paper with lines denoting the distance(This is called oratering measurements).  then project that distance down the hull(accomodating for decreased distance due to horizontal diminishing and you will see that the top monkey rail down to the lower channel is 6ft.   This is why I said the planksheer is not the level of the deck but most likely the level of the top of the waterway....and accounting fo the waterway to be sitting on the deck....that places the gunwal at 6ft or there abouts.   The top rail of the forecastle is not the top rail of the main rail amidships.

 

See......?

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

26 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

OK...if we know that the bulwark is 6ft from Duncan...and your measurements from the top trim of the hood to the forecastle rail is 6ft...then simply mark a piece of paper with lines denoting the distance(This is called oratering measurements).  then project that distance down the hull(accomodating for decreased distance due to horizontal diminishing and you will see that the top monkey rail down to the lower channel is 6ft.   This is why I said the planksheer is not the level of the deck but most likely the level of the top of the waterway....and accounting fo the waterway to be sitting on the deck....that places the gunwal at 6ft or there abouts.   The top rail of the forecastle is not the top rail of the main rail amidships.

 

See......?

 

Rob

Rob, to keep these different dimensions clear and separate, I now refer to internal bulkhead and opposite external measurements. Here's my challenge with a 6' maximum internal bulkhead height from deck to monkeyrail molding. Since most but not all of McKay's monkeyrail heights were 18" that of necessity has to be subtracted from a total height of 72" resulting in 54" height for the main rail or 4'6". Where it becomes difficult is for the external measurement. Since the lower molding is mounted to the 1' waterways which in turn rest on 3 & 1/2" thick decks, we have to subtract 15 & 1/2" from that, resulting in an exterior dimension of 38 1/2" (3'8" just barely taller than the 3'6" naval hoods at the bow). There's an instance where McKay used a 16" monkeyrail, which would then make that height 3'10". I'm not including the quarterdeck cap rail, which is only seen at the bow and terminates a short distance before the foremast. It's hard to see, since the picture is so dark but the resulting measurement from the lowest molding to upper molding below her monkeyrail confirmed a distance of 3' 8 & 1/2". I'll try to get a lighter picture tomorrow.

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, to keep these different dimensions clear and separate, I now refer to internal bulkhead and opposite external measurements. Here's my challenge with a 6' maximum internal bulkhead height from deck to monkeyrail molding. Since most but not all of McKay's monkeyrail heights were 18" that of necessity has to be subtracted from a total height of 72" resulting in 54" height for the main rail or 4'6". Where it becomes difficult is for the external measurement. Since the lower molding is mounted to the 1' waterways which in turn rest on 3 & 1/2" thick decks, we have to subtract 15 & 1/2" from that, resulting in an exterior dimension of 38 1/2" (3'8" just barely taller than the 3'6" naval hoods at the bow). There's an instance where McKay used a 16" monkeyrail, which would then make that height 3'10". I'm not including the quarterdeck cap rail, which is only seen at the bow and terminates a short distance before the foremast. It's hard to see, since the picture is so dark but the resulting measurement from the lowest molding to upper molding below her monkeyrail confirmed a distance of 3' 8 & 1/2". I'll try to get a lighter picture tomorrow.

Right....  Differentiating between inside and outside measurements can get mind boggling.  Thanks for your timely attention and accurate description.

 

I'll need to plot it all out for myself as well....so I can get my head around it as well.

 

Good job.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Rob, Richard, 

too much of good things i see -  i didnt have time to study your posts will check it over  weekend though, just FYI both sets have been cut and already on the way to me! meaning next week im sending them to you guys. 

apology for taking it longer he apologized for being very busy. 

V.

[ClipperFan]

13 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, to keep these different dimensions clear and separate, I now refer to internal bulkhead and opposite external measurements. Here's my challenge with a 6' maximum internal bulkhead height from deck to monkeyrail molding. Since most but not all of McKay's monkeyrail heights were 18" that of necessity has to be subtracted from a total height of 72" resulting in 54" height for the main rail or 4'6". Where it becomes difficult is for the external measurement. Since the lower molding is mounted to the 1' waterways which in turn rest on 3 & 1/2" thick decks, we have to subtract 15 & 1/2" from that, resulting in an exterior dimension of 38 1/2" (3'8" just barely taller than the 3'6" naval hoods at the bow). There's an instance where McKay used a 16" monkeyrail, which would then make that height 3'10". I'm not including the quarterdeck cap rail, which is only seen at the bow and terminates a short distance before the foremast. It's hard to see, since the picture is so dark but the resulting measurement from the lowest molding to upper molding below her monkeyrail confirmed a distance of 3' 8 & 1/2". I'll try to get a lighter picture tomorrow.

Rob, Vladimir,

When I replied to Mike's latest encouraging reply to my review of Glory's draft marks, I recognized some simple arithmetic mistakes in my prior post, most likely due to being tired. Correct numbers get even more dramatic in support of a 6'4" to 6'6" inner bulkhead height.

Here's why. A 38 & 1/2" result is 3' 2 & 1/2" not 3' 8 & 1/2" as I mistakenly posted. That would result in an outer main rail height smaller than Glory's naval hoods. Every photo clearly shows the opposite is correct. 

In my message to Mike, I actually used the smallest 16" monkeyrail height found on a McKay Clipper. That would result in 40 & 1/2" or 3' 4 & 1/2" still smaller than her naval hood height. So I told Mike in order for that to be accurate, Rob's 3'6" calculation of the naval hood height would have had to be incorrect.

However, when a ruler was laid on the photo and those measurements reviewed, Rob's numbers were confirmed precisely. Not only that, a 44 & 1/2" main rail height was also confirmed. That means her exterior bulkhead still appears to be 3' 8 & 1/2". In order for that to be the case, a minimum height of 6'4" for internal bulwark height has to also be true. That's if her monkeyrail height is 16" not 18". It's more of a challenge to calculate that, due to severe damage to that area of her bow. 

In conclusion, I'm unconcerned with one height or another, as long as we get it right. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by ClipperFan
Grammar correction

[rwiederrich]

4 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Rob, Richard, 

too much of good things i see -  i didnt have time to study your posts will check it over  weekend though, just FYI both sets have been cut and already on the way to me! meaning next week im sending them to you guys. 

apology for taking it longer he apologized for being very busy. 

V.

Definitely no problem Vlad.  I'm so appreciative...and I can't wait to begin my build.

Can't wait till you get your book...then we will know how long it actually takes to travel that distance.

 

No apology necessary for working hard and making a living.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, Vladimir,

When I replied to Mike's latest encouraging reply to my review of Glory's draft Mark's, I recognized some simple arithmetic mistakes in my prior post. That's most likely due to being tired. The actual numbers get even more dramatic in support of a 6'6" inner bulkhead height. Here's why. The 38 & 1/2" result is 3' 2 & 1/2" not 3' 8 & 1/2" as I mistakenly posted. That would result in an outer main rail height smaller than Glory's naval hoods. Every photo clearly shows the opposite. 

In my message to Mike, I actually used the smallest 16" monkeyrail height found on a McKay Clipper. That would result in 40 & 1/2" or 3' 4 & 1/2" still smaller than her naval hood height. So I told Mike in order for that to be accurate, Rob's 3'6" calculation of the naval hood height would have had to be incorrect.

However, when the rulers were laid on the photo and those measurements reviewed, Rob's numbers were confirmed precisely. Not only that, a 44 & 1/2" main rail height was also confirmed. That means her exterior bulkhead still appears to be 3' 8 & 1/2". In order for that to be the case, a minimum height of 6'4" for internal bulwark height has to be also true. That's if her monkeyrail height is 16" not 18". It's more of a challenge to calculate that, due to severe damage to that area of her bow. 

In conclusion, I'm unconcerned with one height or another, as long as we get it right. 

Rich...this poor image gives us a really good look at where things are located...with humans to compare to.

 

I'm a simple man...thus translating what I see here to a 1/96 model will be quite simple actually.

 

Boy....they sure cut her open to make this access point...to her main deck.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

24 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich...this poor image gives us a really good look at where things are located...with humans to compare to.

 

I'm a simple man...thus translating what I see here to a 1/96 model will be quite simple actually.

 

Boy....they sure cut her open to make this access point...to her main deck.

 

Rob

Rob, this pic, which really saddens me, really appears to support at least a 6'4" if not 6'6" high bulkhead from the deck. Clearly men standing wouldn't be able to see above these bulkheads. It's a damn shame how McKay's last Clipper was so shabbily treated. Cutting such a long gap in her hull shows such disrespect. Meanwhile, her hull also displays serious hogging too. From a modeler's viewpoint, we can also easily see the difference in height of exterior molding compared to interior deck bulkhead height, proving Rob's observation that those moldings are indeed mounted on the waterways.

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, this pic, which really saddens me, really appears to support at least a 6'4" if not 6'6" high bulkhead from the deck. Clearly men standing wouldn't be able to see above these bulkheads. It's a damn shame how McKay's last Clipper was so shabbily treated. Cutting such a long gap in her hull shows such disrespect. Meanwhile, her hull also displays serious hogging too. From a modeler's viewpoint, we can also easily see the difference in height of exterior molding compared to interior deck bulkhead height, proving Rob's observation that those moldings are indeed mounted on the waterways.

Using the imagery of Glory....we can conclude and model her bulwarks pretty accurately. It is, however quite clear she did have an *extremely* high gunwale for typical clippers of the time.  She definitely had wash gates...similar to British clippers and the iron windjammers.  those will need to be fashioned between frames and apparently on top of the waterways.

 

Good work...indeed

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

As promised, here's my further research on the most accurate dimensions for Glory's exterior hull. Using the previous 7/16ths" = 1' determined by the Goddess 'Athene' figurehead, here are my results. In this particular image, since the ruler isn't exactly right next to the base of her naval hood, the count is either 24 or 25/16ths, which translates as 3'3" to 3'6". Since Rob previously determined the dimension to be 3'6" and another bow image confirms that, I tend to agree with his result.

As for the controversial main rail height, it's a bigger challenge to calculate this as accurately due to the damaged monkeyrail impeding into it. However, counting from the lower sheerail molding (the identical one which is the lower molding of the upper naval hood, as they overlap) and not including the top molding below the monkeyrail, since it butts up to her name board, I get 26/16ths" (1 & 5/8s") which translates as 3' 8 & 1/2". 

Reexamining the "around" 6' internal bulkhead height of Duncan MacLean, it's impossible to have that with an exterior of nearly 4'. With her exterior moldings mounted to the top of 1' waterways, resting on 3 & 1/2" decks, it subtracts 15 & 1/2" from internal bulkhead height. That means at minimum, assuming a 16" monkeyrail height, her interior bulkhead height would have to be 6'4" with 18" monkeyrail that of necessity increases bulkhead height to 6'6". I'm sending the same information to Mike for his critique as well. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by ClipperFan
additional information

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

When we discuss Duncan MacLean's construction details of Clipper ships, I believe in the accuracy of his reporting. As usual though, "the devil's in the details." To whit, his description of McKay's premiere Clipper "Stag Hound" having a "backbone" of nine feet. However if you total up all the numbers he supplies, the actual figures are between 9'4" to 9'6". Here are the numbers from the Boston Daily Atlas article:

 

                     STAG HOUND

 

Keel: moulded 46" sided 16"

Top Timbers:

moulded 14-16" sided 10-12"

3 Midship Keelsons combined: 

mould 42" side 16"

Hold Stanchions: 10" square

 "are kneed to the beams above and to the Keelson below, so that their lower arms form almost a rider along the top of the keelson. Including their depth and the moulding of the floor timbers, she is nine feet "through the back bone."

Totalling these numbers up, results in 112" to 114" or 9'4" to 9'6".

So it's entirely likely when MacLean uses the term "about" for bulwarks height of 6' it could be from 6'4" to 6'6". 

In this very detailed, itemized description of the components that comprise a vessel's backbone, MacLean gives us a guideline for description of future McKay vessels. 

Why is this important to "Glory of the Seas?"

Using Duncan MacLean's same specifics in his description of the backbone of Glory, we get a depth of  about 11 feet. Again, specifics from Boston Daily Atlas:

 

                GLORY of the SEAS

 

Keel: moulded 24" sided 16"

with 5" depth of shoe or false keel

Bulwark Stanchions:

moulded 8" sided 11"

3 Midship Keelsons: each 16" square

(16" × 3 = 48" or 4')

Ceiling on the floor: 7"

On the Bilge there are 3 tiers of thick work 15" each.

(15" × 3 = 45" or 3'9")

This totals 137" or 11'5". In fact this matches almost exactly the "backbone" of McKay's Clipper "Sovereign of the Seas." 

Another reason this affects Glory's appearance is due to a higher internal backbone, all of her masts will be higher, probably by 7' to 8'. I'm curious to hear other's thoughts.

 

 

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

@Rob, fyi trackable parcel was sent to Rich so he will resend your half within states. officially should be 6-9 days but im sure it will be longer nowadays ...we will see. 

Hoping for the speeď

V. 

[rwiederrich]

33 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

@Rob, fyi trackable parcel was sent to Rich so he will resend your half within states. officially should be 6-9 days but im sure it will be longer nowadays ...we will see. 

Hoping for the speeď

V. 

How exciting....I'm full of anticipation.  It's been quiet around here...I've been busy with lots of house projects and garden management things.. Spring!

Have you received your book yet?  It sure is taking its time.......

 

Thank you so much.......

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

@Rob, fyi trackable parcel was sent to Rich so he will resend your half within states. officially should be 6-9 days but im sure it will be longer nowadays ...we will see. 

Hoping for the speeď

V. 

Rob,

I wanted this to be a complete surprise but somehow my communication with Vlad got garbled. As a way of expressing my appreciation for your generosity in giving me Michael Mjelde's autographed book, I paid for your bulkheads. Since Vlad apparently has sent both parcels to me, I will make sure to get yours out to you as soon as I receive them. Unfortunately, I'm going to undergo surgery in early June. If I can't personally send your bulkheads, I will make sure my wife does. My apologies for this confusion and extra delay to your project.

[rwiederrich]

4 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I wanted this to be a complete surprise but somehow my communication with Vlad got garbled. As a way of expressing my appreciation for your generosity in giving me Michael Mjelde's autographed book, I paid for your bulkheads. Since Vlad apparently has sent both parcels to me, I will make sure to get yours out to you as soon as I receive them. Unfortunately, I'm going to undergo surgery in early June. If I can't personally send your bulkheads, I will make sure my wife does. My apologies for this confusion and extra delay to your project.

Man...you didn't have to do that for me...However, I do appreciate it so vary much.  I just can't believe I will begin again on Glory for a second time...this time with greater detail and model accuracy.  You guys have been great!

 

Thank you oh so very much.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

32 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Man...you didn't have to do that for me...However, I do appreciate it so vary much.  I just can't believe I will begin again on Glory for a second time...this time with greater detail and model accuracy.  You guys have been great!

 

Thank you oh so very much.

 

Rob

Rob,

You're sincerely welcome. I only regret that your bulkheads are taking a slight detour of Connecticut first...

[ClipperFan]

On 5/13/2021 at 6:41 PM, ClipperFan said:

As promised, here's my further research on the most accurate dimensions for Glory's exterior hull. Using the previous 7/16ths" = 1' determined by the Goddess 'Athene' figurehead, here are my results. In this particular image, since the ruler isn't exactly right next to the base of her naval hood, the count is either 24 or 25/16ths, which translates as 3'3" to 3'6". Since Rob previously determined the dimension to be 3'6" and another bow image confirms that, I tend to agree with his result.

As for the controversial main rail height, it's a bigger challenge to calculate this as accurately due to the damaged monkeyrail impeding into it. However, counting from the lower sheerail molding (the identical one which is the lower molding of the upper naval hood, as they overlap) and not including the top molding below the monkeyrail, since it butts up to her name board, I get 26/16ths" (1 & 5/8s") which translates as 3' 8 & 1/2". 

Reexamining the "around" 6' internal bulkhead height of Duncan MacLean, it's impossible to have that with an exterior of nearly 4'. With her exterior moldings mounted to the top of 1' waterways, resting on 3 & 1/2" decks, it subtracts 15 & 1/2" from internal bulkhead height. That means at minimum, assuming a 16" monkeyrail height, her interior bulkhead height would have to be 6'4" with 18" monkeyrail that of necessity increases bulkhead height to 6'6". I'm sending the same information to Mike for his critique as well. 

Rob, Vlad,

Taking a closer look at the tip of her bow to where her monkeyrail terminates, it appears to be more forward than we previously estimated. Coincidentally the line of Seattle Grain Co Warehouse behind aligns almost perfectly with this sharp joint. Following it down, there's a small space between Glory's bowsprit and her naval hood where the line of that building continues. Visually, to determine where this projecting line meets at her cutwater, there are some curving lines which almost exactly meet that juncture. I encourage anyone planning to build a model of her to reassess this aspect, since this near perfect broadside in such great clarity sheds new light on this important facet of her beautiful bow.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

7 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, Vlad,

Taking a closer look at the tip of her bow to where her monkeyrail terminates, it appears to be more forward than we previously estimated. Coincidentally the line of Seattle Grain Co Warehouse behind aligns almost perfectly with this sharp joint. Following it down, there's a small space between Glory's bowsprit and her naval hood where the line of that building continues. Visually, to determine where this projecting line meets at her cutwater, there are some curving lines which almost exactly meet that juncture. I encourage anyone planning to build a model of her to reassess this aspect, since this near perfect broadside in such great clarity sheds new light on this important facet of her beautiful bow.

Thanks Rich. I take this to consideration & assume carving angling designing and instaling & measuring knightheads will be one of the most important tasks/ challenge to get right considering overall aspect of look. it will certainly take time. V. 

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Thanks Rich. I take this to consideration & assume carving angling designing and instaling & measuring knightheads will be one of the most important tasks/ challenge to get right considering overall aspect of look. it will certainly take time. V. 

Vladimir,

What I'm driving at again, is that contrary to images which give us a sense that "Glory of the Seas" had a more conservative verticle bow, the few reliable broadside pictures we do have contradict that false assumption. Much like the erroneous conclusion that her quarterdeck profile was more blunt, when you look at her profile it's actually sharper than first suspected. This is why the ratio comparisons I did now make more sense. While Glory had the identical keel to deck profile as "Stag Hound" and "Flying Fish" her keel to overall length was actually 2' longer than McKay's first Extreme Clipper and 3' further forward than "Flying Fish" also considered an Extreme Clipper. I strongly suspect that the primary reason she was considered a Medium Clipoer has to do with her virtually flat floor. Otherwise in every other metric she more strongly resembles a true Clipper.

[rwiederrich]

47 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

What I'm driving at again, is that contrary to images which give us a sense that "Glory of the Seas" had a more conservative verticle bow, the few reliable broadside pictures we do have contradict that false assumption. Much like the erroneous conclusion that her quarterdeck profile was more blunt, when you look at her profile it's actually sharper than first suspected. This is why the ratio comparisons I did now make more sense. While Glory had the identical keel to deck profile as "Stag Hound" and "Flying Fish" her keel to overall length was actually 2' longer than McKay's first Extreme Clipper and 3' further forward than "Flying Fish" also considered an Extreme Clipper. I strongly suspect that the primary reason she was considered a Medium Clipoer has to do with her virtually flat floor. Otherwise in every other metric she more strongly resembles a true Clipper.

Rich....your point is very valid.  the classifications between extreme and medium clipper almost appears to be determined by the person making the classification....NOT the vessel itself.  Many clipper designs had very flat bottoms and others had extremely sharp dead rises.   I think the ratio between length of hull and cargo capacity might play into the confusing distinction.  Place both dockside images of Glory and Young America next to each other and you are hard pressed to make any distinctive separation between the two designs....short of rig and bow structures. Even if you put her next to the Henry B. Hyde it is hard to make the distinction from clipper to *DownEaster*.  Which means WHAT anyway?  That she was made down East?  Great Republic was an extreme clipper....however her ratio of hull length to cargo capacity was balanced...but she was ginormous. 

 

Personally...I think the distinction of *Extreme clipper* means you are thin...carry less cargo and speed is your only goal.  Where as *Medium clipper* means you are thicker, carry more cargo(People and goods) and speed is relative to winds, currents, and the temperament of the Captain.  HOWEVER...you are all clippers because the sharp entry and exit and length of the design is the greatest distinction making the model unique.  Couple that with towering masts and extremely copious amounts of canvas to grasp as much wind as possible...and there you have the *CLIPPER*.    All that other fluff, of *extreme*, *medium*, *half clipper*and *clipper like*...is stuff for hair splitters.  IMHO.

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich....your point is very valid.  the classifications between extreme and medium clipper almost appears to be determined by the person making the classification....NOT the vessel itself.  Many clipper designs had very flat bottoms and others had extremely sharp dead rises.   I think the ratio between length of hull and cargo capacity might play into the confusing distinction.  Place both dockside images of Glory and Young America next to each other and you are hard pressed to make any distinctive separation between the two designs....short of rig and bow structures. Even if you put her next to the Henry B. Hyde it is hard to make the distinction from clipper to *DownEaster*.  Which means WHAT anyway?  That she was made down East?  Great Republic was an extreme clipper....however her ratio of hull length to cargo capacity was balanced...but she was ginormous. 

 

Personally...I think the distinction of *Extreme clipper* means you are thin...carry less cargo and speed is your only goal.  Where as *Medium clipper* means you are thicker, carry more cargo(People and goods) and speed is relative to winds, currents, and the temperament of the Captain.  HOWEVER...you are all clippers because the sharp entry and exit and length of the design is the greatest distinction making the model unique.  Couple that with towering masts and extremely copious amounts of canvas to grasp as much wind as possible...and there you have the *CLIPPER*.    All that other fluff, of *extreme*, *medium*, *half clipper*and *clipper like*...is stuff for hair splitters.  IMHO.

Rob, I'm in complete agreement. Probably what led to the Extreme distinction more than anything else was the sharpness at half floor. In fact, I've read how some historians consider McKay's first Clipper "Stag Hound" his only truly extreme Clipper mainly due to her incredible 40" deadrise at half floor. No subsequent McKay vessel ever had such an extreme dead rise. McKay's second Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud" already lowered that extreme deadrise by 25% to 30". Still she  twice set an unbeatable record of 89 days from New York to San Francisco for a sail powered merchant vessel (other extreme racing yachts finally bested "Flying Cloud's" times but they weren't designed to carry cargo and it took over a Centurty to do so). McKay's third Clipper Packet "Staffordshire" and fourth Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" as well as "Sovereign of the Seas" even the massive "Great Republic" and "Westward Ho!" all had a 20" dead rise at half floor, fully half that of "Stag Hound." 

Meanwhile "Champion of the Seas" further dropped dead rise at half floor to 18" continuing McKay's gradual lowering of his Hull profiles. 

Most likely what prompted McKay to further flatten his dead rise at half floor was lessening in demand of California for materials to be delivered as quickly as possible, resulting in a drop in costs of goods. 

Considering that "Glory of the Seas" had roughly an 8" dead rise at half floor, this to me is the main reason she's logically considered a Medium Clipper. Still she has the distinction of being the last Clipper to traverse from New York to San Francisco in under 100 days and holds the record of 35 days from China to Australia. Not too shabby for a "Medium" Clipper.

[Rick310]

 In one of the earlier post it was stated that the waterways were  placed on top of the deck planks.   I believe that the waterways were actually butted against the inside of the bulwarks and let into the deck beams.  The decking was then butted against the waterways and laid on top of the deck beams.

 Really great work everybody!! 

Rick

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, Rick310 said:

 In one of the earlier post it was stated that the waterways were  placed on top of the deck planks.   I believe that the waterways were actually butted against the inside of the bulwarks and let into the deck beams.  The decking was then butted against the waterways and laid on top of the deck beams.

 Really great work everybody!! 

Rick

Rich I believe I misspoke that comment...I think I was actually referring to the planksheer that sits on top of the waterway...but made the error when transcribing my post.   You are correct.  Thanks for following along so closely.....It's keeps us all honest.......well correct anyway.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, Rick310 said:

 In one of the earlier post it was stated that the waterways were  placed on top of the deck planks.   I believe that the waterways were actually butted against the inside of the bulwarks and let into the deck beams.  The decking was then butted against the waterways and laid on top of the deck beams.

 Really great work everybody!! 

Rick

Rick, that's helpful information to know. It means that instead of subtracting 15 & 1/2" from exterior bulkhead height (having 3 & 1/2" added for deck height) in reality we should only be reducing it by a foot instead. 

[ClipperFan]

On 5/21/2021 at 7:33 PM, ClipperFan said:

Rick, that's helpful information to know. It means that instead of subtracting 15 & 1/2" from exterior bulkhead height (having 3 & 1/2" added for deck height) in reality we should only be reducing it by a foot instead. 

Rob, Vladimir, Rick

the closest exterior measurement I can get for Glory's bulkheads was 3' 8 & 1/2". IF that's accurate and that's a big if, that would lower her mainrail bulkhead height from an even 5' to 4'8 & 1/2" with a monkeyrail height of 18" that would end up with a total height of 6'2 & 1/2". With a lesser monkeyrail height of 16" it would be 6' & 1/2". Personally my inclination is to believe that McKay wouldn't make his mainrail bulkhead that low so I'm still more inclined to believe in a 5' interior bulwark topped by an 18" monkeyrail for total height of 6'6". I'm seriously beginning to think this could also be trying too hard. I'm curious as to your thoughts.

[rwiederrich]

18 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, Vladimir, Rick

the closest exterior measurement I can get for Glory's bulkheads was 3' 8 & 1/2". IF that's accurate and that's a big if, that would lower her mainrail bulkhead height from an even 5' to 4'8 & 1/2" with a monkeyrail height of 18" that would end up with a total height of 6'2 & 1/2". With a lesser monkeyrail height of 16" it would be 6' & 1/2". Personally my inclination is to believe that McKay wouldn't make his mainrail bulkhead that low so I'm still more inclined to believe in a 5' interior bulwark topped by an 18" monkeyrail for total height of 6'6". I'm seriously beginning to think this could also be trying too hard. I'm curious as to your thoughts.

Rich....I'm a simple man...thustly I approach things simply.

 

If I use a known measurement...say the length of the figurehead(7.5ft) or the distance of the centers of the bowsprits iron bands(3ft).  I can easily deduce the distance needed to measure the height of the bulwarks.

 

First, we know that the planksheer sits on top of the 16" waterway...we also know that the water way sits on top of the deck timbers.

The decking sits on top of those same deck timbers.  If the decking is 3.5" thick..we subtract that from the thickness of the waterway.  The deck is then 12.5" below the bottom of the planksheer.   

Now...if we look at the exterior of the hull and identify the planksheer, we can conclude that the deck line is 12.5" below that.  That is the point were we make our measurement up to the top of the monkey rail to determine the actual height of the bulwarks.

 

The trick is remembering that the planksheer is NOT the level of the deck from the external.  The lower channel bolts directly to the waterway and the frames....that is why it rests below the planksheer....externally.  But internally...the deck level is 12.5" below the external planksheer.  Most likely several inches below the lower channel(externally), if the lower channel was bolted to the upper middle of the waterway(which I suspect is true, because of structural reasons)

Now take the known measurement, begin measuring from the top of the monkey rail amidships...down to were you suspect the deck to be(if the planksheer is roughly 3~4" thick and photographic images show the channel resting right under it and it is roughly 6" thick, it can be gathered that the decking is roughly 3" below that.

From all of that make your measurement of the bulwarks.  Over 6ft anyway

 

My thoughts anyway.

 

Rob

Edited May 24, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich....I'm a simple man...thustly I approach things simply.

 

If I use a known measurement...say the length of the figurehead(7.5ft) or the distance of the centers of the bowsprits iron bands(3ft).  I can easily deduce the distance needed to measure the height of the bulwarks.

 

First, we know that the planksheer sits on top of the 16" waterway...we also know that the water way sits on top of the deck timbers.

The decking sits on top of those same deck timbers.  If the decking is 3.5" thick..we subtract that from the thickness of the waterway.  The deck is then 12.5" below the bottom of the planksheer.   

Now...if we look at the exterior of the hull and identify the planksheer, we can conclude that the deck line is 12.5" below that.  That is the point were we make our measurement up to the top of the monkey rail to determine the actual height of the bulwarks.

 

The trick is remembering that the planksheer is NOT the level of the deck from the external.  The lower channel bolts directly to the waterway and the frames....that is why it rests below the planksheer....externally.  But internally...the deck level is 12.5" below the external planksheer.  Most likely several inches below the lower channel(externally), if the lower channel was bolted to the upper middle of the waterway(which I suspect is true, because of structural reasons)

Now take the known measurement, begin measuring from the top of the monkey rail amidships...down to were you suspect the deck to be(if the planksheer is roughly 3~4" thick and photographic images show the channel resting right under it and it is roughly 6" thick, it can be gathered that the decking is roughly 3" below that.

From all of that make your measurement of the bulwarks.  Over 6ft anyway

 

My thoughts anyway.

 

Rob

Rob, I think I follow. A technicality is that while two lower deck waterways were 16", the upper deck waterway was 12". Based on your description, the difference would be 8.5" instead of 12.5" (12" - 3.5" deck height is 8.5"). That would mean a 60" internal bulkhead height would be 51.5" or 4' 3.5" externally. Based on the measurements taken from her broadside photo it looked like 3' 8.5" maybe 4' at most, measuring from lowest molding to upper molding. Adding 8.5" to that would result in 4' 8.5" if we add back in the 3.5" deck gets us back to 5'. So it looks like an internal bulwark height of 5' was not counting the 3.5" thick deck height. Adding 18" to 56.5" gives us 74.5" or 6' 2 & 1/2". Does that now sound about right?

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, I think I follow. A technicality is that while two lower deck waterways were 16", the upper deck waterway was 12". Based on your description, the difference would be 8.5" instead of 12.5" (12" - 3.5" deck height is 8.5"). That would mean a 60" internal bulkhead height would be 51.5" or 4' 3.5" externally. Based on the measurements taken from her broadside photo it looked like 3' 8.5" maybe 4' at most, measuring from lowest molding to upper molding. Adding 8.5" to that would result in 4' 8.5" if we add back in the 3.5" deck gets us back to 5'. So it looks like an internal bulwark height of 5' was not counting the 3.5" thick deck height. Adding 18" to 56.5" gives us 74.5" or 6' 2 & 1/2". Does that now sound about right?

My assumption that the main deck Waterway was also 16" and not the 12".  Your work up makes far more sense and that would also agree with my own assessment of your measurement of 6' 2 & 1/2".  My early measurements make sense here too.  By using orienteering measurements and styles it is easily calculated.

 

I agree with your value.

 

Rob