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

[ClipperFan]

15 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Interesting.    I still want to see pics. 
 

Glad you got her all sent out.  Can’t wait.

 

Rob

Rob,

While I too want to see the rectangular, wooden mooring bits, I have full confidence in the word of Michael Mjelde. If he said he's seen those items, his statement is good enough for me. I took another look at his page 215 Appendix B: Main Deck Plan from the 1997 book Clipper Ship Captain. They're a little hard to see but just abaft the capstan are two tall rectangular mooring bits, which align precisely with the Plan View immediately above. What I find even more fascinating is that Mike says the Flying Cloud was similarly equipped. How he knows that is quite interesting.

[Glen McGuire]

Rich - Thank you for sharing your manuscript in advance.  It is very well written and provides a fascinating glimpse into the incredible depth of research that has gone into this build.  I found the section about the Athena figurehead particularly interesting.  So much investigative work just to confirm a small detail like Athena’s flowing drape actually forming an open loop!  Remarkable. 

 

Congratulations on such fine work, Rich.  I look forward to seeing the publication in its full printed "glory"!         

[druxey]

Congratulations for getting your article submitted, Rich. And now, we wait.... Thanks for the tip of the hat!

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, Glen McGuire said:

Rich - Thank you for sharing your manuscript in advance.  It is very well written and provides a fascinating glimpse into the incredible depth of research that has gone into this build.  I found the section about the Athena figurehead particularly interesting.  So much investigative work just to confirm a small detail like Athena’s flowing drape actually forming an open loop!  Remarkable. 

 

Congratulations on such fine work, Rich.  I look forward to seeing the publication in its full printed "glory"!         

Glen McGuire,

Thanks for the generous compliment. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the manuscript. And to think my initial fear was finding enough information to support enough pages for an article. In hindsight, what I still find personally fascinating is how those concerns about how to describe our journey of discovery were entirely unfounded. Once I got out of my own way, the article literally wrote itself. It's particularly gratifying that you appreciated the exacting details our research took us into, such that even examining Glory's Grecian Goddess Athena figurehead led to our amazing discoveries. In addition, while Rob, Vlad and I were committed to realizing Glory of the Seas in as precise details possible, the granularity of our research wouldn't have been possible without the intercession of Arina "theauthorsdaughter" who directly involved her famous dad Michael Mjelde. His personal involvement, encouragement and generous collaboration in making his vault of amazing photos available to us, allowed our group to take the research to a whole new level. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by ClipperFan
Grammar correction

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, druxey said:

Congratulations for getting your article submitted, Rich. And now, we wait.... Thanks for the tip of the hat!

Druxey,

And now we wait.... As Tom Petty famously sang "the waiting is the hardest part".... As for acknowledging your input, I firmly believe in giving credit where credit is due. You most certainly deserve it and of course, you're welcome!

[rwiederrich]

6 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Druxey,

And now we wait.... As Tom Petty famously sang "the waiting is the hardest part".... As for acknowledging your input, I firmly believe in giving credit where credit is due. You most certainly deserve it and of course, you're welcome!

You know Rich...it's interesting how, new revelations seam to creep in...just after what we thought was the right direction, is found to be as much of an inaccuracy as any we uncovered.

A wooden bit, would need deck penetration, and that would mean two 10~12" timbers would have to enter into the forecastle cabins for support below deck.  This intrusion into that , already limited space, seams unnecessary.

 

Anyway, it is what it is.    Since Glory was built in 1869...during the time when ample innovations and the most modern equipment was employed.....And.....since we also know that McKay is known to have, *Spared No Expense* in her construction.   I find it uncharacteristic of McKay to employ simple wood timbers for mooring bits.

 I've noticed several other interesting things in images.  One, is....I want to know for sure what is the configuration of the Fore mast stay.  In images of her being converted, the stay is actually two..coming down to their eye bolts.  Next, in the image of her at San Fran in 1877, she is sporting only a single stay....MMMMMM.  I know that the main(and top ) mast stay is a double....since it secured to the fore fife rail and is then paired just aft of the fore mast.  What  about the fore?  In reviewing the image of the boy on the cabin....looking forward it became clear.  The stay is *also* doubled..after it leaves its two eye bolts.  Just like the main stay.  In the later images of her canary refit,.....the stay was probably split to relieve tension on the mast.

 

One reason, one must evaluate closely any rigging on her during this period of refit.

 

Another revelation came some time ago when I was researching for other rigging anomalies.  The Image of her in San Pedro....is quite historical in many aspects, but in this particular aspect...this is when she had her wood catwalk removed from atop the boys cabin.  It is clearly visible, that the catwalk is removed and that one halve of its rail is being hoisted away by tackle rigged from her stays and that a space is evident n her carriage roof rail.

 

I've found it quite important to evaluate these magnificent images....FULLY.  For any and all construction and modification elements.  Unfortunately.....sometimes we find them after the fact.

 

Rob

[Marcus.K.]

Impressive!!! THANKS for SHARING this wonderful findings in this way!

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

You know Rich...it's interesting how, new revelations seam to creep in...just after what we thought was the right direction, is found to be as much of an inaccuracy as any we uncovered.

A wooden bit, would need deck penetration, and that would mean two 10~12" timbers would have to enter into the forecastle cabins for support below deck.  This intrusion into that , already limited space, seams unnecessary.

 

Anyway, it is what it is.    Since Glory was built in 1869...during the time when ample innovations and the most modern equipment was employed.....And.....since we also know that McKay is known to have, *Spared No Expense* in her construction.   I find it uncharacteristic of McKay to employ simple wood timbers for mooring bits.

 I've noticed several other interesting things in images.  One, is....I want to know for sure what is the configuration of the Fore mast stay.  In images of her being converted, the stay is actually two..coming down to their eye bolts.  Next, in the image of her at San Fran in 1877, she is sporting only a single stay....MMMMMM.  I know that the main(and top ) mast stay is a double....since it secured to the fore fife rail and is then paired just aft of the fore mast.  What  about the fore?  In reviewing the image of the boy on the cabin....looking forward it became clear.  The stay is *also* doubled..after it leaves its two eye bolts.  Just like the main stay.  In the later images of her canary refit,.....the stay was probably split to relieve tension on the mast.

 

One reason, one must evaluate closely any rigging on her during this period of refit.

 

Another revelation came some time ago when I was researching for other rigging anomalies.  The Image of her in San Pedro....is quite historical in many aspects, but in this particular aspect...this is when she had her wood catwalk removed from atop the boys cabin.  It is clearly visible, that the catwalk is removed and that one halve of its rail is being hoisted away by tackle rigged from her stays and that a space is evident n her carriage roof rail.

 

I've found it quite important to evaluate these magnificent images....FULLY.  For any and all construction and modification elements.  Unfortunately.....sometimes we find them after the fact.

 

Rob

Rob,

Another confusing factor is the f'o'csle height. Both of your models appear to show a 5' height, yet the image of the cabin boy astride Glory's boy's house looking forward seemingly reveals a more comfortable height. Look closely at the base between the fore cabin port side and her port inner bulwark and you'll see a sailor on his hands and knees attending to the ship. The f'o'csle bulwark seems to tower above him. Maybe it's an effect of the man being prone. Regardless, in Duncan MacLean's description of the roomy fore quarters of the Flying Fish, he describes an entrance below deck with the use of a companion. It wouldn't take much, a 3' drop would provide 8' clearance in a 35' space. 

As for the wooden, rectangular mooring bits, Mike was also emphatic that McKay's second Extreme Clipper Flying Cloud was similarly equipped. That would mean most likely Donald McKay kept his practice of utilizing wooden rectangular mooring bits consistently for at least 18 years. It would be interesting to see if we could find photos of the USS Essex to see what type of mooring bits she had. 

When it comes to your foremast rigging procedure. I wouldn't have a clue. However, knowing the critical nature of those lines, I would firmly believe that if a relatively smaller mast like the mizzen had doubled lines, than a substantially larger mast like a foremast would have such rigging too.

[ClipperFan]

On 6/28/2022 at 7:05 AM, ClipperFan said:

 

Rob, Vladimir, Druxey, et all

Here's that neat little book from 1930 written by a veteran Clipper Ship "roughneck" sailor with the beautiful Warren Shepherd artwork as its' frontpiece. I had the title slightly off. It's actually Rough and Tumble on Old Clipper Ships. There's also a dust jacket but it covers a brilliant gold image of Glory on the cover set against a lovely blue hardcover book. Ironically, while the McKay Clipper is featured on the cover and opposite the title page, I do not recall Mr. Ramsay mentioning that he ever served on her. Still it's fun read and gives a genuine first hand authentic, unromanized account of serving on the big American Clipper Ships.

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, Vladimir, Druxey, et all

Here's that neat little book from 1930 written by a veteran Clipper Ship "roughneck" sailor with the beautiful Warren Shepherd artwork as its' frontpiece. I had the title slightly off. It's actually Rough and Tumble on Old Clipper Ships. There's also a dust jacket but it covers a brilliant gold image of Glory on the cover set against a lovely blue hardcover book. Ironically, while the McKay Clipper is featured on the cover and opposite the title page, I do not recall Mr. Ramsay mentioning that he ever served on her. Still it's fun read and gives a genuine first hand authentic, unromanized account of serving on the big American Clipper Ships.

Yeah…..I have that book.   Super.  
 

Rob

Edited June 29, 2022 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

6 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Yeah…..I have that book.   Super.  
 

Rob

Rob, no surprise. I'm pretty sure if we compared lists, our nautical libraries would match almost 100%. By the way, the NRJ editor confirmed he received my article submission. Now it's a matter of waiting....

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, no surprise. I'm pretty sure if we compared lists, our nautical libraries would match almost 100%. By the way, the NRJ editor confirmed he received my article submission. Now it's a matter of waiting....

Wonderful…….I can’t wait for a copy.  
I wonder if a follow up article will be in the future……..when our models are done?  Or is that simply a MSW subject? 
I remember our first conversation about Glory,  it has to be over 12 years ago by now.  
 

Rob

 

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

Just adding these paintings to the log. Not sure of the artist.  Beautiful none the less.  I’ve used them before.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Just adding these paintings to the log. Not sure of the artist.  Beautiful none the less.  I’ve used them before.  
 

Rob

Rob, 

The top painting is from Michael Mjelde's 2nd 1997 book Clipper Ship Captain and is featured on the dust jacket. Illustration notes, page 243 provides this description: "Bookjacket. The oil painting "Glory of the Seas on the North Atlantic" was painted by Thomas Wells in 1992 and was commissioned by D. Gene Kennedy, President and CEO of Land Title Company of Kitsap County for presentation to the author to commemorate 20 years of service to the company. "

"In a letter to the author dated June 3, 1997 Wells said regarding his painting: "The vessel is in fairly heavy seas. Royals and main skysail furled. She is running before the Westerlies, perhaps Mid-Atlantic, with grain cargo for England."

The lower one appears as a black & white print on page 126 of this same book. This description is below: "Water color of Glory of the Seas with Young America in background by Carl G. Evers. Entitled "Conquerors of Cape Horn" it depicts the two ships in 1879. Courtesy Carl G. Evers"

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

The only publication I've ever seen a full color print of "Conquerors of Cape Horn" is this neat softcover book "The Marine Paintings of Carl G. Evers"

[rwiederrich]

57 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

The only publication I've ever seen a full color print of "Conquerors of Cape Horn" is this neat softcover book "The Marine Paintings of Carl G. Evers"

I have this booklet in my library....for the reason of that painting.  I just forget who the artist is.....and more significantly though, is the drama in the paintings.  The artists depicted Glory of the Seas quite well actually...and roughly during my modeling time period...too.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

On 6/29/2022 at 7:59 AM, ClipperFan said:

Another confusing factor is the f'o'csle height. Both of your models appear to show a 5' height, yet the image of the cabin boy astride Glory's boy's house looking forward seemingly reveals a more comfortable height. Look closely at the base between the fore cabin port side and her port inner bulwark and you'll see a sailor on his hands and knees attending to the ship. The f'o'csle bulwark seems to tower above him. Maybe it's an effect of the man being prone. Regardless, in Duncan MacLean's description of the roomy fore quarters of the Flying Fish, he describes an entrance below deck with the use of a companion. It wouldn't take much, a 3' drop would provide 8' clearance in a 35' space. 

I answered this earlier but it must have gotten sent to the nether regions.

I pondered this issue for years.  If the sheer of the deck is equally translated to the rail, and if the rail or bulwark is 6.5ft to include the monkey rail at 18".  Then the forecastle floor is located at the planksheer and its decking is somewhere around the height of the rail.  If Duncan MacLean says the forecastle height was 8ft....then the extra feet must have been derived from a sunken floor in the forecastle.  If the sheer of the deck is uniform with the height of the rail...then is can't be 8ft.

Photographs show the rail is consistent....except for the addition of the 18" splash rail on the bow.

If the Forecastle decking is at the monkey rail height, that adds an additional 18" or a foot and a half more height.

 

This means there is only the splash rail above the forecastle deck.  but external images show the cathead deeply recessed within the monkey rail.

 

Not knowing the exact height of the forecastle deck from any good image...it was determined from external images.  Knowing were internal things are by external landmarks....such as the planksheer,, rail cap and monkey rail cap.

 

It's too late to make any changes now, but it is food for thought.   UPDATE:      TO BE ADDRESSED....

 

 

I'm going to edit this post with further information:    Upon further review of the men standing on the forecastle deck in this image ..it is clearly apparent that the splash rail is roughly 18" above the decking...this, by noticing the man standing by the anchor and measuring the distance from the deck to his knee...where the splash rail ends.    It can be concluded that the extra height of the forecastle decking can be accommodated for by raising the deck to meet the top of the monkey rail and NOT the main rail (AS WHAT I AND VLAD DID). Adding 18+ inches to the height of the forecastle deck...thus, then provides  the correct space below, as shown in the photograph with the boy.

With this new revelation...it appears I have no other choice, but to redo the forecastle decking and raise it to its correct location.....and at that time....add the for storage lockers too.

This is a significant error correction...one that needs to be made, if total accuracy is to be achieved.

 

I will suspend my rigging operations........and proceed directly to rectify this profound oversight in perception and construction. The catheads will also be enlarged.  The image of her at pier side demonstrates large catheads.   I'm going to change the anchor release mech. as well.  Demolition will ensue.

 

 

 

 

Rob

Edited June 30, 2022 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

19 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Wonderful…….I can’t wait for a copy.  
I wonder if a follow up article will be in the future……..when our models are done?  Or is that simply a MSW subject? 
I remember our first conversation about Glory,  it has to be over 12 years ago by now.  
 

Rob

 

 

Rob,

My instinct about doing a follow up article is to wait to see the editor's response to my initial submission. Then I believe a second article wouldn't be ready for submission until your model is complete. It could also be a way of promoting a possible future museum presentation, like we discussed earlier. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get the San Francisco Maritime Museum to loan their Samuel Walters painting and possibly even the original signboard? Such an article could also hopefully tie into Mike's third publication. Such follow up article would of necessity involve a greater collaboration with you and Vlad if he proceeds with the rigging of his vessel, since I know far less about the actual rigging process. 

[rwiederrich]

Well here we go. …….. demolition time.   First to remove all the furniture and hardware. 

[Bob Cleek]

9 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

This is a significant error correction...one that needs to be made, if total accuracy is to be achieved.

Good on you, my man! This must have been a great disappointing frustration, but your commitment to accuracy is to be highly commended. Great work so far and I'm sure you'll never regret this correction!

[druxey]

Ow. Just looking at that hurts. But I applaud your efforts for authenticity. Good for you, Rob.

[rwiederrich]

Now a little construction. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

56 minutes ago, Bob Cleek said:

Good on you, my man! This must have been a great disappointing frustration, but your commitment to accuracy is to be highly commended. Great work so far and I'm sure you'll never regret this correction!

Thanks Bob.  I knew I would always regret not correcting this error.  If I’m to be extremely particular about so much correct detail……..I couldn’t be a hypocrite concerning this error. 
You’ve always been an accuracy buff where I’m concerned and I know you wouldn’t have me act any differently. 
 

Now I can see clearly the correct forecastle deck location.  As it should be.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

51 minutes ago, druxey said:

Ow. Just looking at that hurts. But I applaud your efforts for authenticity. Good for you, Rob.

It is so clear to me now.  This correction will heighten the forecastle deck(to mimic the photograph), and it will provide ample room for the addition of the store lockers, beneath.  
The cat heads will need alterations to fit the correction.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

I applaud your courageous actions in pursuit of faithful accuracy. If what you're doing is what I think you're doing, then I have more "bad" news for you, unfortunately. The topic being those nagging rectangular mooring bits. From what I understand of my communication with Mike, all of Glory of the Seas mooring bits were of this construct. It would mean removal and replacement of all wrought iron mooring bits with the much higher wooden posts. I could be wrong but I think that would include those surrounding her stern bumpkins too. Another item I corrected on my plan view was removal of the two bits on her main deck, which Mike's plan view lacked. From what I can tell from the profile view of the deck arrangement, these wooden bits were each about 18" square and about 3' high, as they appear to be slightly taller than the 18" fancy rail surmounted by the 1' high splash rail above it. It's hard to see but if you enlarge the plans, it should be more visible. I realize this is a royal pain in the *** to correct but of this I'm sure. I asked Mike directly if these peculiar items were used throughout the ship and he confirmed that fact. Unfortunately I have yet to see the photos but I implicitly trust a man who's dedicated over sixty years of his life to verify every item of one vessel.

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

Wow! My first glance didn't catch the full extent of your deconstruction work. Getting accurate scale height of the f'o'csle bulwarks will be quite a correction in your replica. If you look closely at the only scene we have of this area, that peculiar pic of the ship's boy on the boy's house appears to show that the bulwarks have the same molding as the front fascia of her rear coach house. 

 

[ClipperFan]

https://www.facebook.com/1647933428812781/posts/pfbid024CJQYpBcZnHCtJttBJQ4gqYcRquRfq61XHQAu8pfESW3mcSepmdjZm8qEr77HBNKl/

 

Rob,

From Maritime Art Facebook page comes a beautiful piece of work by English artist Derek Gardner "Sunrise: the Glory of the Seas in St George's Channel"

[rwiederrich]

8 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

I realize this is a royal pain in the *** to correct but of this I'm sure. I asked Mike directly if these peculiar items were used throughout the ship and he confirmed that fact. Unfortunately I have yet to see the photos but I implicitly trust a man who's dedicated over sixty years of his life to verify every item of one vessel.

Fortunately the aft wood bits are replicated at the bumpkin junction on my model.  However, I am having issues with several points.  I see no evidence of large wooden bits that are 3ft tall, forward or aft. However, I do see large iron chocks aft for mooring.  I'm still wrestling with the notion that, "McKay spared no expense", in her construction, and by 1869, iron bits were in popular use.  If I I see photographic evidence, or read of first hand accounts to the contrary, I will then humbly make alterations, until then, I am hesitant to make those corrections.

 

It is clear....I bumbled the forecastle construction, and that I will happily amend.   I'm not trying to be problematic or argumentative.  Too many *Other* issues cloud the validity of the evidence.

 

It is clear, on Earlier McKay vessels, he did, indeed use wood type bits....From what I have seen....but Glory of the Seas, was his final masterpiece and to opt out of the most modern fixtures and construction techniques....kinda flies in the face of What McKay was all about.  Progressive improvements of his designs and the use of the most modern of material and industry.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

Personally, I agree with you about the well known fact that Donald McKay was an innovator and that it's obvious he spared no expense in his last masterpiece. It flies in the face that he would scrimp on funds for the use of old fashioned wooden bits as opposed to more modern wrought iron bits ones. What would explain their use is if Mr. McKay saw advantages to the use of wood over iron. As for their being 3' tall, that was simply my estimate when comparing their height to what I thought was combined height of fancy rail with splash rail. With a revision to just an 18" splash rail, that reduces their height considerably to maybe 22" as they're just a little higher than the rail. Again, as soon as Mike sends me his photographic proof, I'll immediately share it. I simply made the correction on paper since Mike was so convincing. Besides, you have your hands full with that impressive f'o'csle height revision.

 

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

Here's another puzzle to resolve regarding cathead location relative to Glory's f'o'cstle deck. According to this very clear scene the placement of her starboard cathead is clearly positioned completely below her splash rail and apparently piercing her fancy rail below. Lifting Glory's f'o'cstle deck to the top of her fancy rail now means her catheads would be hidden or mostly buried by this new, higher deck.