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

[ClipperFan]

34 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

I too would make that conclusion...if I knew for sure that that actually happened.  We do know when she had the stick mods done and about the year...but to return her mainmast BACK to a composite mast from a simpler stick mast was never made clear...if that even happened.  Not to mention her mizzen mast issues.

The reason I bring up this inconsistency...is.. it might lend validity to her poop having mods done on her twin skylights.  Which might explain that inconsistency in the image that was mistaken for her.  Because in that image it does show that she had a main and mizzen masts that were composite and a single stick mast for her fore.  It does show that she did indeed have her fore rail on her poop cabin modified when her boats were shifted to the Boy's cabin roof.   It's just odd to see mods being done in this image to whatever ship that is, that were done to Glory.

 

It's all odd to me.  This is why building an accurate model of her during any particular point in time has to be so critically researched...because she changed so much.

 

Rob

Rob,

How Michael Mjelde determined that the scene attributed to "Glory of the Seas" was not her I don't precisely know but he was very emphatic that it's not her. As for the confusing skylight placement, if you look at this scene of her beached at Endolyne, it's clear that her rear House only has two skylights, both behind her Mizzen Mast. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

In Lars Bruzelius's excellent website there are many descriptions of Clipper Ships of many nations. Much of Duncan MacLean's articles for Boston Daily Atlas are included. The specific distances of all three masts of McKay's Extreme Clipper "Staghound" are precisely listed. Distance between perpendiculars on deck was 215'. Here are the distances, (c) = center:

 

Stem to Foremast (c) 50'

Foremast (c) to Main Mast (c) 67'

Main Mast (c) to Mizzen Mast (c) 56' Mizzen Mast (c)  to Sternpost 42'

 

Math determines percentage of deck results with these calculations for "Glory of the Seas" known to have had a 250' distance on deck between perpendiculars:

 

50' ÷ 215 = 23% x 250 = 58'

67 ÷ 215 = 31% × 250 = 78'

56' ÷ 215 = 26% × 250 = 65'

42 ÷ 215 = 19.5% × 250 = 49'

 

Of course, this is making an assumption. McKay followed same formula for placement of masts. If he did, then these would be the same distances for "Glory of the Seas":

 

Stem to Foremast (c) 58'

Foremast (c) to Main Mast (c) 78'

Main Mast (c) to Mizzen Mast (c) 65'

Mizzen Mast (c) to Stern Post 49'

 

Of course, if there's photographic evidence that clearly contradicts these conclusions, I would say that would be our most reliable source.

 can i give you this Richard? ❤️  ? thanks a milion . i know what you and Rob need here - measures ! as it is very blatant to look at whatever drawing and it speaks nothing of a precision... so i am going to measure drawing upside down for myself and you  so you have something more valuable to see and comment on...but it will take ne few evenings as i am busy with other work during day so please bear with me. This helped me enormously. Vlad

[rwiederrich]

8 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

How Michael Mjelde determined that the scene attributed to "Glory of the Seas" was not her I don't precisely know but he was very emphatic that it's not her. As for the confusing skylight placement, if you look at this scene of her beached at Endolyne, it's clear that her rear House only has two skylights, both behind her Mizzen Mast. 

True..and the questionable image has the skylight forward of the mizzen.  And the height of gunwale appears far too short to be Glory. Glory's bulwarks are as high as her deckhouse roof.  Plus her poop deck rail stanchions are not remotely close to those of Glory's...yeah that image is not of Glory.

 

You can easily see(In this beached image) that the prow has a sharp beak...not a soft round one that Mike had originally assumes.  This should help Vladimir.

 

Rob

Edited March 15, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

6 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

 can i give you this Richard? ❤️  ? thanks a milion . i know what you and Rob need here - measures ! as it is very blatant to look at whatever drawing and it speaks nothing of a precision... so i am going to measure drawing upside down for myself and you  so you have something more valuable to see and comment on...but it will take ne few evenings as i am busy with other work during day so please bear with me. This helped me enormously. Vlad

Ahh, Vladimir, that's so nice of you. As I said in my explanation, if we can determine different distances from photographic evidence, these figures may have to be revised. I look at this effort as a collaboration, which in the end should give us results we should all be proud of.

[ClipperFan]

6 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

True..and the questionable image has the skylight forward of the mizzen.  And the height of gunwale appears far too short to be Glory. Glory's bulwarks are as high as her deckhouse roof.  Plus her poop deck rail stanchions are not remotely close to those of Glory's...yeah that image is not of Glory.

 

You can easily see(In this beached image) that the prow has a sharp beak...not a soft round one that Mike had originally assumes.  This should help Vladimir.

 

Rob

Rob, you're right about Glory's sharper prow. Part of McKay's design brilliance was his ability to draft for significant stowage ability while at the same time optimally designed for speed. Look at the deck profile of Clipper "Lightning" for a comparison. After seeing the surprising graphic of her dramatic keel hogging, courtesy of Mike's recent email, I'm beginning to think much more emphasis on investigation of Glory's condition in her very early years will give us a more accurate view of her true Hull form. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

31 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Ahh, Vladimir, that's so nice of you. As I said in my explanation, if we can determine different distances from photographic evidence, these figures may have to be revised. I look at this effort as a collaboration, which in the end should give us results we should all be proud of.

exactly. this will be exciting i am measuring her in scale but need a bit o assistance here. ......

seems point of waterline to be lower is correct and pays off in favor of 20 degrees bowsprit angle, and apex of bow above WL gives me 25' now. 

however in cost of WL reaching 20' which is simply wrong. grrrr. i will post pics. few discrepancies here folks. Rob states copper line of glory from keel 22 feet. but i read in Michel book copper line 25 ' ....1 strake about loadline which is normally 24' .

 

this adds to confusion a bit to me...from Michael we have depth of hold measure but that doesnt help really.

 

 

despite of this all fundamentals pretty much sets, I count this for half of foot missalignments which is easy to correct in program...

 

well here goes.....its pretty clear from photographs...there are ones with waterline. One more thing I need to correct seemingly, sheer is stated 7 foot, and it gives me 8 something at the stern, looks like i have to lover it it is very high up....

 

I straightened sternpost, etc....

goodnight now

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

here you can see Michaels WL mark , apex 23,3 FT

 

 

 

this is with higher WL mark . allowing only 17 degrees angle...20 would be pretty off ...below...

 

 

lowered WL about 2 feets

 

 

 

 

but only 20 FT below after lowering WL...:(((

 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

exactly. this will be exciting i am measuring her in scale but need a bit o assistance here. ......

seems point of waterline to be lower is correct and pays off in favor of 20 degrees bowsprit angle, and apex of bow above WL gives me 25' now. 

however in cost of WL reaching 20' which is simply wrong. grrrr. i will post pics. few discrepancies here folks. Rob states copper line of glory from keel 22 feet. but i read in Michel book copper line 25 ' ....1 strake about loadline which is normally 24' .

 

this adds to confusion a bit to me...from Michael we have depth of hold measure but that doesnt help really.

 

 

despite of this all fundamentals pretty much sets, I count this for half of foot missalignments which is easy to correct in program...

 

well here goes.....its pretty clear from photographs...there are ones with waterline. One more thing I need to correct seemingly, sheer is stated 7 foot, and it gives me 8 something at the stern, looks like i have to lover it it is very high up....

 

I straightened sternpost, etc....

goodnight now

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

here you can see Michaels WL mark , apex 23,3 FT

 

 

 

this is with higher WL mark . allowing only 17 degrees angle...20 would be pretty off ...below...

 

 

lowere 50.62 kB · 0 downloads d WL about 2 feets

 

 

 

 

but only 20 FT below after lowering WL...:(((

 

Vladimir, you definitely are headed in the right direction. To clarify your confusion on the waterline coppering, the answer is that both are correct from different publications. According to American Lloyd's, large vessels had waterlines of 24'. Since yellow metal plates are 14", Mike has added an additional line of plates to 22' resulting in 25'. Later on in the same Seaways article Mike quotes verbatim the works of publicist Duncan MacLean which on the second line of page 10 refers to Glory being coppered up to 22'....

My idea: we know now for a fact that Glory's figurehead is 90", 7 1/2' tall. From the scene of Glory on the Ways, we can use her figurehead as a measuring stick and approximate her depth up to the waterline and above. Whether it's 22' or 25' I do know that her height above at the Bow is more than below.

[ClipperFan]

6 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir, you definitely are headed in the right direction. To clarify your confusion on the waterline coppering, the answer is that both are correct from different publications. According to American Lloyd's, large vessels had waterlines of 24'. Since yellow metal plates are 14", Mike has added an additional line of plates to 22' resulting in 25'. Later on in the same Seaways article Mike quotes verbatim the works of publicist Duncan MacLean which on the second line of page 10 refers to Glory being coppered up to 22'....

My idea: we know now for a fact that Glory's figurehead is 90", 7 1/2' tall. From the scene of Glory on the Ways, we can use her figurehead as a measuring stick and approximate her depth up to the waterline and above. Whether it's 22' or 25' I do know that her height above at the Bow is more than below.

Vladimir, I reposted the Bow images as a way of helping you understand how visual perception can be subtly deceptive. Looking at the upper scene, it's clear the Naval Hood, which mounts just above the carved arch on Glory's Cutwater and immediately behind her figurehead, is almost a straight line after departing from her Bow. As an integral part of her Bow structure it makes nautical sense too. This component is what the massive 24' Bowsprit and outside the Cap, the 31' jibboom both rest on. Having it curve would weaken it, so it's essentially straight. 

However when this same device is viewed from below, as seen in 1869 Glory on the ways, it appears to be much more curved. Why? Because it's actually curving out to match the section of Glory's Bow. Look carefully though at the section that supports her straight line Bowsprit, you'll see they evenly match.

[ClipperFan]

8 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir, I reposted the Bow images as a way of helping you understand how visual perception can be subtly deceptive. Looking at the upper scene, it's clear the Naval Hood, which mounts just above the carved arch on Glory's Cutwater and immediately behind her figurehead, is almost a straight line after departing from her Bow. As an integral part of her Bow structure it makes nautical sense too. This component is what the massive 24' Bowsprit and outside the Cap, the 31' jibboom both rest on. Having it curve would weaken it, so it's essentially straight. 

However when this same device is viewed from below, as seen in 1869 Glory on the ways, it appears to be much more curved. Why? Because it's actually curving out to match the section of Glory's Bow. Look carefully though at the section that supports her straight line Bowsprit, you'll see they evenly match.

In regards to the carved arch onto which Glory's figurehead mounts, it's about the same width as the section of the Naval Hood above. However, pay attention to the 1869 close up of Glory on the Ways, you'll see that it actually widens slightly as it terminates at her Bow. It's confusing to the eye because the Naval Hood above is much wider. Incidentally, the Hood's end isn't verticle as it mounts to the Bow but angles slightly to match the curve of the Ship. Rob has calculated that her Hood is twice the length of her 7 1/2 figurehead, making it 15' overall. About 9' is beyond her Bow and ends 18" behind her figurehead's outstretched right hand and veil. This can now be precisely verified by counting the 7 iron bands which are each 3' apart with 18" on each end for a total of 24' to the Cap.  

[ClipperFan]

1 minute ago, ClipperFan said:

In regards to the carved arch onto which Glory's figurehead mounts, it's about the same width as the section of the Naval Hood above. However, pay attention to the 1869 close up of Glory on the Ways, you'll see that it actually widens slightly as it terminates at her Bow. It's confusing to the eye because the Naval Hood above is much wider. Incidentally, the Hood's end isn't verticle as it mounts to the Bow but angles slightly to match the curve of the Ship. Rob has calculated that her Hood is twice the length of her 7 1/2 figurehead, making it 15' overall. About 9' is beyond her Bow and ends 18" behind her figurehead's outstretched right hand and veil. This can now be precisely verified by counting the 7 iron bands which are each 3' apart with 18" on each end for a total of 24' to the Cap.  

Another item to be refined is Glory's Stern. If you look at her magnificent 1877 dockside photo, it's readily apparent that her Stern, while slightly higher than her lowest point, midway of the Main Shrouds, is much lower than her Bow. I now believe that the dramatic rise of her Bow seen in later years such as my favorite 1907 San Pedro Broadside is partially due to severe hogging keel beneath which has flattened her previously lovely 7' sheer. Incidentally that drop would be counted from her highest point at the Bow to the lowest, mid center of her Main Shrouds, not from her Stern. From dead reckoning, I estimate the difference in height from her Bow to Stern is about 4'. 

From looking at images of Glory's Stern, from scenes of her being towed out to Alaska and beached at Endolyne, Glory's Stern is more subdued than your current plan shows. It consists of an 18" Monkey Rail on top which is just slightly curved in from verticle, than she has a 5' Main Rail which appears to be almost straight rather than curved. In fact if you look closely at this section, where the crew are relaxing sitting on her Stern quarter rails, it actually appears to be indented slightly, possibly due to the effect of her moldings too. Speaking of her Stern quarter rails, the turned stanchions aren't verticle either, they too appear to tilt slightly outwards. They are the opposite of her rear House rails which tilt slightly inward. In fact her Quarter Deck House and Wheelhouse also aren't verticle but also have a slight cant inwards too. Their decks and roofs aren't flat either but arch slightly upwards towards their centers.

As for the rest of her Stern below the Main Rail it is much smaller in its curving drop to the rudder head. Again, take a look at the section just below her Main Rail. 

Again, I believe the scene of Glory's Stern seen from below where she's beached has caused another case of visual misperception. By viewing multiple images from varying angles, a more accurate comprehension can be accomplished.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

7 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir, I reposted the Bow images as a way of helping you understand how visual perception can be subtly deceptive. Looking at the upper scene, it's clear the Naval Hood, which mounts just above the carved arch on Glory's Cutwater and immediately behind her figurehead, is almost a straight line after departing from her Bow. As an integral part of her Bow structure it makes nautical sense too. This component is what the massive 24' Bowsprit and outside the Cap, the 31' jibboom both rest on. Having it curve would weaken it, so it's essentially straight. 

However when this same device is viewed from below, as seen in 1869 Glory on the ways, it appears to be much more curved. Why? Because it's actually curving out to match the section of Glory's Bow. Look carefully though at the section that supports her straight line Bowsprit, you'll see they evenly match.

Very important reminder , thanks . i will foloow this today evening, its clearly observable that pespective again took its toll. second photographed from much below resulted in steeping curvature more agressively. i will check on this one. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

7 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

In regards to the carved arch onto which Glory's figurehead mounts, it's about the same width as the section of the Naval Hood above. However, pay attention to the 1869 close up of Glory on the Ways, you'll see that it actually widens slightly as it terminates at her Bow. It's confusing to the eye because the Naval Hood above is much wider. Incidentally, the Hood's end isn't verticle as it mounts to the Bow but angles slightly to match the curve of the Ship. Rob has calculated that her Hood is twice the length of her 7 1/2 figurehead, making it 15' overall. About 9' is beyond her Bow and ends 18" behind her figurehead's outstretched right hand and veil. This can now be precisely verified by counting the 7 iron bands which are each 3' apart with 18" on each end for a total of 24' to the Cap.  

This is noted as well . will revise as above photograph we or I didnt have in time of drafting is of a significant  help . even hood ornamentation is to be depicted i would say pretty acurate from it. as other poorer photos deasnt show each details... Pity below ornament is washed out. if not it would be complete 100 reference of the bow.... i have plenty to work on...:)

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

6 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Another item to be refined is Glory's Stern. If you look at her magnificent 1877 dockside photo, it's readily apparent that her Stern, while slightly higher than her lowest point, midway of the Main Shrouds, is much lower than her Bow. I now believe that the dramatic rise of her Bow seen in later years such as my favorite 1907 San Pedro Broadside is partially due to severe hogging keel beneath which has flattened her previously lovely 7' sheer. Incidentally that drop would be counted from her highest point at the Bow to the lowest, mid center of her Main Shrouds, not from her Stern. From dead reckoning, I estimate the difference in height from her Bow to Stern is about 4'. 

From looking at images of Glory's Stern, from scenes of her being towed out to Alaska and beached at Endolyne, Glory's Stern is more subdued than your current plan shows. It consists of an 18" Monkey Rail on top which is just slightly curved in from verticle, than she has a 5' Main Rail which appears to be almost straight rather than curved. In fact if you look closely at this section, where the crew are relaxing sitting on her Stern quarter rails, it actually appears to be indented slightly, possibly due to the effect of her moldings too. Speaking of her Stern quarter rails, the turned stanchions aren't verticle either, they too appear to tilt slightly outwards. They are the opposite of her rear House rails which tilt slightly inward. In fact her Quarter Deck House and Wheelhouse also aren't verticle but also have a slight cant inwards too. Their decks and roofs aren't flat either but arch slightly upwards towards their centers.

As for the rest of her Stern below the Main Rail it is much smaller in its curving drop to the rudder head. Again, take a look at the section just below her Main Rail. 

Again, I believe the scene of Glory's Stern seen from below where she's beached has caused another case of visual misperception. By viewing multiple images from varying angles, a more accurate comprehension can be accomplished.

 

 

well actually i had same feeling from late photos - definitely to work about this....thx

 

Another item to be refined is Glory's Stern. If you look at her magnificent 1877 dockside photo, it's readily apparent that her Stern, while slightly higher than her lowest point, midway of the Main Shrouds, is much lower than her Bow

 

V. 

[rwiederrich]

12 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob has calculated that her Hood is twice the length of her 7 1/2 figurehead, making it 15' overall.

Since I made that initial assessment...I recalculated and I amend my measurements.  That was made from her launching image...but with the new clear image you provided it appears her naval hood is rough 2 and 1/3 the length of the figurehead  (Give or take).  Using your measuring tool of the figurehead being 7.5 ft it can easily be calculated.   I was originally in error...based on perception issues...that we are working out......Sorry.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Since I made that initial assessment...I recalculated and I amend my measurements.  That was made from her launching image...but with the new clear image you provided it appears her naval hood is rough 2 and 1/3 the length of the figurehead  (Give or take).  Using your measuring tool of the figurehead being 7.5 ft it can easily be calculated.   I was originally in error...based on perception issues...that we are working out......Sorry.

 

Rob

Rob, going to work on tis topic this evening  . i can plausibly use both sources your measurments and layering real glory photo up to the srawing which is way precise than my old approach. pencil - which was pretty silly in accuracy respect ...

[Sailor1234567890]

Once a digital model of her hull shape has been created as best can be done with what is known about her today, is it possible for the digital program to incorporate the hog we know was measured? That way, photos of her later in life could be set behind the digital model and compared. That would tell us if the suspicion that the hog has altered the angle of her cutwater is correct and by how much. 

[ClipperFan]

8 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Since I made that initial assessment...I recalculated and I amend my measurements.  That was made from her launching image...but with the new clear image you provided it appears her naval hood is rough 2 and 1/3 the length of the figurehead  (Give or take).  Using your measuring tool of the figurehead being 7.5 ft it can easily be calculated.   I was originally in error...based on perception issues...that we are working out......Sorry.

 

Rob

Rob, as we're all committed to acquiring the utmost accuracy and this is an ever evolving project towards achieving that goal, I see no reason to apologize for revising your calculations based upon more precise resources. If I'm correct, our new dimension for Glory's Naval Hoods is 17 1/2'. Does that sound correct?

Meanwhile, if it's not too much to ask, can you calculate Glory's coppering up to the waterline from her 1869 on the Ways scene? There are now two conflicting statements. Something Mike pointed out to me happened a lot. According to American Lloyd's, large ships like Glory had 24' waterlines. Mike added a 14" strake to her previous 22' waterline and revised it to 25'. An accurate number would help a lot.

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by ClipperFan
Misspelled word

[ClipperFan]

55 minutes ago, Sailor1234567890 said:

Once a digital model of her hull shape has been created as best can be done with what is known about her today, is it possible for the digital program to incorporate the hog we know was measured? That way, photos of her later in life could be set behind the digital model and compared. That would tell us if the suspicion that the hog has altered the angle of her cutwater is correct and by how much. 

Sailor,

I had the same idea but using an old fashioned ruler and plotting out her keel length as specified in the diagram. The sketch is very rough, probably just enough to give an impression of old Glory's under Hull condition. There are locations where a 16' deviation is specified more than once but the sketch has one lower than the other. Once an accurate 'connect the dots' drawing was done, at least the original keel length should be reached. It's just like straightening out a rope. As for her Cutwater, my suspicion is that it became more verticle with keel deviation, not less. Have you ever sat in a raft and watched what happens to the ends? 

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Rob, going to work on tis topic this evening  . i can plausibly use both sources your measurments and layering real glory photo up to the srawing which is way precise than my old approach. pencil - which was pretty silly in accuracy respect ...

Being able to overlay actual Glory images to your scaled drawing is a fine way to keep things accurate.  And in scale to all components in question.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, as we're all committed to acquiring the utmost accuracy and this is an ever evolving project towards achieving that goal, I see no reason to apologize for revising your calculations based upon more precise resources. If I'm correct, our new dimension for Glory's Naval Hoods is 17 1/2'. Does that sound correct?

Meanwhile, if it's not too much to ask, can you calculate Glory's coppering up to the waterline from her 1869 on the Ways scene? There are now two conflicting statements. Something Mike pointed out to me happened a lot. According to American Lloyd's, large ships like Glory had 24' waterlines. Mike added a 14" strake to her previous 22' waterline and revised it to 25'. An accurate number would help a lot.

 

Rob, using my cellphone, I measured Glory's figurehead at 18mm, above the waterline measured 6.1cm and below was 5.3cm. That translates to 25' above and 22' below. It will be interesting so see if your results come out similar.

[rwiederrich]

Did some more measuring today and I made some conclusions based off of the extremely clear image of Glory's bowsprit and figurehead.

 

First I had to determine the scale of the image so I could make accurate calculations.  I determines that the image is in scale at 1"= 3ft.

 

I deduced this by recalling that there are 3 ft between centers of each iron band on the bowsprit.  Sure enough it is 3'=1"  Not between the bands but between the bands centers.

 

I then measure her figurehead and also determined that it too was exactly 7.5 ft long.

I then measure the length of the hood and found it to be 17'2".  The width of the stem just aft of the figurehead's feet is 2' 6" and the hood just aft of the figurehead is also 2" 6".

The bowsprit is indeed 24' long

The Naval hood at its widest over the Howes hole is 3' 6"

The length of the stem from beneath the figureheads feet to the hull strakes is 8' 2"

Distance from the top of the Hoods base to the monkey rail is 6'..just about right where the plankshear is and the main deck.

And 2' from the hoods tip to the figureheads crown.

 

Much can be derived from these new measurements.

 

Rob

Edited March 16, 2021 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

Just now, ClipperFan said:

Rob, using my cellphone, I measured Glory's figurehead at 18mm, above the waterline measured 6.1cm and below was 5.3cm. That translates to 25' above and 22' below. It will be interesting so see if your results come out similar.

My original calculations were 25' above and 22' below.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

I am very curious what you all say ..completely reshaped....stern lowered. hood shortened, below hood widened and shortened, etc...

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

...

Edited March 16, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

11 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

...

Vladimir,

Some observations of Glory's condition in the sharp close up might help us in our efforts to recreate her original appearance. There's a sharp break in the wood just in front of her name board on the right side. The front of her previously neat cap rail, just above her Monkey Rail is missing entirely. When you consider how ruggedly this vessel was constructed, it must have been a serious wave to do such impressive damage to her Starboard Quarter Deck Bulwarks. They appear to be pushed out and slightly down. Compare this to her original launch photos. 

You have traced the Bowsprit accurately from the photo. However, since she's had her 31' Jibboom cut off outside the Cap, it makes sense that the missing heft of that spar has allowed the Bowsprit to lift up. A more accurate angle would be to extend a line from the top of her Naval Hood. When she was fully rigged, it's certain that those massive dual chain bobstays beneath and two iron bars tied into tips of her Naval Hoods would be cinched down tight to strengthen all her Masts against powerful effects of wind and waves. If my previous measurement is correct, it should be 20.60 degrees, exactly the measurement of 4 1/2" rise to 1' run.

The Naval Hood is practically perfect now, great work on that. Where it originates from her Hull would match the sharp entrance of her Bow. In the photo, there's a hawse line coming from a notch in the Cap Rail which neatly follows the three bottom moldings of the Naval Hood. If you trace that line, it appears to be a perfect match for the beginning of the Naval Hood. It's very difficult to see because it's neatly matched to the Hull. 

The Carved Arch on her Cutwater is also much improved. Look real close at the left heel of Athene, you'll see what looks like a small pedestal for her to step on, just above the billet head of the arch itself. Another refinement is the drop of the arch line itself. Again, peer closely at her launch scene, the arch line appears to mirror the Naval Hood above and ends slightly below her anchor hawes hole.

As for a still verticle appearance of her prow, my personal suspicion is that we're still coming to grips with dual challenges. Her later condition due to significant keel hogging looks like it flattened her sheer while exaggerating her Prow. It's most likely from her entrance becoming more verticle not less.

Meanwhile, the 1869 scene of Glory on the Ways is on a slight rise as she towers high above us, which coincidentally exaggerates verticle appearance of her Bow entrance.

Rob has measured her Prow as having a negative 8 1/2 degree inclination from 90 degrees using her Anchor and Dolphin Striker as Plumb lines, offsetting her angle of inclination on the Ways. 

Meanwhile, it looks to me that Glory has a slight, almost unnoticeable forward curve below the waterline. I really need to hold a clear ruler over this section on a good sized enlargement to confirm my suspicions.

What's clearly obvious though is a graceful curving entrance at the base of her Stem which joins the keel. 

Observing your overall profile, the base of her 7' sheer drop should be at the center of Glory's Main Shrouds, which are just about even with the back of her lower Main Mast. 

Her Stern looks like it should probably be about a foot lower and still slightly smaller, possibly less pronounced overhang. I refer to her beached at Endolyne which gives a decent view of her Stern silhouette. To confirm this Hull configuration will require a perspective reconstruction of her 1877 San Francisco dock scene. A verticle plumb line could be dropped from the end of her Mizzen Spencer Spar. Then the center line of her prow could be connected to that spar, running through centers of all three masts to identify the perspective center of the vessel. perspective horizontal lines could be extended to the end of her Stern. Effectively, this should give a sense of the difference in height of the Stern to the lowest point of Glory's sheer at the midway point of her Main Shrouds as well as the much higher Fore Quarter Deck. 

All of this is such a challenge because we're trying to ascertain a two dimensional profile using three dimensional images in multiple photos.

Edited March 17, 2021 by ClipperFan
additional information

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

Some observations of Glory's condition in the sharp close up might help us in our efforts to recreate her original appearance. There's a sharp break in the wood just in front of her name board on the right side. The front of her previously neat cap rail, just above her Monkey Rail is missing entirely. When you consider how ruggedly this vessel was constructed, it must have been a serious wave to do such impressive damage to her Starboard Quarter Deck Bulwarks. They appear to be pushed out and slightly down. Compare this to her original launch photos. 

You have traced the Bowsprit accurately from the photo. However, since she's had her 31' Jibboom cut off outside the Cap, it makes sense that the missing heft of that spar has allowed the Bowsprit to lift up. A more accurate angle would be to extend a line from the top of her Naval Hood. When she was fully rigged, it's certain that those massive dual chain bobstays beneath and two iron bars tied into tips of her Naval Hoods would be cinched down tight to strengthen all her Masts against powerful effects of wind and waves. If my previous measurement is correct, it should be 20.60 degrees, exactly the measurement of 4 1/2" rise to 1' run.

The Naval Hood is practically perfect now, great work on that. Where it originates from her Hull would match the sharp entrance of her Bow. In the photo, there's a hawse line coming from a notch in the Cap Rail which neatly follows the three bottom moldings of the Naval Hood. If you trace that line, it appears to be a perfect match for the beginning of the Naval Hood. It's very difficult to see because it's neatly matched to the Hull. 

The Carved Arch on her Cutwater is also much improved. Look real close at the left heel of Athene, you'll see what looks like a small pedestal for her to step on, just above the billet head of the arch itself. Another refinement is the drop of the arch line itself. Again, peer closely at her launch scene, the arch line appears to mirror the Naval Hood above and ends slightly below her anchor hawes hole.

As for a still verticle appearance of her prow, my personal suspicion is that we're still coming to grips with dual challenges. Her later condition due to significant keel hogging looks like it flattened her sheer while exaggerating her Prow. It's most likely from her entrance becoming more verticle not less.

Meanwhile, the 1869 scene of Glory on the Ways is on a slight rise as she towers high above us, which coincidentally exaggerates verticle appearance of her Bow entrance.

Rob has measured her Prow as having a negative 8 1/2 degree inclination from 90 degrees using her Anchor and Dolphin Striker as Plumb lines, offsetting her angle of inclination on the Ways. 

Meanwhile, it looks to me that Glory has a slight, almost unnoticeable forward curve below the waterline. I really need to hold a clear ruler over this section on a good sized enlargement to confirm my suspicions.

What's clearly obvious though is a graceful curving entrance at the base of her Stem which joins the keel. 

Observing your overall profile, the base of her 7' sheer drop should be at the center of Glory's Main Shrouds, which are just about even with the back of her lower Main Mast. 

Her Stern looks like it should probably be about a foot lower and still slightly smaller, possibly less pronounced overhang. I refer to her beached at Endolyne which gives a decent view of her Stern silhouette. To confirm this Hull configuration will require a perspective reconstruction of her 1877 San Francisco dock scene. A verticle plumb line could be dropped from the end of her Mizzen Spencer Spar. Then the center line of her prow could be connected to that spar, running through centers of all three masts to identify the perspective center of the vessel. perspective horizontal lines could be extended to the end of her Stern. Effectively, this should give a sense of the difference in height of the Stern to the lowest point of Glory's sheer at the midway point of her Main Shrouds as well as the much higher Fore Quarter Deck. 

All of this is such a challenge because we're trying to ascertain a two dimensional profile using three dimensional images in multiple photos.

Richard,

 

whoooa, not having you Guys, would be useless task for me for sure. I noticed broken spray rail, but Ididnt think much more can be damaged, sily me. I am pleaaased to hear from you that hood finally settled I call this an achievement. Interesting stuff about bowsprit angles, I couldnt not measure it towards seaharbour line....anyway I left it at 21 degrees. 

regarding stern ....that is way tougher nut to crack, for sure as I requires reconfiguation of bulkheads / but not only shortening them but calculating corresponding curvature ! so I am leaving this at it is i managed to lower it to 1 foot, as well as monkey rail....but thats about it for the moment.

yes RIchard i have same feeling that stern is still smaller in reality observing photos..but ....I will look into it later if I can find a nondestructive way and skill to properly lower bulkheads without moving with its curvature.. If you trace that line, it appears to be a perfect match for the beginning of the Naval Hood. It's very difficult to see because it's neatly matched to the Hull. 

just FYI i am now working with rounding top of the bulkheads to form curvy base for floor calculating 12 cinch waterway so lowering them to that which is pretty straightforward. 

after I will return to thinking about how to manage the stern.

Appreciated and thank you.

 

 

 

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

This line of research is fascinating to follow ... and inspires me to think about a scratch-built Glory as a future project (behind the one I'm working on now and the one lined-up as being next - to 'learn the ropes' better for a composite clipper).  Might drawings be available in the future?

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Richard,

 

whoooa, not having you Guys, would be useless task for me for sure. I noticed broken spray rail, but Ididnt think much more can be damaged, sily me. I am pleaaased to hear from you that hood finally settled I call this an achievement. Interesting stuff about bowsprit angles, I couldnt not measure it towards seaharbour line....anyway I left it at 21 degrees. 

regarding stern ....that is way tougher nut to crack, for sure as I requires reconfiguation of bulkheads / but not only shortening them but calculating corresponding curvature ! so I am leaving this at it is i managed to lower it to 1 foot, as well as monkey rail....but thats about it for the moment.

yes RIchard i have same feeling that stern is still smaller in reality observing photos..but ....I will look into it later if I can find a nondestructive way and skill to properly lower bulkheads without moving with its curvature.. If you trace that line, it appears to be a perfect match for the beginning of the Naval Hood. It's very difficult to see because it's neatly matched to the Hull. 

just FYI i am now working with rounding top of the bulkheads to form curvy base for floor calculating 12 cinch waterway so lowering them to that which is pretty straightforward. 

after I will return to thinking about how to manage the stern.

Appreciated and thank you.

 

 

 

Vladimir,

Perhaps these two close ups will help you with the Stern. It took me a while to understand that while it looks curved, two out three sections are not. They're really straight. If you look closely at the Monkey Rail above the Main Rail, it's a straight component which angles out just slightly. Look below it and you'll see that the Main Rail too is straight, not curved as you would suspect. In reality the only curved section is from below the Main Rail molding and this section is not purely a concave one it starts out convex and then becomes concave. I know this is more challenging but it's accurate.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

20 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

Perhaps these two close ups will help you with the Stern. It took me a while to understand that while it looks curved, two out three sections are not. They're really straight. If you look closely at the Monkey Rail above the Main Rail, it's a straight component which angles out just slightly. Look below it and you'll see that the Main Rail too is straight, not curved as you would suspect. In reality the only curved section is from below the Main Rail molding and this section is not purely a concave one it starts out convex and then becomes concave. I know this is more challenging but it's accurate.

Yes yes, and yes... I agree wholeheartedly regarding this. Im gonna change it and i know how now. This is much important segment to get right-close.  There is defnitely not quarter circle curvature...thank you for pics. helps a lot indeed.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

I am seeing more complex shape than simple curve....something like this...

which at the end evoke round stern as described to the sight taking to account curve below sheerstrake with line above it...with complexity of planking of sections around strakes it doesnt look like undisturbed curve even on cutty sark when looking pretty closely from the narpoint, which is precisely what we are trying to achieve here...

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add