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

[rwiederrich]

15 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Happy Easter, guys

Being still dissatisfied with our severely verticle Bow, I decided to evaluate the Bows of McKay's previous Clippers for comparison. The results I found are intriguing and make a compelling argument for a more angled Bow than we currently have. 

1869 "Glory of the Seas"

Keel 240'

Length on deck 250'

Length overall (LOA) 265'

Ratio: keel to deck .96

Ratio: keel to LOA .905

 

1850 Extreme Clipper "Staghound" 

Keel 207' 

Length on deck 215'

Length overall 226'

Ratio: keel to deck .96

Ratio: keel to LOA .915

 

1851 Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud"

Keel 208'

Length on deck 225'

Length overall 235'

Ratio: keel to deck .92

Ratio: keel to LOA .89

 

I will add more results & images to support my theory a little later

 

 

 

Interesting.....but could not most of that deck and keel difference be made up in the poop overhang?

 

Plus, this Stag Hound stem looks pretty vertical at the cutwater.  Similar to Glory...don't you think?

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

One other note Rich....it is very hard to reconcile what some paintings depict to what photos depict.

This image of her on Endolyne is hard to reconcile with your view she had a more sweeping stem.   I'm thinking.

It's not a perfect image but it is enough of a profile to make the determination her stem was more vertical then sweeping.

 

I know this subject is contestable at a personal level, but what we have discovered using math and angles of her bow on her ways, surely demonstrates her slight stem inclination.  Irregardless of slight photographic,  viewpoint and diminish line distortions.

 

Of course...we are also entering the realm of personal preference...and if you so desire to model your version based upon a more sweeping prow(regardless of anyone else's opinion), that is your modelers privilege.  NOT to say that is where we have come!

 

Rob 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

Hey Vladimir....is it possible for you to darken the bulkhead drawing lines...on the series you sent me?

They are so light they are  hardly useable.

 

I love then though...in 1/96...thanks again.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

I'm trying to follow a scientific method of evaluation as closely as possible, even to dispense my own bias. Besides being beautiful paintings, artists like Samuel Walter's and James Buttersworth were famous for their meticulous accuracy and often were commissioned by Ship's Captains and Owners. Historically, Donald McKay's ships all had short overhangs ("Staghound" had a 7' one). He did this intentionally to avoid the Stern shipping water in heavy seas.

Besides, as I said due to holiday commitments, I couldn't finish my summary of Hull comparisons. Here are a few more:

 

1851 Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish"

Keel 202'

Length on deck 210'

Length overall (LOA) 220'

Ratio: keel to deck .96

Ratio: keel to LOA .92

 

1852 Clipper "Sovereign of the Seas"

Keel 245

Length on deck 258'

Length overall LOA 265'

Ratio: keel of deck .95

Ratio: keel to LOA .93

 

1853 Twin Packet Ships "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame"

Keel 208'

Length on deck 220'

Length overall (LOA) unavailable

Ratio: keel to length on deck .945

 

"Glory of the Seas" projected keel length in comparison to 250' deck & 265' LOA dimensions using all other ship ratios:

 

"Staghound"

Deck ratio .96 deck 250' keel 240' (0 difference)

LOA ratio .92 LOA 265' keel 242' (+2' difference)

"Flying Cloud"

Deck ratio .92 deck 250' keel 231' (-9' difference)

LOA ratio .89 LOA 265 keel 235'

(-5' difference)

"Flying Fish"

Deck ratio .96 deck 250' keel 240' (0 difference)

LOA ratio .92 LOA 265' keel 243'

(+3'difference)

"Sovereign of the Seas"

Deck ratio .95 deck 250' keel 237' (-3' difference)

LOA ratio .93 LOA 265' keel 245'

(+5' difference)

"Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame"

Deck ratio .945 deck 250' keel 235' (-5' difference)

LOA ratio: unavailable

 

Rob, Comparing "Glory of the Seas" ratios, she's actually a little sleeker to "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" in LOA, while identical in deck to keel. "Sovereign of the Seas" has a slightly longer deck ratio but is a little more conservative in LOA to keel while the twin Packet Ships (illustrated by Donald McKay himself) are only 5' shorter in ratio. In fact the only Extreme Clipper with a noticeable variance was "Flying Cloud" whose LOA would have been 9' longer and whose keel would have been 5' shorter in comparison. Still when you're discussing a Ship that's 265' in length, even this isn't that dramatic and probably would have been difficult to notice.

In summary, it still feels to me like we still have a little more work to do to get "Glory of the Seas" Bow accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

You are doing a great job Rich...I appreciate your attention to detail as we draw closer to the best hull possible for Glory.

 

Rob

Edited April 5, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

You are doing a great job Rich...I appreciate your attention to detail as we draw closer to the best hull possible for Glory.

 

Rob

Rob, thanks for your kind words. After what feels like an eternity, I really get the sense we are so close to finally unveiling the fully authentic "Glory of the Seas" as she was originally was conceived. It really came as a surprise to me that the ratios of Medium Clipper "Glory of the Seas" was on a par with most of McKay's other vessels, even a little faster than his Extreme Clippers "Staghound" and "Flying Fish.  I think the Medium category really has more to do with her carrying capacity than anything else.

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, thanks for your kind words. After what feels like an eternity, I really get the sense we are so close to finally unveiling the fully authentic "Glory of the Seas" as she was originally was conceived. It really came as a surprise to me that the ratios of Medium Clipper "Glory of the Seas" was on a par with most of McKay's other vessels, even a little faster than his Extreme Clippers "Staghound" and "Flying Fish.  I think the Medium category really has more to do with her carrying capacity than anything else.

Rob & Vladimir,

Post #510 has a tracing of "Flying Fish" actually taken from original lines done, believe it or not in a Museum in Sweden. From ratio comparisons, shorten "Stag Hound" profile by 2' and "Flying Fish" by 3' compared to their LOA and it's exactly the profile of "Glory of the Seas."

 

[rwiederrich]

It's becoming more and more apparent, McKay probably used one of his *other* clipper designs when  building Glory.   These examples you bring forth are compelling.  Glory is more like Star of Empire and Chariot of Fame and even Flying Fish then previously admitted.

She has a rounded stern not elliptical and her entry is far sharper then previously thought.    Interesting.

 

Rob

Edited April 6, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

It's becoming more and more apparent, McKay probably used one of his *other* clipper designs when  building Glory.   These examples you bring forth are compelling.  Glory is more like Star of Empire and Chariot of Fame and even Flying Fish then previously admitted.

She has a rounded stern not elliptical and her entry is far sharper then previously thought.    Interesting.

 

Rob

Rob, taking into consideration that Donald McKay was building a massive vessel entirely on speculation, literally as a last ditch effort to turn around his failing fortunes, it makes total sense that he would resort to a tried and true design. For that matter, Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" portrayed 'bolt upright' by Buttersworth was possibly the only McKay vessel to outright win a 'Great Deep Sea Derby' against over a dozen other 'crack Clippers in a race around the 'Horn. The two closest Clippers in design ratio are McKay's first pioneering Clipper "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" with the former being closest, being only 2' more conservative but the latter, only 3' more conservative having a more similar deck layout.

Edited April 6, 2021 by ClipperFan
Grammar correction

[ClipperFan]

31 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, taking into consideration that Donald McKay has building a massive vessel entirely on speculation, literally as a last ditch effort to turn around his failing fortunes, it makes total sense that he would resort to a tried and true design. For that matter, Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" portrayed 'bolt upright' by Buttersworth was possibly the only McKay vessel to outright win a 'Deep Sea Derby' against over a dozen other 'crack Clippers in a race around the 'Horn. The two closest Clippers in design ratio are McKay's first pioneering Clipper "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" with the former being closest, being only 2' more conservative but the latter, only 3' more conservative having a more similar deck layout.

https://www.vallejogallery.com/item_mobile.php?page=item_page&id=487

Here's a link to Vallejo Gallery's write up on McKay's Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" which was the winner of the 'Great Deep Sea Derby." She set a swift pace of 92 days, New York to San Francisco beating out 14 other Clippers to do so. While she never beat "Flying Cloud's" phenomenal 89 day record, her runs on average were even faster than that fast sailing ship.

[ClipperFan]

8 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

https://www.vallejogallery.com/item_mobile.php?page=item_page&id=487

Here's a link to Vallejo Gallery's write up on McKay's Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" which was the winner of the 'Great Deep Sea Derby." She set a swift pace of 92 days, New York to San Francisco beating out 14 other Clippers to do so. While she never beat "Flying Cloud's" phenomenal 89 day record, her runs on average were even faster than that fast sailing ship.

https://www.maritimeheritage.org/ships/deepSeaDerby.html

Here's a list of the 14 'crack Clippers "Flying Fish" beat out to win the "Great Deep Sea Derby" including 3 other McKay built Extreme Clippers "Bald Eagle" "Sovereign of the Seas" and  newly launched "Westward Ho!"

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Folks, fyi im having bulkheads of actual state of effort cut in 1:72 scale. I still consider it merely as test but if it turn out fine i will probably continue planking so i can see the outcome of effort. I think it can be valuable to have finally 3D version of where are we now finally seen even in bulkhead and sheer plone state for visual perspective imaginary but specially when it is planked to make solid 3D shape. I cant wait having those arrived  to see how  drawing turns up.  and i would post the pics of course. if all goes well i wont start before autumn though as i dont model thru summer. then i Intend seamlessly continue with program drawing deckhouses and deck stuff and so i can have those pieces laser cut as well. i intend to build her with best materials available to my liking and ability, boxwood included dfor molding and deckhousesand decorations...so here goes my preliminary plan. with meticulous approach as aou folks set as standard here it seems to me it will cover more than three years for me to get  her rigged. ouch.   V. 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Folks, fyi im having bulkheads of actual state of effort cut in 1:72 scale. I still consider it merely as test but if it turn out fine i will probably continue planking so i can see the outcome of effort. I think it can be valuable to have finally 3D version of where are we now finally seen even in bulkhead and sheer plone state for visual perspective imaginary but specially when it is planked to make solid 3D shape. I cant wait having those arrived  to see how  drawing turns up.  and i would post the pics of course. if all goes well i wont start before autumn though as i dont model thru summer. then i Intend seamlessly continue with program drawing deckhouses and deck stuff and so i can have those pieces laser cut as well. i intend to build her with best materials available to my liking and ability, boxwood included dfor molding and deckhousesand decorations...so here goes my preliminary plan. with meticulous approach as aou folks set as standard here it seems to me it will cover more than three years for me to get  her rigged. ouch.   V. 

I can't wait to see.  Thanks for the reissue of the drawings...I will be able to cut the bulkheads out from them.

However the aft keel section didn't come out all the way...the fantail portion failed to print in your drawing...I guess I'll have to make it up as I go.

 

I will use the bulkhead distancing from each keel frame and fashion my own keel frame.

 

I see you are building this as if it were a production model of the Flying Fish.  Same design in bulkheads and framing as well as the bulwark build up.

 

I don't have the ability to laser cut my bulkheads..so I will cut them out by hand as I did all my other models.

 

Things are getting exciting now.   I'll probably build this 1/96 version hull from balsa and then use hardwoods for the deck houses and other fittings.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

40 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

I can't wait to see.  Thanks for the reissue of the drawings...I will be able to cut the bulkheads out from them.

However the aft keel section didn't come out all the way...the fantail portion failed to print in your drawing...I guess I'll have to make it up as I go.

 

I will use the bulkhead distancing from each keel frame and fashion my own keel frame.

 

I see you are building this as if it were a production model of the Flying Fish.  Same design in bulkheads and framing as well as the bulwark build up.

 

I don't have the ability to laser cut my bulkheads..so I will cut them out by hand as I did all my other models.

 

Things are getting exciting now.   I'll probably build this 1/96 version hull from balsa and then use hardwoods for the deck houses and other fittings.

 

Rob

Rob, yes that one line  of the stern went out broken for me as well. i dont know why it dissapeared though i have difficulty to restore it . but i needed break from computer so i dont intend to return to it for some time. i spent way too many evenings with her neglecting other life things so i have to make  it up now.

Rob  at the end it does not matter how it is cut. it does not make any real  difference. i did cut 2 models previously myself  1:24 cutty sark was giant project to saw i did it by hands. enjoyed it. sou will have it probably sooner than I as you add those in one piece planks so Im excited for that as well. yes I intend to follow completely model shipways building design which will be enormous help as I have entire 6 sheets fish plan at home . well only method. 

V. 

 

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Rob, yes that one line  of the stern went out broken for me as well. i dont know why it dissapeared though i have difficulty to restore it . but i needed break from computer so i dont intend to return to it for some time. i spent way too many evenings with her neglecting other life things so i have to make  it up now.

Rob  at the end it does not matter how it is cut. it does not make any real  difference. i did cut 2 models previously myself  1:24 cutty sark was giant project to saw i did it by hands. enjoyed it. sou will have it probably sooner than I as you add those in one piece planks so Im excited for that as well. yes I intend to follow completely model shipways building design which will be enormous help as I have entire 6 sheets fish plan at home . well only method. 

V. 

 

Vladimir & Rob, If anyone needs any full sized "Flying Fish" plans, I discovered an entire set that were buried amongst some other books I moved recently. I also reviewed the list of ships that were participants in the "Great Deep Sea Derby" of 1853. My initial reading was a bit short. In reality, the actual number of Clipper Ships that "Flying Fish" beat out was more than double my first number. It was 25 Clipper Ships, not 14! No wonder the owners commissioned Buttersworth to do such a large beautiful commemorative piece. This too gives more credence to the theory that McKay was inspired by "Flying Fish" in particular as his guideline to model "Glory of the Seas" by. Contemporary maritime newspaper descriptions of "Flying Fish" also say that she was sharper than even "Flying Cloud".

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Rich,

 

this is that exact line of flying fish bow from #510  compared to glory...

 

looks like this...its s shape is pronounced on both sides ...

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Rich,

 

this is that exact line of flying fish bow from #510  compared to glory...

 

looks like this...its s shape is pronounced on both sides ...

Vladimir, now the challenge is adapting two different sizes as "Flying Fish" was significantly smaller than "Glory of the Seas". However it's clear both profiles are different and they should be practically identical based on their floor to keel ratios.  Since we now have an authentic lines plan, we should be able to use  "Flying Fish" as our Bow blueprint. 

Remember how I've been saying the curve of the Cutwater continues through both upper and lower Bobstay mounts? It looks like if you continued that curve it would probably be a match to the "Flying Fish" profile. Then the lower Stem to keel joint would be more flat, as seen in the Glory on the Ways scene. We should be almost there!

 

[ClipperFan]

59 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir, now the challenge is adapting two different sizes as "Flying Fish" was significantly smaller than "Glory of the Seas". However it's clear both profiles are different and they should be practically identical based on their floor to keel ratios.  Since we now have an authentic lines plan, we should be able to use  "Flying Fish" as our Bow blueprint. 

Remember how I've been saying the curve of the Cutwater continues through both upper and lower Bobstay mounts? It looks like if you continued that curve it would probably be a match to the "Flying Fish" profile. Then the lower Stem to keel joint would be more flat, as seen in the Glory on the Ways scene. We should be almost there!

 

Now that we're refocusing our efforts on her Bow, I thought it might be interesting to compare this 1907 "Glory of the Seas" Bow section with the profile of "Flying Fish" above the waterline. I see a very strong similarity.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

8 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Now that we're refocusing our efforts on her Bow, I thought it might be interesting to compare this 1907 "Glory of the Seas" Bow section with the profile of "Flying Fish" above the waterline. I see a very strong similarity.

Richard,

 

it was excellent idea of you to make comparison to this photo ! as I was a bit hesitant to jump on twisting fish curvature adapting  it to glory, even measurements might give same ratio...on my draw is does not look doable at all because i would not keep 250 to 265 at all with it...so i conclude two things...either entire proportions and drawing is plain wrong - which it isnt, being based and cemented on given measured - as these fish angling of bow are so severe  - it would look either stern would look Weirdly odd sort or long....or stem will be angled to 70 percent which would be simply wrong. ......

 

I know you lean from beginning towards more and more aggressive bow, but in a good sense i  mean it positively, I am suggesting one assumption as we speak from the begginig. what if it is McKays and eye deception that drives us towards that aggressive curvature and McKay even most cleverly composed and adapted Fish curvature to the glory the way that everybody can see that aggressive curvy bow but he made it as overall feel and look will be fish bow and stem itself is definitely quite erect.,.....I am about to demonstrate this by pictures... and lines.....

observing McKays bows, ornamental hood leading into figurehead is somewhat different and bigger that he used to make..... I tried to attach FIsh curvature following stem curvature along from  the bobstay chain fastening at stem, and look what shockingly (for me ) happened....overall profile of fish bow curvature elegantly continued up to the tip of navalhood ending at the head of figurehead making exactly one thing. ....Imagine glory existed. ........

if you seen it far away or under spells of sunglight you would see bow shape of flying fish even if it wasnt it....same as we see on the BW picture you posted her....This is merely speculation, but what if he so cleverly deceived everyone such master way that he amde it intentional and made it this way  -took fish curvature first as the line and from there he followed  back or rear-wise from that point back he drew hood and undergoing and finally made line of stem which is entirely different....??? can be pure fantasy but it has sense in it hasnt it ?

 

now the pictures, please follow red line which is FISH bow, i diminished it a little as it was smaller ship but nevertheless curvature above waterlevel stays true... than I tried to fool your eyes same way as photography - or McKay if he made it intentionally.....i hid red line and substituted it by green keeping original line of FIDH with outer body of Glory in the picture / if you didnt know that it is same profile as flying fish you woulddnt know / but for that matter you always seen agressive fish bow in glory I guess because it is there ... but I assume not in stem design which is oppposite - different, but in overall shape including hoods 

 

so based on various line comparison I dared  making such speculative  proposition based on observation of photos , not backed by McKay previous designs etc... what do you think about this thinking guys ? could it be possible ?  than  I modified shape of curvature of stem from waterlevel up to the first ornamental block...to copy fish curvature  ...

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Richard,

 

it was excellent idea of you to make comparison to this photo ! as I was a bit hesitant to jump on twisting fish curvature adapting  it to glory, even measurements might give same ratio...on my draw is does not look doable at all because i would not keep 250 to 265 at all with it...so i conclude two things...either entire proportions and drawing is plain wrong - which it isnt, being based and cemented on given measured - as these fish angling of bow are so severe  - it would look either stern would look Weirdly odd sort or long....or stem will be angled to 70 percent which would be simply wrong. ......

 

I know you lean from beginning towards more and more aggressive bow, but in a good sense i  mean it positively, I am suggesting one assumption as we speak from the begginig. what if it is McKays and eye deception that drives us towards that aggressive curvature and McKay even most cleverly composed and adapted Fish curvature to the glory the way that everybody can see that aggressive curvy bow but he made it as overall feel and look will be fish bow and stem itself is definitely quite erect.,.....I am about to demonstrate this by pictures... and lines.....

observing McKays bows, ornamental hood leading into figurehead is somewhat different and bigger that he used to make..... I tried to attach FIsh curvature following stem curvature along from  the bobstay chain fastening at stem, and look what shockingly (for me ) happened....overall profile of fish bow curvature elegantly continued up to the tip of navalhood ending at the head of figurehead making exactly one thing. ....Imagine glory existed. ........

if you seen it far away or under spells of sunglight you would see bow shape of flying fish even if it wasnt it....same as we see on the BW picture you posted her....This is merely speculation, but what if he so cleverly deceived everyone such master way that he amde it intentional and made it this way  -took fish curvature first as the line and from there he followed  back or rear-wise from that point back he drew hood and undergoing and finally made line of stem which is entirely different....??? can be pure fantasy but it has sense in it hasnt it ?

 

now the pictures, please follow red line which is FISH bow, i diminished it a little as it was smaller ship but nevertheless curvature above waterlevel stays true... than I tried to fool your eyes same way as photography - or McKay if he made it intentionally.....i hid red line and substituted it by green keeping original line of FIDH with outer body of Glory in the picture / if you didnt know that it is same profile as flying fish you woulddnt know / but for that matter you always seen agressive fish bow in glory I guess because it is there ... but I assume not in stem design which is oppposite - different, but in overall shape including hoods 

 

so based on various line comparison I dared  making such speculative  proposition based on observation of photos , not backed by McKay previous designs etc... what do you think about this thinking guys ? could it be possible ?  than  I modified shape of curvature of stem from waterlevel up to the first ornamental block...to copy fish curvature  ...

 

 

Vladimir, One thing that might be causing confusion is how these vessels were measured. The length of the main deck between perpendiculars refers to the top deck which is below the Quarter deck at the Bow and Poop deck at the Stern. Taffrail to Knightheads measures the distance from the midpoint of the Stern rail to the two devices at the Ship's Bow where the Bowsprit goes between. The Ship's Bow itself, even the peak of the quarterdeck rail is slightly beyond that point. 

The two key ratios I compared with all of the McKay vessels I could find at least one accurate distance for were main deck length to keel and overall length to keel. Dividing Keel length by those two other lengths gave me the percentage results. While the main deck to keel ratio was identical for "Flying Fish" and "Glory of the Seas" that was not the case with the overall length. If "Glory of the Seas" had been built to the ratio of "Flying Fish" she would have the identical floor to keel of 250' to 240' but would have been 268' overall instead of 265'. 

You see the lovely smooth curve of "Flying Fish" compared to the somewhat awkward transition from curved to straight in your current Glory hull profile? That's one item I've been repeatedly emphasizing doesn't match the graceful Hull of Glory which can now be seen here, courtesy of Michael Mjelde's generosity. Getting that right will make a major difference.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

how about now ?

 

blue main line definig it changed quite grossly in respect of red line....awkwardness removed

 

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

or almost exact following  red line from cutwater up to the hood...... but i believe previous change is truer observig that photo. cutwater to hawsehole line is gentler and just slightly curved towards end like at first pic....this seciond is curvy in all profile that is already off....id say

still..change is quite dramatic to previous i must agree with Rich very rough uncohesive curve and  unpleasant line..

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

@Rob, I will make corrections to centerline of bow part and send it to you afterwards....

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

astonishing. just part of fun accidentally  i lifted red line properly and neared it ....voila... i was stunned. it pretty much follows it precisely. so we can say its fish line ....i would never say that with so little tweak and closer look...I think this is  groundbreaking .a milestone. he may have designed bow off fish

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

27 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

astonishing. just part of fun accidentally  i lifted red line properly and neared it ....voila... i was stunned. it pretty much follows it precisely. so we can say its fish line ....i would never say that with so little tweak and closer look...I think this is  groundbreaking .a milestone. he may have designed bow off fish

 

 

Vladimir, you're getting so close. This almost feels like that old fashioned kid's game of "hot and cold." I still get a sense that viewer bias or perspective distortion is still affecting our senses. For instance, notice the waterline and pylons behind Glory's Bow in the 1907 shot? It's off. The waterline is slightly tilted up from left to right. To get a clearer understanding look at the relatively short dark area on the left edge of the photo and compare it to the right side. See the difference? The right edge is noticeably higher, almost not quite double. Now if you look at the pylons below the pier just behind Glory's Bow, they aren't verticle, they also tilt slightly towards the left. What I'm driving at is, if you take these optical variances into consideration by say, laying a straight edge of paper to this tilted waterline and using a compass, get it to a true 90 degree angle, so that the pylons are verticle and the waterline is correct, you'll see that Glory's prow and Cutwater are actually a little more aggressive than even this image depicts....

I believe when we're finally done, our outline should match the 1907 Bow almost exactly, as it's the most accurate image we have. Of course, even this one is foreshortened slightly, as it's not a perfect broadside but very close.

Finally, the curve of the Cutwater goes unbroken all the way up to the Figurehead Athene's feet. The beautifully carved archwork was actually bolted onto the Cutwater. Look closely at the impressive Port Side image that Michael sent us and you'll see what I mean. There's just a fraction of the gorgeous overlay left but you can see how it's attached to the Cutwater beneath. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir, you're getting so close. This almost feels like that old fashioned kid's game of "hot and cold." I still get a sense that viewer bias or perspective distortion is still affecting our senses. For instance, notice the waterline and pylons behind Glory's Bow in the 1907 shot? It's off. The waterline is slightly tilted up from left to right. To get a clearer understanding look at the relatively short dark area on the left edge of the photo and compare it to the right side. See the difference? The right edge is noticeably higher, almost not quite double. Now if you look at the pylons below the pier just behind Glory's Bow, they aren't verticle, they also tilt slightly towards the left. What I'm driving at is, if you take these optical variances into consideration by say, laying a straight edge of paper to this tilted waterline and using a compass, get it to a true 90 degree angle, so that the pylons are verticle and the waterline is correct, you'll see that Glory's prow and Cutwater are actually a little more aggressive than even this image depicts....

I believe when we're finally done, our outline should match the 1907 Bow almost exactly, as it's the most accurate image we have. Of course, even this one is foreshortened slightly, as it's not a perfect broadside but very close.

Finally, the curve of the Cutwater goes unbroken all the way up to the Figurehead Athene's feet. The beautifully carved archwork was actually bolted onto the Cutwater. Look closely at the impressive Port Side image that Michael sent us and you'll see what I mean. There's just a fraction of the gorgeous overlay left but you can see how it's attached to the Cutwater beneath. 

Iwoudl say we are there Richard.

I leveled photo and saised 90 degrees  line along the columns and windows to make sure i have wasterlevel straight or better that workers erected buildings vertically and than I re /placed our bow to the 1907 glory. looks there....there is missing wood on spray rail so we have that angle there to the right..otherwise it matches ....I dont see where are we heading but I am almost scared to get better result that what we got here

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa

[ClipperFan]

46 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Iwoudl say we are there Richard.

I leveled photo and saised 90 degrees  line along the columns and windows to make sure i have wasterlevel straight or better that workers erected buildings vertically and than I re /placed our bow to the 1907 glory. looks there....there is missing wood on spray rail so we have that angle there to the right..otherwise it matches ....I dont see where are we heading but I am almost scared to get better result that what we got here

 

 

 

 

 

Vladimir, isn't it remarkable how these small adjustments have such profound results. For example, did you notice how even the sheer looks less dramatic now? As for the two red lines. To me the outer one looks to be the more accurate. As for where we're heading, if we can accomplish it, as near to perfection as possible. Now you can easily follow the curve of the Cutwater as seen in the 1907 scene (it has nothing to do with "Flying Fish" Cutwater which would be based on the sharper bow profile). 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

15 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir, isn't it remarkable how these small adjustments have such profound results. For example, did you notice how even the sheer looks less dramatic now? As for the two red lines. To me the outer one looks to be the more accurate. As for where we're heading, if we can accomplish it, as near to perfection as possible. Now you can easily follow the curve of the Cutwater as seen in the 1907 scene (it has nothing to do with "Flying Fish" Cutwater which would be based on the sharper bow profile). 

exactly as you say, they have dramatic efect lets say just stem shape being such profound line where entire planking rise from etc...yes ouer one it is. 

[ClipperFan]

41 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

exactly as you say, they have dramatic efect lets say just stem shape being such profound line where entire planking rise from etc...yes ouer one it is. 

Vladimir, just to give you an idea of how subtile adjustments make for dramatically noticeable differences, I cropped your latest image to cut out visual interference. Now look at these two before and after images. Isn't it amazing? The final step will be to reconcile the slight bowsprit foreshortening. We know factually that it is 24' before the Cap and that Glory's figurehead is about 9' beyond her Bow. Her figurehead is too close in the 1907 scene which is a function of slight perspective foreshortening. The fact that we can see parts of the front of her Stern Carriage House and Wheelhouse also verifies this.

[TheAuthorsDaughter]

Here are a few photos (sorry for the glare) of my dads collection. His new book should hopefully be published later this year or early 2022. Down East Captain will cover Captain Henry  Gillespie (he was captain from 1906-1909). The last photo will be the cover as artist Mark Meyers granted my dad permission to use.

 The jar with the copper sheathing is from the exploratory dig they originally did when they discovered her exact location in West Seattle. So gracious of the property owner to allow the group to traipse around her property. The scaled down name board my late brother did while in wood shop (when they still offered those types of classes!!) He actually had done another one that is unfinished. Next is a door off Glory. The spike was given to him by I believe someone involved in the burning of Glory and the balsa wood hull is the sister to the one we brought over to Robs.

He of course has many more things pertaining to Glory (and quite a few other ships including full size plans, photos, books and data in genera). He has a number of prints/paintings as well.