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

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, TheAuthorsDaughter said:

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. 

Arina, welcome back! It's always nice to hear from you and your dad. Thank you for these wonderful images of such precious mementos. Please express my appreciation too, to your dad for his immense contributions to our evolving efforts to capture the ultimately accurate "Glory of the Seas". Your late brother was a talented wood worker. Let me say also that you can definitely add my name to the list of purchasers for your dad's next publication. I can't wait for "Down East Captain" to be released!

 

[Sailor1234567890]

That painting is stunning. I love a maritime artist who can paint realistic paintings. 

[ClipperFan]

Rob & Vladimir,

I finally found a complete image of Donald McKay's twin Packet Ships "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame" courtesy of Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA. If you look at the reverse "S" profile completed by the angel figurehead, you can see a strong resemblance to that of the 1907 "Glory of the Seas" at San Pedro. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by ClipperFan
Grammar correction

[rwiederrich]

And the Glory of the Seas was only 50 tons heavier

 

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

And the Glory of the Seas was only 50 tons heavier

 

Rob, "Star of Empire" was described as being 2,000 tons. "Chariot of Fame" was considered as a sister vessel to Star so it likely had the same tonnage. "Glory of the Seas" was described as being 2,102 tons, which would make her 102 tons heavier. While the LOA isn't described, we do know that these vessels had perpendicular Stems and Cutwaters with rakes of 12'. So a likely LOA was minimum of 239' (adding 7' Stern overhang & 12' beyond their 220' main floor) but that's pure conjecture. Probably the most significant difference in appearance between these Ships was Glory's 7' sheer vs Star and Chariot's's more modest 4' one. 

[ClipperFan]

16 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, "Star of Empire" was described as being 2,000 tons. "Chariot of Fame" was considered as a sister vessel to Star so it likely had the same tonnage. "Glory of the Seas" was described as being 2,102 tons, which would make her 102 tons heavier. While the LOA isn't described, we do know that these vessels had perpendicular Stems and Cutwaters with rakes of 12'. So a likely LOA was minimum of 239' (adding 7' Stern overhang & 12' beyond their 220' main floor) but that's pure conjecture. Probably the most significant difference in appearance between these Ships was Glory's 7' sheer vs Star and Chariot's's more modest 4' one. 

Rob, nobody likes a "know it all." If I came across like that, I apologize. I didn't mean to belittle your observation. That wasn't my intent but when I read what was written it sure sounded like that. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Rob Richard 

just a quick update I got message that my bulkheads have been cut and already shipped so on the way to me. I am more than happy that i was able to communicate and accomodate with them last important bow adjustment though. now fingers crossed  

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, nobody likes a "know it all." If I came across like that, I apologize. I didn't mean to belittle your observation. That wasn't my intent but when I read what was written it sure sounded like that. 

No problem Rich...I didn't notice...however, Star of Empire and Chariot of Fame were both 2050 tons OM From my sources  And Glory was as you stated, 2102 tons OM.  4 to 7ft sheere can easily be compensated for in the line drawings.

 

Plus the keel to waterline on the Star and Chariot seams quite different then that of Glory.

[rwiederrich]

Man Vlad that was fast.  I wish I could get my 1/96 frames laser cut....I just don't know anyone around here who does that kinda work.

Looks like you'll have your version build before me.

 

Fantastic news...can't wait to see them

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

46 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Rob Richard 

just a quick update I got message that my bulkheads have been cut and already shipped so on the way to me. I am more than happy that i was able to communicate and accomodate with them last important bow adjustment though. now fingers crossed  

Vladimir, I can't wait to see these! Especially if you were able to incorporate my last 3 suggestions, this should be the most accurate Hull yet!

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

22 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Man Vlad that was fast.  I wish I could get my 1/96 frames laser cut....I just don't know anyone around here who does that kinda work.

Looks like you'll have your version build before me.

 

Fantastic news...can't wait to see them

 

Rob

I could  get those cut for you Rob, and send it afterwards but im affraid It is probably fool idea as I assume custom and post would cost more that cutting / as cutting would cost approx 20 bucks.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

23 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir, I can't wait to see these! Especially if you were able to incorporate my last 3 suggestions, this should be the most accurate Hull yet!

yes I did Richard. Im still quite  a bit nervous though how will those little tweaked bulkeads play together ....ok lets be confident for now , after all we worked quite hard altogether...   

Edited April 14, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

17 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

No problem Rich...I didn't notice...however, Star of Empire and Chariot of Fame were both 2050 tons OM From my sources  And Glory was as you stated, 2102 tons OM.  4 to 7ft sheere can easily be compensated for in the line drawings.

 

Plus the keel to waterline on the Star and Chariot seams quite different then that of Glory.

Rob, As Michael Mjelde reminded me before, Duncan MacLean's descriptions cannot always be taken as 100% reliable. My sole source for Ship measurements have been his very descriptive Boston Daily News articles, all available online on Lars Bruzelius's website. However, when it came to the one chosen to write the most in-depth description of "The Great Republic" Donald McKay's largest vessel ever built, it was Duncan MacLean who was given the nod. So as a publicist, which is always how I've appreciated Mr MacLean's works, he must have been second to none.

As for the most reliable source for vessel sizes and tonnage Mike told me that "admeasurement" which is how Ships were registered, is most accurate. In his 1st book "Glory of the Seas" registration is reproduced. She had a 240'2" keel admeasurement. Mike has also said the actual keel's length might have been 235' with the 5'2" difference made up by the curved Stem attachment. 

I would like to know your other resource for the 2050 ton weight for the twin Packets. You're also correct that these vessels don't match Glory's profile up to the waterline. That's why I identified "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" instead. Since the difference between those two was 1' and there was a verified tracing of "Flying Fish" available, I chose to recommend her as the closest resource to pattern Glory's Bow after.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

I could  get those cut for you Rob, and send it afterwards but im affraid It is probably fool idea as I assume custom and post would cost more that cutting / as cutting would cost approx 20 bucks.

It would probably be no more then sending a book and that is well within my budget(since money isn't an issue for me).  20 bucks is a great price too.

If I was to know how much it would cost in total....I'd pay for your laser costs for your bulkheads for the service.

 

Something to think about....it would be much appreciated.

 

Rob

 

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

I would like to know your other resource for the 2050 ton weight for the twin Packets. You're also correct that these vessels don't match Glory's profile up to the waterline. That's why I identified "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" instead. Since the difference between those two was 1' and there was a verified tracing of "Flying Fish" available, I chose to recommend her as the closest resource to pattern Glory's Bow after.

I'll revisit the sources for you(I'm at work), but I'm pretty sure that is what the OM weight was.   Another note is that both of these clippers(sisters) were extreme models.  so was the Fish and the Staghound.  Glory was a *Medium* design.  And from what I've been gathering, that term can be subjective.  It implies a heavier body, with a smaller deadrise...or flatter bottom(More like a downeaster).  It doesn't imply that the entry is more bulbus...such as a whaler or man of war.  We have clearly identified her to have an entry  more like of the Flying Fish and the Staghound..

Glory has a 22ft copper line  25ft to rail measurement.  Neither the Fish nor the Staghound have the sheere as the Glory and subsequently less distance from copper(water) line to rail.  So it is hard to say that McKay used one of these clippers as the model for Glory.  I think if Vladimir's bulkheads are representative of a full bodied model.....also with the extreme stem of Flying Fish...we cannot hope to be any closer to Glory's true figure then at any time ever.

 

I'm so excited

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Pretty funny that the Glory model I build by using a converted 1/96 Revell Cutty Sark hull...is looking more like what we are after....despite the slight error of the stem and its width.  I was making it us as I went from Mike's drawings.  This is 11 years old...I was less a model maker then now.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

46 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

It would probably be no more then sending a book and that is well within my budget(since money isn't an issue for me).  20 bucks is a great price too.

If I was to know how much it would cost in total....I'd pay for your laser costs for your bulkheads for the service.

 

Something to think about....it would be much appreciated.

 

Rob

 

Vladimir, although I haven't done anything like this for many decades, I'm intrigued by a chance to get my own set of authentic "Glory of the Seas" bulkheads. Please let us know what you'd need to make it worth your while.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

8 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Pretty funny that the Glory model I build by using a converted 1/96 Revell Cutty Sark hull...is looking more like what we are after....despite the slight error of the stem and its width.  I was making it us as I went from Mike's drawings.  This is 11 years old...I was less a model maker then now.

 

Rob

i think its amazing what you achieved Rob . looking at my cutty hull at home its not easy thing to modify one. quite exceptional. back that time i didnt know modeling exists  V. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

6 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir, although I haven't done anything like this for many decades, I'm intrigued by a chance to get my own set of authentic "Glory of the Seas" bulkheads. Please let us know what you'd need to make it worth your while.

would be my pleasure to send you those...just send me your email by private message pls. i will check bulkheads when they arrived before :)) to check so they fit correctly and then i will send you those by email.  i dont want to blame myself in advance :)))) is @Druxey interested as well?  

Edited April 14, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I'll revisit the sources for you(I'm at work), but I'm pretty sure that is what the OM weight was.   Another note is that both of these clippers(sisters) were extreme models.  so was the Fish and the Staghound.  Glory was a *Medium* design.  And from what I've been gathering, that term can be subjective.  It implies a heavier body, with a smaller deadrise...or flatter bottom(More like a downeaster).  It doesn't imply that the entry is more bulbus...such as a whaler or man of war.  We have clearly identified her to have an entry  more like of the Flying Fish and the Staghound..

Glory has a 22ft copper line  25ft to rail measurement.  Neither the Fish nor the Staghound have the sheere as the Glory and subsequently less distance from copper(water) line to rail.  So it is hard to say that McKay used one of these clippers as the model for Glory.  I think if Vladimir's bulkheads are representative of a full bodied model.....also with the extreme stem of Flying Fish...we cannot hope to be any closer to Glory's true figure then at any time ever.

 

I'm so excited

 

Rob

Rob,

As I double checked established ratios of the vessels we're discussing, I got a surprise. While Floor to Keel ratios of all 3 ships are identical .96% applying "Glory of the Seas" LOA to Keel ratio of .905 to "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" measurements for LOA to Keel gave the following amazing results:

 

"Staghound" 

LOA: 226' actual, Keel 204.53' 

2.47' SHORTER using Glory's ratio

 

"Flying Fish"

LOA: 220' actual, Keel 199.10'

2.90' SHORTER with Glory's ratio

 

For comparison, to show how much SHARPER Glory's waterline to LOA was, here's the most Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud" using Glory's ratio:

 

"Flying Cloud"

LOA: 235' actual, Keel 212.68

4.68' LONGER with Glory's ratio

 

Conclusion. My previous results were calculated EXACTLY BACKWARDS for "Glory of the Seas" vs "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" when it came to properly interpreting ratio comparisons. That means Glory's LOA to Keel ratio is actually slightly MORE AGGRESSIVE than either of those Extreme Clippers. By every metric I use, other than measurement of 'deadrise at half floor' which identifies a vessel's relative underwater 'roundness', I see Glory's ratio as being very aggressive vs some of McKay's most Extreme Clippers. I think you and Vladimir can be very comfortable with the direction we're going in finally resurrecting Donald McKay's last Extreme Medium Clipper.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by ClipperFan
more accurate nautical term

[ClipperFan]

15 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

As I double checked established ratios of the vessels we're discussing, I got a surprise. While Floor to Keel ratios of all 3 ships are identical .96% applying "Glory of the Seas" LOA to Keel ratio of .905 to "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" measurements for LOA to Keel gave the following amazing results:

 

"Staghound" 

LOA: 226' actual, Keel 204.53' 

2.47' SHORTER using Glory's ratio

 

"Flying Fish"

LOA: 220' actual, Keel 199.10'

2.90' SHORTER with Glory's ratio

 

For comparison, to show how much SHARPER Glory's waterline to LOA was, here's the most Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud" using Glory's ratio:

 

"Flying Cloud"

LOA: 235' actual, Keel 212.68

4.68' LONGER with Glory's ratio

 

Conclusion. My previous results were calculated EXACTLY BACKWARDS for "Glory of the Seas" vs "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" when it came to properly interpreting ratio comparisons. That means Glory's LOA to Keel ratio is actually slightly MORE AGGRESSIVE than either of those Extreme Clippers. By every metric I use, other than measurement of 'deadrise at half floor' which identifies a vessel's relative underwater 'roundness', I see Glory's ratio as being very aggressive vs some of McKay's most Extreme Clippers. I think you and Vladimir can be very comfortable with the direction we're going in finally resurrecting Donald McKay's last Extreme Medium Clipper.

 

 

Rob,

Since I mentioned relative flatness as being the principal reason why "Glory of the Seas" is classified as a Medium Clipper vs others we're comparing, I looked up that specific metric for the following vessels. Here are the results:

 

         DEADRISE AT HALF-FLOOR

"Staghound"             40"

"Flying Cloud"           30"

"Flying Fish"              20"

"Glory of the Seas"    8 1/2"

 

[rwiederrich]

Yep.....Glory is a flat bottom boat compared to all the others.     This is the problem I ran into in my Curry Sark mod.   She was way to round to really represent the Glory

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Yep.....Glory is a flat bottom boat compared to all the others.     This is the problem I ran into in my Curry Sark mod.   She was way to round to really represent the Glory

Rob, agreed about Glory's flat bottom. It appears that over the years, Donald McKay concluded that a slight drop in relative speed over what was effectively a three month journey around the toughest seas on the planet, a gain in carrying capacity more than outweighed that loss of a relatively few days. 

Which brings me back to Glory's Bow and underwater profile. From various photos, she appears to have had as sharp a prow as "Flying Fish" and "Staghound". This too would make sense because a sharp, aggressive prow is necessary to batter it's way through the mighty, powerful seas around Cape Horn. It's also apparent that Glory's 7' sheer is the largest one I've read about. Again having a higher Prow would also benefit in taking on those Seas and likely having a drier vessel. Besides which, pretty much all of McKay's vessels were famous for their swiftness, even his Packets.  

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

14 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

It would probably be no more then sending a book and that is well within my budget(since money isn't an issue for me).  20 bucks is a great price too.

If I was to know how much it would cost in total....I'd pay for your laser costs for your bulkheads for the service.

 

Something to think about....it would be much appreciated.

 

Rob

 

Rob, it will be a pretty small small package almost letter in 1:96. im sure  Guy will be happy to cut one more. I ll inform you ij advence how much it will be total and if ok After it arrived to you  you can put me money on paypal. No problem whatsoever. I think its not worth to have it cut manually when it is already laser pre made . ..

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Now folks. Package got in. Shivers down my spine, ...

Here it goes. To sum up. Bulkheafs fits in just about perfectly they are snug to the point they dojt woble but they can be takeout withput extensive force. Look at the bulkhead no3 just after 3 closer bow bulkheads  i modified Michaels curve just a little in favour of little less agressivness  i need to run soke strip along to see the effect. . Center section is without any flaw. Rear section, there needs to be 1 bulkhead little lifted to follow beauty of sheer byt nothing painful just by eye. Anf forward section centerline is tad a bit higher than bulkheads floor as i didnt coreected that one in computer. Can be easily sanded off its small passage. i run strip of wood as sheer rearwise you can see drop and place for waterway underneath  from 13 bulkhead forward...so pretty happy overall. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Guys 

its fascinating you can spot all the perspective deformation bow ans stern are smaller than in reality etc... photographed with mobile phone wide angle from very near. anyway, we can already engloy very subtle rise of stern and graciously rise of her body towards bow  Anyway I wish to express a thank to Michael Mjelde for designing the shape and bulkheads in first place, we only changed few parameters but  It wont be posssible without him. it is his design in 90 percent of course. 

 

 

waterline? 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[rwiederrich]

OM Goodness....Vlad....that looks fantastic.  Wonderfully drawn and executed.  Now if you could be so amazing and have two more sets made and send them to me and Rich........

I will pay whatever it costs for mine and I will pay for your set as well for compensation.  Please let me know if that is possible for you.....I know it is a great imposition...but what a time saver and a great beginning....to all have the same hull to work with and then to enjoy us all building our own similar versions.

 

This is a wonderful day and you did so well.  She looks just amazing.  We all put so much effort and energy into extracting her dimensions from simple 2D B/W images....it's just amazing.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

1 minute ago, rwiederrich said:

OM Goodness....Vlad....that looks fantastic.  Wonderfully drawn and executed.  Now if you could be so amazing and have two more sets made and send them to me and Rich........

I will pay whatever it costs for mine and I will pay for your set as well for compensation.  Please let me know if that is possible for you.....I know it is a great imposition...but what a time saver and a great beginning....to all have the same hull to work with and then to enjoy us all building our own similar versions.

 

This is a wonderful day and you did so well.  She looks just amazing.  We all put so much effort and energy into extracting her dimensions from simple 2D B/W images....it's just amazing.

 

Rob

 what a reaction  im still perplexed myself sitting in room and staring at skeleton as kids for getting christmass. i dont remember last time  i was so thrilled myself ...

nothing tocompensate just price for making those and delivery thatsit. im sure you will help me to get book signed by Michael Mjelde if i send you that one too for signing. thats the favour id ask for return maybe   

 

[rwiederrich]

17 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

i think its amazing what you achieved Rob . looking at my cutty hull at home its not easy thing to modify one. quite exceptional. back that time i didnt know modeling exists  V. 

Modifying the Revell Cutty's stem and increasing her bulwarks was what needed to be dome to even remotely make the hull pass off as Glory's.  Building all the deck furniture and houses was the easy part.  I was never going to correct the deadrise of the Revell hull...so I had to live with that blaring error.

 

But now with your new drawn bulkheads and framing...I have a chance to go back and do it right and correct all the minor errors that bothered me so.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

8 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

 what a reaction  im still perplexed myself sitting in room and staring at skeleton as kids for getting christmass. i dont remember last time  i was so thrilled myself ...

nothing tocompensate just price for making those and delivery thatsit. im sure you will help me to get book signed by Michael Mjelde if i send you that one too for signing. thats the favour id ask for return maybe   

 

A book signature is in order....I'll talk to Mike and set up another meeting.    Cool.   Please PM me to let me know what I will need to pay for the bulkheads and shipping and how to make the payment.   Plus....I'm assuming you had the frames made in 1/72....I'll go with that..but if it is at all possible can they be reduced to 1/96 for my special needs?  If that will be to difficult I'll stick with what you have already established.

 

Thanks again so much Vlad

 

Rob