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

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

beautiful Rob.amazing. looks a bit wider than mine  V. 

[rwiederrich]

40 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

beautiful Rob.amazing. looks a bit wider than mine  V. 

It’s a scale 18” wide. 
 

Thanks for the compliment 

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Worked on the chicken coop. 
 

Rob

Edited October 11, 2021 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

A few more pics as I progress along the deck. 
 

Rob

[michael mott]

Great looking progress since the last time I stopped by.

Michael

[rwiederrich]

16 minutes ago, michael mott said:

Great looking progress since the last time I stopped by.

Michael

Thanks Michael.

 

Im moving out now.   There is a great amount of pressure to be faithful to a resurrected beauty as is Glory of the Seas 

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob

This is in my observation, just beautiful, clean consistent work. I love how neat and organized your build looks as she progresses along.

About Mike's latest email. I finally was able to view Ron's critique and his observations about the Naval Hoods and Cutwaters are correct. I would also add from my initial observance at the time that the Naval Hoods too were a little short in comparison to Glory herself. Maybe I should have spoken up. At the time I was reluctant to do so, out of a concern of sounding too picky. It's a bit of a tightrope walk, especially since I'm keenly aware that I don't do any modeling myself at this time. My goal has always been to aid you and Vladimir to construct the most accurate versions of Glory possible. 

[ClipperFan]

Rob, 

Having made those observations about a Modeler's slight errors, I still want to emphasize that your bow treatment, slight inaccuracies included is still the most accurate and beautiful of any model I've ever seen. Especially your Goddess 'Athene' figurehead. She's a marvel to behold in miniature. You have a lot to be proud of.

[rwiederrich]

29 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob

This is in my observation, just beautiful, clean consistent work. I love how neat and organized your build looks as she progresses along.

About Mike's latest email. I finally was able to view Ron's critique and his observations about the Naval Hoods and Cutwaters are correct. I would also add from my initial observance at the time that the Naval Hoods too were a little short in comparison to Glory herself. Maybe I should have spoken up. At the time I was reluctant to do so, out of a concern of sounding too picky. It's a bit of a tightrope walk, especially since I'm keenly aware that I don't do any modeling myself at this time. My goal has always been to aid you and Vladimir to construct the most accurate versions of Glory possible. 

Actually the error occurred when gluing the lower 3 lobed trim to the metal hood.  I actually cut the hood the correct width, but as I placed the trim, it slid from on top of the hood face to the lower leading edge.  Since I was using CA glue , it stuck immediately and I could not get it to relocate without totally damaging the metal hood.  
 

It took a lot of work to create the hood and the tricky shim work underneath against the hull and the rolled edge at the hoods termination by the howes hole.  
 

Once I noticed it a great deal of thought went into it and I decided it wasn’t that great of an issue to tear it all up and clean things up and redo it all.    So I opted to leave it as a builders anomaly.  
 

We all have them…….even my most ardent critics.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

30 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, 

Having made those observations about a Modeler's slight errors, I still want to emphasize that your bow treatment, slight inaccuracies included is still the most accurate and beautiful of any model I've ever seen. Especially your Goddess 'Athene' figurehead. She's a marvel to behold in miniature. You have a lot to be proud of.

I made sure the third iron band on the bowsprit was over Athens’s head,  where it should be. 
 

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

I made sure the third iron band on the bowsprit was over Athens’s head,  where it should be. 
 

 

Rob

Rob,

It must be a matter of observation. I could swear 'Athene's' forehead and crown rest about half way between band #3 & #4. No matter, if the only item OZ Shipwright Ron Haug can find fault with is a slight discrepancy in her Naval Hoods that means to me that the rest of your Hull is acceptable to him, which in a back handed way is high praise indeed!

[rwiederrich]

45 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

It must be a matter of observation. I could swear 'Athene's' forehead and crown rest about half way between band #3 & #4. No matter, if the only item OZ Shipwright Ron Haug can find fault with is a slight discrepancy in her Naval Hoods that means to me that the rest of your Hull is acceptable to him, which in a back handed way is high praise indeed!

Don’t look at the 3rd band from its side, because that is optically confusing.  
Look at the band’s bottom edge and you will see that it is just behind the figureheads head. 
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, michael mott said:

Great looking progress since the last time I stopped by.

Michael

 

50 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Don’t look at the 3rd band from its side, because that is optically confusing.  
Look at the band’s bottom edge and you will see that it is just behind the figureheads head. 
 

Rob

Rob, I agree that #3 band's bottom edge appears to touch the rear of 'Athene's' hair bun. My reference is to the tip of the crown on her forehead. Drawing a verticle from that point I find it's half way between bands #3 & #4. It also appears to me like the rear edge of band #3 aligns with the tip of the Naval Hood below. This looks intentionally designed and it's how my sketch of Glory's bow was precisely crafted. 

Regardless, I think the bigger win in all of this was that Ron didn't find any fault with the rest of your Glory model.

[rwiederrich]

18 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

 

Rob, I agree that #3 band's bottom edge appears to touch the rear of 'Athene's' hair bun. My reference is to the tip of the crown on her forehead. Drawing a verticle from that point I find it's half way between bands #3 & #4. It also appears to me like the rear edge of band #3 aligns with the tip of the Naval Hood below. This looks intentionally designed and it's how my sketch of Glory's bow was precisely crafted. 

Regardless, I think the bigger win in all of this was that Ron didn't find any fault with the rest of your Glory model.

Rich look at the band,s bottom, not the band itself.   Follow it around and down.  That is the bands true edge. What you see on the sides is curvature illusion.  Zoom in and you’ll see that the band is right at the knot of hair in its bunn.  If you follow the third and fourth bands to their lower edge, you will see Athene,s head is much closer to band 3 then 4. 
 

Rob

Edited October 11, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

48 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich look at the band,s bottom, not the band itself.   Follow it around and down.  That is the bands true edge. What you see on the sides is curvature illusion.  Zoom in and you’ll see that the band is right at the knot of hair in its bunn.  If you follow the third and fourth bands to their lower edge, you will see Athene,s head is much closer to band 3 then 4. 
 

Rob

Rob,

This fascinating conversation highlights what has been an underlying challenge all along. In effect, trying to recreate two dimensions in order to get accurate measurements from three dimensional images. You're right, that I missed following the bands all the way to the very bottom and it now appears her forehead is just a little closer to band #3 then being midway between the two. 

[rwiederrich]

12 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

This fascinating conversation highlights what has been an underlying challenge all along. In effect, trying to recreate two dimensions in order to get accurate measurements from three dimensional images. You're right, that I missed following the bands all the way to the very bottom and it now appears her forehead is just a little closer to band #3 then being midway between the two. 

See...this is the issue we have when discussing translation from 2D to 3D. Or from picture to actual model, from one scale to another.

 

Its easy to sit back in your arm chair and critique others work(Not you particularly), but when so many eyes are looking at something...even the most glaring issue can be hiding in plane sight.  When trying to translate dimensions, what appears the truth can actually be as false as anything.

 

This is why I tried to get you to see that the bands on the bowsprit need to be viewed from their extreme bottom...because that is where the figurehead is.

Look up the bowsprit to the next rings lower edge and you can easily see the *truth*.

 

This is the method we must use when reverse engineering the Glory.

 

This all began, because what we saw others do(Mike and Ron), we knew could not be correct...though they *Knew*, AT THE TIME THAT WHAT THEY WERE TRANSLATING WAS THE TRUTH.   It only took years (Or weeks) to be found out to NOT be true.  Ron's own recent redrawing of Glory STILL had glaring structural errors, and that, coming from a seasoned, professional.  This is why any *transcript errors* folks may find in my translation, are, for the most part, subjective.  Unless they are so incorrect, it changes the entire likeness.

 

We're gonna have to just live with the slight hood *thickness*and not let it be a *game* changer, since the trim surrounding it is pretty much spot on...so lets focus on that if we need to focus on something.

 

One last note...if someone is so particular about their own position, how is it that a drawing that passed peer review can have blatant errors?

Look closely at Mike's profile and line drawings of Glory in his book and notice he has the flywheel of the pumps mounted inside the frame of the pin rail, when in fact, if you review the photographs of Glory being converted and while a canary.....you can see the construction scene on her deck AND men on the deck sorting fish and the flywheel of the main pump is clearly shown on the *OUTSIDE* of the pin rail frame.

It is easy to make these kinds of mistakes when the task of creating or fabricating is so large.

 

Swough........Nuff said.

 

Time to move on to funner stuff.

 

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

No surprise, I'm in 100% agreement with you. From painstaking recreation of Glory's Wheelhouse, including comparing moulded spaces to windows, I've concluded that this original structure was most likely 15 feet square, not the original 12 foot x 10 foot dimensions I first calculated and which is how I represented it on my large sketch. Then there's the matter of Glory's figurehead, which now is just a little too far out, as is her naval hood and cutwater. In all fairness, to be honest before this sketch can be submitted, those mistakes should be corrected. The most painful will be erasing and repositioning all her bow components, especially her figurehead which I'm very happy with as she sits now. However, correcting this slight position will revise everything. I'm not ready to tackle that now but I'll keep you informed.

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

No surprise, I'm in 100% agreement with you. From painstaking recreation of Glory's Wheelhouse, including comparing moulded spaces to windows, I've concluded that this original structure was most likely 15 feet square, not the original 12 foot x 10 foot dimensions I first calculated and which is how I represented it on my large sketch. Then there's the matter of Glory's figurehead, which now is just a little too far out, as is her naval hood and cutwater. In all fairness, to be honest before this sketch can be submitted, those mistakes should be corrected. The most painful will be erasing and repositioning all her bow components, especially her figurehead which I'm very happy with as she sits now. However, correcting this slight position will revise everything. I'm not ready to tackle that now but I'll keep you informed.

You know what's funny...back when I first built my first Glory...I also concluded that the original wheelhouse HAD to be more square and most likely the dimensions you suggested of 15ft square.  I too struggled with the drawings that Mike had made and then trying to reconcile them to actual photographs that just didn't seam to align.

 

Elongating her prow is in of itself one thing...for, far too many other components are being effected as well.  As is the case with my slightly robust naval hoods...they do not effect the length of her hull, nor the true location of her figurehead to other known structures, such as her bowsprit.

The top leading edge of the hood is in alignment with the planksheer that it aligns with.  It is, however the (true to scale and design) lower trim that brings into error the width of the hood...which in turn places the Howes hole slightly lower then the prototype.  Can such an error diminish a scaled models true over-all accuracy?   I don't think so.

 

Your drawings have been a clear motivation and are far more accurate then anything we have seen thus far.  However, as painful as the redraw might seam...it will probably be the best course of action.

 

I'm just going to learn how to apologies a lot for my oversight and learn to live with disappointment.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

You know what's funny...back when I first built my first Glory...I also concluded that the original wheelhouse HAD to be more square and most likely the dimensions you suggested of 15ft square.  I too struggled with the drawings that Mike had made and then trying to reconcile them to actual photographs that just didn't seam to align.

 

Elongating her prow is in of itself one thing...for, far too many other components are being effected as well.  As is the case with my slightly robust naval hoods...they do not effect the length of her hull, nor the true location of her figurehead to other known structures, such as her bowsprit.

The top leading edge of the hood is in alignment with the planksheer that it aligns with.  It is, however the (true to scale and design) lower trim that brings into error the width of the hood...which in turn places the Howes hole slightly lower then the prototype.  Can such an error diminish a scaled models true over-all accuracy?   I don't think so.

 

Your drawings have been a clear motivation and are far more accurate then anything we have seen thus far.  However, as painful as the redraw might seam...it will probably be the best course of action.

 

I'm just going to learn how to apologies a lot for my oversight and learn to live with disappointment.

 

Rob

Rob,

Perhaps you haven't noticed what I've repeatedly said about your model in particular. Even with the barely noticeable lower naval hood and howes hole placement, I still feel your particular model is the most faithful replica in existence today. Believe me, you have nothing to apologize for.

[rwiederrich]

39 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

Perhaps you haven't noticed what I've repeatedly said about your model in particular. Even with the barely noticeable lower naval hood and howes hole placement, I still feel your particular model is the most faithful replica in existence today. Believe me, you have nothing to apologize for.

No, Rich, you have been more then gracious with your compliments and encouragement.   I am full of emotion at your accolades.   
 

I just was venting out some observations.  
 

I have not included you in any of my rantings.  I know your passion is as fervent as my own. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Did a half hours work by adding the aft hatch.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

I've been debating whether I should point this out to you. In light of Ron's most recent critique, I figure I might as well go ahead and let you know my most recent observation. Unfortunately it's noticeable and is a pretty big departure from Glory's actual appearance. While the actual vessel has Carriage House spindles that cant slightly inward, or are vertical, the ones on your beautiful house do the opposite, they cant outwards, which gives an odd appearance. 

The very familiar pic of the Ship's boy which has a really clear view of the stanchions also shows that they tilt slightly inwards. My sketch of the front facade (which still needs corrections to the outer ends) shows how the eleven stanchions were originally arranged. Note that the two outermost pairs tilt inwards just a little more than the others and they're closest together. Interestingly the spacing isn't consistently the same either. As best as I can tell the distance between the two outermost stanchions is 1.5', then the distance between the next three is 2.75, finally the space between the inner three is 2.5'. 

I realize it would be a real bear to undo these railings, because it's a really clean installation but I felt you'd at least appreciate an honest evaluation from a friend.

[rwiederrich]

Yep I noticed the moment I finished it.  How did that happen?  Well the carriage house roof slightly curved and would you know it the flat bottom stanchions followed the curve.  Did I see this yep.  I have thought about it long and hard and I will correct the front ones

on the right side(facing the the house) only.  
Why? because they are the most offensive.  Slightly leaning outward, following the roof curve.

 

I know the front row consists of 9 stanchions.  That was after her boys house and cat walk was removed.  When these items were in use I calculated 4 per side as I have demonstrated.   
 

Thanks for being bold to point this out openly,  but I was aware of it as it occurred,  but I also know that some details will be lost or even obscured by other details, such as rigging, masts and yards. 
 

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Just now, rwiederrich said:

Yep I noticed the moment I finished it.  How did that happen?  Well the carriage house roof slightly curved and would you know it the flat bottom stanchions followed the curve.  Did I see this yep.  I have thought about it long and hard and I will correct the front ones

on the right side(facing the the house) only.  
Why? because they are the most offensive.  Slightly leaning outward, following the roof curve.

 

I know the front row consists of 9 stanchions.  That was after her boys house and cat walk was removed.  When these items were in use I calculated 4 per side as I have demonstrated.   
 

Thanks for being bold to point this out openly,  but I was aware of it as it occurred,  but I also know that some details will be lost or even obscured by other details, such as rigging, masts and yards. 
 

 

Rob

Rob,

With an eye towards featuring your model and Vladimir's as to how precise we have been in recreating "GLORY of the SEAS" it now puts extra scrutiny on being faithful to the genuine vessel as much as reasonably possible. I hope this doesn't dampen your enthusiasm. I'm sure we can work around certain issues by not submitting photos of certain areas, if necessary. 

I also do hope you know how squeamish it makes me feel to identify issues on what is otherwise a magnificently beautiful vessel.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

With an eye towards featuring your model and Vladimir's as to how precise we have been in recreating "GLORY of the SEAS" it now puts extra scrutiny on being faithful to the genuine vessel as much as reasonably possible. I hope this doesn't dampen your enthusiasm. I'm sure we can work around certain issues by not submitting photos of certain areas, if necessary. 

I also do hope you know how squeamish it makes me feel to identify issues on what is otherwise a magnificently beautiful vessel.

“Issues”…….    You mean artistic accommodation 😏.  
 

I will correct the forward carriage house stanchions, since they are the obvious glaring issues. 
 

The only thing that will dampen my enthusiasm is………is……….give me a minute……

 

 

Rob

 

 

[ClipperFan]

8 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

“Issues”…….    You mean artistic accommodation 😏.  
 

I will correct the forward carriage house stanchions, since they are the obvious glaring issues. 
 

The only thing that will dampen my enthusiasm is………is……….give me a minute……

 

 

Rob

 

 

Rob,

when you do, it would be great if you could re-space the two outermost closer together, which gives an even more unique character to this lovely feature. I feel like the more slavishly we adhere to the actual vessel, the greater appreciation for Donald McKay's creativity there will ultimately be. Incidentally, by just removing the central post leaves a 5 foot wide corridor for your walkway, when you accomodate the rails on both sides it'll be 4 foot wide. The remaining posts would be 2.75 feet apart and you would end up with 10 all together, 5 on each side of the gap. By the way, as I'm sure Vladimir will confirm, we share your enthusiasm for this ongoing wonderful project.

[rwiederrich]

Spent a little time working on the boy house.

[rwiederrich]

Started the aft skid. 
 

It has to be just lower then the catwalk, but tall enough to be even with the forward skid on the boy house.  
 

Rob

Edited October 13, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

Beautiful work, as usual. You are indeed a veritable machine, with very predictably consistent results. I'm actually surprised at the rather large size of the Boy's House. From its appearance, my guess is that this was most likely 18 foot square. 

As far as deck structures are concerned, the improvised walkway between the Rear Carriage and Boy's House with its attendant spindles is probably the most intricate and fascinating. It's a tribute to the inventive cleverness of the Ship's Captain, her Carpenter and Crew. This will be fun to watch develop under your highly skilled hands.

[Dowmer]

Rob, any chance we can get you to explain a “How to” on the windows?  For the small scale they are wonderfully executed, sharp and clean. Especially how do you make/install the muntin dividers and frames?