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

[rwiederrich]

Finished painting the upper topsail yard….now she’s ready for blocks and her sail.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

On 5/3/2022 at 10:35 PM, rwiederrich said:

Finished adding the sail to the main yard….now to let it dry before I clean it up and then add bunt blocks and gaskets. And weathering.  
 

Rob

Rob, it occurs to me that since you've been model making so long, you're utilizing improvised construction jigs without even realizing you're doing it. Case in point, converting the front end of a drawer as an improvised construction source. Sheer brilliance.

[rwiederrich]

4 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, it occurs to me that since you've been model making so long, you're utilizing improvised construction jigs without even realizing you're doing it. Case in point, converting the front end of a drawer as an improvised construction source. Sheer brilliance.

That’s funny……I’ve never looked at it that way.  I needed a surface that I could place adjustable holes for alligator clips …….and be movable…..by being able to pull out close to me and the be able to push back away.  Great adjustability and ease.   It just happens to be the edge of the drawer.    Who woulda thunk?

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Treat to watch Rob, amazing progress indeed. when i see those lanyards, my gosh what did i walk into. Im certainly off the work this summer  , but for a change I will surely be furling all that silkspans or whatever in my scale. that will be again another kind fo breed  . enjoying your build meanwhile. shes beauty with flag on. 

[rwiederrich]

11 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Treat to watch Rob, amazing progress indeed. when i see those lanyards, my gosh what did i walk into. Im certainly off the work this summer  , but for a change I will surely be furling all that silkspans or whatever in my scale. that will be again another kind fo breed  . enjoying your build meanwhile. shes beauty with flag on. 

Glad …… it is such a thrill to hear you are still progressing with your build.   I appreciate your encouragement.   
Im loving the build coming along……she is so beautiful.   
 

Has Rich been in touch with you concerning his article?  How exciting.   Glad you are following.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob, Vladimir,

I misread Mike's email today. He asked for two 1:96th scale drawings by the end of next week. Somehow I read it as the weekend. I committed to get it done by this weekend. Vlad, if you didn't see my message, I'm looking for your original print pictured on page 1, lower right side. I need to sketch it at 1:96th scale.

Meanwhile, Rob thanks for sending the print you made with the compass arcs and inclination degrees. Not to sound dense but I'm still trying to reconcile two conflicting conclusions for the same angle of inclination for Glory's lower waterline hull profile. At one point you said it was 7 degrees. Then that was revised to 8.5 degrees. Your latest illustration appears to revert back to 7 degrees again. Please give me one specific number so I can work on Mike's drawing tomorrow. Thanks.

Oh, by the way Vlad, I added a passage to the article with a description of the naval hood and cutwater carvings. Both of your digital illustrations and my sketch opposite them are included. Thanks for reminding me of those crucial elements. It ties together the entire prow description very neatly now.

Guys, I made a suggestion to Mike to add his original 1970 sketch to the 1992 one, my 2021 hull sketch and Ron Haug's plan that Mike's now working on correcting. It would show an evolving comprehension of the true appearance of Glory of the Seas based upon additional information that's been developed. No matter what, it will be ready and submitted to meet this July 1st deadline.

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, Vladimir,

I misread Mike's email today. He asked for two 1:96th scale drawings by the end of next week. Somehow I read it as the weekend. I committed to get it done by this weekend. Vlad, if you didn't see my message, I'm looking for your original print pictured on page 1, lower right side. I need to sketch it at 1:96th scale.

Meanwhile, Rob thanks for sending the print you made with the compass arcs and inclination degrees. Not to sound dense but I'm still trying to reconcile two conflicting conclusions for the same angle of inclination for Glory's lower waterline hull profile. At one point you said it was 7 degrees. Then that was revised to 8.5 degrees. Your latest illustration appears to revert back to 7 degrees again. Please give me one specific number so I can work on Mike's drawing tomorrow. Thanks.

Oh, by the way Vlad, I added a passage to the article with a description of the naval hood and cutwater carvings. Both of your digital illustrations and my sketch opposite them are included. Thanks for reminding me of those crucial elements. It ties together the entire prow description very neatly now.

Guys, I made a suggestion to Mike to add his original 1970 sketch to the 1992 one, my 2021 hull sketch and Ron Haug's plan that Mike's now working on correcting. It would show an evolving comprehension of the true appearance of Glory of the Seas based upon additional information that's been developed. No matter what, it will be ready and submitted to meet this July 1st deadline.

 

Rich……I stand by my confusing claim.   Everything points to 7deg. During the build of my Glory(after we had our long conversation about optical distortion), I believe I slightly modified my builds bow by 1.3 degrees to compensate for any optical distortions that may have been incorporated by the image.   (I’m not sure actually). This was provoked by the angle represented in her in the photograph of her at San Pedro.  And your insistence her bow was sharper then previously determined. My calculations is roughly between 7 and 8.3. The hard #’s show 7degrees if all else is correct.
 

Rob

Edited May 7, 2022 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich……I stand by my confusing claim.   Everything points to 7deg. During the build of my Glory(after we had our long conversation about optical distortion), I believe I slightly modified my builds bow by 1.3 degrees to compensate for any optical distortions that may have been incorporated by the image.   (I’m not sure actually). This was provoked by the angle represented in her in the photograph of her at San Pedro.  And your insistence her bow was sharper then previously determined. My calculations is roughly between 7 and 8.3. The hard #’s show 7degrees if all else is correct.
 

Rob

Rob, thanks for your clarification. I agree that determining this portion of Glory of the Seas is quite challenging. I think the real proof of the accuracy of our research is the results derived from it. Both of your incredibly accurate models compare very well with the actual vessel herself. I also concur that perceived perspective distortion has been a nagging concern that has bedeviled our research all along. It all boils down to this intriguing question: how do you accurately recreate dimensions of a flat yet three dimensional photo back to two dimensional plans to recreate that same image back into three dimensions?

I'm going to follow my instincts, using previous McKay vessels as my guide to come up with the most balanced design possible. Look at the Donald McKay's bow for instance. Her lines were taken off by the British when she was in dry dock, so there's no doubt in accuracy. There's a lovely coherence to the transition of her cutwater to her form below the waterline. In addition, my late discovery of the insulation ad also supports my suspicion of the beautiful form of McKay's final Clipper.

My sense is, I'll probably end up very close to what you've chosen. I must admit that even my large sketch from last year still appears to have a bit of a jarring severely verticle angle of incidence below the waterline too. 

Edited May 7, 2022 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, thanks for your clarification. I agree that determining this portion of Glory of the Seas is quite challenging. I think the real proof of the accuracy of our research is the results derived from it. Both of your incredibly accurate models compare very well with the actual vessel herself. I also concur that perceived perspective distortion has been a nagging concern that has bedeviled our research all along. It all boils down to this intriguing question: how do you accurately recreate dimensions of a flat yet three dimensional photo back to two dimensional plans to recreate that same image back into three dimensions?

I'm going to follow my instincts, using previous McKay vessels as my guide to come up with the most balanced design possible. Look at the Donald McKay's bow for instance. Her lines were taken off by the British when she was in dry dock, so there's no doubt in accuracy. There's a lovely coherence to the transition of her cutwater to her form below the waterline. In addition, my late discovery of the insulation ad also supports my suspicion of the beautiful form of McKay's final Clipper.

My sense is, I'll probably end up very close to what you've chosen. I must admit that even my large sketch from last year still appears to have a bit of a jarring severely verticle angle of incidence below the waterline too. 

Rich.    I’m becoming more convinced that Donald McKay built Glory on his own accord to attempt to turn round his financial situation, thusly not following a normal pattern of his to redesign a new clipper , but to build using designs he previously had designed. Drawing from his more successful designs we can see clearly the true similarities.  The Donald McKay, Flying Fish….etc.    I chose to add the 1.3 degrees to more closely mimic what photographs suggested……knowing fully that such deviation would and could not be refuted based upon known drawings.  Which there are none.  It was an educated attempt to harmonize what data I acquired to that of what photographs suggested.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

I finished up the upper topsail yard and sail……now onto the top gallant. 

[ClipperFan]

Rob, Vlad 

Wow! I just received a new pdf attachment from Mike along with detailed explanations, background to how the 1970 sail plan & later 1992 revision sheer & profile plans were developed. Mike told me that in 1966 for $3.00 (about 10 gals of gas today) he secured a lines plan from Mariners Museum, Newport News, VA. Apparently that plan must have been somewhat vague as it's what he used to create his general arrangement for the 1970 book. While the deck arrangement is excellent the profile is off.

Mike confirmed to Rob in their Jan get together last year, he made use primarily of the 1869 Glory of the Seas fitting out scene. Since a pdf file can't be shared, I took a pic with my cell phone after making a print. Significantly, there's no indication that Mike was even aware of perspective distortion. That also means the waterline profile was entirely conjectural too based upon the same erroneous information. Take a look. 

[druxey]

Oh, dear. Both perspective and lens distortion!

[rwiederrich]

Due to the photographers location….the fitting out image appears to exaggerate the aft sheer.   This error is translated to the line drawing as well. Closer aspects take on enlarged distortions.  So reverse engineering needs to utilize other images to correct for these optical errors/illusions.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Sails on the top gallant yard.  Addition of gaskets and bunt blocks will follow after things dry. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Weathering will finish it off.  
 

I’ll finish up the royal and sky yards tomorrow.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Due to the photographers location….the fitting out image appears to exaggerate the aft sheer.   This error is translated to the line drawing as well. Closer aspects take on enlarged distortions.  So reverse engineering needs to utilize other images to correct for these optical errors/illusions.  
 

Rob

Rob, my thoughts exactly. I just emailed those precise conclusions to Mike. He's going to revise Ron Haug's 2021 lines impression based upon our latest findings. I enumerated all the many differences we discovered in order to help him comprehend how off Ron's latest effort was to our own modeling results. This should get really interesting now.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, my thoughts exactly. I just emailed those precise conclusions to Mike. He's going to revise Ron Haug's 2021 lines impression based upon our latest findings. I enumerated all the many differences we discovered in order to help him comprehend how off Ron's latest effort was to our own modeling results. This should get really interesting now.

Indeed…….I hope we don’t poke the bear too hard.  I’m glad you are handling the dialogue with Mike concerning all of our findings.  Keep me informed, and as usual, if You need anything, just ask.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

6 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Indeed…….I hope we don’t poke the bear too hard.  I’m glad you are handling the dialogue with Mike concerning all of our findings.  Keep me informed, and as usual, if You need anything, just ask.  
 

Rob

Rob,

It's not Mike I'm concerned about. He sees this as an evolving greater comprehension of the authentic appearance of Glory of the Seas over 60 years of evolving understanding based on new subject matters previously unavailable. In a way, I'm gradually explaining to him that, in good measure, at least from what I can see, Ron Haug's been refining her hull based in large part on the same mistakes. Getting Ron to recognize that previous efforts have all continued to incorporate the same "perceived perspective distortion" is the more interesting challenge. From previous correspondence Ron has considered McKay's final Clipper Ship more of a throwback to his old bluff bowed Packet Ships of the 1840s. I have been explaining to pretty much everybody, based upon all the new evidence we have uncovered with Mike's generous input, that Glory was far more like an evolutionary predictor of the great Maine Downeasters of the 1880s.

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

It's not Mike I'm concerned about. He sees this as an evolving greater comprehension of the authentic appearance of Glory of the Seas over 60 years of evolving understanding based on new subject matters previously unavailable. In a way, I'm gradually explaining to him that, in good measure, at least from what I can see, Ron Haug's been refining her hull based in large part on the same mistakes. Getting Ron to recognize that previous efforts have all continued to incorporate the same "perceived perspective distortion" is the more interesting challenge. From previous correspondence Ron has considered McKay's final Clipper Ship more of a throwback to his old bluff bowed Packet Ships of the 1840s. I have been explaining to pretty much everybody, based upon all the new evidence we have uncovered with Mike's generous input, that Glory was far more like an evolutionary predictor of the great Maine Downeasters of the 1880s.

I fully agree

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

A final note.  If Mike wants to show the evolution of Glory’s hull and that by way of revelation with new imagery……. Ron’s drawing can only be part of that revelation process……NOT  its final outcome as we have demonstrated through our own research and models. 
 

Rob

Edited May 8, 2022 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

A final note.  If Mike wants to show the evolution of Glory’s hull and that by way of revelation with new imagery……. Ron’s drawing can only be part of that revelation process……NOT  its final outcome as we have demonstrated through our own research and models. 
 

Rob

Rob, I'm revising my large 1:96th scale (1" = 8') pencil illustration of the entire Glory of the Seas hull to correct some minor discrepancies (rear quarter davit placements for instance). At the same time it will be sufficiently darkened to better show up on print. Mike likes the idea of demonstrating evolving understanding of Glory's true appearance over the years. There will now be Appendix I: Mike's original 1970s deck and profile arrangements, the 1997 sheer and profile plan and Appendix II: Ron Haug's/Michael Mjelde's revised plan and Richard Jones's hull profile based on all info developed with significant help from Michael Mjelde.

As far as credit goes, rest assured, since Mike is now asking for my assistance and in effect taking our lead, I have no doubt full credit will go to all parties involved, including your very careful calculations Rob, which have been instrumental in arriving at the point we're at today. My best guess is that you and I Rob, have been pursuing the same goal to properly reveal McKay's final Clipper for the past 12 to 15 years. Meanwhile Mike's  been at it for over 60 years....

[rwiederrich]

Spent some time finishing up the main mast yards.  Here are the completed royal and the top gallant.   I’m in the throes of finishing the sky sail and yard.  
 

Once these yards are complete I will go back to the mast and begin finishing the top shrouds and the topgallant ones too.  
 

Thanks Rich for your continual work with Mike and the logistics of the article process. 
 

Rob

[BANYAN]

Rob, some of those shots really show the very fine job you are doing with this model, very nice work indeed.  I also very much enjoy reading the background discussion all of you are having in resolving the best possible outcome for her true lines and equipment placement.  I just wish I had someone else with similar deep knowledge of the Victoria to bounce my ideas off  

 

cheers

 

Pat

[rwiederrich]

12 minutes ago, BANYAN said:

Rob, some of those shots really show the very fine job you are doing with this model, very nice work indeed.  I also very much enjoy reading the background discussion all of you are having in resolving the best possible outcome for her true lines and equipment placement.  I just wish I had someone else with similar deep knowledge of the Victoria to bounce my ideas off  

 

cheers

 

Pat

Pat …… I completely agree.  Is would be so nice to have a second set of eyes and a homework buddy.  
 

Thanks for the fine compliment 

 

Here is the sky sail and yard getting ready for bunt blocks and some gaskets and a final weathering. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

There we go…….all the yards are finished…… now onto the shrouds to finish them up before I mount the yards on the mast. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Making the lanyard gig to keep everything even Steven.     
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

What a construction sight. 
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, BANYAN said:

Rob, some of those shots really show the very fine job you are doing with this model, very nice work indeed.  I also very much enjoy reading the background discussion all of you are having in resolving the best possible outcome for her true lines and equipment placement.  I just wish I had someone else with similar deep knowledge of the Victoria to bounce my ideas off  

 

cheers

 

Pat

Pat, this may be coming out of left field somewhat but have you thought of looking at the English built Confederate Raider CSS Alabama? The reason I bring it up is because it was constructed 6 years later in Birkenhead. Due to the notorious nature and US Civil War significance of this vessel, there should be much more specific details on her, which might help you in your research. Just a thought.

[druxey]

Great progress,Rob. Construction sight or site?

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, druxey said:

Great progress,Rob. Construction sight or site?

Depends if your lookin or workin……..I’m doin both.  
 

Rob