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

[Bruma]

Rob, you are doing a wonderful job! I like your furled sails, very well done! 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

On 5/7/2022 at 4:17 AM, 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.

 

Im here im here Rich. I will try to dig that picture working on it. Michaels depiction of ship is fascinating indeed with predictable result as we arleady predicted that it would be from that photo. i saw it immediately once seen that photograph that that one  is source...  especialy for bow it was obvious.  with many distortions of quite massive proportion on both sides of extremities. bow and stern ....had vessel been photographed with modern technique it would be another story . - and im still not so sure. i cant imagine a dockyard where you can zoom out by legs with 50 + lens back 100 meters to get all shio in frame - maybe only with expensive wide angle corrected shift lenses for architecture puprose that buildings are photographed. still not sure of outcome  

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, Bruma said:

Rob, you are doing a wonderful job! I like your furled sails, very well done! 

Thanks Bruma.   I wanted something different then full set sails and the typical loosely furled sails.  I opted for the way they stored them when in port for a time.  Tight, clean and symmetrical.  Shipshape.  The impression any good captain  wanted to leave viewers of his ship in port.

 

Rob(It is my way to do something different)

[rwiederrich]

27 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Im here im here Rich. I will try to dig that picture working on it. Michaels depiction of ship is fascinating indeed with predictable result as we arleady predicted that it would be from that photo. i saw it immediately once seen that photograph that that one  is source...  especialy for bow it was obvious.  with many distortions of quite massive proportion on both sides of extremities. bow and stern ....had vessel been photographed with modern technique it would be another story . - and im still not so sure. i cant imagine a dockyard where you can zoom out by legs with 50 + lens back 100 meters to get all shio in frame - maybe only with expensive wide angle corrected shift lenses for architecture puprose that buildings are photographed. still not sure of outcome  

Not sure why this fitting out image was taken to be her sheer and bow/stern form?  So many other images show better proportions and more like what we built.

[BANYAN]

23 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

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.

Hi Clipper, not out of left field at all.  I have purchased and consulting Andrew Bowcock's excelnt "CSS Alabama - Anatomy of a Confederate Raider" which, along with some other related material, has been the source of some very useful information.  There are also some useful 'Official' ship's documents for contemporary vessels of a similar design in the NMM which have proven useful.  My problem is that analysing all this by myself has proven very time consuming and slowed down the build considerably.  The main reason/cause of the slow down being that I jumped ahead with the 'armament' only to find the initial research (sweep/race patterns) proved wrong and trying to fix them would ruin the model (deck).  So lesson learned - thoroughly research and validate before building  

 

cheers, and thanks for your interest.

 

Pat

[ClipperFan]

13 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Im here im here Rich. I will try to dig that picture working on it. Michaels depiction of ship is fascinating indeed with predictable result as we arleady predicted that it would be from that photo. i saw it immediately once seen that photograph that that one  is source...  especialy for bow it was obvious.  with many distortions of quite massive proportion on both sides of extremities. bow and stern ....had vessel been photographed with modern technique it would be another story . - and im still not so sure. i cant imagine a dockyard where you can zoom out by legs with 50 + lens back 100 meters to get all shio in frame - maybe only with expensive wide angle corrected shift lenses for architecture puprose that buildings are photographed. still not sure of outcome  

Vladimir, 

I just basically wrote the exact same conclusion to Rob. What really struck me, was when I paced a great distance to get Old Ironsides into full frame. She has a very lofty rig and incredibly long bowsprit. Without exaggeration it was about 100 feet or more before I could finally get her in full frame. Besides that, the USS Constitution is actually a smaller vessel than Glory of the Seas. That means the camera's viewpoint has to be nearly 400 feet away from the prow of that great ship. Not taking this perspective distortion into account lead precisely to the mistake which has misled Michael since 11/1/66! We have set the record straight.

[ClipperFan]

54 minutes ago, BANYAN said:

Hi Clipper, not out of left field at all.  I have purchased and consulting Andrew Bowcock's excelnt "CSS Alabama - Anatomy of a Confederate Raider" which, along with some other related material, has been the source of some very useful information.  There are also some useful 'Official' ship's documents for contemporary vessels of a similar design in the NMM which have proven useful.  My problem is that analysing all this by myself has proven very time consuming and slowed down the build considerably.  The main reason/cause of the slow down being that I jumped ahead with the 'armament' only to find the initial research (sweep/race patterns) proved wrong and trying to fix them would ruin the model (deck).  So lesson learned - thoroughly research and validate before building  

 

cheers, and thanks for your interest.

 

Pat

Pat,

Rob knows about that. His current build was begun after he abandoned a previous one which was based mainly on the 1997 ship's lines published in Clipper Ship Captain. It was then that I interceded and made a strenuous case for a further review of newly revealed info. I guess it proves the old carpenter's adage "Measure twice, cut once!"

[rwiederrich]

Started rigging the top shrouds 

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Finished with the shrouds…..now onto the rat lines.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

On 5/9/2022 at 9:09 AM, rwiederrich said:

Not sure why this fitting out image was taken to be her sheer and bow/stern form?  So many other images show better proportions and more like what we built.

Rob, there's a term I've been missing to describe the phenomenon associated with perspective distortion: "Compression." Artists employ this deliberately in order to create a three dimensional effect in a two dimensional painting. I'm amazed because in his latest email, Mike is referring to another marine architect with some fifty years experience who's repeating the exact same mistake Mike did back in the 70s, '92 and '97. 

I'm going to conduct a brief course in "foreshortening" to shed some light on this deceptive topic.

"Foreshortening refers to the technique of depicting an object or human body in a picture so as to produce an illusion of projection or extension in space. The artist records, in varying degrees, the distortion that is seen by the eye when an object or figure is viewed at a distance or at an unusual angle - for example a body viewed from either the feet or the top of the head." (italics added for emphasis). Tate website: Art Term Foreshortening.

"Foreshortening, method of rendering a specific object or figure in a picture in depth. The artist records, in varying degrees, the distortion that is seen by the eye when an object or figure is viewed at a distance or at an unusual angle." foreshortening l art - Encyclopedia Britannica (bold is actual article but again italics added for emphasis)

"Foreshortening,

A Guide on Foreshortened Drawings and Paintings

 

Foreshortening Effects

 

. Objects in the distance will appear more compressed and shorter than they are in reality

. Objects that are closer to the viewer will overlap those behind

. As objects recede into the background they will shrink in size"

 

Taken verbatim from: Artincontext.org website (once more italics added for emphasis)

Wish me luck, I'm about to attempt to educate lifelong Marine Architects on an effect that they may never have considered before. One thing for sure, nevermind her apparent verticle bow rake. Instead look at the severely shortened naval hood and cutwater which both look about half the length they should be. There the compression is clearly obvious. It's impossible that one object is affected and not another.

 

 

 

 

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, there's a term I've been missing to describe the phenomenon associated with perspective distortion: "Compression." Artists employ this deliberately in order to create a three dimensional effect in a two dimensional painting. I'm amazed because in his latest email, Mike is referring to another marine architect with some fifty years experience who's repeating the exact same mistake Mike did back in the 70s, '92 and '97. 

I'm going to conduct a brief course in "foreshortening" to shed some light on this deceptive topic.

"Foreshortening refers to the technique of depicting an object or human body in a picture so as to produce an illusion of projection or extension in space. The artist records, in varying degrees, the distortion that is seen by the eye when an object or figure is viewed at a distance or at an unusual angle - for example a body viewed from either the feet or the top of the head." (italics added for emphasis). Tate website: Art Term Foreshortening.

"Foreshortening, method of rendering a specific object or figure in a picture in depth. The artist records, in varying degrees, the distortion that is seen by the eye when an object or figure is viewed at a distance or at an unusual angle." foreshortening l art - Encyclopedia Britannica (bold is actual article but again italics added for emphasis)

"Foreshortening,

A Guide on Foreshortened Drawings and Paintings

 

Foreshortening Effects

 

. Objects in the distance will appear more compressed and shorter than they are in reality

. Objects that are closer to the viewer will overlap those behind

. As objects recede into the background they will shrink in size"

 

Taken verbatim from: Artincontext.org website (once more italics added for emphasis)

Wish me luck, I'm about to attempt to educate lifelong Marine Architects on an effect that they may never have considered before. One thing for sure, nevermind her apparent verticle bow rake. Instead look at the severely shortened naval hood and cutwater which both look about half the length they should be. There the compression is clearly obvious. It's impossible that one object is affected and not another.

 

 

 

 

Rich the Gentleman's name is Russ and he lives on Bainbridge Island.  Good luck..... I've already emailed him....introduced myself and proceeded to explain the situation we are facing.  Your definition mimics that of my own... called, *Forced perspective*.  In essence I attempted to explain to him this phenomenon, and how we are compensating.  He agreed(when talking to Mike) that 7 or possibly more degrees should be fine...and even said that McKay used language like *I just want it that way*.  So there is no real architectural reason it could not be the degree/angle we agreed upon...from our mathematically derived reasons.  He nicely explained to Mike the very process I used to come up with my numbers.  Now it's your turn to bring your side of the *science* to the table.   Your skills of description will be employed fully...and we are very excited you're on it....

 

Rob

Edited May 11, 2022 by rwiederrich

[druxey]

I see much discussion on distance and point of view being considered, but very little on lens distortion. Camera lenses, especially earlier ones, could produce spherical distortion - and not necessarily uniformly. You need to take this into consideration as well.  The angle that the camera is pointing also introduces distortion. An example of  an uncorrected and corrected image from 1912 is shown here. Those pedestals are vertical - but you can see the degree of distortion produced simply by tipping the camera'a axis from horizontal. The stem is actually at 45 degrees and the stern post 5 degrees, not 10 as in the uncorrected version.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2022 by druxey

[rwiederrich]

19 minutes ago, druxey said:

I see much discussion on distance and point of view being considered, but very little on lens distortion. Camera lenses, especially earlier ones, could produce spherical distortion - and not necessarily uniformly. You need to take this into consideration as well.  The angle that the camera is pointing also introduces distortion. An example of  an uncorrected and corrected image from 1912 is shown here. Those pedestals are vertical - but you can see the degree of distortion produced simply by tipping the camera'a axis from horizontal. The stem is actually at 45 degrees and the stern post 5 degrees, not 10 as in the uncorrected version.

 

 

Druxey....Your point is well made.  Being somewhat of an optician...I've built many large telescope mirrors and worked on objectives.  Optical aberrations are notorious for creating all manner of image *shifts*.

Such as Chromatic aberrations(Glass index issues).....Coma....astigmatic...spherical....to name a few.  And lens objectives of cameras of the period are not devoid of such aberrations.  And in fact are more apt to induce them...causing the illusions we are confronting.  Hence the caution we are taking when compiling all the known factors that can contribute too and can greatly interfere with, the date we are trying to factualize.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

8 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich the Gentleman's name is Russ and he lives on Bainbridge Island.  Good luck..... I've already emailed him....introduced myself and proceeded to explain the situation we are facing.  Your definition mimics that of my own... called, *Forced perspective*.  In essence I attempted to explain to him this phenomenon, and how we are compensating.  He agreed(when talking to Mike) that 7 or possibly more degrees should be fine...and even said that McKay used language like *I just want it that way*.  So there is no real architectural reason it could not be the degree/angle we agreed upon...from our mathematically derived reasons.  He nicely explained to Mike the very process I used to come up with my numbers.  Now it's your turn to bring your side of the *science* to the table.   Your skills of description will be employed fully...and we are very excited you're on it....

 

Rob

Rob,

Your right. "Forced perspective" is another term for this tricky phenomena. I guess unless you've walked for a couple hours around some of these magnificent Tall Ships you just can't appreciate how dramatically their appearance changes. I've done this way back in the Summer of 2001 when the Parade of Tall Ships came to New London and they were all docked where you could see them up close. My ever patient wife then put up with my craziness as we raced up the East Coast to catch that same impressive group of ships as they entered Boston Harbor just passing Castle Island. It was a hot, bright cloudless day and my wife has very fair skin which burns easily. She tolerated it long enough for me to get some spectacular shots and then we had to leave. Over the years, I've re-experienced this forced perspective event dozens of times. Countless times I've viewed the Whaler Charles W. Morgan, the much smaller Sail Training Ship Joseph B. Conrad, even the Gloucester Schooner L.A. Dutton. When the replica Schooner Amistad was under construction at the Mystic yard, I saw her up on the stocks. Later I saw her on the water. My first boarding of the Whaler was as far back as 1968 with the Boy Scouts in a driving rain during a Fall 'Noreaster. She was still a Full Rigged Ship, with painted gun ports, all 4 transom windows and fancy carved stern. Besides these Mystic Seaport vessels, I've walked around the USCG Eagle.In fact it's become so routine to me that it never occurred to me that others may not have had this experience like I have had.

Meanwhile another scientifically valid approach I used, was to compare relative swiftness of a great many of Donald McKay's Packet & Clipper Ships. By determining the ratios of each vessels keel, to length between perpendiculars as well as keel to overall length. What I discovered proved very illuminating. Besides Flying Cloud which had the sharpest ratio and she was classified as an Extreme Clipper, Glory of the Seas had an even faster ratio than both Extreme Clippers Stag Hound and Flying Fish! Results were all posted on your blog. I will find them and give the entire list to Mike and Russ. I'm very confident in the conclusions we as a group have arrived at.

Edited May 12, 2022 by ClipperFan
Grammar correction

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich the Gentleman's name is Russ and he lives on Bainbridge Island.  Good luck..... I've already emailed him....introduced myself and proceeded to explain the situation we are facing.  Your definition mimics that of my own... called, *Forced perspective*.  In essence I attempted to explain to him this phenomenon, and how we are compensating.  He agreed(when talking to Mike) that 7 or possibly more degrees should be fine...and even said that McKay used language like *I just want it that way*.  So there is no real architectural reason it could not be the degree/angle we agreed upon...from our mathematically derived reasons.  He nicely explained to Mike the very process I used to come up with my numbers.  Now it's your turn to bring your side of the *science* to the table.   Your skills of description will be employed fully...and we are very excited you're on it....

 

Rob

Rob,

Your right. "Forced perspective" is another term for this tricky phenomena. I guess unless you've walked for a couple hours around one of these magnificent Tall Ships you just can't appreciate how dramatically their appearance changes. I've done this way back in the Summer of 2001 when the Parade of Tall Ships came to New London and they were all docked where you could see them up close. My ever patient wife then put up with my craziness as we raced up the East Coast to catch that same impressive group of ships as the entered Boston Harbor just passing Castle Island. It was hot, bright cloudless day and my wife has very fair skin which burns easily. So tolerated it long enough for me to get some spectacular shots and then we had to leave. Over the years, I've re-experienced this forced perspective event dozens of times. Countless times I've viewed the Whaler Charles W. Morgan, the much smaller Sail Training Ship Joseph B. Conrad, even the Gloucester Schooner L.A. Sutton. When the replica Schooner Amistad was under construction at the Mystic yard, I saw her up on the stocks. Later I saw her on the water. My first boarding of the Whaler was as far back as 1968 with the Boy Scouts in a driving rain during a Fall 'Noreaster. She was still a Full Rigged Ship, with painted gun ports, all 4 transom windows and fancy carved stern. Besides these Mystic Seaport vessels, I've walked around the USCG Eagle.In fact it's become so routine to me that it never occurred that others may not have had this experience like  I have had.

Meanwhile another scientifically valid approach I used was to compare relative swiftness of a great many of Donald McKay's Packet & Clipper Ships. By generation ratios of each vessels keel to length between perpendiculars as well as keel to overall length. What I discovered proved very illuminating. Besides Flying Cloud which had the sharpest ratio and she was classified as an Extreme Clipper, Glory of the Seas had an even faster ratio than both Extreme Clippers Stag Hound and Flying Fish! Results were all posted on your blog. I will find them and give the entire list to Mike and Russ. I'm very confident in the conclusions we as a group have arrived at.

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, druxey said:

I see much discussion on distance and point of view being considered, but very little on lens distortion. Camera lenses, especially earlier ones, could produce spherical distortion - and not necessarily uniformly. You need to take this into consideration as well.  The angle that the camera is pointing also introduces distortion. An example of  an uncorrected and corrected image from 1912 is shown here. Those pedestals are vertical - but you can see the degree of distortion produced simply by tipping the camera'a axis from horizontal. The stem is actually at 45 degrees and the stern post 5 degrees, not 10 as in the uncorrected version.

 

 

Druxey, that's fascinating and very illustrative. It also appears in the upper distorted picture, the vessel's keel also appears to be just slightly concave. I would appreciate any insight you can share on whatever camera lens distortion you can see in the two 1869 Glory of the Seas images that we've been discussing as of late. One is of her on the ways; the other is her fitting out in Boston Harbor. They may have distortions but my untrained eye can't see them. 

[rwiederrich]

Finishing up the ratlines. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

And the addition of the yards……minus the main yard.  
 

Rob

[BANYAN]

Boy, you're not sitting around on this - progress is impressive Rob.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[rwiederrich]

Now begins all the tedious rigging of the sails. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Temp set mast in place to check.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

Seeing the towering mainmast in comparison to the mizzen is just so impressive. I continually imagine how incredible it must have been to see such lofty spars in person. The realistic work you continuously produce allows my imagination to see this all so easily. The wonder continues.

[rwiederrich]

9 hours ago, BANYAN said:

Boy, you're not sitting around on this - progress is impressive Rob.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Well Pat....I knew that once every yard was completed off mast...when I finally began to assemble them..it would appear as if I was *Speed Racer*.  I compartmentalize, many aspects of the build to facilitate the perception that each SMALL project  being completed delivered a satisfying *completion*.  Small conquests keeps you from feeling overwhelmed with the entirety of the task.

Now look.....my next small task is to rig the yards and sails.  One small task closer to being ready to step the mast in the hull permanently.    And then all that is left is to begin again on the foremast.  I hope to have her completed before summers end.  Or at least before the snows of winter.....

 

Thanks for the welcome compliments.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

8 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

Seeing the towering mainmast in comparison to the mizzen is just so impressive. I continually imagine how incredible it must have been to see such lofty spars in person. The realistic work you continuously produce allows my imagination to see this all so easily. The wonder continues.

Rich....I too am excited to see her coming together.  What is really exciting, it that she looks so much like her image...I'm trying to mimic.  A couple of items I left undone on the hull...were the fairlead ports for the main sail tack lines. (There are 2 sets per sail clue)  They are not clearly identified on any image, and by way of paintings and some image indications, I wanted to wait to visualize their location based upon the location of the yards.  When I get ready to rig those lines, I will drill out the fairleads in the bulwarks, and run the lines and belay them.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob, looking at your mainmast shroud rigging, it occured to me that the uppermost yardarms on each mast have no ratlines upon which to climb. That's where the "Jacob's Ladder" comes into play. It's literally a single man ratline, very much like a rope ladder which ascends to the final highest sails. All I can think of is that man, it must have required balls of steel to clamber up those ropes in a windblown, roaring sea during an icy driving rain with the deck pitching  some 100 feet below. 

It's your continuous meticulous build of this magnificent Clipper that fires my imagination. She must be quite impressive to see in person!

[rwiederrich]

4 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, looking at your mainmast shroud rigging, it occured to me that the uppermost yardarms on each mast have no ratlines upon which to climb. That's where the "Jacob's Ladder" comes into play. It's literally a single man ratline, very much like a rope ladder which ascends to the final highest sails. All I can think of is that man, it must have required balls of steel to clamber up those ropes in a windblown, roaring sea during an icy driving rain with the deck pitching  some 100 feet below. 

It's your continuous meticulous build of this magnificent Clipper that fires my imagination. She must be quite impressive to see in person!

If you want to know the truth.  The boys on the ship did most of the royal and sky sail furling and yard work.  Their smaller size made it more practical.  THEY had the nerves of steal in my view.   Oh and they did it also in darkness…….with little to keep them warm.    What men

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

If you want to know the truth.  The boys on the ship did most of the royal and sky sail furling and yard work.  Their smaller size made it more practical.  THEY had the nerves of steal in my view.   Oh and they did it also in darkness…….with little to keep them warm.    What men

Rob,

That gives me much more respect for the ship's boys. Another going for men at such a young age is the inherent fearlessness that seems to come with youth. 

[rwiederrich]

Started the upper top mast down hauls. 
 

And the beginnings of the chain sheets. 
 

Rob

[TBlack]

Wow! look at all those hemostats!

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, TBlack said:

Wow! look at all those hemostats!

I have one or 2 for every imaginable need and requirement.  Even some that are 18" long....curved ones and some with such tiny jaws I can clasp and tie human hair.

 

Rob