Flying Fish by Rick310 - Model Shipways - 1/96

[ClipperFan]

32 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Buttersworth  got her bow all wrong.   How is that even possible?

 

Rob

Rob,

It's my belief that even artists couldn't quite figure out how to capture the unique McKay bow. I was commenting on the fact that this painting's bow silhouette definitely displays a more dramatic prow then just a bare stem. If, as it appears likely that Buttersworth painted this vessel while she was at anchor in San Francisco, he would of necessity had to have been quite a distance away to capture the entire vessel. I love the beautiful inspiring works of Buttersworth but recognize he often makes mistakes, especially around the bows of McKay's clippers. Take the Sovereign of the Seas for example. It's a gorgeous piece of work. But his merman has a tail that goes impossibly across the bow. 

[Rick310]

Thanks you ClipperFan for your kind words and encouragement!  
I too am at a loss about Buttersworth’s work.  While I believe his paintings are incredible, there are features in his paintings that make me question the accuracy, such as a furled sail on the forestay on the FF painting, and his painting of the Westward Ho, he depicts both Spencer sails and staysails set at the same time.  Maybe this is correct?

As far as the bow of the Flying Fish, I also wasn’t sure how to model it and ended up trying to come up with something that was close to the painting.

Rick

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, Rick310 said:

Thanks you ClipperFan for your kind words and encouragement!  
I too am at a loss about Buttersworth’s work.  While I believe his paintings are incredible, there are features in his paintings that make me question the accuracy, such as a furled sail on the forestay on the FF painting, and his painting of the Westward Ho, he depicts both Spencer sails and staysails set at the same time.  Maybe this is correct?

As far as the bow of the Flying Fish, I also wasn’t sure how to model it and ended up trying to come up with something that was close to the painting.

Rick

@Rick310 

About the only contemporary artist I've seen who has accurately captured McKay's fascinating clippers has been the British artist Samuel Walters. His Glory of the Seas clearly depicts her gilded, carved navel hood, cutwater and figurehead accurately. I still get great inspiration from Buttersworth's gorgeous works but don't rely on them for modeling accuracy.

FYI: in our research of McKay's initial clipper Stag Hound and her solid focstle bulkhead, I came across yet another misinterpretation of Duncan MacLean's words. Flying Fish the vessel you're constructing has about the most complete description of her low mounted focstle deck. Her main rail was a mere 4 & 1/2 feet with a 16" monkey rail above it, for combined bulwark height of 5 feet 10 inches. Here's where I believe current  plans have gotten it wrong. In his particular listing of ship's accomodations, McLean often refers to apartments from aft to foreword. His description of the water closets (heads) says that they're before her companions, not aft. Knowing how McLean describes deck furniture from aft to fore, this says that the water closets were not on the main deck but below in the accomodations for use of one watch. Down there too would be the windlass because leaving it on deck is effectively a crawl space when you take into account deck beams. That means the front focstle bulkhead wouldn't have been open but a complete wall possibly with windows to allow light into the interior 7 & 1/2 feet below. This is how Rob and I are looking at the focstle bulkhead for Stag Hound.

I am not suggesting you do anything to your current build. I'm just sharing this latest development to raise awareness.

 

[rwiederrich]

Rick, I was reviewing your log *again*, Well, first of all, I want to say you have done a superb job for sure...your build is so clean and neat...not to mention well built.  You're like myself in that you tend to scratch build many components yourself..🙂...Oh wait....I scratch build everything.......😄

Anyway.  have you researched the single topsail Jin block haulyard...yourself, or are you simply following the kit plan?  I ask....because the Staghound also had a single topsail yard and, I will be rigging her in similar fashion....but I want to make sure the system you used is the same used for Staghound...or if different, I want to make sure I know this in advance.

 

Rob

Edited September 18 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

A bit more research shows that the Staghound was larger than the Flying fish.  17 Ft longer and 29 tons heavier.  Duncan McLean says the Fish employed *double topsail yard Tye's and haulyards.  Well, the Staghound had 4ft longer main topsail yards then did the Flying Fish.  However, Duncan McLean doesn't describe the Staghound having *double* Tye's and haulyards. He simply says, "Tye's and haulyards.  I can only assume he wasn't that clear when describing his first McKay clipper. As far as her rigging was concerned.

If the Flying Fish had them...and she was smaller in every regard....I can only conclude the Staghound employed them as well.

 

Rob

Edited September 18 by rwiederrich

[Rick310]

Rob,

Yes, I am following the plans.  I know of no other source for the double topsail halyard tyes.

The model of the clipper ship Challenge, at the Smithsonian has chain topsail halyards that appear to be the same as on the FF, although it is difficult to  see where they route under the cross trees.

I would think that Staghound was similarly equipped, given that it was larger than the FF.

Some very impressive people worked on the FF plans, so they are my default if no or better information is available.

As you know, I have deviated from the plans when I felt it was appropriate, such as the aft cabin, color scheme and other minor details.

You and ClipperFan are doing a marvelous job recreating Staghound.

Rick

[Rick310]

Well, September was quite a month. Finally retired after 40 years as an Endodontist (root canal specialist) and 45 years as a dentist!

The admiral and I celebrated by taking a Viking Meditation cruise in between clearing out the office and preparing for our daughter’s wedding in 2 weeks.

I was able to get a little time in the shop, and finished the trestle trees and cross trees with the curved rims for both the main and fore masts.  These were made same as for the mizzen in an earlier post per EdT, modified for my convenience.

They still need to be painted, planked and fitted out.  Both the main and fore topmast were also made prior to the cross trees to insure an accurate fit and proper spacing.

Note that none of the mast are permanent installed yet.  My intent is to shim them and not glue them in place to make it easier should repairs ever need to be made.

[ClipperFan]

@Rick310 Congratulations on your retirement. I hope you had a great cruise vacation celebration. I love seeing your progress on your beautiful Flying Fish replica. In case it hasn't been pointed out before. Here's an issue of authenticity that your build plans have wrong. Both @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa had to redo their solid tops because of this common mistake. Their Lubber's Hole entrances were way too small in comparison to the real thing on 1869 Glory of the Seas as pictured in the first page and 1843 Whaler Charles W Morgan in the second. The Lubber's hole is longer than commercial plans, which have a ridiculously small one. In reality, the opening goes clear from the fore curve bracket to the aft straight one. When you think about it, this makes more sense. Imagine trying to squeeze many crew through the tiny one provided for in your plans. It just isn't practical. Meanwhile real ones are far more useful for multiple crew to utilize. In addition you'll find it far easier to rig your shrouds as well. 

[rwiederrich]

9 hours ago, Rick310 said:

Finally retired after 40 years as an Endodontist (root canal specialist) and 45 years as a dentist!

Well, well Rick.  Interesting... I retired from Denturism over 10 years ago myself.  I did notice a few hand instruments on your desk....that gave me a clue.  Now I can see clearly as to where you got your attention to detail skills.  I've been a dental lab tech for over 45 years and a Denturist for over 20, till I retired.  We share much in common.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Rick, your Flying Fish is just wonderful.  Clean, sharp, and very well executed.   In our small groups 15 year study of McKay's final clipper, Glory of the Seas....we discovered many construction practices McKay employed in just about all of his clippers.  His innovative designs were for the most part, heavily guarded secrets at the time.  Rich is pointing out a simple overlooked detail, I discovered, that will make construction much easier when the time comes.  We've made many of these discoveries and the intention is to pass along these observations, to aid future model builders....correct issues in plans that did not have the data we have uncovered with the great aid of our friend Michael Mjelde.

 

Rob

[Jared]

Congratulation on your retirement Rick.   Welcome to the life of leisurology.  I look forward to seeing your continuing progress on your beautifully built Flying Fish.

Edited October 16 by Jared

[ClipperFan]

@Rick310

As you may already know, @rwiederrich @Vladimir_Wairoa @Luis Alvarez and I are working on realizing an accurate model of McKays Stag Hound the "Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet". Our evaluation of the Duncan McLean description of the patented windlass with gears led us to find the Emerson-Walker heavier geared windlass. Rob and I concluded such a weightier device would have been mounted further below. This area below the forecastle also provided accommodations for one watch of the  crew. It was described as well lit, lofty and ventilated. We concluded that those accomodations were 3 feet below, identical to the arrangement of the Flying Fish you're currently building. Here's my illustration of the forward bulkhead. This differs dramatically from the commercially produced plans. There are windows to provide light and twin companions to ladders below. Before each companion, in the wings of the forecastle below are located twin water closets. In fact, stern water closets on Stag Hound were also located 3' below the 5' high poop deck. This differs substantially from your Flying Fish plans which show twin water closets aft of a single centrally mounted companion not before as the Boston Daily Atlas clearly describes of her. In fact, we relied on this description of the topgallant forecastle in our reconstruction of Stag Hound. Another reason this arrangement makes more sense is considering working height of the Flying Cloud, Flying Fish and Stag Hound forecastle decks. Flying Fish had a main rail height of 4 & 1/2' while the Stag Hound and Flying Cloud both had a topgallant forecastle height of 5'. Underneath the height would have been 3 & 1/2" less! That brings Flying Fish forecastle height below to 4' 2 & 1/2" and Stag Hound, Flying Cloud forecastle heights below to 4' 8 & 1/2". When you consider Donald McKay's 'tween decks all had 7' or taller heights, having such "crawl space" heights to work on a windlass and provide any sensible rest area for crew doesn't make sense. Dropping the floor 3' below solves this problem. That then means the aft forecastle bulkhead doubles as a stern wall for windlass and crew accommodations. In fact, we now believe whenever topgallant forecastle height is at the lower main rail, this would be the same set up for all of McKay's clippers. 

To be clear, I am not suggesting you tear down any of your current work. I'm just sharing our latest discoveries for any others who plan on constructing similar McKay clippers.

[rwiederrich]

Indeed, I fully agree.  Rich, I suspect the companionway doors had a modest step up, to prevent water from easily pouring down the passageway.  6~10 inches....this offset allows the companion way slide roofs to nearly be resting on the forecastle deck...as you have depicted in your drawing.    This is similar to the example I had shown you presented on that old Thermopylae model forecastle deck...

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

54 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Indeed, I fully agree.  Rich, I suspect the companionway doors had a modest step up, to prevent water from easily pouring down the passageway.  6~10 inches....this offset allows the companion way slide roofs to nearly be resting on the forecastle deck...as you have depicted in your drawing.    This is similar to the example I had shown you presented on that old Thermopylae model forecastle deck...

 

Rob

Rob 

I intentionally copied the layout for those deck structures seen on Glory of the Seas. That includes doors on the aft portico of Stag Hound as well as her aft central companion. All windows are higher up for the same reason.

[Rick310]

Rob, ClipperFan, Jared,

Thank you for your kind words!

Still trying to get over the jet lag and get caught up with the yard work ect.

The water closet is in front of the companionway entry on the FF plans, both contained in one structure.

Water closets on either side of the forecastle seems to be a common place to locate them per Cutty Sark and other contemporary paintings.( see photo of painting of the clipper ship Golden Rule).  Ben Langford chose to make the water closet larger with the companionway steps leading below on the aft side .  This seems to meet the description by Duncan Mc Lean although it is all conjecture.  Interestingly,  the Buttersworth painting shows no evidence of them.  Omitted or hidden by the rail?  Or a forecastle similar to your beautiful design?

The anchor windlass you  have for Stag Hound seems to me to be a latter and more modern version.  Do you have any information when this specific design was produced?

ClipperFan, the larger lubber hole on a he CS was all metal, this would be stronger than wood.  I don’t see how you could cut the middle cross tree and retain the strength on just 2 full length cross trees.

Clipperfan and Rob, thanks for your input.  I would love to be able to talk to Donald McKay and see if this model and the plans are accurate to the actual vessel.  Both of you have brought up

interesting points and another way to interpret the written description!

Keep up the great work!

Rick Rob, I knew you had a long career in Dentistry, which helps to explain your remarkable modeling skills!

Rick

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Rick310 said:

Rob, ClipperFan, Jared,

Thank you for your kind words!

Still trying to get over the jet lag and get caught up with the yard work ect.

The water closet is in front of the companionway entry on the FF plans, both contained in one structure.

Water closets on either side of the forecastle seems to be a common place to locate them per Cutty Sark and other contemporary paintings.( see photo of painting of the clipper ship Golden Rule).  Ben Langford chose to make the water closet larger with the companionway steps leading below on the aft side .  This seems to meet the description by Duncan Mc Lean although it is all conjecture.  Interestingly,  the Buttersworth painting shows no evidence of them.  Omitted or hidden by the rail?  Or a forecastle similar to your beautiful design?

The anchor windlass you  have for Stag Hound seems to me to be a latter and more modern version.  Do you have any information when this specific design was produced?

ClipperFan, the larger lubber hole on a he CS was all metal, this would be stronger than wood.  I don’t see how you could cut the middle cross tree and retain the strength on just 2 full length cross trees.

Clipperfan and Rob, thanks for your input.  I would love to be able to talk to Donald McKay and see if this model and the plans are accurate to the actual vessel.  Both of you have brought up

interesting points and another way to interpret the written description!

Keep up the great work!

Rick Rob, I knew you had a long career in Dentistry, which helps to explain your remarkable modeling skills!

Rick

@Rick310

Emerson-Walker patented their iron geared windlass in 1850. From memory it was June or July of that year. Rob and I concluded that such heavy machinery would have been mounted further below both for better weight distribution and protection against elements. Once that decision's made, the rest falls in place. There are definitely accomodations for a watch of the crew. Since the windlass requires extra height, that necessitates dropping the floor. That then means the fore forecastle bulkhead must be enclosed. A lower deck also opens up room to provide crew's quarters as well. Since water closets are in the wings of the forecastle, it makes sense to have them lower and available for crew. 

In choosing to have a single companion opposite a single water closet, Ben Lankford chose to ignore the specific description provided by Duncan McLean for Flying Fish. I shared his short paragraph above. He wrote that there were twin companions with water closets before (not aft or opposite) of them. Both of the companions lead to crew quarters below. Before the companions are the water closets and lockers, etc. The entire description applies to the area below. Since the forecastle doubles as forward crew quarters, then the aft bulkhead would have to be enclosed. According to the description, her forecastle deck was 4 & 1/2' high. Where do you fit a windlass unless it's either completely outside or down below? Logically, it makes more sense to mount it below. As for Ben Lankford's design, maybe he didn't have access to the Boston Daily Atlas article. I just know his layout doesn't match the description.

The first solid top picture I shared was of the Glory of the Seas. Since iron was used liberally in her construction, it's most likely her top brackets were reinforced iron. All I know for sure is that she had full length lubber's holes on all 3 solid tops.

I'd love to see the entire Golden Rule piece, it looks quite impressive. I tried to find a full description of her but so far I haven't found anything other than that she's a Maine clipper launched in 1854.

[Rick310]

Rich, the Golden Rule was built in Newcastle - Damariscotta, Maine, by Col. Hitchcock in 1854.  The painting is attributed to Charles Ogily, a Liverpool artist, known for his paintings of pilot boats.

[Rick310]

Rich, there is a beautiful painting of the Golden Rule by Fitz Hugh Lane.

This is the info I could find on the Golden Rule.

Rick

[ClipperFan]

6 hours ago, Rick310 said:

Rich, there is a beautiful painting of the Golden Rule by Fitz Hugh Lane.

This is the info I could find on the Golden Rule.

Rick

@Rick310 First, thanks for sharing the entire Ogily piece. I agree in the case of Golden Rule she appears to have twin water closets just abaft her forecastle. You can also see her plain cutwater with what appears to be a golden dragon overlay for her figurehead. Note: lack of navel hoods, head or trailboards. 

Interestingly enough, I found the beautiful Fitz Henry Lane artwork you described but not the one you shared. Go Figure. I also searched for a detailed description of her to see how high her bulkheads were but so far have had no luck.

To my knowledge, of all McKay California Fleet Clippers I've read about, Flying Fish had the lowest main rail height of 4 & 1/2' surmounted by a monkey rail of 16" for a total bulkhead height of 5'10". Meanwhile her 'tween deck height was 7'10". Concerns I have about the Lankford arrangement have to do with reconciling his layout with the Duncan McLean description. It's evident from the highly detailed specifications that McLean was supplied those from the McKay shipyard. That makes the Lankford layout virtually impossible. His forecastle is wide open with a windlass jammed inside what's effectively a crawl space. It makes no sense. Crew quarters are definitely described as being below. That being the case, why leave their lodgings unenclosed? Meanwhile, McLean clearly stated that she had two waterclosets before her dual companions. To leave them on the upper deck means somehow companions have to be aft of them. Do we double stack them one after the other? That wastes valuable space. A more logical setup is to enclose the forward forecastle bulkhead, place twin companions in the wings of this aft wall with ladders to 3' below. Place twin "heads" before or just ahead of those companion ladders down below. Since this is now an area that's at least 7' high, mount the windlass below where there's planty of room to work on it. Logically it all fits.

Edited October 13 by ClipperFan
additional information.

[ClipperFan]

On 3/24/2022 at 9:39 AM, gak1965 said:

Wait, what? You mean the rail on the roof of the carriage house, or the taffrail? The Fish was wrecked in China, the Captain brought home parts of a rail to put into his house? Where were they incorporated?

@Rick310

It's occurred to me that I never answered your question about the original Flying Fish stanchion location. Both the JE Buttersworth and Chinese import painting are consistent in showing a partial metal rail only at the coach house fore. That means the surviving rails would have had to be the ones that surrounded her poop deck bulkhead. Their exact height is a bit deceptive. Since stanchions are inserted between upper and lower horizontal rails, they appear to be taller. There's plaques on the mansion, confirming "Longacre" being on the National Historic Register and authenticating ownership of the home by Simeon Jones, Capt: Flying Fish.

About the only way I can conclude that these uniquely different stanchions came off the ship herself would have to that they were removed, possibly during a refit of some sort, before she sank. 

[ClipperFan]

@Rick310

Late artist David Thimgan created one of the most beautiful paintings of Donald McKay's 4th extreme clipper and 3rd of the California Clipper Fleet. 1998 "The Clipper Flying Fish in San Francisco Bay" commemorates her first place finish in the Great Deep Water Derby of 1852-53. I've included a link to the 1st Dibs ad, which includes a description of the event.

https://www.1stdibs.com/art/paintings/david-thimgan-clipper-flying-fish-san-francisco-bay/id-a_10984292/

Edited October 13 by ClipperFan
higher quality images

[Rick310]

Rich, 

The captain of the Flying Fish was Edward Nockels until she was wrecked leaving Foochow.  She was subsequently repaired/rebuilt at whampoa(?), sold to Manila firm and lost in the South China Sea.

Thwre is another shi, a brig? Also named the Flying Fish.  This rail probably came from this other ship.

Rick

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Rick310 said:

Rich, 

The captain of the Flying Fish was Edward Nockels until she was wrecked leaving Foochow.  She was subsequently repaired/rebuilt at whampoa(?), sold to Manila firm and lost in the South China Sea.

Thwre is another shi, a brig? Also named the Flying Fish.  This rail probably came from this other ship.

Rick

@Rick310

You may be right. There's just a slight chance that Simeon Jones did command the clipper Flying Fish. I read that Captain Nickels commanded her on all but one outward voyage. There's not much available on El Bueno Suceso which is what she was renamed after being repaired in 1858. So maybe Captain Jones commanded her on that sole outward voyage or after she was repaired? More than one Real Estate listing refers to him commanding the clipper Flying Fish but the list from Barnstable does mention that it could have been another merchant vessel.

[rwiederrich]

Gent’s.     
As far as the W/C’s go on McKay vessels….. you are missing one very large piece of the puzzle.  British clippers were small clippers. C/S was only 901 tons. And so was most British clippers. American clippers were nearly twice as large,   Many 2/3rds larger.   They had to put their W/C’s outside their forecastles for design and space issues.  
Those little boats couldn’t house them along with the windless and crew.   
American clippers had size on their side.   I feel since the C/S is the only clipper left to evaluate.   Model designers simply used her arrangement as their example.   Without doing real research.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

@Rick310

To give you an idea how challenging it would have been for JE Buttersworth and other contemporary artists to accurately capture a McKay clipper bow, I've attached a detail fore photo for Glory of the Seas docked at San Pedro, Calif in 1907. There's very little visible of the existing naval hoods or separate cutwater underneath. The only way to tell is to get a larger, more detailed image. We have others which show them. I wanted to give you an idea of how her aggressive prow looked even when individual details aren't clear.

[Rick310]

Rob,  that is an excellent point!  Did not think of that!

In one of the NRG journals, 1980 I think, Ben Langford gives an explanation for why he and Erik Romberg  choose to design the WC/companionway the way they did.  As I recall, it was more of a guess than any thing else,  I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that they were somewhat mystified themselves.  I have that copy and will look it up.

Rich,  if I had to do it over, I would have extended the stem even more per your suggestion.  I previously believed that the bow in the Buttersworth’s painting was a bit of exaggerated.  Now convinced that it is probably accurate!

Rick

 

 

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Gent’s.     
As far as the W/C’s go on McKay vessels….. you are missing one very large piece of the puzzle.  British clippers were small clippers. C/S was only 901 tons. And so was most British clippers. American clippers were nearly twice as large,   Many 2/3rds larger.   They had to put their W/C’s outside their forecastles for design and space issues.  
Those little boats couldn’t house them along with the windless and crew.   
American clippers had size on their side.   I feel since the C/S is the only clipper left to evaluate.   Model designers simply used her arrangement as their example.   Without doing real research.  
 

Rob

@rwiederrich @Rick310 FYI: 1854 clipper Golden Rule, Wm. Hitchcock & Co, Damariscotta, Maine was 185' long, beam 37', 23' depth of hold, 1,185 tons.

In comparison 1851 California Clipper Flying Fish had a keel 202', length on deck between perpendiculars 210', overall length knightheads to taffrail 220', beam 40', 1,556 tons. Her keel was 17' longer, length on deck 25' more and overall length 35' longer, beam was 3' wider and she was 371 tons larger. 

Edited October 14 by ClipperFan
removed a single letter.

[Rick310]

Rich, interestingly the Golden Rule was built in Newcastle Maine which is separated from Damariscotta by a short bridge over the Damariscotta river.

There is a harbor in Damariscotta and you can look across the harbor to a small peninsula of land on the Newcastle side which is the site of the Hitchcock shipyard.  There is also a display  commemorating Fitz Hugh Lane’s painting of the Golden Rule.

Rick

[ClipperFan]

6 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Rob,  that is an excellent point!  Did not think of that!

In one of the NRG journals, 1980 I think, Ben Langford gives an explanation for why he and Erik Romberg  choose to design the WC/companionway the way they did.  As I recall, it was more of a guess than any thing else,  I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that they were somewhat mystified themselves.  I have that copy and will look it up.

Rich,  if I had to do it over, I would have extended the stem even more per your suggestion.  I previously believed that the bow in the Buttersworth’s painting was a bit of exaggerated.  Now convinced that it is probably accurate!

Rick

 

 

@Rick310 @rwiederrich we began our revolutionary investigation into the authentic appearance for Glory of the Seas 4 years ago. We didn't realize how critical navel hoods and cutwater components were to the unique McKay bow until months into our evaluation. If you look at the 1913 starboard bow pic of Glory of the Seas which has been shared previously, you'll note that the splash rail is cracked and damaged. Most of the lovely carved overlay on her cutwater is missing as well. This damage was most likely a result of her being struck by a steamship as she backed into her. Such rugged construction was noted by Duncan McLean in his evaluation of McKay's 2nd California Clipper Flying Cloud. He basically said her prow was virtually indestructible. These navel hood components are integral extensions of her prow and provided superior support to her bowsprit, figurehead and cutwater beneath. Rob and I are now doing our level best to share our discoveries with the greater modeling community so that the true beauty of McKay's genius can finally be realized. In fact, a portion of my 2nd Nautical Research Journal article now submitted covers this surprising discovery.

[ClipperFan]

7 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Rich, interestingly the Golden Rule was built in Newcastle Maine which is separated from Damariscotta by a short bridge over the Damariscotta river.

There is a harbor in Damariscotta and you can look across the harbor to a small peninsula of land on the Newcastle side which is the site of the Hitchcock shipyard.  There is also a display  commemorating Fitz Hugh Lane’s painting of the Golden Rule.

Rick

@Rick310 that interesting location detail isn't mentioned in the brief write ups I read. It did say she was still in service 46 years later. She somehow managed to evade ravages of Southern Civil War Privateers and her career brought her into the 1900s. 

The Ogilvy piece, which I have yet to locate online, is more useful for modeling details but the Fitz Henry Lane work is just gorgeous.