Glory of the Seas 1869 by rwiederrich - Medium clipper - discontinued in lieu of new log

[rwiederrich]

Clipperfan...my question to you is,         Why not build your own version of Glory...you appear to have the intellect and historical prowess to build a very accurate representation.  I think we spoke on this before.   Any thoughts?

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

I might do it someday when I have more time. As a youth I built many plastic Sailing Ship models. Currently my career demands a lot of time and intense effort, leaving little time for greater endeavors. If you specify what scale you want to build Glory at, I will gladly create the most accurate blueprints for you. Believe it or not, for the past decade I've been concentrating on this process, slowly improving my comprehension of her construction. Michael Mjelde's first book has an incredibly detailed description of Glory's construction. It was that resource that was my primary guide for the large sketch that I did a few years ago.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

I might do it someday when I have more time. As a youth I built many plastic Sailing Ship models. Currently my career demands a lot of time and intense effort, leaving little time for greater endeavors. If you specify what scale you want to build Glory at, I will gladly create the most accurate blueprints for you. Believe it or not, for the past decade I've been concentrating on this process, slowly improving my comprehension of her construction. Michael Mjelde's first book has an incredibly detailed description of Glory's construction. It was that resource that was my primary guide for the large sketch that I did a few years ago.

 

Well I sized up those plans to 40"  from figurehead to transom.   What would you do differently?  I will make some changes to the slight errors, but I will pay close attention to replicate her utilizing her images as a partial guide.   Here is what I have thus far.....I have cut out the bulkhead diagrams and have the elevations and spacing for them.   I'm really interested in making a hull model only...with all the deck furniture/houses and such.  I will build her in the fashion I built the Great Republic.  Any advice and technical direction would be most appreciated.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Perspective distortion is tough to shake. It took me months to figure out Glory's true appearance and I'm still catching slight inaccuracies. It's why I know for sure that, as professionally drafted as it is, the Hull form from Mjelde's book is wildly inaccurate and I wouldn't use it. The deck and structures look to be very detailed and correct. Now that additional broadside images are available, it's even more clear than before that Glory's Bow has a substantial "dashy rake" just like contemporary descriptions have written. Even the sketch I drew before doesn't have the bold 'flare up" that can be seen in the new photos that have been revealed. Here's the new one you shared, enlarged and enhanced. I flipped my sketch to correspond with the best hull image of 'Glory of the Seas' at San Pedro Dock in 1907. All 3 photos show this prominent rise to the Bow. While my sketch is more accurate than the blue 'endpaper' sail plan, it too needs to be revised to account for this latest information. I think you'll agree that when the photos are aligned, they in no way match the rather dull appearance of the purported Hull plan.

[ClipperFan]

I guarantee that if you overlay this published blueprint over the photo of Glory at her fitting out, you'll see that they match pretty much exactly. That's most likely because later broadside photos available to us now weren't back when Mr Mjelde commissioned the plans for his books.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

4 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Perspective distortion is tough to shake. It took me months to figure out Glory's true appearance and I'm still catching slight inaccuracies. It's why I know for sure that, as professionally drafted as it is, the Hull form from Mjelde's book is wildly inaccurate and I wouldn't use it. The deck and structures look to be very detailed and correct. Now that additional broadside images are available, it's even more clear than before that Glory's Bow has a substantial "dashy rake" just like contemporary descriptions have written. Even the sketch I drew before doesn't have the bold 'flare up" that can be seen in the new photos that have been revealed. Here's the new one you shared, enlarged and enhanced. I flipped my sketch to correspond with the best hull image of 'Glory of the Seas' at San Pedro Dock in 1907. All 3 photos show this prominent rise to the Bow. While my sketch is more accurate than the sandpaper sail plan, it too needs to be revised to account for this latest information. I think you'll agree that when the photos are aligned, they in no way match the rather dull appearance of the purported Hull plan.

watching it again , i must correct myself a bit, This is very interesting ClipperFan, second photograph is ver intriguing indeed, diverging away from straightness i must say. thank you. V.  

[ClipperFan]

My goal is to be as true to Donald McKay's original designs as humanly possible. Contemporary descriptions said McKay's Clippers were beautiful and impressive, as imposing as men of war ships, with graceful arching Clipper Bows more sharp than even Steam ships. When I enlarged the latest image and flipped it, I immediately recognized the "bold, dashy flair" of the Bow that also appears in the 1907 image. I'm now working on revising the Hull to incorporate this fascinating feature.

[rwiederrich]

I’m glad I was able to dig up that Puget Sound image. It makes it clear the Glory had an impressive bow and this coincides with images of her deck looking forward.  I’m very interested in your corrections and any new drawings you may be indulging in.  Please keep us informed . How exciting.

[rwiederrich]

Personally I can devise lots of data from these two images of her.  Note the shadows of the gang poles along her side...you can see the curves of her hull quite easily...and coupled with the monkey rail and copper lines you can make out her rake and entry as quite extreme compared to her drawings.

 

This is very exciting and I can see her real figure coming alive.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

My apologies for the low level lighting, we have to get up early tomorrow. I will get a much better image tomorrow. This to me more accurately reflects the dramatic new information as seen in the latest photos. I'm still getting all the dimensions accurate, so this is still very much a work in progress. I was so excited by your last post that I felt something had to be shared.

[rwiederrich]

34 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

My apologies for the low level lighting, we have to get up early tomorrow. I will get a much better image tomorrow. This to me more accurately reflects the dramatic new information as seen in the latest photos. I'm still getting all the dimensions accurate, so this is still very much a work in progress. I was so excited by your last post that I felt something had to be shared.

I love the new curves. But I think her hull is still taller.  Note the two images I posted.  Also note the distance from the top of the bob says to the rail at the root of the bowsprit. Then note that the distance from the bottom of the bob stays to the waters edge is roughly the same distance.  Compare this overall distance to the launching image and you can see there is still plenty of hull under the water  Just at the roll from vertical to the floor.  This side height is what was described as her having a warship side profile. You new drawing is an improvement, but I think the hull still needs to be taller.   Do you see what I’m talking about?

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I love the new curves. But I think her hull is still taller.  Note the two images I posted.  Also note the distance from the top of the bob says to the rail at the root of the bowsprit. Then note that the distance from the bottom of the bob stays to the waters edge is roughly the same distance.  Compare this overall distance to the launching image and you can see there is still plenty of hull under the water  Just at the roll from vertical to the floor.  This side height is what was described as her having a warship side profile. You new drawing is an improvement, but I think the hull still needs to be taller.   Do you see what I’m talking about?

Hello folks, correct Rob, proportionality in height of hull is clearly off. above waterlevel nose is half of what is under water and there must be at least 1/3 rd more of hold under water  .....nevertheless i like the curvature of the gang and bow. will compare to my drawings as well. 

[rwiederrich]

4 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Hello folks, correct Rob, proportionality in height of hull is clearly off. above waterlevel nose is half of what is under water and there must be at least 1/3 rd more of hold under water  .....nevertheless i like the curvature of the gang and bow. will compare to my drawings as well. 

Of course everything is an estimate. but I estimate roughly a 1/4 of the hull is under water from the image I posted of her at the Glacier Fish Co. dock, using her bob stay location.  If my rough calculations are remotely in the ball park, she had a very tall hull...like that of Star of Empire/Chariot of Fame .  Even if one rudimentarily looks are her in the Peabody image, you can clearly see she had *warship* like sides.  Her Deep sides and shallow deadrise is very reminiscent of DownEasters.  I feel Clipperfan is on track with correcting her curves and noting her bow is far less blunt then previously imagined.   Can't wait for some drawings.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

6 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Of course everything is an estimate. but I estimate roughly a 1/4 of the hull is under water from the image I posted of her at the Glacier Fish Co. dock, using her bob stay location.  If my rough calculations are remotely in the ball park, she had a very tall hull...like that of Star of Empire/Chariot of Fame .  Even if one rudimentarily looks are her in the Peabody image, you can clearly see she had *warship* like sides.  Her Deep sides and shallow deadrise is very reminiscent of DownEasters.  I feel Clipperfan is on track with correcting her curves and noting her bow is far less blunt then previously imagined.   Can't wait for some drawings.

 

Rob

I wholeagree Rob ....that  Clipperfan turned it to the right direction. Im happy myself and eagerly following, anyway my opinion is to be taken very lightly only more like observation... as you know i am not that experienced and rather say totally inexperienced as far as american period ships. I must dvelve myself more into mckays package ships etc...

[rwiederrich]

One example is the Henry B Hyde.  Glory has the swooping profile and rotund bottom and entry of the Hyde...but as mentioned earlier she is taller and has sides of a *warship*.  I think these examples are  evolutionary changes based upon the Glory's earlier *full bodied* Medium clipper design exampled by Donald McKay.  Half of Glory's hull is above the copper line, unlike the Hyde's.

[ClipperFan]

Guys, I'm in complete agreement. I think what's confusing is contemporary descriptions of the 5' Main Rail and 16" Monkey Rail. The writer states her Bulwarks were 6 1/2' but the working images make it appear the total height is closer to 7 feet. I think the writer is describing specs but leaving out the details like main rail bulwark being 6" and the Monkey Rail Cap being the same, that adds an additional foot, making those bulwarks 7 1/2 feet. 

I also think the uppermost skysail & royals are a little short too. Having 6 to 8 feet flag poles seems a bit excessive. Knowing that Glory's figurehead is 7 1/2' tall, which is documented fact, I can use her measurement to get a closer approximation to her true depth. The writer describes her as having a 28 1/2' Hold.

All in all though, it seems like this is headed in the right direction now. 

[rwiederrich]

I purchased the plywood for the bulkheads today, so I am going to cut them out and work the hull till it coincides with the imagery and what we have devised.  In the Peabody image her keel is very thin compared to what we always construct on models.    It will be fun to use images to aid in this construction.

[ClipperFan]

The work in progress continues. I corrected the Hull length in this reworked plan. Everything is as accurate as I can achieve using 1 mm=1 foot. The Keel is now 240'2", distance at Wales 250', from Knightheads to Taffrail 265', depth of Hold 28'6", Keel's depth 11'8" taken from dimensions given in 'Sovereign of the Seas', Goddess Athene Figurehead 7'6", Bowsprit Steeve 4" to 1', Bowsprit 24' outboard, Jibboom 16' with 5' end, Flying Jibboom 15' with 5' end (as described from Staghound). Rear Quarterdeck 60' with Steering House 8' high, Quarterdeck House 45' also 8' height, both surrounded by rails on turned sanchions. 6' man at base is to give a sense of scale. 

As a preliminary effort, this Hull feels somewhat more accurate. Sail Plan still needs improvement. I've noticed that it's easier to accomplish better accuracy with larger scale. Getting Glory's graceful sheer is proving to be quite a challenge. As I reexamine these multiple images, it's clear the "dashy rake" of her Bow is just a short portion of her Hull near her Knightheads. It's apparent in the posed picture at her conversion, where there's a good overview of her long deck. I'll try to get a more flat image then the one shared here

[ClipperFan]

The Main Mast location was too far towards the Stern, which gave the vessel a lopsided appearance. I reworked both Fore and Main Masts and realigned all Yards perpendicular to all 3 Masts. My apologies again for the very light appearance. As this is an ongoing process and I continually erase my mistakes, my sketching is done very lightly. 

 

[rwiederrich]

You are getting so close.  It appears your cheek plates are a bit elongated and lack the proper curve atop of the howes hole to just behind the figurehead underneath the bowsprit.

Also...it still appears to need some hull height, because if you look at the Peabody photo, you can easily determine the distance from the mid hull opening(hatchway for long items) to the rail and the copper line.  I think it needs to increase.  Also it is clear the copper line on her launching and on the images of her at dockside getting fitted out for cannery service and being towed off are not the same.  In the Peabody image the copper line appears to begin roughly 5 ft below the lower bobstay, but the fitting out image the copper line(Or what appears to be it) begins just under the lower stay.  This discrepancy can contribute to the noticeable differences I see.  Also if you were to measure the channels and chainplates thickness and translate that down the hull...you could easily fit at least three within the distance from the rail and the (Original) copper line.  Rail to plankshear is the thickness of the channel/chainplate...but if you compare this to your drawing...it appears there is little room before you plunge past the waterline/copper line.

 

Well, these are all minor details that can be worked out...but for the most part you have corrected what was surely erroneous dimensions and representations.  I can't wait to make these corrections myself to my plans and then begin cutting out bulkheads and the keel members.  I will be using custom planed and fitted maple for the keel and bow pieces.   You've done a wonderful job!

 

I'll probably start another thread to cover this build...don't want to incorporate this build with my current Glory log.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

One last note...her original copper line might have been added to, to compensate for her greater cargo carrying capability, due to her *Medium* clipper distinction and more of a DownEaster distinction.    Again, note the comparisons of both the Hyde and the Glory in similar positions....eerily similar...don't you think?

 

Rob 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

cant wait to see the keel laid out Rob ; all of a sudden Glory woudl be most build vessel  

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

cant wait to see the keel laid out Rob ; all of a sudden Glory woudl be most build vessel  

Yeah...her entry is still very sharp so I will be making mods to the bulkheads as I lay them up on the keel.  Currently, I have to clean up the wood shop a bit(been working on telescope stuff) before I glue the bulkhead sheets to the plywood...prior to cutting.  I'm gonna do this exactly like I did the Great Republic.  Once laid out and glued...I'll section off the bulkheads and then cut them out.  During this time I will have to plain down the maple I will be using for the keel and stem and the bow sections.  I will NOT be building this like the boys over in the Young America logs....They are building their fine models in exact manner as the prototypes.

Not me...I'm a *Hack* modeler...all I'm concerned with is the end results.

 

So what will the scale be if I make her 40" long? Around 1/75 I think.

Over 3ft 4in.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

12 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Yeah...her entry is still very sharp so I will be making mods to the bulkheads as I lay them up on the keel.  Currently, I have to clean up the wood shop a bit(been working on telescope stuff) before I glue the bulkhead sheets to the plywood...prior to cutting.  I'm gonna do this exactly like I did the Great Republic.  Once laid out and glued...I'll section off the bulkheads and then cut them out.  During this time I will have to plain down the maple I will be using for the keel and stem and the bow sections.  I will NOT be building this like the boys over in the Young America logs....They are building their fine models in exact manner as the prototypes.

Not me...I'm a *Hack* modeler...all I'm concerned with is the end results.

 

So what will the scale be if I make her 40" long?

 

Rob

it is 1:75 Rob.  nice scale. 

[ClipperFan]

Yesterday I went to Staples and printed out a bunch of images of Glory of the Seas. A ledger sized print of Glory's hull from 1907 revealed a far more subtle sheer than contemporary descriptions of her led me to believe. She's supposed to have had a 7' sheer from Bow to Stern. Most of that difference is in her graduated Bow. Otherwise her side dimensions are far more modest. I am in the process of revising that and Glory is now much more reminiscent of a McKay Clipper. The Naval Hood (carved devices which mould into the bow, join together just below the Bowsprit and above her goddess figurehead have some perspective challenges to interpret. (If you want to get a good sense of this natural phenomenon, just view the Henry B Hyde's elegantly long and sleek broadside to the dramatic bow on view, they hardly look like the same vessel.) Viewed below, Glory's naval hoods appear to be about the same dimensions as the 5' depth of the main rail. Same with the close up scene of her figurehead from 1900. It's very hard to discern but if you look at the later broadside scene where she's being towed as a cannery ship in Alaska, those same naval hoods look to be much thinner. Almost half as wide. I suspect the sharp entrance angle of her Bow contributes to this distortion. My sketch still has these devices a little long. I have to shorten them to more precisely match Glory's bow. I just hate to erase the tiny Athene figurehead, as she's 7.5mm in length and I was pretty happy with how she turned out. As I raise the sides to more accurately capture her very subtle sheer, this should remedy the difference in Hull heights being discussed. Once I nail this down, I will enlarge this to the 40" you're planning to build her at.

Incidentally if anyone's planning on building a Flying Cloud model, her bow has never been accurately captured either. I'm surprised to see it because the description of McKay's most famous Clipper is detailed and describes these same Naval Hoods as Glory obviously has. Even the famous launch shows these details as does her loading for New York. I have a 4' hull drawing that I've been working on for a while now.

 

[rwiederrich]

Good news Clipperfan.  I'm seeing this too and it is clear seeing perspectives can vary...I'm noticing it ever more regularly as I study her from different eras and angles.  Disregarding and including shadow distortions can be problematic as well.  Your 40" rendering would be magnificent to have...it would be a great aid. Your reference to Naval Hoods I'm assuming are referencing her *cheek plates*? Ornamental carving on the Glory was found on her stem and on the cheeks...that were mounted just above the Howes hole and forward to just ahead of the figure.  On your 1911 dockside image of her, the ornamentation on the stem knee has apparently fallen off.

 

Again...thank you for your exemplary contributions in these matters.  I would be interested in anything you have worked on concerning the Flying Cloud as well.

Thank you.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob, what you describe as "cheek plates" are referred to as "naval hoods" by Duncan McLean in his earliest descriptions of McKay's Clippers. Possibly due to Donald McKay's notorious penchant for secrecy, the existence of these powerful devices have literally been lost to History, even though they're described in multiple articles of McKay's Clippers. Naval Hoods were bolted into each other as well as the Cutwater. The first portion of the Bowsprit would be securely lashed to these devices. The ship's figurehead would be attached to the underside of the Naval Hoods, mounted to the fancy gilded and carved Arch section of the Cutwater. McKay's Bows consisted of a Stem, Cutwater, Carved Arch and Naval Hoods. Yet none of these integral parts of McKay's Clippers are modeled in any Replicas. If you want to understand the lengths to which The Mechanic himself went to conceal these components, look at McKay's lines for the Bow of Clipper Lightning. The ships lines simply dissapeared. It's the oddest thing to see. They were so intrinsic to the McKay Bow that Mr McLean observed that the loss of her Cutwater wouldn't affect ship's integrity at all. 

It still amazes me how ham fisted current McKay Clipper models appear compared to what the originals looked like. All modelers reproduce is the Stem and then the Figurehead is clumsily tacked on with no visual means of support.  

 

 

[ClipperFan]

The work in progress continues. As you can see, Glory's hull now more closely resembles the 1907 broadside image. The Bow is definitely the most challenging but I'm confident I'm getting closer. Her hull now should also look more substantial than before.

[rwiederrich]

Wonderful...Yes even Campbell refers to the *Hood* as unique to *certain* clipper designers and was not supported by external knees as was found on some British clippers and some earlier American clippers(Cheek boards).  It was as you described...large bolted and supportive of the bowsprit and the firm backing for the figurehead.

Your rendering is becoming clearer and is(IMV) becoming closer to what she actually looked like....however,  I still see a bit of an issue with your figurehead and stem dimensions.  It appears the figureheads length is nearly as long as the stem is beneath her feet to the beginning of the planking.  If you measure her length and compare it to the distance from her feet to the beginning of the hulls planking, you will see they are very close in length....meaning, your rendering of the stem length in your drawing is too long, thus your curve of the cutwater is to long.  I compared this notion to all of her close up images.  Her *beak* is too long.  Also, If I may,  it appears you also need to shorten or tighten the radius of the stem and keel junction.  The Peabody image clearly shows that curve is sharper then in your rendering.  Other then those two minor items, it appears you have captured and corrected the most glaring errors of her previously recorded profile....and you've done it superbly....if I must say.  Her body height is much more closely resembling her images and her corrected sheer makes all the difference.  I am well pleased(Not that, that matters).

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

18 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

The work in progress continues. As you can see, Glory's hull now more closely resembles the 1907 broadside image. The Bow is definitely the most challenging but I'm confident I'm getting closer. Her hull now should also look more substantial than before.

Rob, I appreciate your compliments and agree with you completely about the Bow. Glory's break is still a little too long. Goddess Athene is 90" publicized in a magazine article on figureheads. From her 1869 PEM launch picture, it's readily apparent the carved arch section is slightly longer, possibly 8 1/2 -9 feet. Naval Hoods extend to just above the anchor hole, what I believe you refer to as the Hawes Hole. They appear to be double in length to Athene, which would make them 15 feet. Her figurehead appears to have a less steep angle in photos than my sketch depicts, so she has to be angled up slightly, hoods need to be shortened and peak made a little thicker, which should correct the curve radius you describe. I made enlargements of her Bow and Broadside to facilitate getting these features as accurately as possible. There's just enough imagery available to reproduce her lovely sculptural work too, which I eventually intend to reproduce as well. 

Here's my work on McKay's most famous Clipper "Flying Cloud." Just like "Glory of the Seas" she had Naval Hoods and carved arches supporting an angel on the wing, with a trumpet. Again it appears like I have her beak a little too long too. To my knowledge though, not one model of this vessel depicts these devices, even though her very first image of her launch does.