Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[rwiederrich]

8 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob 

That makes total sense. So, essentially her forecastle would be entirely enclosed. I would follow the bulkhead moulding style like we saw on Glory of the Seas. My only caveat would be, in case of a mechanical failure, would they have kept a windless hand crank mechanism as an emergency back up?

I thought about that....but redundancy wasn't a thing at the time...and the patent windless had built in hand driven ability...when the hubs were disconnected.  Seams like a lot of expense to have the state of the art and a wooden standard aboard together.  Duncan may have noted that if he hadn't been openly clear she had the state of the art patent windless.  Emphasizing its superiority and modernness.  Further thoughts?

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

There must be some significance in Staghound having a *Topgallant Forecastle*...described by Duncan.  I need to research and ponder this a bit more. Knowing what we now know about her patent windless.

 

Rob

Edited August 19 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

Just as a reminder....Staghound HAD a patent windless.  I suspect she actually had a full height forecastle.  Note what Campbell says about the full height forecastle....they were used when a patent windless was used....😲

 

 

[rwiederrich]

I suspect her deck was flush with the monkey rail.....NOT the main rail.  Remember...no expense was too much.  McKay had an open checkbook from the owners.  This revelation changes a lot of things forward on her design.  She also had private heads/houses port and starboard as depicted. This particular drawing was a depiction for iron hulls...but to reconcile the patent windless, one needs to make adjustments.

 

Rob

Edited August 19 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I suspect her deck was flush with the monkey rail.....NOT the main rail.  Remember...no expense was too much.  McKay had an open checkbook from the owners.  This revelation changes a lot of things forward on her design.  She also had private heads/houses port and starboard as depicted. This particular drawing was a depiction for iron hulls...but to reconcile the patent windless, one needs to make adjustments.

 

Rob

Rob,

It's harder for me to concentrate right now. Somehow, I strained my neck and it's a tough distraction. From what I've read, where McLean refers to forecastle height being at the main rail, he's dead wrong. As you and Vlad learned on Glory of the Seas, that's too damn low. It has to be at monkey rail height. Then, like with Glory there would have been an 18" splashrail, with a 1' waterway type shelf at the base surrounding the forecastle with the same elegant curving point for belaying pins as seen on Glory. One difference I have with portrayal of waterclosets is their being outside of the forecastle. To me, being in the wings of the forecasle implies a flush bulkhead with the 3' wide waterclosets being fully under the forecastle deck. As I've read, the area under the forecastle was sleeping quarters for use of the off-watch crew. As I now see this there possibly was two separate entry doors just inside the wings of the waterclosets and bigger sliding doors for windlass maintenance. If entrance to the waterclosets were inside, then twin ladders could be mounted on the outer edges. Now, since the entire area is closed in, would there have been some windows of any type for light?

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob 

That makes total sense. So, essentially her forecastle would be entirely enclosed. I would follow the bulkhead moulding style like we saw on Glory of the Seas. My only caveat would be, in case of a mechanical failure, would they have kept a windless hand crank mechanism as an emergency back up?

 

 

 

[rwiederrich]

This excerpt from Crothers book, American built packets and freighters of the 1850s.  Crothers says……

[rwiederrich]

Water closets were routinely placed outside the forecastle and on port and starboard sides.   Note Crothers notes on these two clippers. 

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Water closets were routinely placed outside the forecastle and on port and starboard sides.   Note Crothers notes on these two clippers. 

Rob,

Believe it or not, Crothers' illustration proves part of my point exactly. Look at the lightly dotted line above the windlass beneath. Now notice the twin ladders? They both end at that dotted line, showing that both "wc's" are fully beneath the forecastle deck. Either that or those ladders end up in midair...

From the illustration, while the wc's are actually outside the forecastle bulkheads, like you said, they are both fully underneath the forecastle deck, which was my point. So, it looks like we're both half right.... 😉

I lightened up the drawings to make this easier to see. Just like I suggested doors to inside of forecastle are both inside, adjacent to each "wc" too. I would place both ladders a little closer to "wc" walls to make entrance doors to forecastle a bit easier to access.

Edited August 20 by ClipperFan
additional info

[rwiederrich]

Do you think these examples of Star of Empire , Chariot of Fame will be close to Staghound ?

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

18 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Do you think these examples of Star of Empire , Chariot of Fame will be close to Staghound ?

 

Rob

Rob,

Other than the patented windlass, I'd say yes. In this example the windlass is under the focsle deck but outside fore bulkheads. With all the complex gears of Emerson-Walker patented windlass, I would think McKay would have wanted it enclosed. To leave room inside for crew, I would think a separate enclosed room inside of the focsle would be made. Your thoughts?

Edited August 20 by ClipperFan
Spelling correction

[rwiederrich]

I added the mahogany top    
 

Rob 

[rwiederrich]

10 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

Other than the patented windlass, I'd say yes. In this example the windlass is under the focsle deck but outside fore bulkheads. With all the complex gears of Emerson-Walker patented windlass, I would think McKay would have wanted it enclosed. To leave room inside for crew, I would think a separate enclosed room inside of the focsle would be made. Your thoughts?

Inside the forecastle....there might have been troughs for the chain to ride in and to keep the area dry for crewmen's work and off duty doings.

 

But that is within the forecastle.....I think the exterior would be similar to the drawing above....with a straight deck edge, with WC's on either side just under the edge and further back is the bulkhead/wall.  Doors on either side with possibly a larger service door in the middle for access to the patent windless.  The external would look similar to Glory of the Seas....but without a windless exposed in the middle.

The spacing would have to be adjusted to compensate.  Chapelle's drawing shows the WC's outside the deck on either side...extending past the forward hatch.  If the WC's are pushed back on either side to accommodate the forward hatch...it seriously shortens the forecastle space.  duncan McLean says her topgallant forecastle is at the level of the main rail....but Chapelle shows it at the monkey rail.  Crothers says...both high and low topgallant forecastles were equally used....BUT this ship has a patent Windless...which means she had to be as high as the monkey rail...despite what McLean says.   Thoughts?

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I added the mahogany top    
 

Rob 

Rob,

You're right about the added touch of class that mahogany adds to your skylight seating. It looks very elegant. Nicely done.

[ClipperFan]

55 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Inside the forecastle....there might have been troughs for the chain to ride in and to keep the area dry for crewmen's work and off duty doings.

 

But that is within the forecastle.....I think the exterior would be similar to the drawing above....with a straight deck edge, with WC's on either side just under the edge and further back is the bulkhead/wall.  Doors on either side with possibly a larger service door in the middle for access to the patent windless.  The external would look similar to Glory of the Seas....but without a windless exposed in the middle.

The spacing would have to be adjusted to compensate.  Chapelle's drawing shows the WC's outside the deck on either side...extending past the forward hatch.  If the WC's are pushed back on either side to accommodate the forward hatch...it seriously shortens the forecastle space.  duncan McLean says her topgallant forecastle is at the level of the main rail....but Chapelle shows it at the monkey rail.  Crothers says...both high and low topgallant forecastles were equally used....BUT this ship has a patent Windless...which means she had to be as high as the monkey rail...despite what McLean says.   Thoughts?

 

Rob

Rob,

McLean was wrong. McKay's ships all had their focsle deck heights at the monkey rail height. Of that I'm now positive. In every description of a McKay focsle, there's plenty of room for off-duty crew. That's impossible unless the bulkhead height is at the monkey rails. Looking at Crothers' illustration, the "wcs" look overly small, probably not to scale. As far as pushing them back, why not set the focsle bulkhead wall just behind the foward hatch, instead of pushing it back. I need to sketch it out to envision spacing. The patented windlass also appears to be taller but more compact. Another reason the interior focsle deck height is about 6'. Somehow, I'm sure it all works out. 

[rwiederrich]

16 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

As far as pushing them back, why not set the focsle bulkhead wall just behind the foward hatch, instead of pushing it back. I need to sketch it out to envision spacing.

I was going to suggest that.  Not sure the exact size of the standard WC.....so some experimenting will need to happen.  Just like every aspect of this vessel...we need to evaluate the realities to the speculative.  

We know the forecastles true height...and we know she had a patent windless...requiring working room.....and we know she had a forward hatch and its requirements.   Now to fit it all in and make it look nice....(said...while pointing at you)....😃

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

40 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

You're right about the added touch of class that mahogany adds to your skylight seating. It looks very elegant. Nicely done.

Thanks Rich...I thought so.  It will look bold once I finish off the top section in white.

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

A couple days late and not fully finished to my full standards (missing railings around portico and at least the fore end of the poop deck). But, this layout fits the bill enough for you to proceed. One small addition: another prism light above the rear heads. Since it's unlikely a porthole would be fit in, I figure something had to let in light. As for dimensions, it's a tight fit but 3' wide fits in neatly with all other specs which match up with a 32' great room sometimes also referred to as a salon. I suppose the heads could be made wider and possibly act as inset walls for the large stern double occupancy apartment fit for a family. Regardless, unless you're modeling apartments below, none of this pure speculation matters. Other revisions include a foot deep seating area on all four sides of the skylight. Since I used a 3" overhang, the indent is 9". As the base is 5' and length is 10' that brings inside house dimensions to 3 & 1/2' wide by 8 & 1/2' long. There ends up being exactly 8 equally divided glass sections, which like  would have had wooden venetian blind type slats for weather protection, reinforced with brass rods. Both sides would be capable of being propped up and opened in warm weather as well. Further back, I scaled down the companion length to 5' with a 2 & 1/2' sliding top and 1' ends, making it 4 & 1/2' wide. That gives 3' space between the aft of the skylight and companion fore. Exhaust stove fit midway leaves 6 & 1/2' to companion entrance. The space in front of the companion is now 3'. Everything else just looks right now. Note: lines on the illustration are arrow straight. Bends are due to paper not being on a totally flat surface.

[rwiederrich]

Finished the skylight.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

44 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

A couple days late and not fully finished to my full standards (missing railings around portico and at least the fore end of the poop deck). But, this layout fits the bill enough for you to proceed. One small addition: another prism light above the rear heads. Since it's unlikely a porthole would be fit in, I figure something had to let in light. As for dimensions, it's a tight fit but 3' wide fits in neatly with all other specs which match up with a 32' great room sometimes also referred to as a salon. I suppose the heads could be made wider and possibly act as inset walls for the large stern double occupancy apartment fit for a family. Regardless, unless you're modeling apartments below, none of this pure speculation matters. Other revisions include a foot deep seating area on all four sides of the skylight. Since I used a 3" overhang, the indent is 9". As the base is 5' and length is 10' that brings inside house dimensions to 3 & 1/2' wide by 8 & 1/2' long. There ends up being exactly 8 equally divided glass sections, which like  would have had wooden venetian blind type slats for weather protection, reinforced with brass rods. Both sides would be capable of being propped up and opened in warm weather as well. Further back, I scaled down the companion length to 5' with a 2 & 1/2' sliding top and 1' ends, making it 4 & 1/2' wide. That gives 3' space between the aft of the skylight and companion fore. Exhaust stove fit midway leaves 6 & 1/2' to companion entrance. The space in front of the companion is now 3'. Everything else just looks right now. Note: lines on the illustration are arrow straight. Bends are due to paper not being on a totally flat surface.

Perfect Rich….looks spot on fantastic.   I needed the aft companion way measurements, cus it’s the next thing I’m building.  It will have a slanted roof and windows on the sides.   Kinda like that of Flying Clouds.  
 

Again, super job.  
 

Rob

Edited August 20 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Perfect Rich….looks spot on fantastic.   I needed the aft companion way measurements, cus it’s the next thing I’m building.  It will have a slanted roof and windows on the sides.   Kinda like that of Flying Clouds.  
 

Again, super job.  
 

Rob

Rob,

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. It's always appreciated. Next, I'll rush to the foscle deck and profile. It all has to fit just as logically as the poop deck does.

[rwiederrich]

13 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. It's always appreciated. Next, I'll rush to the foscle deck and profile. It all has to fit just as logically as the poop deck does.

I know we agreed that McLean made a mistake when he said the forecastle was the height of the main rail...but what if he was correct? What if the topgallant deck was at the main rail and the entry to the forecastle deck was, (As it is with the aft cabin), set 3 ft below. And the crew accessed it via a companionway as Crothers depicted in his book I quoted earlier? The patent windless still would fit. The reason I am readdressing it is...if McLean was wrong on this matter...and on several other issues...HOW then can we conclude he wasn't wrong on many other issues? And if we are to conclude his first hand knowledge was derived from actually getting his info from McKay's yard...then we must also conclude his observation of the forecastle must also be correct...and that we are missing something.
That something, I feel, can be found in Crothers depictions of what I am describing. The low topgallant forecastle deck was at the main rail....there was a companionway entry midship that led down to the forecastle deck...where the patent windless was. I'll find the picture from Crothers and post it later.

Wresting with this issue, I concluded that we need to look at this more objectively. We can't assume because we know how it was done on Glory of the Seas, that McKay did the same for his first clipper. I truly doubt it. Crothers says, the low topgallant forecastle was just as prevalent as the high. And to disregard McLean's observation on this...means every other observation he made is suspect. Personally, I don't want to go there, I trust his highly informed observations. If we are to conclude they were *Highly* informed. Staghound had either a high topgallant...which its deck level was at the monkey rail(our current stance), or she had a low topgallant forecastle, which its deck level was at the main rail. Lowering her ceiling height....but if the forecastle deck was recessed 3ft below...as is the main cabin aft...then there is ample room for the patent windless and working space for the crew.

 

Rob

Edited August 21 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

On 8/21/2024 at 9:16 AM, rwiederrich said:

I know we agreed that McLean made a mistake when he said the forecastle was the height of the main rail...but what if he was correct? What if the topgallant deck was at the main rail and the entry to the forecastle deck was, (As it is with the aft cabin), set 3 ft below. And the crew accessed it via a companionway as Crothers depicted in his book I quoted earlier? The patent windless still would fit. The reason I am readdressing it is...if McLean was wrong on this matter...and on several other issues...HOW then can we conclude he wasn't wrong on many other issues? And if we are to conclude his first hand knowledge was derived from actually getting his info from McKay's yard...then we must also conclude his observation of the forecastle must also be correct...and that we are missing something.
That something, I feel, can be found in Crothers depictions of what I am describing. The low topgallant forecastle deck was at the main rail....there was a companionway entry midship that led down to the forecastle deck...where the patent windless was. I'll find the picture from Crothers and post it later.

Wresting with this issue, I concluded that we need to look at this more objectively. We can't assume because we know how it was done on Glory of the Seas, that McKay did the same for his first clipper. I truly doubt it. Crothers says, the low topgallant forecastle was just as prevalent as the high. And to disregard McLean's observation on this...means every other observation he made is suspect. Personally, I don't want to go there, I trust his highly informed observations. If we are to conclude they were *Highly* informed. Staghound had either a high topgallant...which its deck level was at the monkey rail(our current stance), or she had a low topgallant forecastle, which its deck level was at the main rail. Lowering her ceiling height....but if the forecastle deck was recessed 3ft below...as is the main cabin aft...then there is ample room for the patent windless and working space for the crew.

 

Rob

Rob,

To answer your legitimate concerns, I first went to the McLean description of Glory of the Seas. What shocked me was that, contrary to expectations, he actually wrote that the focstle deck height was 6 feet! My first thought was "how did I miss this?" I'm glad that we finally, through a convoluted evaluation process, arrived at the correct conclusion. Unfortunately, it required you and Vlad to both do challenging tear downs to achieve the proper scale height. It goes back to the old carpenter's adge: "Measure twice, cut once."

I agree with your concept Rob. Just as our "North Star" in the Glory of the Seas project was to create the most faithfully authentic replica, I'm just as fully committed to doing the same for our Stag Hound project. 

Unless there's documented proof to contradict McLean, I still believe in the historic accuracy of his descriptions. So, while my personal direction was to think of the deck height of the focstle as being at the monkey rail, that's not what McLean says. So, the height is at the main rail. That being so, this leads me to reverse my position and accept that fact. This would necessitate a solid focsle bulkhead, with dual entry port and starboard companions. It makes sense to protect a newly patented, most likely heavier complicated gearing windlass mechanism. 

Edited August 24 by ClipperFan
spelling fix

[ClipperFan]

While these images aren't very helpful towards our goals of reproducing the most accurate clipper Stag Hound replica, I feel they're still worth seeing. Here, probably for the first time since 1928, is Cornelius McKay's beautifully crafted clipper half hull model. Since he wrote that it was actually modeled while the ship herself was under construction, we know it was built in 1850. For an antique, nearly 174 year old sole surviving Builder's hull model, she has held up very well.

[rwiederrich]

Actually, Rich, these images are perfect. I can see clearly her curves and the true sharpness of her stern post  It clearly shows me her sterns roundness and it’s angle of insertion into the curve’s leading too her shallow dead rise. I can make these work for me. 
Remember, I’m highly visual, and I learned my comparative interpretation skills making telescope mirrors for years.  
Staghound was surly a vary sharp design, not full and robust, like Glory of the Seas.  
Her belly is shallow and thin, though she has depth to her hull.  
Like McLean said, her exit is as sharp as her entry.   Thanks for asking for these images. 
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

13 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Actually, Rich, these images are perfect. I can see clearly her curves and the true sharpness of her stern post  It clearly shows me her sterns roundness and it’s angle of insertion into the curve’s leading too her shallow dead rise. I can make these work for me. 
Remember, I’m highly visual, and I learned my comparative interpretation skills making telescope mirrors for years.  
Staghound was surly a vary sharp design, not full and robust, like Glory of the Seas.  
Her belly is shallow and thin, though she has depth to her hull.  
Like McLean said, her exit is as sharp as her entry.   Thanks for asking for these images. 
 

Rob

Rob, You're welcome. I'm still trying to get my ideal fore, aft and broadside pics. This set may be the limit of what's achievable but we'll see. I'm still in awe of how beautifully finished this replica is. I'm not a wood veneer specialist but my best guess is the main lifts appear to be cherry separated by elm with flat black hull finish, possibly on an oak plaque.

[ClipperFan]

Since I can't get enough of this awesome  model, I've reoriented, cropped and organized them to improve their viewing.

 

 

Edited August 22 by ClipperFan
additional picture

[druxey]

Now, THOSE show her elegant lines to advantage! Thanks for posting them.

[Rick310]

Great pictures ClipperFan!!  Where is the half model located?  Is it possible to go see it?

I completely agree with you that unless proven otherwise, McLean’s descriptions should be considered accurate.

Rick

[ClipperFan]

52 minutes ago, druxey said:

Now, THOSE show her elegant lines to advantage! Thanks for posting them.

@druxey

you're quite welcome. These were all sent to me by a very generous lady at the Old State House Museum, Boston, MA. She also sent me the Chinese export painting of Stag Hound off Hunan Harbor.

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, Rick310 said:

Great pictures ClipperFan!!  Where is the half model located?  Is it possible to go see it?

I completely agree with you that unless proven otherwise, McLean’s descriptions should be considered accurate.

Rick

@Rick310 Thanks for the compliment. These incredibly beautiful photos come singularly through the kind generosity of Lori Fidler, Associate Director of Collections, Old State House, Old South Meeting House, 310 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02108. This spectacular 173-year-old antique is in storage at their warehouse. Personally, I doubt that it's available to the general public to view but I sent her a request to see if it's a possibility. Perhaps a supervised visit could be arranged. I will let you know her response to this inquiry.

Originally, she quoted me $40/hr for maybe a couple hours for two curators to take the artifact out of storage and take pictures for me. However, when she discovered that it wasn't in complex wrapping, she took these photos and waived the fee. Since I'm still attempting to get port broadside photo, head-on fore and aft photos too. The idea is to make best use of this truly unique connection to Donald McKay's visionary inaugural, extreme clipper Stag Hound which Cornelius McKay brilliantly named "the Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet. I'm still trying to chase down the drawing which originally accompanied this remarkably crafted, sole surviving authentic Builder's model. I will also share the 1850 Chinese export painting that Lori kindly shared too. For $25 it's possible to get a copy without the watermark. She was kind enough to send me both low and high-res images for that modest fee. I have her contact info, if you want to message me.