Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[rwiederrich]

Sorry my friend, but there are only 4 yards per mast in this painting.

Only 2 sails on the fore mast...one on the main and one on the mizzen.

Some tricky re-rigging of her topsail to reduce its overall exposure, by clewing up her reef tackle.  This trick exposes the sail to extreme stress on the reef points on the edge of the sails and doesn't provide proper support along the length of the head of the sail at the yards jackstays.  Looks like 2 sails but is only one.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

I hope everyone is understanding the process of furling and reefing the topsail ?

The reef tackle is located on the side of the sail..bout midway.  These lines are pulled in and the sail is then partially furled up to the yard.  The head of the sail fall forward and is blocked by the mid reefing of the lower part of the sail.  As seen on the foremast, mainmast, mizzen topsails

This process was the precursor of the process of cutting the sail....the process that the Forbes and Howes double topsail designs accomplished.  

So prior to these advances....the single topsail was clewed up by the reef tackle to the yard, the sail is bent to.....permitting the top half of the sail to fall forward and reduce its effectiveness.

Then the crew furled the rest of the sail to the yard.

 

Rob

[Rick310]

Agree Rob,

Her topsail yards have been lowered to the lowest reef points, her reef tackles are pulled in tight and the billowing part of the topsail will be furled on top of the yard.  The crew is in the process of furling the topsails.  To furl the topsail, the yard has to be lowered first, therefore the billowing sails.

What a great picture!!!

Rick

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Sorry my friend, but there are only 4 yards per mast in this painting.

Only 2 sails on the fore mast...one on the main and one on the mizzen.

Some tricky re-rigging of her topsail to reduce its overall exposure, by clewing up her reef tackle.  This trick exposes the sail to extreme stress on the reef points on the edge of the sails and doesn't provide proper support along the length of the head of the sail at the yards jackstays.  Looks like 2 sails but is only one.

 

Rob

Rob,

So that means all 3 skysail yards have already been sent down. Huge billowing portions are in reality upper halves of large single topsails. I could have sworn those were two seperate sails with the t'gallant yardarm hidden on top of the already reefed topsail below. 

This heightens dramatic impact of this scene, as you said this type of action really stresses out sails. 

Correct me again if I'm wrong. Isn't usual reefing procedure to pull up the sail from the bottom and reef it at several different reef points as conditions require?

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Correct me again if I'm wrong. Isn't usual reefing procedure to pull up the sail from the bottom and reef it at several different reef points as conditions require?

If you are simply furling the sail.....but these fellows are not furling just yet.  They need to get the large topsails unproductive.  And that means, pulling up the reef tackle and the sail, half way and, dropping the yard to impede its ability.  (This is done simultaneously). This causes the top half of the sail to fall over the bottom half.  Reducing its size. This action is done quickly, so strong gusts don't rip down the masting that is overloaded.  Once the sails size is reduced(hence) its force...then the entire sail was pulled up and furled to the yard.  It was a dangerous and arduous adventure, and it took a lot of men. This problem is exactly why they invented the *double* topsails.

 

Rob

Edited August 28 by rwiederrich

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Another detail I've just noticed in the dramatic artwork (as my attention was drawn elsewhere in the painting) ...  The sails that have already been furled have the mouse ears clewed to the mast in 'Navy fashion' ... very interesting.  Commercial ships often have the 'ears' positioned near the ends of the yards.  But ships can be rigged however the Captain prefers, so this one might have been a Navy man.

[Rick310]

Rich, to raise the topsail for furllng, would necessarily mean having to loosen the chain sheets of the topsail first before the sail could be raised.  Much simpler and faster to lower the topsail yard first so the reef points could be drawn up to the yard by the reef tackle and then furl the sail.

Rick

[rwiederrich]

Regardless of what action came first…… this rendering shows the precarious situation the crew was forced to be in, when they had to rapidly shorten the huge topsail.  The action and motion of the act is dramatically captured in this Buttersworth painting.  
 

Im now more convinced ,than ever,  this is the sail presentation I’m going to model my Staghound in.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

6 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  Another detail I've just noticed in the dramatic artwork (as my attention was drawn elsewhere in the painting) ...  The sails that have already been furled have the mouse ears clewed to the mast in 'Navy fashion' ... very interesting.  Commercial ships often have the 'ears' positioned near the ends of the yards.  But ships can be rigged however the Captain prefers, so this one might have been a Navy man.

@Snug Harbor Johnny

your comment about the captain of the Stag Hound being a Navy man due to the inner dog ears of tightly furled sails in the Buttersworth piece raised my curiosity. I learned that Cape Cod captain Josiah Richardson was her first commander. I haven't discovered who her following captains were yet to see if one actually had a Navy background. Captain Josiah Richardson was a lifelong sailor but didn't participate in the Navy. From the little I've read, he was a genuinely nice guy and selfless talent. This is a nice biography on him from Autumn 1995 Sea History magazine. If anyone can find a color reproduction of the beautiful Charles R Patterson Stag Hound portrait, I'd love to see it!

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

Here's my mostly finished fore fo'c'stle bulkhead fascia. Getting the arches cleanly sketched free hand is frustrating. I should really use french curves before these could be considered ready for publication. When you consider how radically different this concept is to the standard open faced "stuffed" windlass underneath, I suspect this idea will generate quite a few discussions. Yet, this look is how I and Rob see Donald McKay's treatment for any of his clippers with a low main rail forecastle deck height. That includes obviously Stag Hound, Flying Cloud, Flying Fish and many others. Considering that, before he jumped into the California Clipper ships, McKay had extensive experience building Atlantic Packet ships, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that he knew how to create living areas in challenging spaces. 

This completely alternative concept is based on evaluating facts described by Duncan McLean and our discussions on windlass placement. Once it's accepted that an 1850 Emerson-Walters complex iron geared design was the "patented" version mentioned by McLean it sets up an investigation. Where do you mount such a heavier device? Top-heavy items are anathema to sailing ships. Just ask the crew of the Vasa. That necessitates relocating it below. Another advantage of such a choice is protecting the device from the elements. In addition, by dropping down just 3 feet, it now creates a lofty 8 foot high accomodation for one watch of the crew.

According to McLean's Flying Fish description, this area was not only of a generous height, but it was well lit and ventilated too. So, there would have had to been windows in that ship's even lower 4.5 foot high forecastle bulkhead. And, again others have disagreed with this interpretation but it makes sense to me. Twin waterclosets are before the companions. Placing these just forward of the ladders to below just makes pragmatic sense. It meets all criteria of the Boston Daily Atlas description. Besides which, in Stag Hound down below is exactly where twin WCs are placed for use of the captain and all ranking officers.

While these windows are on full display, I imagine there were probably protective storm shutters for bad weather.

Companions are in the forecastle wings. I see these as having twin folding doors which both open simultaneously and have a sliding hatch above. Twin ladders could be mounted in front of the two molded areas so as not to block window views. Since there are no photos of these wonderful ships, almost all of this has to be conceptual. We are all doing our best to realize the most authentic appearance of Stag Hound based upon the best evidence we can uncover.

[ClipperFan]

On 8/24/2024 at 8:05 PM, Rick310 said:

Thank you Rich for the follow up.

If it should ever be shown to the public, I would very much like to meet you and view it with you if you can make it to Boston.  I live in Maine, so getting to Boston is not difficult.

Rick

@Rick310

my apologies for not replying sooner. I would definitely welcome the chance to meet and view the McKay Stag Hound model in person. It would be even more fun to view other works of art or models dedicated to Donald McKay.

[druxey]

Nice drawing of the foc'st'le bulkhead. Surely there was a round up to the decks as well?

[rwiederrich]

Rich...  I've done a preliminary over drawing of your beautiful rendering.  And if you follow the angle of the hull framing down to the lower(3ft) forecastle deck.  With the companion ways in their present location...and their steps leading down...you have less than a foot and a half space available for the WC's....between the steps and the out framing of the hull.  However...if the companion ways were relocated to the window just inboard and the window over to the companion way's current location....you will have four and a half ft available space.  Enough for a decent WC.

 

If you think a window behind the steps is unacceptable. Then simply panel the space in.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich...  I've done a preliminary over drawing of your beautiful rendering.  And if you follow the angle of the hull framing down to the lower(3ft) forecastle deck.  With the companion ways in their present location...and their steps leading down...you have less than a foot and a half space available for the WC's....between the steps and the out framing of the hull.  However...if the companion ways were relocated to the window just inboard and the window over to the companion way's current location....you will have four and a half ft available space.  Enough for a decent WC.

 

If you think a window behind the steps is unacceptable. Then simply panel the space in.

 

Rob

Rob,

Good catch! The perils of my not comprehending the sharp curvature of a vessel's prow. Point taken. Companions need to be moved inward. That opens up an outer area for twin ladders to then be mounted outside of relocated companions. This also opens up room downstairs for dual WCs. A couple other thoughts: Stag Hound is 39' shorter than Glory of the Seas I'm beginning to think maybe a 1' or 14" splashrail might make more sense than two 18" ones equalling 3'. An 18" monkey rail plus 1' splashrail equal 30", while plus 14" equals 32" (same as poop deck rails) I may narrow windows too, as they look like they're a bit large. Ladders now being outside companions, I'll put panels behind them. I appreciate your feedback.

[rwiederrich]

I figure...there will be scrutinizers of our work out there, and since we are making highly educated *guesses*.....we might as well make them as accurate as they could be....based upon the limited descriptions of Duncan McLean.

 

Your adjustments sound perfect.  Now that you have drawn the companion way slide roof.....you can probably see why I chose the Thermopylae model forecastle companion way as an example.....😁

I  also agree....making the splash rail shorter by several inches.....makes more sense.  Some paintings of her almost eliminate the visible splash rail all together, so it must have been shorter.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

22 hours ago, druxey said:

Nice drawing of the foc'st'le bulkhead. Surely there was a round up to the decks as well?

@druxey

Thanks for the compliment. Rob pointed out that I missed the sharp incline of the Stag Hound prow. It means where I placed companions doesn't leave enough room for internal ladders down below. I will relocate them to where the outermost set of windows are now. That frees up room for twin forecastle ladders up from the main deck for access above. We've also discussed splashrail height, lowering them to 14". That brings height to 32", same as poop deck rail height. I'm also considering making windows a little smaller, to be more in line with those seen on the front fascia of the rear coach house on Glory of the Seas. 

[rwiederrich]

On 9/3/2024 at 6:03 PM, ClipperFan said:

@druxey

Thanks for the compliment. Rob pointed out that I missed the sharp incline of the Stag Hound prow. It means where I placed companions doesn't leave enough room for internal ladders down below. I will relocate them to where the outermost set of windows are now. That frees up room for twin forecastle ladders up from the main deck for access above. We've also discussed splashrail height, lowering them to 14". That brings height to 32", same as poop deck rail height. I'm also considering making windows a little smaller, to be more in line with those seen on the front fascia of the rear coach house on Glory of the Seas. 

I think once you have done this....this will be the drawing I use to model my forecastle bulkhead.  Course, that won't happen till I get to that point in the build.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

Here's the revised aft fo'c'sle bulkhead with all changes you recommended:

(1) both companions moved inward for better clearance below due to vessel's sharply inclined hull.

(2) twin outer ladders now reside where companions were before.

(3) splashrail height is down to 14" bringing total fo'c'sle bulkhead height to 32".

While it's not in the sketch, I believe that iron safety rails with wires strung between them, like we saw on Glory of the Seas would be sensible to prevent a 5' fall risk, similar to that of the aft poop deck.

[rwiederrich]

Love it…… just love it.   
 

I couldn’t have done better myself.  
 

I believe this is as close as we can get….with all the clues we have compiled.   
 

I can’t imagine it being any different 

 

Talking to Mike today, he fully agreed that Duncan McLean’s descriptions are hardened fact, based upon his responsibility as a chronologer of the facts of these vessels. 
 

A sports reporter, or a NASA documenter of the space program ….. of his time.  Clipper ship designs and records were big business at the time.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Love it…… just love it.   
 

I couldn’t have done better myself.  
 

I believe this is as close as we can get….with all the clues we have compiled.   
 

I can’t imagine it being any different 

 

Talking to Mike today, he fully agreed that Duncan McLean’s descriptions are hardened fact, based upon his responsibility as a chronologer of the facts of these vessels. 
 

A sports reporter, or a NASA documenter of the space program ….. of his time.  Clipper ship designs and records were big business at the time.  
 

Rob

Rob,

Thanks for the compliments. I'm much more comfortable with this result than my previous efforts. It reminds me to keep in mind that we're actually working in three dimensions and not to ignore that fact. 

As for your conversation with Mike regarding the facts as supplied by Duncan McLean, I agree almost 100% in principle. Some mistakes have been uncovered but only by using one or two other reliable sources have we revised those specs. Three I can think of involve the upper depth of keel vs lower. In that case, Henry Hall's notes reinforced a more balanced division. Then there was the rake of the masts being reported as 4 & 1/2 per foot, when Cornelius McKay's handwritten notes confirmed it was actually 4.2" per foot. Finally there was the bowsprit seeve being 4 & 1/4" per foot and not 4 & 1/2" per foot, again confirmed by the same handwritten notes. My suspicion is that McLean probably got the notes correctly and somehow final reporting when printed included minor errors. It just reinforces that we have to constantly check and recheck these specifics to ensure final accuracy.

I've also read McLean's descriptions of other clippers launched by Paul Curtiss, either of Boston or Newburyport which have just as much details as those of McKay's. Proof that Mr. McLean was in high demand for the beautiful clippers of his day.

 

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

I've also read McLean's descriptions of other clippers launched by Paul Curtiss, either of Boston or Newburyport which have just as much details as those of McKay's. Proof that Mr. McLean was in high demand for the beautiful clippers of his day.

McLean was like a reporter reporting on a horse race.  He describes the horse to a tee.  Its height, stride, any stat that can influence a buyer or better.  Betting was the predominant pass time of the wealthy and the up and coming, investor.  Clipper betting was like fantasy football is today.  but you still need the stats and info on players to make the best bet you can.  Same goes for clippers.  McLean was the provider of stats.  If a vessel was constructed poorly and had few amenities....it might not attract a well paying traveler or cargo.  Not to mention any noted discrepancies in its construction might inhibit its performance or endurance.

McLean had to be clear.....millions of dollars were riding on it.

 

Betting on clippers and investing in shipping rates was nearly as profitable as mining the gold fields of California.

 

Rob 

[ClipperFan]

6 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

McLean was like a reporter reporting on a horse race.  He describes the horse to a tee.  Its height, stride, any stat that can influence a buyer or better.  Betting was the predominant pass time of the wealthy and the up and coming, investor.  Clipper betting was like fantasy football is today.  but you still need the stats and info on players to make the best bet you can.  Same goes for clippers.  McLean was the provider of stats.  If a vessel was constructed poorly and had few amenities....it might not attract a well paying traveler or cargo.  Not to mention any noted discrepancies in its construction might inhibit its performance or endurance.

McLean had to be clear.....millions of dollars were riding on it.

 

Betting on clippers and investing in shipping rates was nearly as profitable as mining the gold fields of California.

 

Rob 

Rob,

Here's a highly detailed Boston Daily Atlas description of a non McKay clipper, built by Paul Curtis, East Boston, called the Queen of the Clippers, Oct 6, 1852. This is perfect confirmation of the role Duncan McLean played in not only documenting but also promoting these maritime racehorses:

 

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1852-10-06).html

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

8 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Betting on clippers and investing in shipping rates was nearly as profitable as mining the gold fields of California.

Rob 

  Even more profitable (for most) was to 'mine' the prospectors by offering wildly overpriced supplies.  If you shipped tools and necessities to San Fransisco during the gold rush, you could get thirty to 50 times what you paid for the stuff in the East.

[ClipperFan]

On 9/6/2024 at 4:37 PM, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  Even more profitable (for most) was to 'mine' the prospectors by offering wildly overpriced supplies.  If you shipped tools and necessities to San Fransisco during the gold rush, you could get thirty to 50 times what you paid for the stuff in the East.

@Snug Harbor Johnny

great observation. In fact, the era of these beautiful sailing thoroughbreds was too short lived. But while they served, they were the undisputed epitome of sailing ships ever. Pity that not one has ever been preserved to be seen intact today.

[rwiederrich]

I began working on the after passage way today.  Still have to make the Mahogany slide roof.  Needs a second coat of paint too. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Finished the top sliding hatch.  Still need to sand and repaint again.

 

The companion way is only 5/8" X 6/8"

 

[rwiederrich]

I finished the companion way today.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

While I was at it , I added door knobs to all the other doors.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Took a group pic with all the family who were here.  And one with a pencil for scale. 
 

Rob

[Rick310]

Great work Rob!!

Rick