Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[sob]

Clipp[er Fan said " the complex curving navel hoods described by Duncan McLean in more than one article."

 

can you give a pointer to such an article?

 

thanks

 

Scott

[Kenchington]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Trevor, of all the vessel ship lines I've seen, there has been no other where the forward lines of the bow are left completely blank by the draftsman himself. You can dispute my conclusion and I'm fine with that...but I would love to know a sensible alternative explanation. Meanwhile, I suggest a "what if." There are decades of Flying Cloud, Flying Fish & Sovereign of the Seas going back to the early 1900s. All have simple bare stems with figureheads awkwardly tacked on below the bowsprit. None have even a hint of a cutwater let alone the complex curving navel hoods described by Duncan McLean in more than one article. We're just trying to display an alternative interpretation based on empirical evidence.

You have studied the primary evidence concerning McKay's ships and, from what I can discern here, you have studied the material closely. I'm interested in the conclusions you have reached but not interested enough to drop other research and delve into the evidence myself. So I can comment (hopefully helpfully!) on what you say but I'm limited and, in the end, can only defer to your judgement.

 

As to why a draughtsman leaves something blank: There are probably too reasons. Either he thinks it very important and does not what to reveal his secrets (and I could point to examples of that) or else the thing left out had no interest for him, at least in the particular drawing (and lots of examples of that too!). The image you posted last evening, labelled "original plans", shows the lines plans. Maybe McKay simply didn't want to engage with purely decorative detail when drawing the lines of his creation. 

 

I do agree that any figurehead must be firmly fastened to the hull, or it would swiftly be lost. (Attached to the hull and not, I strongly suspect, to the bowsprit -- though if someone produces evidence to the contrary, I would not be shocked.) 2D imagery can fudge the details of the connection but 3D models should have some realistic structural link. If you find that past models lack that (maybe have only an angel's feet resting on solid timber), then they are clearly deficient. I applaud your efforts to do better!

 

A thought: Some figures, once moved to museums and examined off their ships, prove to be sort of 3-sided, with a deep slot running where a human spine should be. If one of the various pieces that make up the upper stem (the stem itself, gammon knee, cutwater etc.) was extended forwards, it would be possible to insert that piece into the slot in the figure, bolt all together and have the figure well attached without a casual viewer noticing how the attachment was achieved.

[ClipperFan]

5 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

You have studied the primary evidence concerning McKay's ships and, from what I can discern here, you have studied the material closely. I'm interested in the conclusions you have reached but not interested enough to drop other research and delve into the evidence myself. So I can comment (hopefully helpfully!) on what you say but I'm limited and, in the end, can only defer to your judgement.

 

As to why a draughtsman leaves something blank: There are probably too reasons. Either he thinks it very important and does not what to reveal his secrets (and I could point to examples of that) or else the thing left out had no interest for him, at least in the particular drawing (and lots of examples of that too!). The image you posted last evening, labelled "original plans", shows the lines plans. Maybe McKay simply didn't want to engage with purely decorative detail when drawing the lines of his creation. 

 

I do agree that any figurehead must be firmly fastened to the hull, or it would swiftly be lost. (Attached to the hull and not, I strongly suspect, to the bowsprit -- though if someone produces evidence to the contrary, I would not be shocked.) 2D imagery can fudge the details of the connection but 3D models should have some realistic structural link. If you find that past models lack that (maybe have only an angel's feet resting on solid timber), then they are clearly deficient. I applaud your efforts to do better!

 

A thought: Some figures, once moved to museums and examined off their ships, prove to be sort of 3-sided, with a deep slot running where a human spine should be. If one of the various pieces that make up the upper stem (the stem itself, gammon knee, cutwater etc.) was extended forwards, it would be possible to insert that piece into the slot in the figure, bolt all together and have the figure well attached without a casual viewer noticing how the attachment was achieved.

@Kenchington probably the best evidence we have been able to reliably evaluate is a treasure trove of Glory of the Seas historic images. Author Michael Mjelde quite generously shared many rare and in some cases never seen before images of her. Included were multiple views of her complex bow structure. Elements Rob and I interpret to be navel (not naval) hoods are very tight configured devices which are literally an extension of the upper hull. They gracefully twist from a "V" configuration to gradually arrive at a vertical curving point. Contrary to more decorative moldings on other clipper bowed ships and barques, these are three times as big and offer a substantial perch for the large bowsprit-jibboom spars installed just above. Both @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa build logs feature many of these crystal clear images. In fact, true to Duncan McLean's evaluation of the unique toughness of these structures, clipper Glory of the Seas survived a collision when a steam ship accidentally backed into her bow. The only damage she sustained was a cracked upper starboard rail and loss of some cutwater carvings. In his description of the bow construct on Flying Cloud McLean stated that the ship would remain seaworthy even with loss of her cutwater. 

[rwiederrich]

Personally, I find it quite disheartening to find such opposition to our discovery.  Modelers who profess to seek the highest level of accuracy...shy away from clear evidence.  I'm amazed, I was expecting more enthusiasm.  I've been researching and building scratch clippers for over 50 years and nothing so evident and clear would ever be dismissed because of, *I Just couldn't see it*.  If you've studied Mckay's practices and his attentions...it is clear he was onto something, no other builder partook of.

As far as I'm concerned, my Staghound, (as it has been replicated on Glory of the Seas), representation will include this *navel Hood*, as we have discovered.  And I will continue to gracefully point out this omission/error misrepresented on, so many models.   I'm that passionate about it.  Smooth sailing friends.

 

Rob

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

25 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Personally, I find it quite disheartening to find such opposition to our discovery. 

  New discoveries are often resisted when presented.  Examples: Sea fossil evidence found in the 19th century on mountain tops indicated that the Earth is vastly older than the approximately 4,000 years suggested by the Bible;  Darwin & Wallace described Natural Selection as the mechanism of Speciation (still stubbornly rejected by some even today - there is a 'full size' Noah's Ark in Kentucky where humans cohabitate with dinosaurs);  Hubble's discovery in the 1920s that there were other distant galaxies - and not 'spiral nebulae' close to us in a 'small' universe;  Continental drift due to plate tectonics;  that a meteor triggered a mass extinction 60 million years ago that finished-off the dinosaurs ...   So it has been throughout history (ever read Carl Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'?).  Don't be surprised or disheartened, mate - for your research is appreciated by more than a few among us.

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  New discoveries are often resisted when presented.  Examples: Sea fossil evidence found in the 19th century on mountain tops indicated that the Earth is vastly older than the approximately 4,000 years suggested by the Bible;  Darwin & Wallace described Natural Selection as the mechanism of Speciation (still stubbornly rejected by some even today - there is a 'full size' Noah's Ark in Kentucky where humans cohabitate with dinosaurs);  Hubble's discovery in the 1920s that there were other distant galaxies - and not 'spiral nebulae' close to us in a 'small' universe;  Continental drift due to plate tectonics;  that a meteor triggered a mass extinction 60 million years ago that finished-off the dinosaurs ...   So it has been throughout history (ever read Carl Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'?).  Don't be surprised or disheartened, mate - for your research is appreciated by more than a few among us.

@Snug Harbor Johnny your words and insight are great encouragement. I may be incorrect but it's my estimation that our small group's recent three year reconstruction of Donald McKay's clipper Glory of the Seas involved the most in-depth and exhaustive investigation into a McKay clipper ship in history. I was inspired by Rob's desire to accurately create a model which merged with my wish to finally see McKay's magnificent vessel be given her true appearance. Our efforts eventually drew attention of author Michael Mjelde who's unquestionably the world's foremost authority on McKay's final clipper. It was his knowledge, guidance, and input involving numerous documents and amazingly clear photos which proved invaluable in our efforts. This discipline led me to re-evaluate other McKay related vessel descriptions by McLean with specific focus on construction dimensions. While studying McKay's premier clipper Stag Hound I read that her forecastle had accommodations for her crew, described as being lofty, well lit and ventilated. Yet forecastle deck height was set at the 5' main rail. That doesn't match with a description of lofty. Further to provide crew accommodations the aft section of the forecastle would have to be enclosed. Windows would be necessary to provide light. Later in the description, stern quarters are 3' below. Rob and I concluded a similar arrangement was set up at the forecastle. Now there's sufficient room for crew. The same quarters were also provided for on the Flying Cloud & Flying Fish. Which means the windlass on these vessels would have been mounted below along with water closets. This makes for a much cleaner working space forward. Another misinterpreted aspect is on the rear coach house on clipper Sovereign of the Seas. Models show a small house yet McLean's description says plainly that the coach house was large with working space on both sides and sufficient space at the stern for steering. Meanwhile, here's a picture of the bow of the Great Admiral which shows that she had an impressive cutwater with carved embellishments but no substantive navel hood as seen on McKay clippers. (Arthur D Edwarde's photographic collection in the State Library of South Australia. They have hundreds of historic images of dozens of clipper ships). 

Edited 11 hours ago by ClipperFan
additional information

[Kenchington]

8 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Personally, I find it quite disheartening

I hope you don't, Rob! Requests for clarity in your account of what you have found and for your evidence shouldn't be disheartening. Not half as much as your discovery will be to all of those people who have built models of McKay clippers and must now face the probability that those models are badly wrong 🥲

 

Sometime soon, I may finish an extended essay on Sovereign of the Seas (the 1638 one) which, among other things, will argue that just about every model yet made of that remarkable ship has very badly misrepresented the prototype. I'd say they are all "laughably wrong", except that I see no amusement in demolishing the achievements of others. How many thousands of people (many far more skilled than I will ever be) have spent how many millions of hours, and millions of dollars, on those models? Yet I can't find even one that I wouldn't dismiss at a glance. That's a lot of people who have reason to be disheartened.

 

 

I think what you are saying is that the arrangement clearly seen on Glory of the Seas, which you (and I think you are saying that it was you, in the plural) have called a "navel hood", was a McKay signature feature, used on many (all?) of his clippers but not by other builders. I'm assuming that you have reviewed the available evidence, so I'll accept your conclusion. (I'm certainly not about to repeat your research!) The structure is clearly more than just decorative and provides enhanced lateral support for the uppermost part of the stem -- far more support than Great Admiral had, to cite only ClipperFan's recent example. Do you think it may also have given some extra lift when the ship plunged into a head sea -- as a step towards the flare that could more easily be built into a steel ship than a wooden one?

 

Yet, as I have argued before, there was nothing secret about that navel hood. It was right there before the eyes of every sailor and shipwright in every port that a McKay clipper visited. So why wasn't it replicated by other builders? Did others not see the point? Or was it professional courtesy and professional pride, discouraging each builder from copying a fellow artist's signature? Maybe there is a comment in a letter or notebook somewhere that could provide answers but I rather doubt that we can ever know.

 

 

Trevor

 

[BANYAN]

Not posting much here Rob, and Co. as I have nothing I could add to this interesting and thoughtful discussion.  Following with much interest.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[druxey]

All I can add is that primary, contemporary evidence is the best thing, short of the wayback machine.

[ClipperFan]

On 4/29/2025 at 8:11 PM, sob said:

Clipp[er Fan said " the complex curving navel hoods described by Duncan McLean in more than one article."

 

can you give a pointer to such an article?

 

thanks

 

Scott

@sob Scott, that particular quote is mine, as I attempted to help others envision the complex nature of those nautical devices which can be clearly seen in Glory of the Seas photos. Instead what I'll do is share excerpts from the two ships where McLean described the bow arrangement. I apologize in advance if this is material you've already read but I'm also sharing it for others who may not be as familiar with these passages. I'll start with Stag Hound and then proceed to Flying Cloud. After these two, McLean doesn't repeat a description of this bow again. However, based on his sailor's observation of how durable this new design was, we see no reason why McKay would just abandon it. One trait I've noticed in McLean's works, typical I suspect of a fellow Scottsman, is his no nonsense approach to describing these vessels. He doesn't waste much time on carvings or embellishments. So when he describes Stag Hound as a model which may be said to be the original of a new idea in naval architecture, that's saying something. He repeats this assertion near the end of his evaluation. In his description of the McKay bow, he briefly mentions hood ends. Blink and you'll miss it. If you're familiar with the Cornelius McKay hull model you'll see that Stag Hound had a near vertical bow. Yet McLean describes a gracefully curving cutwater which projects beyond the bow. McLean refers to this structure not just as cutwater but her bow too. This is where the genius of the navel hood design joins both stem and cutwater into a powerful prow capable of smashing into the toughest seas on earth. A singular cutwater would be too vulnerable alone. McLean's greater description occurs with Flying Cloud. Here's where he first uses the term navel hood to describe these nautical constructs. However one wants to interpret these navel hoods, they were large enough to accommodate carved work which precludes a simple molded piece like we see on Great Admiral. McLean also states that these vessels had neither head nor trail boards, ruling them out. Further on he makes his most insightful evaluation of the clever ruggedness of this unique bow when he observes that even loss of her cutwater wouldn't affect her seaworthiness. That is saying something. 

Edited 6 hours ago by ClipperFan
corrections