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 21 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 17 hours ago by ClipperFan
corrections

[sob]

yup - I had seen the language in McLeean's descriptions of there Stag Hound & Flying Cloud - I had not seen the specific language "the complex curving navel hoods " 

 

thanks

 

Scott

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, sob said:

yup - I had seen the language in McLeean's descriptions of there Stag Hound & Flying Cloud - I had not seen the specific language "the complex curving navel hoods " 

 

thanks

 

Scott

 

[ClipperFan]

@sob my apologies for mixing up my description of navel hood with McLean's historic articles from the 1850s. To clarify what I mean by these devices twisting to adhere to the hull here's a series of Glory of the Seas scenes. They're in chronological order from her shortly before launch in 1869 to approximately 1911. In comparison, I've also included the 1854 Champion of the Seas daguerrotype. Rob and I clearly see the gold-leaf embellished devices behind her sailor figurehead as the same navel hood, cutwater combination as seen 15 years later on Glory of the Seas. This proves that McKay was consistent in application of this unique bow structure. When examining traditional naval hoods, what I have seen is that they're structural pieces but unlike McKay's navel hoods, they're usually not adhering so closely to the ship's hull. It's the main reason why we consider McKay's structures as integral bow extensions.

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, sob said:

yup - I had seen the language in McLeean's descriptions of there Stag Hound & Flying Cloud - I had not seen the specific language "the complex curving navel hoods " 

 

thanks

 

Scott

"the complex curving navel hoods "  are Clipperfan's own words....used to describe the special symmetry required of the structure to transform from the hull shape of the bow, to straighten out and meet securely to the vertical aspects of the cutwater/stem.  It requires a *twist* to be made, in the structure.

 

Scott....it completely escapes me, as to your hard rejection of this structure, that is clearly evident on Glory of the Seas.  A structure no other builder employed.  I might remind you, if I may, that in the light of new conclusive evidence that Flying Cloud, as Staghound before her, did in fact have a spacious, Well lit, recessed forecastle that housed a patented windless below......with WC's internal to this topgallant forecastle.  You have not (as of late), included these changes on your plans, but retain the highly inaccurate external wood windless under a very short(inaccessible) forecastle deck, that, in no way could house a full watch of crew.  I tore out my initial errored forecastle on Glory of the Seas...long after it was installed and hardware was being applied...(When new evidence came forward), so I could create the most accurate model of Glory of the Seas.  Regardless of the pain and hard work that it took....being accurate was more important.  I would encourage you to do the same.  So what's it gonna be......Hold your opinion on one, or willingly overlook the other? The ramifications are far reaching. 

 

Rob

[sob]

two things

 

[sob]

1/ I am not rejecting then structures were I can see them 

           the structure you point to on then Glory is very clear and unlike what I've see on other builder's ships - it is clearly molded to the shape of the bow

           and would very likely provided the strong support you have described - I am fully with you on that

           but I am not convinced that ALL of the McKay clippers had exactly the same structures

           I have not seen evidence that the Flying Cloud had such a structure - McLean's description of the navel hoods on tree FC and SH were that they were so well bolted 

           together that they provided a lot of support to the bow's structure - I can easily see how such a design could have evolved into the structure you point at in the Glory

 

2/ whatever the structures are I do not think they should be called "Navel Hoods" 

            the concept of navel hoods is a old one (at least to the 1700s) and throughout  the history I could find referred  to support for the hawse holes

            the drawing I posted a while back clearly shows that only the structure around the hawse holes was called the navel hoods and that was blended into 

            another structure (e.g. trail-bosrds) that swept up to the figurehead

             following that logic the stern-most part of the structure point at on the Glory, the part just over the hawse-hole, could be referred to as a navel hood

             but the rest would not (and note, that many, but not all,  of the navel hoods had beams above and below the hawse holes 

 

Scott

[sob]

about the "highly inaccurate external wood windless"

  here again I've not see evidence that the early McKay ships had anything but the wooden windlass - EVERY plan for every ship of the same period had the same windlass

  of course, in general, those plans were drawn long after the ships were built

 

 McLean does not say anything about the FC's windlass but does note that the SG had " a patent windlass, with ends which ungear" 

    that description fits the wooden windlass which has ends that are separate from the body

 

I agree that the crew quarters in topgallant forecastle would need to be taller than the 5' so that some step down as you have described makes a lot of sense 

as for the WCs - McLean said  in its after wings are two water closets - that to me means that the WCs were under the topgallant forecastle deck but not necessarily that 

 they would her been inside the crew space

 

Scott

  

[sob]

ps - McLean does mention Heywood's patent windlass on then steamer SS Lewis also launched in 1851 so he know about windlasses of the design you posted

[Kenchington]

31 minutes ago, sob said:

whatever the structures are I do not think they should be called "Navel Hoods" 

I would agree with you, Scott, except for the wording that ClipperFan posted last night:

So at least one contemporary saw the figurehead as placed where the carved work on the navel hood ended. Hence, the structure reaching out to the figure and underlying the carving was perceived as the navel hood -- albeit a very different structure from what that term was conventionally applied to.

 

And that may well be a hint that McKay had come up with something different, something lacking its own term, that extended from the conventional navel hood into a substitute for archaic head rails. But that complicates things further with Glory of the Seas, as her version of the structure in question did not encircle the hawse holes at all. 

 

There seems to be agreement that we are looking at a signature feature of (maybe a feature unique to) McKay's ships. In Flying Cloud, it encompassed the hawse holes and was given the (not entirely appropriate) term "navel hood". In Glory, it ended above and forward of the hawse, so an evolving feature -- as you have said). Rob and ClipperFan have chosen to apply the "navel hood" term to all variants of the McKay speciality. Maybe there's something better that would more clearly identify the McKay structure, but I'm not going to be the one to suggest what that should be called!

 

Trevor

[sob]

thanks - I think we are basically on the same page as to the McKay structures

 

Scott

 

 

[rwiederrich]

30 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

I would agree with you, Scott, except for the wording that ClipperFan posted last night:

So at least one contemporary saw the figurehead as placed where the carved work on the navel hood ended. Hence, the structure reaching out to the figure and underlying the carving was perceived as the navel hood -- albeit a very different structure from what that term was conventionally applied to.

 

And that may well be a hint that McKay had come up with something different, something lacking its own term, that extended from the conventional navel hood into a substitute for archaic head rails. But that complicates things further with Glory of the Seas, as her version of the structure in question did not encircle the hawse holes at all. 

 

There seems to be agreement that we are looking at a signature feature of (maybe a feature unique to) McKay's ships. In Flying Cloud, it encompassed the hawse holes and was given the (not entirely appropriate) term "navel hood". In Glory, it ended above and forward of the hawse, so an evolving feature -- as you have said). Rob and ClipperFan have chosen to apply the "navel hood" term to all variants of the McKay speciality. Maybe there's something better that would more clearly identify the McKay structure, but I'm not going to be the one to suggest what that should be called!

 

Trevor

McLean refers to this structure that extends *PAST* the owes hole as, "Her hood ends are bolted alternately from either side, through each other and the stem, so that the loss of her cutwater would not affect her safety or cause a leak".  The Howes holes are nowhere near the cutwater.....but looking at Glory, you can easily identify this McLean description for FC.  Earlier in his description he says, "where the line of the planksheer and the carved work on the navel hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel".  Again, the planksheer is roughly at the level of the deck (nowhere near the howes holes).  Following Glory again, you can see this structures termination point is no where hear the howes hole.  Its out by the figurehead.  IF the Navel hood was specific to the howes holes and structurally tied to it, for cable alignment purposes.  How then does McLean on several occasions state the Hood has carvings upon it and it terminates at the figurehead, and is structurally supportive of the cutwater and stem?

 

Rob 

[sob]

in Glory the structure extends past the base of the figurehead and extends on top of the figurehead

the McLean note on the naval hoods on the FC says ""where the line of the planksheer and the carved work on the navel hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel"."

that, to me, indicates that the navel hoods do not extend past the base of the figurehead

 

Scott

 

[rwiederrich]

PS: Note....Or could it be that the lower half of this structure...the 3 lobed molding, that rests approximately above the howes hole....IS the Hood (In part), and its upper portion that extends to the planksheer and forward to the figurehead is the mystery part.  But as a whole, is described as the  Hood.  Regardless...the term might have dual meanings.

 

Rob

[sob]

yup - fully agree 

the drawing I posted showed a case where only a part of a structure was considered  a navel hood (the part near the hawse holes)

[rwiederrich]

26 minutes ago, sob said:

in Glory the structure extends past the base of the figurehead and extends on top of the figurehead

the McLean note on the naval hoods on the FC says ""where the line of the planksheer and the carved work on the navel hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel"."

that, to me, indicates that the navel hoods do not extend past the base of the figurehead

 

Scott

 

Then you are forced to explain why the figurehead is not back by the howes holes.....  On Glory the termination of this structure is above the figureheads shoulders.  Close enough to meat the description.  Since McLean is not very exact on many of his trim descriptions, and he uses terms such as, *Somewhat, about and some*.  He even fails to give the aft portico dimensions on FC.  A structure that had to be calculated from other known dimensions.

All this being said.  Apart from the exact depictions made by McLean....it can be reasonably devised, as I and Rich have done.....a Hood of some kind existed on Staghound, FC SS, and most likely all of McKay's clippers, and they were similar to that on  Glory of the Seas. 

 

Rob

Edited 3 hours ago by rwiederrich

[Kenchington]

Steady on, Rob!

 

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

"Her hood ends are bolted alternately from either side

As I have pointed out before, that is a reference to the hood ends of the planks and nothing whatever to do with the navel hoods, either in the original meaning of that term or the unique McKay structure.

 

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

"where the line of the planksheer and the carved work on the navel hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel"

Yes. But that is the upper, forward end of the structure in question. My point concerned the lower, after end. From the quoted text, that seems to have surrounded the hawse holes in Flying Cloud but, as seen in photographs, it clearly did not in Glory.

 

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

How then does McLean on several occasions state the Hood has carvings upon it and it terminates at the figurehead, and is structurally supportive of the cutwater and stem?

Because, I suspect, in Flying Cloud the structure was as McLean described it and stretched from hawse holes to the feet of the figure, whereas in Glory it reached from above and forward of the hawse holes out to the figure's shoulders. You have not (yet) offered evidence that McLean used the "navel hood" term for the McKay structure as it was in Glory, though it is a convenient one for modern discussion of the unique McKay structure.

 

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

could it be that the lower half of this structure...the 3 lobed molding, that rests approximately above the howes hole....IS the Hood (In part), and its upper portion that extends to the planksheer and forward to the figurehead is the mystery part

As so often with complex nautical technology, we can get confused between things and words.

 

What "is" is the structure that McKay seems to have included in the bows of his clippers, apparently with evolution of its details from ship to ship.

 

"Navel hood", in the generally understood meaning of the term, is something right around the hawse holes. Originally, it was there to take the wear and tear of the cables but hawse holes were not infrequently decorated and shipborne decorations often took the name of the structural piece that underlay them. I'm not surprised if some people took to using the "hood" term for the decorations around the holes.

 

With no known term for the McKay structure and an example of it, in Flying Cloud, that stretched up from the hawse holes, McLean seems to have adopted the "navel hood" term for the whole thing, right up to the feet of the angel. Which (to mix my metaphors in a poor attempt at a pun) has left us arguing over how many of those angels could dance on the head of a pin!

 

 

Trevor

 

 

[rwiederrich]

Well...you and Scott both have claimed the hood end terminates with the feet of the angel.  But McLean's description says nothing about the Angels feet...... " work on the navel hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel".  It simply states a full figure of an angel is present.  Using McLean's own lack of clarity on describing many carving and structural details.....It could easily be determined that at the termination of the hood...or in (proximity)...cuz no other place is possible......the figurehead is mounted.  If we were to follow his description literally.  The unreinforced stem would have to protrude at least 7ft (the length of the figurehead) beyond the cutwater to accommodate and support it.  The angel could not be fully supported by its feet alone.  It had to be supported by its back.  Which makes the understanding of the hood coming up forward and over the figurehead more plausible.  Such as we see in Glory.

 

Rob

[sob]

I guess we just read the english sentence differently

 

 

[sob]

the bottom line seems to be that we just agree to disagree on some topics

 

[Kenchington]

35 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

But McLean's description says nothing about the Angels feet......

True enough. And he also says nothing of where the navel hoods terminate, only where the carved work on them terminates.

 

Like Scott, I read where the carved work terminates to mean that there was no navel-hood carving beyond the aftermost part of the angel (i.e. the feet), though I don't deny that there is some ambiguity. But you are right that the structural timber of the navel hoods could have continued up to the angel's shoulders, as in Glory. Certainly, there was some sort of heavy timber there. As you say, the figure could not have been supported by its feet alone. (And I see to justification to suggest some sort of supporting ironwork, though that would have been technically possible.)

 

Trevor