Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[sob]

yes, this is one of the paintings that I think may have been done from life (the timing is right but I'm not sure the artist was in the right place at the right time) - it is a very nice painting - though hard to see the details at this scale - someday I'd like to see the original

 

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, sob said:

ps - few of the paintings of the Flying Cloud (and many early clippers) were likely done by artists who had actually seen the ship - most

artists went by whatever descriptions they had (e.g. the McLean articles) and by what they knew about clippers in general

 

there were some of the Flying Cloud where the artist might have - see

https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/what_Flying_Cloud_looked_like.htm

 

@sob Scott, as I said earlier, I do have great respect for the in-depth documents you have gathered for everyone in your terrific subco website. Case in point are these ultra rare paintings. Chinese export paintings are a favorite of mine since they're usually very colorful. It would be lovely view this piece in its original colors if it's possible. Meanwhile, again this monotone reproduction shows the sleek hull Flying Cloud had, again with a gracefully  curving prow. Here her winged angel figurehead is unfortunately so blurry that she has a bird like appearance. The vessel's portrayed with all topsails set, courses and royals fueled, two jib sails and her large spanked sail set. Old glory flowing backwards indicates she's sailing against the wind. Chinese export works like these usually had pre-painted backgrounds. The artist would paint the ship in according to the captain's wishes. Again a beautiful portrait of a lovely tall ship.

 

 

 

[sob]

yup - that copy is from the book on the FC's first passengers 

I tried pointing the Peabody Museum at the owner but never heard anything back

 

Bruce Lane said he saw the painting in the owner's house and said it was quite faded 

 

Scott

[ClipperFan]

8 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I'm still chewing on this...   If McLean says, ""where the line of the planksheer and the carved work on the navel hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel on the wing".

 

Terminate...?  that means the two intersect and become one. Or they simply end.  If the plank sheer on McKay's drawing (both McKay's), is at least 3~4 ft above the so called *Navel Hood*, which Scott claims is slightly above or around the Howes Holes.  for them to bisect...they must protrude beyond the hull.  If not...then by both of those drawings the figurehead must be right up against the stem at the line of the strakes.  For that is where the planksheer and hood terminates on their drawings.  However, if one were to follow the McLean description and use the Glory profile....the description makes far more sense.

 

Rob

 

 

@rwiederrich Rob and @sob Scott, by the time McLean wrote his article, Flying Cloud would have been already launched. The line of the planksheer would have been fancy molding which continued as the upper molding of the navel hoods which both gradually curved inwards to a point just above and behind a figurehead's shoulders. The starboard broadside on Glory of the Seas shows this perfectly while the earlier Champion of the Seas daguerrotype confirms this but it's much harder to see due to the great distance and more oblique angle.

[ClipperFan]

7 minutes ago, sob said:

yup - that copy is from the book on the FC's first passengers 

I tried pointing the Peabody Museum at the owner but never heard anything back

 

Bruce Lane said he saw the painting in the owner's house and said it was quite faded 

 

Scott

@sob Scott, by any chance did Bruce Lane describe what colors this piece was originally painted in?

[sob]

only what he wrote in his manuscript

 

https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/Lane/Flying_Cloud.htm

 

 

[sob]

here is what he said in his manuscript - he later tracked down the original

 

Captains of ships operating in the China trade often commissioned a Chinese artist to paint their ship while it lay in Hong Kong or another Chinese port. It was the practice of these Chinese artists to go on board and actually measure the various features of the ship, after which they would return to their canvas and meticulously lay out the ship as a sheer or broadside plan. They painted using these lines as the skeleton. Because they were for the Captain, and because actual measurements were taken, paintings of this type were considered to very accurately represent a ship. The Peabody Museum has in its files a very small (3” x 5"), stained photograph of one such painting which is labeled as the Flying Cloud. "Old Ships of New England" reproduces the same painting, but it appears to be simply a photograph of the Peabody photograph. However, there is some question of this being in fact a painting of the Flying Cloud since the steve of the bowsprit is 5½ inches versus 4 inches shown on the MIT plan and in the Currier lithograph. At tempts to locate the original painting have failed, but careful examination of the original photograph under a microscope did not disclose the name of the ship. The assumption has been made that this painting was actually of the Flying Cloud and it has been used to a considerable extent in this study. 

[ClipperFan]

On 5/1/2025 at 3:32 PM, rwiederrich said:

Was he measuring that from amidships...or the entire length from stern to stem?  I know he said, *About 3ft*...Staghound had a 2.5ft sheer.

 

Rob

@rwiederrich Rob, I suspect the sheer dimension was supplied to McLean by the McKay shipyard. It's the lowest point of the vessel between bow and stern. In the case of Glory of the Seas I reviewed many different photographs to ascertain the location of that point. 

[sob]

note - excerpt from Crothers I posted a while ago says that the sheer of the deck did not follow the sheer of (for example) the main rail - in fact the distance from the deck to the main rail grew as you got closer to the bow thus giving additional headroom

under the forecastle without the need to have a step down

[ClipperFan]

9 hours ago, sob said:

not that it means anything, but this is a (poor) photo from an article written by maybe the best ship model maker that ever lived, Lloyd McCaffery, about his mode of the Flying Cloud - the article describes the research he did and the sources he used  - as it turns out he used many of the sources I used, and he also did not implement any navel hoods as described by McLean  (note he worked in small scale - at the bottom is a pencil tip and part of a finger)

@sob Scott, as you're now starting to recognize, all these beautifully crafted models (Lloyd McCaffrey's is definitely the finest miniature) suffer from being inaccurate when compared to historic documents and original contemporary art. It's like the computer analogy "garbage in, garbage out." A shame too because there's no finer miniature craftsman then Lloyd McCaffery. In the case of Flying Cloud she again has a bare stem, no navel hood or percievable cutwater and as a result her angel figurehead sits awkwardly below the bowsprit. In addition, her hawse hole is typically too high and lacks the iron molding seen on Glory of the Seas which looks unfinished. I remember seeing deck scenes and her forecastle has no accommodations for crew either; with a windlass stuffed underneath where it would be practically impossible to service. He does model a correctly small rear portico entrance to the poop deck however. All these inaccuacies helps to drive home why Rob and I both feel so strongly that where possible the record needs to be set straight for current and future modelers. As your well developed site is a big draw and resource we hope you will ally with us in promoting these corrections. We believe that our years long investigative and slavishly faithful Glory of the Seas reconstruction can lead the way. Thanks in great measure to Michael Mjelde's six decades of research and  help supplying us so many historic photographs. We believe this can lead all of us to a greater revelation as to the authentic appearance of McKay's clippers. It's the reason why I consider Glory of the Seas to be the "Rosetta Stone" of McKay clippers. 

Edited Friday at 11:59 PM by ClipperFan
added information

[sob]

we are after the same thing - historical accuracy - but that is, in reality, unobtainable since the records do not exist - all we can do is to do our best and that may mean that we do not all  agree on every detail

 

among other things you have concluded that there was a step down under the forecastle - based on Crothers I do not think that was needed

 

you have concluded the the windless was huge and under the forecastle - that is an uncommon view and with so many sources 

saying that the windlass in that time period was generally aft of the forecastle I tend to the other view

 

you have concluded that the structure on the glory (that looks like a headboard) had a purpose far more than to just looking good - I have no reason to think otherwise and do not have an opinion on the topic but you extend that conclusion across the entire McKay line of clippers and I see insufficient support for that extension

 

I will be updating my drawing based on our discussions but not likely to your satisfaction

 

I'm not sure there is more to be said that would convince me or you of the correctness of the other's ways so

maybe its time to let it go as it is and focus on what we agree on unless more information comes up to settle the questions

 

Scott

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, sob said:

yes, this is one of the paintings that I think may have been done from life (the timing is right but I'm not sure the artist was in the right place at the right time) - it is a very nice painting - though hard to see the details at this scale - someday I'd like to see the original

 

@sob Scott. I don't quite understand what you meant by you're not sure "the artist was in the right place at the right time." The actual inscription is on the painting itself done by the artist: "sketch of the AM. Clipper "Flying Cloud" laying off Whampoa" June '54 Kern delt. (artist: Edward Mayer Kern per Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

What brings you to be unsure of anything about the accuracy of this piece?

Edited yesterday at 01:18 AM by ClipperFan
name correction

[sob]

simply I do not have any documentation that this artist was at that location at the right time - I have no reason 

to think that he was not but can not vouch for the drawing unless that information comes up - at this point I assume

he was

 

Scott

[ClipperFan]

12 hours ago, sob said:

re: naval hood & high hawes hole placement - note that the navel hood can be above or below the hawes hole or both above & below it according to the old definitions 

also note that multiple of the old definitions say that the navel head is planks up to 10" thick arranged to support the hawes hole so not all that much might have

been visible from outside the ship

 

e.g. 

 

teel-The_shipwrights_vade-mecum-1805 – p 119

NAVAL-HOODS. Broad pieces of oak, from 6 to 10 inches thick, (according to the size of the ship,) worked afore the hawse-holes on the

outside of the ship, and likewise above and below them, in those ship's which have no cheeks to support a bolster; the naval-hoods thus

formed answering the same purpose.

 

Jamieson-A_Dictionary_of_Mechanical_Science_Arts-vol 1-1829

P 459 - Naval Hoods, or Whoods, large thick pieces of timber, which encircle the hawse-holes

 

 

Young-Nautical_Dictionary-1863 P 188

HAWSE-BOX, or HAWSE-PIECES, called also Naval Hoods. Pieces of plank bolted outside round each of the hawse holes to support the projecting part of the hawse-pipe. 

 

 

T. R. Blanckley, Naval Expositor - 1750

Navel Hoods are large Pieces of Stuff fayd against the Hawse Holes, and fills out to the outer Edge of the Cheeks, to keep the Cable from wearing them.

 

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, sob said:

simply I do not have any documentation that this artist was at that location at the right time - I have no reason 

to think that he was not but can not vouch for the drawing unless that information comes up - at this point I assume

he was

 

Scott

@sob Scott, fair enough. Just to reassure you, I doubt that the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston would include this piece as part of 84 other works by Kern if they couldn't have verified the provenance thoroughly.

[sob]

I have no doubt that he did the drawing 

[ClipperFan]

16 hours ago, sob said:

note - excerpt from Crothers I posted a while ago says that the sheer of the deck did not follow the sheer of (for example) the main rail - in fact the distance from the deck to the main rail grew as you got closer to the bow thus giving additional headroom

under the forecastle without the need to have a step down

When both @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa did a re-evaluation of their aft forecastle deck height, we were looking for a little more supporting documentation to prove a higher bulkhead. In an aft scene on Glory of the Seas a ship's boy atop the boy's cabin faces us as we look forward. We discovered the ship's carpenter in a low crouch repairing a ladder. The molded forecastle bulkhead towered behind him. It was much higher than on their models. Michael Mjelde once again gave us the evidence we needed. He sent us an article with proof that internal height of the forecastle deck was precisely 5 feet 9 inches. Measurement was precise as done by surveyors who had to be accurate for new windlass installation. Putting forecastle deck height above at 6 feet, (since deck thickness was 3 & 1/2 inches) exactly as described by Duncan McLean in his article. That was also the Glory of the Seas main rail height. Which means, even if Crothers' statement that decks were kept level to maintain a safe working environment, they still followed main rail heights most likely by rising in increments. As a result, Rob and my assertions that McKay's earlier clippers with low forecastle heights had to have had sunken decks to create sufficient space for crew accommodations and enough space to mount a windlass below are still accurate. Providing such accommodations would mean the aft forecastle bulkhead would have been enclosed with windows to provide light and ventilation. We realize this may be considered controversial but it fits with historic documentation.

Edited 19 hours ago by ClipperFan
grammar and revisions

[ClipperFan]

19 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

 

These "naval" hood descriptions definitely pre-date cast iron hawse pipes which negated the need of such wooden reinforcements. When we refer to "navel" hoods, we are not introducing our own term for these structures, which have no relation to the old fashioned "naval" hood. We're merely requoting a term used by Scottish sailor and journalist Duncan McLean. Here are several examples of large American sailing ships and their bow treatments. Note that they all feature a cutwater which extends beyond the bare stem. All have a sheerline molding that advances beyond the bow and terminates below the bowsprit and in the case of figureheads runs up to about the shoulder.Great Admiral has an impressive carved, gilded cutwater, while her sheerline molding extends up above the figurehead, note there's no navel hood. In a similar way, Barque Amy Turner has a sheerline molding that extends up to the shoulders of her graceful female figurehead and she has a carved cutwater. Again no navel hood.  The third merchant ship is another large sailing vessel, that I couldn't find identification for. She has a no nonsense billethead, which is at the end of her thin navel hoods which have some carvings on them too. Note how the navel hoods adhere to the hull before curving out and extending to the billethead. The ends of the navel hoods terminate at the billethead, while the modest base joins the hull just above her iron hawse hole. Meanwhile it appears like her sheerline molding has been extended in a straight line to the billethead as well. From three cast rectangular shadows it looks like she also had an old fashioned grid between her cutwater and the sheerline pole. Now compare these typical American vessels to what Rob and I now refer to as the unique McKay bow. While the sheerline molding extends to the tip of the navel hood, it's less noticeable due to the large sized navel hood below. Rob and I calculated the base depth to be about 3 & 1/2 feet. From this ultra close up of her November 1869 Glory of the Seas scene on the ways we realized how large these devices were. We know that the graceful Athene figurehead is documented as being exactly 7 & 1/2 feet tall. From her starboard bow scene we were able to determine that she projects at least 8 feet forward from the bow. Meanwhile the entire length of this structure is close to 16 feet, since it adheres so tightly to the  curving bow. Beneath the Grecian goddess figurehead, where her feet are resting is the cutwater. It too projects about 8 feet from the bow. Having a cutwater extend that far outward would normally leave it vulnerable to being washed away by heavy seas. That's why McKay's solution is so ingenious. By essentially extending the strength of the bow and sandwiching stem and cutwater between these massive devices makes for a very strong prow. In addition the massive 24 foot long bowsprit mounted and lashed just above gets about 9 feet of added support at the base. So, while her lovely figurehead gets some shelter and a very strong mounting bar which attaches through her back, her feet get added support from a sturdy cutwater beneath. Now compare and contrast this eminently sensible, thought out bow arrangement to the many sad examples of McKay models with just a bare stem and figurehead awkwardly tacked on almost as an afterthought. I know which prow I believe makes far more sense. The only other example we have of an actual McKay bow is the 1854 Champion of the Seas daguerrotype. She was noted to have a full sized sailor with his hat in his right hand and his left extended in a friendly wave. Again we can see a razor sharp bow. The image is of an imposing, large clipper with a very sharp hull. Since the photographer had to be at a great distance from their subject in order to capture the entire vessel, much detail isn't so easily distinguished. Still, the sailor figurehead is inclined and there's a substantial gilded, carved device immediately behind and slightly below the figurehead. Rob and I immediately recognize this as the same massive navel hoods supporting a carved, embellished cutwater beneath. That means a McKay clipper from 1854 and one from 1869, 15 years later both had the exact same bow treatment.

 

Edited 13 hours ago by ClipperFan
corrections

[ClipperFan]

On 4/23/2025 at 12:19 PM, rwiederrich said:

Witty tongue and cheek....I suppose they could if that tactic was used for changing the subject.  When one compiles all the facts.....one would wonder why then, when Duncan McLean says clearly that a patent windless was mounted under the forecastle, beneath her patented capstan.....that scale model drawers of her plans, always draw the standard wood windless at the edge of her forecastle deck....causing modelers to inaccurately model her forecastle and windless.......?   Now THAT is the true act of piracy....IMV.

 

Excerpt from Clipperfan:  "

Donald McKay jealously guarded his nautical design secrets. I believe he was so successful that one of his key components have been lost to Modeler's for centuries. Until now. Thanks to Michael Mjelde's generosity in sharing ultra rare Glory of the Seas photos, we now have incontrovertible proof of these rare structures. But you don't have to take my word for it. Here are excerpts from The Boston Daily Atlas write-up: "She has neither head nor trailboards, but forming the extreme, where the line of the planksheer and the carved work on the naval hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel on the wing, with a trumpet raised to her mouth "... Later in his description of this largest merchant ship in the world, McLean observes the ruggedness of this unique bow structure: "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." (italics added by me to emphasize specific components) Here's a link to the entire article:

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1851-04-25).html"

I must apologize for an error in judgement which caused some controversy in evaluating McKay's bow structure. I misquoted the word "navel" as "naval." Whenever a historic source is referenced, it should be quoted identically as to how it's written. Sailor, journalist Duncan McLean never used the term "naval" he used the other word "navel." My deepest apologies for any confusion this has caused.

[ClipperFan]

On 4/22/2025 at 9:03 PM, sob said:

a different topic but may be interesting - someone mentioned that Lars Bruzelius's site was now offline

 

two things:

      1/ the Internet archive archived his site and you can get the contents at 

          https://web.archive.org/web/20240531215650/http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Nautica.html

       2/ I downloaded the Boston Daily Atlas files and have put them up on my website

          https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/BDA/BDA.index.html

 

Scott

            

 

@sob I want to personally express my gratitude to you for sharing these links to Lars Bruzelius' excellent reference site. I particularly appreciate the great resource of The Boston Daily Atlas articles, which I consider a crucial reference to these spectacular vessels.

[Kenchington]

38 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

I misquoted the word "navel" as "naval."

Don't beat yourself up over it. If your fingers hadn't slipped, the spellchecker would have swapped the vowels on your behalf 🙂

 

One of the key documents on earlier English shipwrightry dates from the 1620s (though the surviving manuscripts are copies from a half-century later). It mentions "naval timbers" or maybe "navel timbers" as something like what McKay would have known as a futtock.  As there was no concept of a "correct" way to spell English words at the time, nor for a century later, "naval" and "navel" were interchangeable, though quite different in their origins and allusions. So what were the timbers? Something associated with navies? Something in the centre of something else? I once wondered whether they might have been a development introduced by Basque shipwrights, who had formerly been subjects of the Kings of Navarre. There is no way to tell. We are simply left trying to understand the nautical technology of times past, while peering through a fog of confusion and presented with very scattered evidence.

 

Research is a process, not an end-point. If we keep pushing forward, someone will get there in the end.

 

 

Trevor