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 May 2 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 May 3 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 May 3 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 May 3 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

[ClipperFan]

On 5/3/2025 at 11:04 PM, Kenchington said:

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

@Kenchington thanks, Trevor for the kind words of encouragement. I've learned a valuable lesson from my mistake. Quote articles verbatim, especially when dealing with damn near 175 year old write-ups covering unfamiliar nautical terms. I inadvertently ignited a firestorm of controversy which I'm now working to correct. However, when you refer to evolving research, that's precisely what our Glory of the Seas group did with intense focus on achieving meticulous accuracy. @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa spectacular results are proof positive of our roughly 2 year investigative, collaborative efforts. In reality, it is actually a culmination of author Michael Mjelde's 60+ years dedicated research into this one clipper. That experience led us to further insights that we're now working to share with the greater modeling community. Our "north star" both in our medium clipper Glory of the Seas reconstruction and now extreme clipper Stag Hound reconstruction remains to be as faithful as possible to historic accuracy. It's our singular goal to finally do justice to the true appearance of McKay's fabulous vessels. True confession: it's always bugged me how unfinished models of any McKay clipper appeared. Look at any one and invariably you'll see a bare unadorned stem with a figurehead awkwardly tacked on almost as an afterthought. Compare a Flying Fish, Flying Cloud & Sovereign of the Seas model to any Scottish tea clipper Cutty Sark model and you'll see what I'm talking about. The bonny Scottish tea clipper still exists, so models of her have her cutwater and all accurate bow embellishments to reproduce. Imagine if some modeler just decided to portray her with just a bare stem and tacked on "Nannie" the witch figurehead to it. Nobody would buy it. Yet there have been hundreds of McKay models produced just like that without consideration as to how this would have been handled on the real ship. Seeing multiple pictures of these large bow structures on Glory of the Seas became a revelation to Rob and I. These massive structures are actually the navel hoods which McLean had been describing so vaguely going back to Stag Hound, McKays pioneer clipper of the California fleet. However, historic documentation and illustrations have existed all along proving otherwise. Since this is Rob's Stag Hound build log, out of respect I will start with her. The earliest known illustration of her comes from 1913 "Some Ships of the Clipper Era" by State Street Trust Co, Boston, MA. At her bow can be seen a crude image of a leaping dog with carved embellishments behind. I'm in awe of the incredible nautical research and precise artwork of Bjorn Landstrom's in his 1961 publication "The Ship." His portrayals of the Norman conquest vessels derived from the Bayeux Tapestry are nothing short of amazing. Tracing her lines from Henry Hall's "Report on the Ship Building Industry of the United States 1884" I recreated Stag Hound's entire bow, including stem, naval hood, cutwater and leaping canine figurehead all as described by Duncan McLean in his December 1850 "Boston Daily Atlas" article. All elements are drawn precisely to 1:96th (1/8"=1') scale to aid Rob in his modeling efforts. As I wrote earlier, McKay's unique bow structure has been historically documented and illustrated all along. You just need to know where to look. Big American clippers were all the rage in the mid 19th century. Just like today, people want to see what these incredible ships looked like. Like Stag Hound before her, when she was launched about 4 months later Flying Cloud was the largest merchant vessel in the world. Naturally her launch drew a monster crowd to cheer her off. A large woodcut illustration of her was produced. Probably the earliest known illustration of her. Look closely and you'll see her navel hood and cutwater supporting her trumpet bearing winged angel figurehead. It's dark but there's a small triangular device just above and behind her figurehead. The lines for this piece are all vertical while the rest are horizontal. The planksheer line forms the top of the navel hood. The area underneath the angel is her cutwater upon which the angel stands. Exactly like we see far more clearly in the 1869 clipper Glory of the Seas 18 years later. Following the same procedure as I did with McKay's first clipper, I then reconstructed Flying Cloud the same way. Again Hall's lines from the same publication were utilized for tracing. Some may dispute this but I feel this is fully faithful to McLean's entire description as well as more than one historic image of her. Just before her bow is a 1:96th (1/8"=1') scale to which this sketch is drawn. Comparing the two you can see how McKay advanced his bow design. Another rare on site sketch by Edward Meyer Kern of Flying Cloud was done on June 1854 when she was laying off the Coast of Whampoa, China. It comes courtesy of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA. I've enlarged it to show that this too has a gold carving embellished naval hood above and right behind her practically horizontal trumpet bearing figurehead. Anyone familiar with the challenges of drawing on scene will recognize how a ship's curving shapes affect perception. Here, the sheerline seems to get narrower and go uphill, while the navel hood is too thin. That's not how the ship is designed, it's an optical illusion caused by flare of the bow captured quite effectively by the artist. Two other paintings also clearly depicted carved navel hoods with a trumpet bearing winged angel. Here are bow details of these two pieces. Four independently produced artistic works all conclusively support the same bow structure. Counting Champion of the Seas once again the largest merchant vessel in the world, that's now 3 McKay clippers with visibly consistent evidence of the unique bow. Incidentally I read in McLean's description of her that as her stempost was vertical, her bow rake was 14 feet! The only way to support what was essentially a long projecting cutwater with larger than life sized figurehead would have had to have been sturdy, sizeable navel hoods. Since photography wasn't widely available yet, I've relied on contemporary art to do a lot of this research. Another McKay clipper which I mentioned before is the extreme clipper Lightning which had that mysterious blank space at her bow. Besides the Samuel Walters piece there's two other works which both show her gracefully curving cutwater. The first is a work: Lightning Swinging in the Tide, August 20th 1854 by artist DM Little, Moonee Pond, Victoria, Australia. Compare the forward profile of this work to the McKay sketch and you can see the effect of the cutwater. The second piece is a preliminary sketch with close up of the bow which displays the now familiar navel hood, cutwater with her original winged female figurehead. The color lithograph shows that the artist unfortunately went too far in illustrating gilded carvings of the navel hood practically concealing the more properly sketched version. So there have now been 5 various clipper ships, 4 early ones from 1850-54 which all had navel hoods installed in similar fashion to Glory of the Seas the one vessel for which we have the most obvious evidence of these unusual devices. A day later I remembered 2 additional vessels which were equipped with navel hoods, a cutwater and full-sized female figureheads. Donald McKay did a beautiful full-color structural illustration of the twin packets Star of Empire and Chariot of Fame. For some reason, he did an out of scale female figurehead sketch with indications of carved work. Again, just like in his extreme clipper Lightning he left off the navel hood and cutwater. Fortunately, there's a beautiful full color painting of the clipper ship Chariot of Fame which confirms she and her twin were indeed equipped with carved, embellished navel hoods, a cutwater and more accurately scaled female figureheads. Counting these twin packets, we have now confirmed at least 7 McKay vessels with this unique bow structure.

 

Edited May 5 by ClipperFan
additional information & images

[sob]

re: "Crothers' statement that decks were kept level "

 

he actually said that the deck rose at a slower rate than the planksheer - not that it was flat

 

if it were flat the would be close to 3 feet of extra space at the forecastle - my plotting of the sheer against the deck & planksheer came up

with around bit more than 2 feet of extra height 

 

which worked out to enough without a lower floor but a lowered floor would have made things far more comfortable 

 

Scott

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, sob said:

re: "Crothers' statement that decks were kept level "

 

he actually said that the deck rose at a slower rate than the planksheer - not that it was flat

 

if it were flat the would be close to 3 feet of extra space at the forecastle - my plotting of the sheer against the deck & planksheer came up

with around bit more than 2 feet of extra height 

 

which worked out to enough without a lower floor but a lowered floor would have made things far more comfortable 

 

Scott

@sob if that was the case, then the height of the inner forecastle deck on Glory of the Seas should have been almost 8 feet. It was not. Author Michael Mjelde sent us a specific article, actually correspondence between ship's owners and prospective installer of a new windlass. As accuracy was critical to ensure proper fit, ship's surveyors were hired to measure exact internal forecastle deck dimensions. They reported that the height was precisely 5 feet, 9 inches. Since all deck thickness was 3 & 1/2 inches, that put upper forecastle deck height at 6 feet 1/2 inch. Consistent with the 6 foot main rail height of the ship. I have no idea where Crothers sourced his information from but this is documented fact supplied by author Michael Mjelde. He's spent six decades interviewing captains and crew of Glory of the Seas and has receipts to support every fact he supplies us with. I do agree with Crothers assertion that deck orientation was kept level. But an article shared by Michael Mjelde (of which I have a copy saved) tells me that even with level decks, since they apparently followed plansheer line closely it's just not possible that roughly two feet of height could be added over the length of a vessel. 

Edited May 4 by ClipperFan
spelling correction

[sob]

its not over the length - only from about the foremast forward - so even less

 

the difference in angles also was not the same between ships

 

[Kenchington]

19 hours ago, Kenchington said:

"naval" and "navel"

When navel hoods can be naval ...

 

I was trying to tie down the origins of the painted ceiling in the Commissioner's House of Chatham Dockyard (don't ask!!) when I blundered into this image:

That's HMS Gannet of 1878, now restored. The shipwrights who built her may have called the structure extending from hawse holes to figurehead the "cheeks of the head" or some such. Still, looking at that, it's not hard to see why McLean chose "navel hood" for McKay's reinforcing structure, if his early versions enwrapped the hawse holes of his clippers.

 

Not identical structures, of course. Nor the same kind of ship, nor quite the same time period. But when a term was needed for something new and rather different ...

 

Trevor

[ClipperFan]

19 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

When navel hoods can be naval ...

 

I was trying to tie down the origins of the painted ceiling in the Commissioner's House of Chatham Dockyard (don't ask!!) when I blundered into this image:

That's HMS Gannet of 1878, now restored. The shipwrights who built her may have called the structure extending from hawse holes to figurehead the "cheeks of the head" or some such. Still, looking at that, it's not hard to see why McLean chose "navel hood" for McKay's reinforcing structure, if his early versions enwrapped the hawse holes of his clippers.

 

Not identical structures, of course. Nor the same kind of ship, nor quite the same time period. But when a term was needed for something new and rather different ...

 

Trevor

@Kenchington Trevor, my first thought was sadly how America's disgraceful lack of attention to historic ships. Poor Falls of Clyde which had been fully restored in the late '60s has been so severely neglected that she's just about lost forever. I remember seeing this magnificent 4 masted ship was often seen as a background vessel on the original "Hawaii 5-0" TV show. Meanwhile the SS United States still blue ribband record holder for the fastest Atlantic passages is being prepared to be sunk when she's still seaworthy. Thanks for sharing this, it's always nice to see a vessel treated with the respect she deserves.

[Kenchington]

5 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

disgraceful lack of attention to historic ships

In my early years, it was the other way around. You had many preserved ships of many kinds, right up to battleships and Queen Mary. We had Victory, Cutty Sark and not much else. Peking could have stayed but went to New York instead. Now she has gone to a more appropriate home in Germany as the South Street collection withers.

 

I suspect that it is a case of an initial surge of enthusiasm, then the bills pile up, volunteers dry up, maintenance falls off, the public gets complacent -- and before you know it, its time to start over with a whole new round of preservation.

 

Trevor

[druxey]

Don't forget Unicorn or the Great Britain! But it's an uphill battle to maintain maritime heritage.

Edited May 4 by druxey

[Kenchington]

What we had in the UK, when I was a kid, was a lot of vessels still in some sort of use -- so maintained for use, not preserved for posterity. Unicorn was one but there were many others, some since restored and preserved. I got to see Warrior while she was still an oil wharf in Pembroke Dock, then long after went all over her in restored condition in Portsmouth, for example.

 

Great Britain came home later in my time. I didn't get to see her come up the Avon but I did visit her soon after her arrival, then many times after my parents moved to Bristol.