Questions about the masting and rigging of British cutters found in Lennarth Petersson's Rigging Period Fore and Aft Craft

[vossiewulf]

Curiouser and curiouser...

 

@Chuck, why does the contemporary model of the Cheerful have three yards while your rigging plan only calls for two? We are trying to understand cutter rigging plans and not having much luck. Sometimes (@chris watton's Lady Nelson, HMS Sherbourne, the contemporary model of Cheerful) we have three yards on two masts, in other cases (Chuck's rigging plan for modern Cheerful models, Lennarth Petersson's rig in his Rigging Period Fore and Aft Craft book) we have just two yards.

 

Was the third yard a light wind rig that wasn't there all the time as Phil suggests? Or are three and two-yard cutter rigs fundamentally different things?

Edited December 17, 2024 by vossiewulf

[Chuck]

That model is actually mis identified.  It is not actually the Cheerful or Surly.  In fact, for most of its time is was just named as an unidentified cutter.  It is most likely a much later cutter based on certain things.   But there are too amny crazy differences between the original drafts and that model.  I am talking about many many.  Position of hawse holes,  wales , channels , gun ports etc.
 

in addition,  the model was rigged and re rigged many times over the years.  It is not original.  Check out the position of the topmast  on the wrong side of the main masts.  So take that model rig with a huge grain of salt.

 

I was told by the curators that the rig could be a construct from two different contemporary models which is what Henry Culver did quite a bit back in the day.  Use the Surly model in the Canada collection instead.

[Gregory]

Chuck,  I have always felt your Cheerful rig reflected what would have been actual practice for functionality and proportion.  I don’t think anyone can go wrong by using it for reference.

 

Is that Roger’s model mast way too tall, or is that just a perspective thing?

[Chuck]

Yes it is that tall.   Maybe they had a tall topgallant mast but look how short the topmast is.  Its a weird rig and I didnt really use it.  I mainly used the rig from the contemporary Surly model and the early cutter in the Science museum.  But that is an earlier cutter but close enough for my tastes.

 

Chuck

[vossiewulf]

30 minutes ago, Chuck said:

Yes it is that tall.   Maybe they had a tall topgallant mast but look how short the topmast is.  Its a weird rig and I didnt really use it.  I mainly used the rig from the contemporary Surly model and the early cutter in the Science museum.  But that is an earlier cutter but close enough for my tastes.

 

Chuck

Thanks Chuck for answering, we really appreciate it. Maybe Chris will chime in later about why the Sherbourne and the Lady Nelson have three yards.

[Chuck]

I really wish I knew.   Probably not a permanent thing is my guess.  

[SardonicMeow]

So, I happened to be visiting family in the Toronto area over the holidays and went to see the Surly model at the Art Gallery of Ontario.  My pictures have been posted.  I hope they are useful to vossiewulf and others.

 

 

[vossiewulf]

34 minutes ago, SardonicMeow said:

So, I happened to be visiting family in the Toronto area over the holidays and went to see the Surly model at the Art Gallery of Ontario.  My pictures have been posted.  I hope they are useful to vossiewulf and others.

Thanks Peter! Studying the pics now

 

[SardonicMeow]

Enjoy.  I hope the pictures answer more questions than they create.  (One peculiarity I noticed is that the gaff throat halliard is completely absent on the model.)

[druxey]

Like many contemporary models, the rigging deteriorated with time and was not necessarily restored accurately. Or, as noted by Peter, even replaced!

[vossiewulf]

Thanks @SardonicMeow again for taking time to take all those pics and for uploading them here. It's yet another variant- two yards like Cheerful, spreaders and no mast top like Lennarth Petersson, lots of other variations that others will be better at spotting then I am.

 

What I've concluded from this exercise is that there was not a standard cutter rig, at least in detail. Either the third yard was standard but only carried in light weather, or there were at least two basic cutter rigs- three yards and two yards, both on just two masts. Forestays terminated in either three-hole or five-hole deadeyes. Main backstays either had a simple rig or a seemingly unnecessarily complex one. There could be a mast top and ratlines for the topmast, or there could be simple stays with no shrouds. It goes on

 

One thing interesting about Surly is that it does in fact say Surly on the stern. I had given up the idea of putting the Lady Nelson P/E on the stern as none of the contemporary models had their names on their sterns. Now I'm going to rethink.

[druxey]

The name on the stern does not look original in style to my eye, vossie. But it's your call!

[vossiewulf]

1 hour ago, druxey said:

The name on the stern does not look original in style to my eye, vossie. But it's your call!

You're right, it doesn't. Ah well, once less piece of P/E to attach to a curved surface.

[druxey]

And, in British ships, the names, when painted (this would be the 1760's to about 1790) were simply painted on, never in 3D. This is a conceit of kit manufacturers.