S-Class Gob and Uncas

[Steve]

Adam L - It has been stated that the first 10 S-Boats had oak wedges between the lower frame ends and the garboard.  However, based on some of this discussion, it seems that these wedges may have been used in more than just the first 10.  Do you have any insight ?

Thanks.

-Steve

[Magic 56]

Hello all,

I hope I can clear the water somewhat. This is Ken Upham, author of the 1994 Register.
Concerning Gob # 828, I was the one who drew the conclusion that Gregg's boat was the first with the information I had at the time and I told him so. The main link I used was a letter from 1978 in my possession from N.F. Ayer's daughter, Mrs Arthur Safford, which states emphatically, " First I want to correct your statement that Dad was the first "S" boat owner. It may be that old #1 was the first boat, but Dad was skipper of #1 when Mrs. Walworth Pierce owned it and bought it from here in 1925."
I drew the conclusion, now seen to be erroneous, that N.F. Ayer was an agent of some sort for Mrs Pierce and that Gob and Boblink were the same boat. To me now this is obviously wrong with no offense to Mrs Safford intended.
The actual design records at the Hart Nautical Museum list N.F. Ayer as the owner of # 828. Ayer is shown as the owner and skipper of Gob in the Eastern and Corinthian Yacht Club logs in 1920 and 1921. I have a copy of a photograph from 1920 that shows Gob with the sail number 9. I'm not sure it means anything as sail numbers were swapped, at least in the Marblehead fleet. One defining thing about the photo is there is a companionway hatch.
I agree with HH about Leonard Fowle who was a member of Corinthian YC and had intimate knowledge of the S boat fleet.
To me the provenance of Gregg's boat is pretty clear back to 1921. The BG article from Sept 25 1921 states, "If the "S" built last winter for Richard T. Crane, Jr. had been raced instead of remaining idle throughout the summer at her mooring off the Eastern Yacht Club the class total would have been fourteen." The fourteen boats of the Marblehead fleet are all accounted for in 1921 in my mind. The only boat that can not be ascribed to hull number is Uncas/Red Snapper/Boblink/Woodcock/Red Witch/Enterprise. There are only four hull numbers unaccounted for from the boats built through 1921. 853, 855, 857, & 859. These all have owners, from the design records at the Hart Nautical Museum, who were connected to the Shinnicock fleet, of which there are no records except for the notes on the plans, ie. no portlights and spreader lifts.
Concerning the wedges, I have long suspected that it was more than 10 boats that had these, although I have no proof. Many of the boats have been altered and used the plans as guidance, but the plans were drawn sometime later that 1919 or 1920. Could it be the first sixteen built for 1920, or the first twenty-five built for 1921, or even the first thirty built for 1922 had them? These wedges clearly do not show up after that.
By the way,  Widgeon #834 ends up with sail # 9 in the Marblehead fleet later. I also have a photo of Cheerio # 833 with no sail number but the letter V on the sail from 1921.
It can be quite confilcting and confusing, but it is great fun.

[Steve]

Thanks, Ken.  Indeed, it is great fun.

[Gregg]

Mr. Upham,

Thanks for all the info. A few questions:

You wrote:

"One defining thing about the photo is there is a companionway hatch."

I've wondered about that as the 1994 book has a picture of #1 being launched and there is clearly a companionway hatch in that picture - which I thought was odd. So is it your opinion that  #1 was originally built with a hatch?

You wrote:

"These all have owners, from the design records at the Hart Nautical Museum, who were connected to the Shinnicock fleet, of which there are no records except for the notes on the plans, ie. no portlights and spreader lifts."

For what it's worth, the boat had portlights when I bought it from Mr. Aldrich.

I have another book at home (not home at the moment) that has a picture of NGH sailing an S-Boat (he's sailing it towards the camera..a bow-on shot), and if memory serves the photo purports to be the first S-Boat. Are you aware of the photo and if so do you know anything about which boat that would be?

[Gregg]

Gregg:  I'm sorry this place doesn't float your boat.  Much of what you see here is the process of people in diverse locations sharing discrete pieces of data, and trying to collaborate on an accurate interpretation of that data.  Watching the process occur is not alway pretty.  But you can rest assured that most of the participants here are serious

One of the challenges we face is documenting the state of the thinking in the face of imperfect but evolving information. 

Who says this place doesn't float my boat?  I like it here.

From past experience, I'm very wary of taking information posted on the web at face value no matter WHO posts it.

For example, a fellow posted pictures of a Triangle, earlier in this thread, and claimed it was my boat.  Nobody objected. You yourself took it to be fact. And I am told this fellow is pretty experienced with Herreshoff boats - I have no reason to think otherwise.

And yet his misrepresentation was taken as FACT. THAT is what makes me wary about information posted on the web regardless as to who posted it.

These days, things stated on the web are too often taken as fact just because it appeared.

And I admit to being a stickler for demonstrable fact vs supposition taken as fact. So while everyone seems to agree that the Anon author of the BG article is "almost certainly" a Mr. Fowles, I'm sorry but "almost certainly" does not equal "is".

And even if it was Mr. Fowles, when trying to trace provenance, one needs supporting information - even Mr. Fowles could make a mistake.

Mr. Upham himself admitted he took as fact Mrs Arthur Safford emphatic statement that N.F, Ayer did not buy #1....see what I mean?

But just to show I'm not a total skeptic, the fact that the Hart museum shows that #828 was sold to N. Ayers is pretty solid, and ought only be questioned if some other strong conflictual evidence came to light (e.g. a canceled check written by Walworth Pierce). In other words exactly the same event as occurred in the question of who was the buyer of #828.

So while you might have the impression this place doesn't "float my boat" I can assure you that it does. Especially since, whatever her provenance, my main objective is to....float the boat.

Gregg

[Adam]

Very good Gregg! Welcome to the good ship Herreshoff registry....We do try to stay afloat - most of the time. I have ordered a flogging of Adam L. to make you feel better and make things right.

May we PLEASE see pics of the current REAL s-boat - whatever her name really is ;-)

[Gregg]

Very good Gregg! Welcome to the good ship Herreshoff registry....We do try to stay afloat - most of the time. I have ordered a flogging of Adam L. to make you feel better and make things right.

May we PLEASE see pics of the current REAL s-boat - whatever her name really is ;-)

No, no -  no flogging required. Grogging (Goslings is my Rum of choice) ...much better idea, I'd say

I don't really mean to pick on Adam - everyone makes mistakes.  It's just that his example was the perfect example of how a simple mistake leads people down the wrong path just because it was posted on the web.

You can see her here:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/index.html

Scroll down to "Boatbuilding"

Gregg

[Magic 56]

Hello again,

Last week I was doing research at the Eastern Yacht Club and took the time to visit Gregg's boat at Redd's Pond Boatworks, and had the opportunity to chat with Thad, who owns the place.

Gregg, I can tell you unequivically that your boat is not one of the first sixteen built. Another defining feature which appears in the first sixteen, which all were built for the 1920 season, is that the rudder post ends on top of the lead ballast. All the boats after that have the rudder post run down behind the ballast. Somewhere I've seen it mentioned that the first boats squated slightly and the ballast was shifted forward to counter-act it after the 1920 season.

I recall the photo you refer, with the boat well heeled over, and it has no hatch. There is also a photo in the Herreshoff book written by Maynard Bray and Carlton Pinheiro which purports to be the first boat, again no hatch. The photo in the Register was also provided by the HMM and shows a hatch. So which is right? Are the photos properly documented? There is a photo from 1920 at the Hart Nautical Museum of Gob # 828 that clearly has a hatch. The name is etched into the photowhich seems like pretty good documentation.

To me there are issues with the provenance of photos from the HMM. There is a photo floating around which supposedly shows Coquina in Marblehead in 1960 on the rocks. In my research I find reference to two S boats in 1936 in Marblehead which were labeled, "total loss". The boats are Curlew and Gale. In this photo you can see the name Gale clearly on the transom. Gale was obviously rebuilt as it sails today under the name Phoenix. Gale was long gone from Marblehead in 1960. The photo looks to me more like 1936 than 1960. So I question all these photos.

To me Gregg's boat is either # 853, 855, 857, or 859.

[Charles Barclay]

Great post Ken, err Magic. 

Two items, one on keel placement (which I've wanted to post for a week or so), another on heel angle. 

I'm looking at the HMCo S-Boat build plans purchased last winter from Bristol Bronze. 

First, on a page labeled 828 CLASS OF KNOCKABOUTS Date Nov. 1919.
Weight of hull without spars, rigging, or equipment
  Open cockpit 5251#
  W.T.     "        5247#

Another page, labeled "DOCKING PLAN S CLASS KNOCKABOUTS"
"Job No. 830 Class date Sept. 22, 1920
"NOTE 1- IN PECONIC BAY BOATS 1920-21 LEAD MOVED 3" FORWARD AND BACKING PIECE OF DEADWOOD 3" PARALELL AND EXTEND TO BOTTOM OF LEAD 852 CLASS"

Caps original.

The line drawing shows a distinctly different leading edge of the keel (approx 3").

This drawing also shows a sliding hatch for what appears the W.T. model.

Then there is a "GUNWHALE CONSTRUCTION 828 CLASS" drawing, initialed by N.G.H., approved by A.S.DeW. H. dated Nov. 29, 1919

This drawing shows two different shear strakes with the note:  "SHEAR STRAKE USED ON 830 CLASS--THE OTHER TYPE NOT USED."  These are distinctly different--model 828 is 2" x 3/4" White Oak, rectangular with a protrusion from the bottom, while 830 is 2 3/4" wide with a bulb at the top and 1 1/2" thick at its thickest.  It looks like the 830 was refined so as not to hook something from underneath.


I take all this to mean a few things:  by 2011 standards these were class boats, not one designs with some build variation--less on weight than a J24, but more on ballast placement (can you imagine moving a keel three inches in a one design class today?), secondly in addition to certain factory options like the W.T vs normal cockpit and teak vs mahagony trim, there was also a different Peconic Bay model (830) sold in Fall 1920 that came after the original (828) models of Fall 1919.   


Secondly, the angle of heel of that first S Boat has always intrigued me as some thing closer to 45 than 20 degrees.  I know photo angles can be deceptive, but the photo shows the boat is in control at a high angle of heel.  I just got done talking with the Pendragon VI team (3rd to finish in Transpac) and they designed the boat to go hard at 40 degrees of heel.  However that's with twin rudders.  This changes my view that a little heel is good, but more than enough (about 20 degrees) is slow. 

Thoughts?

Thanks for all the good work you have done.

Charles Barclay

[Steve]

Here is the image Ken refers to.  As he notes, the boat on the left is clearly GALE.  Adam Langerman, Halsey's partner in Herreshoff Designs, writes: "Below is COQUINA (right) on the rocks in Marblehead following the hurricane of 1960.  L. Francis is in the foreground, he is about to console HH by telling him not to worry, NGH designed many fine craft, but the S-boat was not one of them.  HH and his father restored COQUINA at their home shop."




This comes from another thread in this forum, a discussion on the restoration of COQUINA:

http://www.herreshoffregistry.org/forum/index.php?topic=202.0

You'll note at the end of the discussion, a verification that COQUINA is #965.  Halsey has the hull plate.

[Steve]

This is a great discussion.  I am confused by the annotations on the copy of the plans Charles bought from Roger Winiarski.  Hull #830, the second boat built, was contracted in Dec. 1919 by Paul Hammond and went to New Haven.  There were 7 boats contracted in September 1920, 5 of them going to Shinnicock Colony, which would have been the Peconic Bay Class.  I would surmise that would have been alternately named the 852 class, as opposed to the 830 class.  Is there a chance that those annotations were written on the plans at a later date, maybe by Roger?

[Adam]

"Somewhere I've seen it mentioned that the first boats squatted slightly and the ballast was shifted forward to counter-act it after the 1920 season."

I believe Jones states in his book that 50lbs was added in these later boats.

I agree with Greggs assertion that the S is not a one design - certainly not by today’s standards. We discussed this on another thread as well. Several "S" designs were done - even at HMCo at least one was designed by Alden I believe. Out West (San Fran and Great Lakes) I believe several other class designs raced as “S” class (If I remember correctly the “Bird” class was one – forget the one on the Great Lakes).

[Charles Barclay]

Aloha Gents,

While it is possible the note was written on the plans afterwards, I doubt it, the handwriting looks consistent.

As a class boat from different designers or with build differences its easy to let them race together on a level basis.  It is hard to call them strict one designs by today's standards but today's build tolerances are much improved.   In the late 70's J24's one design class there were reported weight differences of 200 lbs.  Often corrected by weights at the regattas.

The Lawley built boats must have some differences, as did the two Navy built boats.  Edna Whiting in one of her letters indicates that Mokulele was good in a breeze as she was heavier than her Navy sister Mokiana.  I take this as hearsay, but class afficionado's can often tell the difference. 

The picture I referred to of S Boat #1 sailing at a high degree of heel is in LFH's Wizard of Bristol.

Which leads one to a question, when racing level in a fleet, what technology enhancements are permitted?  Spectra rigging would certainly be advantageous over wire.

Great stuff.

Charles

[Magic 56]

There are a lot of topics rolling through this discussion.

Let me add my 2 cents.

Charles, Although these were all considered "equal" there were many S class designs. The Universal Rule was written, if I recall, about 1901. There are S boats designs with gaff rigs. There was an S class feet in Mojack Bay on the Chesapeke, not resembling the Herreshoffs. The Pacific Coast One Designs were built to the S class rating. These PC One Designs famously raced the Hawaii S class in 1931, thanks to C. F. Adams having the PCs shipped to Hawaii. The race was repeated some time in the 1990's in San Diego. The first fleet, at Seawanhaka Corinthian YC in Oyster Bay, started with sail number 41 and went up from there. Were there already 40 other S boats of different designs?

I have never really ever heard any discussion about the heel angle, except that the Herreshoff Ss were designed to sail on their ear.

For the sheers, I know of two designs. One with a flat sheer with a half round. The other is the classic carved Herreshoff sheer. I knew of at least three that had the flat sheer. # 864, # 852, and Dirigo, hull number unknown. Shona, # 864, had its flat sheer removed and replaced with the carved sheer, so it is no longer original. I have photos from the 1950's which clearly shows it on then Meteor.

The WT cockpit boats were always described as slow so you do not see many in racing fleets. The Shinnicock boats had spreader lifts, as did many of the subsequent boats. One thing about the plans. They were drawn well after the first boats were built, maybe even after the Shinnicock boats, some time around 1922/23/24. Obviously before the Bar Harbor fleet of 1925.

The original design had a single luff spinnaker, which vitually no boat has today. The WLIS fleet has their spinnaker hoist higher that the orignial design. They also allow sliding goosenecks. The Narragansett Bay fleet's consititution dis-allows Lawleys, although it is not enforced. So the concept of one design is relative.

The Herreshoff records, published by the Hart Nautical Museum of MIT, cleary shows hull # 828 to 851 as the 828 class. I have never heard of the 830 class.

Paul Hammond was a member of the Seawanhaka Corinthian YC in Oyster Bay. He was the one who approach Herreshoff and prompted the design. Why he did not get the first boat I do not know.

Probably more questions than answers.

[Steve]

I had the opportunity to see an image of the plans Charles refers to.  I had not heard of the 830 class either.  It appears as an annotation to the gunwale construction drawings, noting that the 830 class had the molded sheerstrake.  My interpretation is that 828 had the flat sheerstrake configuration and 830 (Hammond's boat) had a molded sheerstrake, and that the phrase "830 Class" was used atypically, denoting those boats with the molded sheerstrake.

Ken ...By any chance, would you know which sheerstrake AQUILA has?