The Herreshoff Forum - Index
Herreshoff Forum => Specific Herreshoff Vessels => Topic started by: HerreshoffHistory on December 02, 2010, 11:05:26 AM
-
Something is fishy here with Gob and Uncas. Look them up in the Registry. Was there a mixup? Perhaps Gob is really gone? Opinions?
"This season will be the third that the one-designed Herreshoff class 'S' knockabouts have been raced at Marblehead, and while a number of the original owners continue to be interested in the class, there have been a number of changes in the personal of the Corinthians sailing these yachts since last year.
Early last fall the Gob [#828s] was sold by Nathaniel F. Ayer to a Portland yachtsman, thus taking that yacht away from local water. In addition, neither the Doodah [#837s], owned by Lincoln and Benjamin Davis, nor the Kajee [#835s], owned by Chester L. Dane and Charles W. Jaynes, will be raced this Summer if the present plans of the owners are carried out.
To partly counteract the loss of these three yachts to the class, the Uncas[#???], purchased this spring by Gifford K. Simonds of the Corinthian and Eastern Yacht Club, has been added to the racing fleet. This knockabout was at Marblehead all of last season but was never raced or even under sail throughout the 1921 season. The Uncas probably will be handled in in the racing for Mr. Simonds by 'Bill' Brown of Marblehead, who is well known along the North Shore as a very clever skipper." (Source: Anon. "Yachts and Yachtsmen." Boston Globe, June 18, 1922, p. 55.)
"... It is reported that the Herreshoff one-design 'S' knockabout Gob recently sold by E. H. Randall of Portland to a New York yachtsman sank in the Cape Cod Canal while making the trip from Portland to Long Island Sound waters. ..." (Source: Anon. "Notes From The Week's Log." Boston Globe, September 3, 1922, p. 57.)
"... One more addition to the Marhlehead Rainbow Class, the Herreshoff-one-designed S knockabouts. Blue, green, yellow, and brown are the prevailing topside colors, but the Boblink, ex-Red Snapper, purchased last Winter by Walworth Pierce, has been painted with a seven-inch boottop of brown above the green underbody, with the remainder of the topsides black. ..." (Source: Anon. "Notes of The Week's Log." Boston Globe, June 3, 1923, p. 71.)
-
This is an interesting situation. The information currently in the Registry was taken from the 1994 Upham register.
I am reasonably certain GOB is still extant, currently named ENTERPRISE. I have corresponded on several occasions with her owner, Gregg Germain. He has the plate. There have been several situations where I read that a boat was sunk, marked it as destroyed, and subsequently found out that she was raised, repaired, and re-floated. I suspect that is the case with GOB.
However, given the information presented here from the Boston Globe, I would posit that some of the early provenance of 828 in Upham is not entirely correct, and that GOB and BOBLINK are 2 different boats. If GOB was sold in the fall of 1922 and was BOBLINK in the winter of 1922 - 1923, there would not have been enough time for her to be named RED SNAPPER as well.
I am going to modify the Registry accordingly and add a note indicating the early provenance is questionable.
Also, it looks like UNCAS changed hands (and names) twice in less than a year ???
Nice catch.
-
GOB - summer of 2009.
(http://www.herreshoffdesigns.com/Gob.jpg)
-
Adam: I'm shocked. The owner, Gregg Germain, was very proud of her. Did you take this shot? Was the boat still in Marblehead? Only a few months ago the owner confirmed to me that he still owned her.
-
dosen't look like she's seen water af some time....sad.
-
I took the picture. Next to the pond in Marblehead.
-
I have to weigh in here.
Gob and Uncas are two different boats.
Nathaniel Ayer was the original owner of Gob. After he sold her in the fall of 1921 he left the S Class, but reappeared in 1925 sailing Uncas, then owned by Walworth W. Pierce, the food merchant.
Uncas does not show up in the original Herreshoff owners's list, and neither does Richard T. Crane, Jr., of the Crane plumbing family from Chicago, her original owner. The boat never left its mooring in 1921.
Its hull number is intermixed with the Shinnicock Colony fleet and is either 853, 855, 857, or 859, unless hull numbers were changed in the shop without it being recorded.
As the first ten boats were unique in having wedges between the ends of the frames and the garboard, and all the other boats seem accounted for, it makes it a virtual certainty that Aquila, your hull 9056 is Gob, hull # 828. It is the only S boat with a one piece keelson, and as George Zachorne notes, has lining off marks, which were probably used to make molds and patterns.
-
Magic .. Great discussion. Since 859 is SWALLOW, UNCAS must be either 853, 855, or 857.
I didn't know about the wedges at the frame ends in the first 10 boats. However, I am having trouble with your assertion that AQUILA is 828 (nee GOB). We have ENTERPRISE, owned by Gregg Germain, as 828. I beleive he has the hull plate. 833 and 836 from the first 10 are unaccounted for. Could AQUILA be one of these?
-Steve
-
Swallow is hull # 845 originally owned by Louis K. Liggett (of the Phamacy) in the Marblehead fleet. It has a pretty clear provenance from 1920 to the present.
833 original name Cheerio, has a record going up to 1953, so that could not be Aquila, which has a record if you exclude Gob, back to 1924.
836 Daphnia has a record that goes to 1940, which again excludes it from being Aquila.
Nathaniel Ayer's daughter asserted that her father never owned an S boat, but always raced W.W. Pierce's boat, Boblink (Uncas-Boblink-Woodcock-Red Witch-Enterprise). This clearly is not true as he is listed as the buyer of 828 in the HMC Design Record. He did later sail Boblink occasionally, after he sold Gob.
In 1921 both Gob and Uncas were in the Marblehead fleet, Gob with race records and Uncas from the BG articles cited earlier, so they could not be the same boat.
-
Steve - are we sure Mr. Germain has the original hull plate?
-
This is a very interesting thread. Of course you are correct about SWALLOW being #845, and I have made the appropriate adjustments to the database.
Based on the BG articles above, I think it is fair to deduce that GOB and BOBLINK are two different boats. GOB was on Long Island Sound in 1923, while BOBLINK was in Marblehead, owned by Walworth Pierce. From there, according to the 1994 Register, GOB goes on to become WOODCOCK, RED WITCH, and ENTERPRISE while BOBLINK goes out to Hawaii and returns to Cape Cod, where she is now RADIANT. Do you agree?
It is a fair point you make about 833 and 836, so that leaves an open question about the origin of AQUILA.
-
Adam: I believe Mr. Germain has the hull plate, but I will reach out and attempt to verify. Getting all of this sorted out will be a good exercise.
-
I have to differ with your Boblink thread.
The Boston Evening Transcipt of March 21, 1926 shows Walworth Peirce selling Boblink to Charles W. Jaynes and the same reference of January 23, 1927 shows Boblink renamed Woodcock with the sail number 1.
This boat goes on to be owned by Marshall Field at Seawanhaka Corinthian YC in 1936 and then by the founder of the WLIS fleet, Dr. James Benfield eventually becoming Enterprise in 1988.
I believe that Gob goes on to become Sister in 1924, then Nepenthe, and ultimately Aquila.
Radiant has no record before being called "The Big Red One" and coming from somewhere on the Cape to Frank McCaffrey's shop in Newport in 1993.
Where did the Hawaii connection come from? I've never heard of any boat being shipped back from Hawaii, California yes, but not Hawaii.
-
Thanks for this information. I was unaware of Boston Evening Transcript articles. I was also mis-reading the miscellaneous entries on page 106 of the 1994 Register, which is where Hawaii and some of the other spurious provenance elements show up. I have some updates to make ... thanks for this.
I assume that you are connecting GOB to AQUILA by virtue of the frame-end trait you pointed out earlier. This makes sense to me, but conflicts with the assertion by the owner of ENTERPRISE that his boat is #828. I have reached out to him to see if he can explain the basis of his claim. As I recall, he has the hull plate. I'll certainly post his comments to this thread when (if) I hear from him.
-
The Hawaii fleet had eight boats circa 1931-33. A PHYC Score sheet of the era has eight slots and other written material provide support to this number. S-Boats named were Yaca, Dutchess, Solitaire, and Panini. The fleet had sail numbers 1-8.
Five were purchased and shipped for Allen W.T. Bottomley, in 1928-29.
Two were built by the US Navy in 1930, commissioned in 1931--Mokiana and Mokulele. Mokulele's registration from the State of Hawaii which I have in my hand says build date is 1931.
Accounts exist of two being dismantled (Nalu and Mokiana) or destroyed (Panini ex Vanessa) on reefs. Best we can tell at this point, one remains--Mokulele. At best two are unaccounted for.
That leaves one more boat, purchased by Mr. Bogardus from Isaac B. Merriman. This was shipped to the east coast ca. 1934-35. I believe it is Radiant per the names and hull number on the Registry.
If I can figure out how to post a picture I can submit documents in support of the above.
Charles
-
Charles: It turns out that the information about RADIANT having been in Hawaii is incorrect. I mis-interpreted some entries in the 1994 S-Boat Register. See my post in this thread of June 28. I'll be updating the database shortly. I think the document I sent you yesterday has all of this straightened out.
If you would like me to post your images, just shoot them over in an email. Any further details regarding names, owners, and sail numbers would be most appreciated. Also, you refer to a "PHYC score sheet". Does that refer to the Hawaii Yacht Club?
Mahalo.
-
Magic: I've spent some time digesting your scenario and comparing it to the various sources and BG articles. I have yet to hear back from Mr. Germain regarding his assertion that ENTERPRISE is 828. However, his website, http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm (http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm), implies that he determined the number based on the 1994 Register and not the hull plate. Consequently, the database will be modified to reflect this latest thinking. If Mr. Germain does posess the builder's plate, it will be time to reconsider.
-
I assume PHYC is Pearl Harbor Yacht Club....So are we to reasonably assume ENTERPRISE is not 828?
-
Adam: It appears to me that the owner of ENTERPRISE based his claim to number 828
on some imperfect information, and the deductions presented by Maqic in this thread are the most probable. If it turns out that he has the plate, we will need to re-consider.
-
PHYC is Pearl Harbor Yacht Club
HYC is Hawaii Yacht Club, although it has had at least two name changes (Honolulu Yacht Club to Hawaii Yacht Club ca 1950). The first name change was when the club merged with several others in the 20's.
Steve, I sent images of a score sheet and pictures to info@ last night. Hopefully they have arrived. I have a fantastic 3 page letter written by one of the participants in the 30's and 40's in the S Boat fleet--a lively young women named Edna Whiting who wrote to Shepard Williams in 1994 about the history, as she remembers of the S Boat fleet in Hawaii. I'll send that along too. You might just fall in love with her.
PM if they files did not arrive.
Again, Mahalo (thank you) for all the work. Very interesting that what we know may not be so.
Charles
-
Charles: I received 4 images, but there wasn't a score sheet.
Mahalo.
-
Steve/Charles,
I am extremely interested in the score sheet & images. How can I have access to them?
Vanessa # 1020 turned into Panini having being shipped in 1930 from New York City. Owners Issac Merriman on Narragansett Bay (NBS 1), then in Hawaii, Everadus Bogadus, Gordon Mendelssohn, Earl Thacker, and finally Frederic C. Humphrey when the boat was wrecked on the reefs in 1956.
Both Edna (Eddie) (Whiting) Nisewaner and Shepard Williams are referenced in the Registry. Unfortunately both have passed on, taking their knowledge of the S boats with them.
Linus Pauling Jr. owned Nalu # 1077 from 1954 to 1990 when he sold it to Shepard Williams who scavanged it for parts before breaking it up.
Mokulele, sail # 8 US Navy hull # 2121, was owned by Williams beginning in 1974. It was altered to have a straight mast with a boomkin.
Not sure how to attach a photo, but I have one of Edna.
-
Magic: I will forward the documents via email. I think MOKULELE was sail #6 and MOKIANA was sail #8. This is based on an image and annotations provided by Edna showing MOKULELE edging out MOKIANA at the finish line. The sail number 8 is clearly visible on the second-place boat. I also have a page from the 1928 Pearl Harbor Yacht Club Yearbook showing the first 5 HMCo boats with their names, sail numbers, and owners.
Also, you note that Linus Pauling, Jr. owned #1020 from 1954 - 1990. I was under the impression that Linus Pauling, Sr. bought the boat in 1954 and passed it on to his son, who then sold it in 1990?
-
Aloha Steve and Magic,
Mokulele was #8, its on her current sails and concurs with other newspaper articles--she was also the second of the two Navy boats built. She does have some #5's sails which were Kamaolipua's (Frank Rothwell, son Mike Rothwell). No boomkin from what I can see but a shortened boom and permanent backstay. Although there is a raised cabin top along with the wt cockpit and hull in FRG, there had been an inboard engine install, the shaft remains. Picture of Mokulele and Mokiana racing at PHYC on the soon to be published HYC July Bulletin.
Mokiana was #7. Some of her parts remain and are scattered with Mokulele's spares.
As the last two boats in the fleet this makes sense. Still leaves us with who was #6?
There are also newspaper articles as well with pictures including sail numbers. It'll take time to scan, they came from UH's Hamilton Library from microfiche some are difficult to read.
Most require gleaning information from rather than directed at S Boats.
Charles
-
Charles: So we know that sails 1 - 5 were assigned to the HMCo boats that Allen Bottomley ordered. Given your having MOKULELE's sails with the number 8 plus your documentation, that only leaves 6 and 7.
What I am struggling with is the assignment of #7 to MOKIANA. In the 1994 S-Boat register, 7 is assigned to PANINI, based on entries in the Lloyd's Registers. PANINI is also assigned number 7 in the PHYC score sheet that just turned up. Given that, I would think that MOKIANA must be number 6. Why do you believe she is number 7?
Mahalo.
-
Steve,
Thanks so much for emailing the documents. What a treasure trove. Was not there a letter from Eddie Nisewaner to Shepard Williams? I was fortunate to have meet both at separate times. Eddie was a pistol and obviously loved her days in the S Boats. She was married in Larchmont and crewed on S Boats there. Her ashes are at the Naval Academy Columbian (sp) as both her father and husband were ranking Navy men.
You probably are right about Linus Pauling Sr buying the boat Nalu. I interviewed Linus Jr, but he never mentioned his father obtaining the boat.
I was able to obtain some extremely poor quality newspaper articles about Nalu going on the reef and the salvaging of the spar from a fellow named Dustin, who must have worked in the yard where Mokulele is now.
Charles, you probably know him.
The photo of Mokulele and Mokiana is in the 1994 Register and the annotation shows Mokulele on the right with sail # 8. Its entirely possible that sails were swapped as this shows up in all the fleets and is not all that uncommon. Somewhere I have a photo of Mokulele where the boomkin is clearly visible. I'll have to dig.
Magic
-
Magic: There are 3 files within the zip archive entitled "historicmokulelefiles.zip". One of those 3 is named "Mokulele_file1.pdf". That pdf contains 2 letters. The one you are looking for is on page 5.
Thanks go to Charles Barclay for these documents.
-Steve
-
Magic,
Dustin works in my office and put together the following list of who was who:
Hull 1077 A.W. T. Bottomley 8/4/1928 $4200 "Nalu"
purchased by R.G. Watt ca. 1934 (see why below), sold by Watt to L. Pauling 1954
dismantled 1990 parts used in rebuild of Mokulele
Hull 1076 A. Bottomley 8/4/1928 $4,100
Hull 1035 A. Bottomley 8/4/1928 $4,100
Hull 1036 A. Bottomley 8/4/1928 $4,100
Hull 1037 A. Bottomley 8/4/1928 $4,200
We believe the difference in price is teak trim.
Bottomley was a swell guy who contracted for the lot, brought them here, and distributed them among his Pearl Harbor Yacht Club friends like C.W. Dickey, Harold Dillingham, and Earl Thacker. This was not uncommon.
Bottomley was reelected Commodore of PHYC in December 1932, then died in September 1933 when he slipped off his yacht and injured his head, when he was recovered he lost consciousness, dead upon arrival at the docks. Nalu was listed in his assets along with a larger yacht "Dolfin" and was presumed sold to Mr. Watt shortly thereafter.
Hull 1020 Issac Merriman's boat 9/30/1926, $4,200 ex-Vanessa, became Panini upon arrival in Hawaii via steamer in 1930 owned successively by:
Everadus Bogardus 1931 to 1933
Gordon Mendelsohn 1933-1934
Earl Thacker 1935-1962
Mendelsohn appears to have been a frequent visitor but not a resident staying at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel during his month long visits.
Dustin also had a note of a Robert Atkinson 1933-34 #9067 then the names "Maile", "Huppala", and "Kamaolipua" which I think became Frank Rothwell's boat S 5, Frank owned the boat at least through 1955, sold it, and started sailing Stars out of WYC.
Per an Oct. 27, 1956 Honolulu Advertiser article one S Boat wrecked on a reef at 0630 same day. Owned by Frederic C. Humphrey. Vessel had been stolen the previous night after having underwent an extensive refit and new mast.
Per a photo in the Advertiser from the November 2, 1958 article Henley Dillingham owned sail #6, Bill King, Len Leary, Harold Dillingham (elder), photo shows sail #6, #8.
The extent of the Whiting to Shepard Williams letter June 1, 1994 consists of Ms. Whiting's remembering access to Ala Wai Yacht Harbor through the Kewalo Basin Channel.
I am also sending an article from deceased columnist Bob Krauss about Shepard Williams and the Mokulele. As well as some of Shepard's photographs of his restoration of the Mokulele. The article clearly has some inaccuracies, but is a puff piece and enjoyable nonetheless.
I do not see where on Mokulele the boomkin may have been but will look this afternoon for evidence such as a cut or patch in the stern.
Happy Fourth!
Charles
-
Panini, Ex Vanessa is built in 1926, shipped to Hawaii via Steamer in 1930, shows up in 1931.
Mokiana, the earlier of the two Navy boats is built in 1930, not necessarily launched at the same time as Mokulele in 1931.
I am guessing that Vanessa, soon to be Panini arrived in between the launchings of Mokiana and Mokulele, hence sail number 7.
Fair deduction?
Charles
Charles
-
Aloha Charles. That is a very informative post! Your thought process around sail #7 makes sense to me.
Enjoy the holiday.
Mahalo.
-Steve
-
I hate to keep this thread going so long lest this becomes a case of flogging a dead horse. There is a lot of good research represented by this discussion, but there are a few discrepancies that maybe we can resolve collectively, resulting in a reliable account of the Hawaii fleet.
Here is a list of the boats and their provenance as I have interpreted the evidence:
S1 - HMCo Hull 1077
1928 - C.C. von Hamm LOKELANI
Jinky Crozier YACA
1934 - 1954 R.G. Watt NALU
1954 – c.1970 Linus Pauling NALU
c.1970 - 1990 Linus Pauling, Jr. NALU
1990 - 1990 Shepard Williams NALU
She was broken up in 1990. Parts were removed for use in the restoration of MOKULELE.
S2 - HMCo Hull 1035, 1036, 1037, or 1076
1928 - Allen Bottomley MAILE
Harry Uhler DUTCHESS
Disposition Unknown
S3 - HMCo Hull 1035, 1036, 1037, or 1076
1928 - George Canavarro ILIMA
1935 U.S. Navy ILIMA
Disposition Unknown
S4 - HMCo Hull 1035, 1036, 1037, or 1076
1928 - Henry Dillingham HUAPALA
Disposition Unknown
S5 - HMCo Hull 1035, 1036, 1037, or 1076
1928 –aft. 1934 R.W. Atkinson KAMAOLIPUA
Edgar Crumpacker SOLITAIRE
– c.1957 Frank Rothwell
Disposition Unknown
S6 - USN Hull 2120
1931 – c.1990 U.S. Navy MOKIANA
She was broken up by the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation unit of the U.S. Navy in the early 1990s.
S7 - HMCo Hull 1020
1927 – 1930 Isaac Merriman VANESSA
1931 – 1933 Everadus Bogardus PANINI
1933 – 1934 Gordon Mendelssohn PANINI
1935 – 1956 Earl Thacker PANINI
1956 - 1956 Frederic C. Humphrey PANINI
She was destroyed in October, 1956. The vessel had been stolen after having gone through an extensive refit, and was wrecked on a reef the following morning. The keel and ballast are still owned by Earl's great-grandson, Peter Thacker.
S8 - USN Hull 2121
1931 - U.S. Navy MOKULELE
– 1974 Byron Hanlon MOKULELE
1974 - 2004 Shepard Williams MOKULELE
2004 – 2011 Howard Sleath MOKULELE
2011 - now Charles Barclay MOKULELE
She is still extant, located in Kewalo Basin Harbor.
Two questions I am struggling with are:
The 1928 PHYC yearbook shows that Bottomley owned MAILE, #2, and that #1, LOKELANI, was owned by a C.C. von Hamm. The PHYC score sheet, date undetermined, indicates that #1 was then named YACA, owned by “Jinky” Crozier. This conflicts with the discussion about Bottomley owning #1 as NALU until he was killed and then selling it to R.G. Watt, who kept it until 1954. It would be useful to review a few more PHYC Yearbooks, but the commodore told me he thinks 1928 was the only year they published one (BTW the entire book will be up on their website in a week or two.)
I think we have agreed that #6 was MOKIANA. The Advertiser photo shows that she was owned in 1958 by Henley Dillingham. It has also been stated that MOKIANA was broken up by the Navy in 1990. I had assumed, until the appearance of the photo, that the Navy held on to MOKIANA the entire time. Do we now think that the Navy built her, sold her into private hands, and then bought her back again sometime prior to the 90s?
-
Adam: I'm shocked. The owner, Gregg Germain, was very proud of her. Did you take this shot? Was the boat still in Marblehead? Only a few months ago the owner confirmed to me that he still owned her.
That is not my boat.
If you want to see ENTERPRISE as she is, go here:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
-
GOB - summer of 2009.
(http://www.herreshoffdesigns.com/Gob.jpg)
Not only is that not my boat - ENTERPRISE - that isn't even an S-boat. The lead keel is all wrong. Not only that, if you know anything about S-Boats you will know that the S-Boat garboard is curved in cross section and not flat like it is in this picture.
And when I bought the boat, the bottom was blue not green. After I bought it I went with a red bottom paint which is still on the boat.
What this is a picture of is the Triangle that is BEHIND my boat at the yard.
Go here to see ENTERPRISE.
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
-
I took the picture. Next to the pond in Marblehead.
What you took a picture of is a Triangle that is BEHIND ENTERPRISE. I have never removed the rudder, for example.
-
Steve - are we sure Mr. Germain has the original hull plate?
I have never had the hull plate. The fellow I bought it from - Ralph Aldrich of Norwich Ct. didn't have it.
-
This makes sense to me, but conflicts with the assertion by the owner of ENTERPRISE that his boat is #828. I have reached out to him to see if he can explain the basis of his claim. As I recall, he has the hull plate. I'll certainly post his comments to this thread when (if) I hear from him.
Actually I didn't make the assertion - I was informed of the assertion back in 1994 by the folks who put together the 75th anniversary book: "A History and Register of the S Boats"
I never had the hull plate.
-
Thanks for the updates Gregg! I feel much better now! Welcome to the Registry!
-
Hi everyone,
Sorry it took me so long to reply.
I've replied in detail to many of the posts in the thread but now I will sum up.
I bought my S-Boat from Ralph Aldrich in 1987. At that time she was known as "Red Witch" and had red topsides, a white boot stripe and blue bottom.
I scraped off the red and blue paint and painted the bottom with red bottom paint. For a few sailing seasons I painted the topsides green but removed all of that and re-painted the topsides white.
When I bought her, much of the original wood had been replaced. There were terrible plywood decks on both the house and main deck; there was a plywood webbing used for the forward bulkhead just ahead of the mast, and for the after bulkhead just behind the tiller.
During her rebuild I got rid of all that stuff and have replaced every rib. The ribs DID HAVE the wedges at the foot. I have kept a few of the old ones. And I will put new ones in.
I have re-planked most of the boat and rebuilt the bulkheads to original specs.
The pictures someone posted above, purported to be my boat are really a Triangle that is parked behind my boat. Anyone who knows the least bit about S-boats can see that right off if you look at the lead keel shape and the garboards - S-Boat garboards are curved in cross section and not, flat.
I will take a picture of both boats today and send it along so you can see how the poster made a mistake.
As to whether or not she is GOB - I didn't assert it; I took the word of the people who compiled the Registry in 1994. The only concrete evidence I can give is the sales receipt I have from buying the boat "Red Witch", and the frame wedges. I assumed that the Registry people worked backwards from my purchase to trace her back to Gob but you will have to ask them how they arrived at their conclusion.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Gregg
-
Thanks for all of this, Gregg. I think the conclusion that we are coming to is that ENTERPRISE is not #828 (that number most likely belongs to AQUILA.) We don't know the hull number of ENTERPRISE, but believe her to be the boat that first appeared in the records in 1922 as UNCAS. UNCAS was owned in 1922 by a Richard Crane of Marblehead. We don't believe he was the first owner, but don't know from whom he got her. By virtue of your observation of the wedges at the frame ends, we can assume ENTERPRISE is one of the earliest boats, possibly one of the first 10 built in 1920.
-
Magic: Can you expand on the observation regarding the first ten boats having a wedge between the frame ends and garboard? How certain are we that only the first ten were so constructed? There seems to be a conflict ... if the only 2 unaccounted boats of the first 10 had records into the 1940s, and ENTERPRISE has the wedges, wouldn't we then conclude that HMCo used this construction technique for awhile longer than just the first ten? And wouldn't that then bring into question the assignment of 828 to AQUILA?
-
Magic: Can you expand on the observation regarding the first ten boats having a wedge between the frame ends and garboard? How certain are we that only the first ten were so constructed? There seems to be a conflict ... if the only 2 unaccounted boats of the first 10 had records into the 1940s, and ENTERPRISE has the wedges, wouldn't we then conclude that HMCo used this construction technique for awhile longer than just the first ten? And wouldn't that then bring into question the assignment of 828 to AQUILA?
What evidence is there other than this quoted source above:
(Source: Anon. "Yachts and Yachtsmen." Boston Globe, June 18, 1922, p. 55.)
??
Magic says:
"In 1921 both Gob and Uncas were in the Marblehead fleet, Gob with race records and Uncas from the BG articles cited earlier, so they could not be the same boat"
I'm not sure I'd place my bet on a 1922 BG article by an anonymous source.
The Registry claims that Walworth Pierce is *listed* as the owner at the CYC and EYC. Are there receipts that show this? Is this listing correct? How do we know?
I do recall that I had a phone conversation with a Ms. Comito many years ago who sailed my boat and who knows it was sold from her family to Mr. Aldrich (then to me).
Another construction detail to keep in mind (according to Zachorne) is that the sheerstrakes were planed flush with the deck (as mine was).
Zachorne reports that the first S-boat built in 1919 was down by the stern a little. Mine certainly is when she sits on the water. Anecdotal.
The break of the lead keel on mine is where Zachorne claims the early boats had it - 8.5" aft of frame 18.
Cabin top had/has 11 deck beams as on the older boats.
Someone earlier in this threat talked about lining off marks and supposed they were used to build molds. I don't think this is the case. The first boat (whichever it was) was built on a mold.
Before I would make any decision about the provenance of ENTERPRISE (and I have made none) I would *First* check with the people who built the Registry (Upham Hanson, Haskins, Barker and Zachorne) and ask them how they arrived at their conclusion. They put a lot of research into this.
I can trace her back only to the Comito's.
Gregg
-
Thanks for all of this, Gregg. I think the conclusion that we are coming to is that ENTERPRISE is not #828 (that number most likely belongs to AQUILA.)
I'm not really sure how you come to this conclusion.
I respectfully suggest that you do not change the Registry based upon a few things people post in a web page. No disrespect meant to the posters but how serious was their research? How thorough?
Then someone posts something else, and the Registry gets changed again. And then again and again and there's no traceback other than the web page. Soon no one will know if ANY of it is true. Changes should only occur when there has been serious work done on the new information - at least as thorough as the work done to create the Registry in the first place.
I respectfully suggest you go to the people who put the time and effort into building the Registry and ask them questions:
In the tracing of ENTERPRISE backwards, what hard proof did they have? What evidence did they have? And by proof I do not mean some anonymous entry in the Boston Globe, or hearsay. I mean receipts, bills of sale, municipal documents, notarized documents, taxes paid etc. This is proof:
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/saville140/SBoatBillOfSale.jpg)
And right there you can see that Mr. Aldrich did not know the year the boat was built nor it's hull number. That's important information.
If there's a document that shows that HMCo sold hull #828 to Nathaniel Ayer then that is proof.
But even if they did, that doesn't tell you what happened to the boat after that.
Proof like these documents most likely won't exist for every step in the traceback. But one piece of paper connects two owners. Some of the dots will be connected.
The BG article is *NOT* proof nor even evidence. It's a lead, and one seriously worth following up. Where did "Anon" of the article get their info? Were the creators of the Registry aware of the BG article? If so, what did they think about it? Why did they not accept it? What counter evidence do they have? If they rejected it, did they have good reasons to do so?
If they weren't aware of it, that means something, too.
What suppositions and assumptions where they forced to make in the steps of the traceback?
If I was not aware of the answers to those questions I'd be extremely hesitant to alter their work.
Now, would I love it if my boat was truly Gob? Sure. Who wouldn't.
But I'd much rather know the true provenance of the boat. That way I can enjoy her history. But in trying to trace things like this there are bound to be discrepancies, conflicting bits of hearsay, assumptions and supposition.
And I would not make a change based upon some web page entries.
Just my opinion.
-
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. I have been thinking about assigning a confidence factor to each hull number assignment. On a scale of 1 - 5, possession of the hull plate would be required for a 1. Isolated, circumstantial evidence would rate a 5, with gradations in between.
What do folks think about the concept of a "confidence factor"? Anybody want to take a swing at it?
-
Gregg wrote:
>No disrespect meant to the posters but how serious was their research? How thorough?
Rest assured, quite thorough! There is a pretty high level of expertise on this forum...
>And by proof I do not mean some anonymous entry in the Boston Globe, or hearsay.
The article may have been anonymous, but you can be almost certain that it was written by Leonard M. Fowle, Sr., then yachting editor of the Globe, or by his son Leonard M. Fowle, Jr. who in the summer of 1922 had been summertime assistant to his father. Between the two of them, the yachting department of the Boston Globe was under Leonard M. Fowle leadership from 1915 to 1967! And the Fowles were a force to be reckoned with.
By the way, a Bill of Sale may be based on wrong information, too. This is not unusual, not at all.
Wonderful discussion, this, and I appreciate the input of every one!
-
I’m finding this a most enjoyable thread – not only because of the S-class history (especially the Hawaii connection – and the construction facts) – but the bit of controversy that it has brought up.
As HH stated there are many very knowledgeable members of this site – I of course not being one of them, being the most “armchair” aficionado of them all. However, I think Mr. Germain does bring up a good point with regards to what is acceptable fact and does need further discussion. Provenance is akin to Genealogy - another “hobby” of mine – and how that is done in a methodical, repeatable, ‘scientific’ way has room for thought. I know (abet limited at best) that the great Genealogist Donald Jacobus, would never for example accept oral tradition – or any Non - “official” documentation – no matter how well accepted, as fact. He worked in absolutes so that even when there are discrepancies –say between a state census and a church baptismal record - it could be documented as such. Because of this he has been accused of being nothing more than a “compiler” rather than a researcher, but he certainly avoided to a high degree the pitfalls of documenting as fact wrong data.
Of course boats are in some ways far more difficult to document. There are few “official” records – State registrations, CG Documentation, Lloyds, YC Yearbooks, Newspaper articles, or bills of sale, etc. – all of which can (and have been) found to contain errors – and rarely are the documents linear or overlapping so that they can collaborate one another. We tend to have snapshots in time with large amounts of provenance in between as unknown. Unfortunately “hearsay” and conjecture is in many cases all that exists.
It is because of this that I find Forums such as this to be an important tool in vetting out what is acceptable as fact or not. Take this thread – we had data that is at odds – both have compelling sources – one called into question the validity of anonymous data, and was countered. Most enjoyable. Will we know for sure? – Doubtful at best. But I think we can begin to weigh the facts we do have and hopefully begin to put a picture together of what is most likely (in this case narrowing down what hull number to a range).
What fun. Keep it going…
-
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
-
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.
-
Thanks, Ken. Indeed, it is great fun.
-
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: 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
-
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 ;-)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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."
(http://herreshoffdesigns.com/COQUINA/S00965_Coquina_ex_Avocet.jpg)
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 (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.
-
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?
-
"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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
Question - hull #931 NASSAU was the one "S" built at HMCo. not to NGH's design (John Alden's #254). She was quite a bit bigger than the Herreshoff's "S" at 31'4" - where did she race? What fleet? She was a later boat in 1925 so I would assume most fleets were established by then….She is still with us BTW out in WI according to the registry….
-
I think she has been in the Great Lakes forever.
-
Steve,
I have lots of photos, but unfortunately can not make out which sheer Aquila has. If memory serves me it is molded, but I will ask the question.
There is a great photo of Nassau from 1995, but I haven't yet figured out how to insert. What do I need to do? She sailed out of the Charlevoix YC and is still in her original family, I belive third generation. Doesn't look like a Herreshoff at all.
-
To post a photo, just click the first icon on the left in the row above the smileys, and then enter the URL of the image (including the http://).
I ask about AQUILA because, based on this discussion, I would assume
that the original 828 had the flat sheerstake.
-
Aloha,
Universal Rule proposed by NGH in 1903 for NYYC, refined then adopted after the 1903 America's Cup. Not really in effect until 1905 or so, as we see different citations of "first NGH boat designed for the Universal rule."
Yes different designers took a crack at boats for the S Class, as they did with other classes (P, R and J come to mind), one drawing even shows the 828 class S Boat with a "17 rating" which suggests they were raced against other classes on handicap; however the Herreshoff S Boat allowed close racing (one design as it were) and could be ordered in quantity as they did for the various fleets discussed. By the 20's the Haffenraffers were running the business so chances are they promoted Fleet pricing.
As far as the print date of the plans--most sheets contain what I would call a blue print verification stamp in the lower right corner, with handwritten initials etc. from Herreshoff Manufacturing, Co. Possible added later, but there are details like "drawer #" that make me think they were done as dated ie. 1919 through 1920.
The earliest dated drawing is Nov. 1919, Rudder drawing is Dec. 24, 1919, a drawing for the water tight cockpit is Jan, 14, 1920, Peconic Bay keel drawing Sept. 20, 1920, Shear strake Nov. 29, 1919, Rig Drawings are late November through early December but has one dated April 16, 1919 which also has listed "Boom socket for 702" so perhaps this was from another knockabout type boat. The latest date is a complete drawing of the vessel and rig dated Nov. 1, 1924.
Perhaps drawings were penned out when orders for more vessels came in so that they could be reproduced more efficiently and consistently.
Charles
-
Charles,
I've never seen these plans and will have to chase them down. I know Roger, so will check with him for these. When I went to the Hart Nautical Museum, I only got to see the sail plan and a construction plan, but they were both dated later than 1919 I seem to recall 1924.
Steve, No url to add photos with, only copy and paste. No definitive answer yet on Aquila, but again I will chase it down.
-
Ken: If you email the photos to me, I will be happy to post them for you.
-Steve
-
This is one instance I am happy to be wrong. My sincere apologies. I was fed bad information and swallowed it whole. Adam
-
Ken supplied these two images:
(http://www.herreshoffregistry.org/forum/images/Meteor ca 1951 - Norman Fortier - Ed Merrill.jpg)
SHONA (ex-Meteor) in 1951. A Norman Fortier photo.
(http://www.herreshoffregistry.org/forum/images/Nassau ca 1995- Gordon Wilson.jpg)
NASSAU, designed by John Alden, in 1995.
-
You can see the flat sheer with the bullnose clearly on Meteor (Shona). Also note that this boat has no portlights. Dirigo, hull # unknown, also has no portlights.
Shona was originally a Marblehead boat.
I found out that Aqulia had a flat sheer with bullnose replace with a carved sheer when it was restored by George Zachorne some time in the early 2000's. Not sure if the flat sheer was original as the boat was in the infamous Mamaroneck fire in 1957.
-
I just met with Ted Chwalk - very nice guy - who is involved with two rebuilds of S-Boats in RI. He and his mates seem to think they have found Gob and are rebuilding her.
-
Do you know anything about the boats Ted is working on? Is the one he believes is GOB currently named AQUILA? Would you be able to send me Ted's contact information so I might ask him a few questions? Either private messages on this site or infor@herreswhoffregistry.org would work.
Thanks.
-
Steve,
Feel free to drop me an email, angus.davis@gmail.com. Ted is a friend we share an interest in S Boat sailing, history and research. Our family owns Aquila. We race her regularly and she is not being rebuilt, other than the usual maintenance after a busy summer of racing :-) We are researching the history of some of the other very early (first 16) S Boats. Ted and I heard there was an S boat with an arrow painted on the side of her in Marblehead that had been out of the water for some time, and we thought she may have been Cheerio #833, which was last seen in Marblehead in 1953 with the name Arrow then owned by Dr. Reginald Hammerick Smithwick. According to Ken she only appears in the race records for one year and then disappears. The rumor of an S Boat with an arrow was tempting, and that was the mission that brought Ted up to Marblehead where Gregg was very kind to show him Enterprise, which I understand was originally named Uncas. The search for Cheerio/Arrow's current whereabouts thus remains an unsolved mystery!
-angus