Messages

1

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: December 31, 2011, 10:19:41 PM »

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.

2

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 11, 2011, 04:39:16 PM »

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

3

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 11, 2011, 03:47:18 PM »

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

4

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 11, 2011, 03:30:54 PM »

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?

5

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 02, 2011, 07:17:46 PM »

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:



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.

6

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 02, 2011, 03:48:04 PM »

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

7

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 02, 2011, 02:01:06 PM »

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

8

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 02, 2011, 01:44:41 PM »

  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.

9

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 02, 2011, 01:40:37 PM »

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. 

10

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 02, 2011, 01:38:08 PM »

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.

11

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 02, 2011, 01:37:07 PM »

GOB - summer of 2009.

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

12

Specific Herreshoff Vessels / Re: S-Class Gob and Uncas

« on: July 02, 2011, 01:35:07 PM »

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