The Schooner Bluenose Plans discrepancies - which is most accurate?

[Peter Voogt]

A invitation to Mr. M. Tocco @massimotocco .
As a noted in --> this post <-- in the build-log of Bill, I got the idea "That have I read and seen before".
And as a amateur model builder, I’m not used to immediately switching to the informal 'Dear Massimo' when first contacting a professional model builder.
You introduced yourself in --> this post <-- as building a commissioned build of the BN-II in the Group Build Area for the YuanQing build of the 'original 1912' BN. A further discussion ensued in that thread. Later, an invitation was also extended to continue the discussion in this BN Main Support Area. Although it was started for the YQ PoF kit, later on we also discussed the BN-II and other manufacturers.

Your tekst and photo shote was almost the same as in this build-log's:
--> Build-log by Mark / Nomad <--
--> Build-log by Pierro / The Sailor <--
And you got here the --> Invitation <-- and --> Invitation <-- here.

That is why I am extremely curious to hear more about the reasoning behind what you have already written three times. Is it because, as a professional builder, you feel unheard—thinking, "They just keep building models of the BN that aren't accurate"?
But in many of the build-logs we already indicate that for us it is also a 'Artistic-Lysence (AL) and Free-Interpretation (FI). So, we build with the help of AL-FI. And the 'studies' from H. Chapelle, L.B. Jenson, B. Langford and P.F. Eisnor are also for a great deal 'interpretation'. With all their differences from one another.
I’m not a moderator either. But ever since the start of the YQ-BN Group Build, I’ve been trying to collect everything posted about the construction of a BN.
And made also the --> BN-List <-- to made a overview off all the BN's here on the SoS.

At 1st I have 2 question about your model, shown in your pictures:
1: Why did you make the lanyards between the deadeyes so long that the upper deadeyes rise above the main boom?

On the BN-II in the harbor of Nova Scotia those deadeyes are much lower:


2: Why have you 'over-dimensioned' 'some' ropes? For instance on the Main Boom and Gaff:

Fore a 'commissioned' model I would have asked this question.

As a amature model maker for over 40 years I do also 'some' study when I started with a new model.
Also for my Bluenose I did also 'some' Literature and Photo study.
For the blocks and lines, I compared the necessary aspects between the studies of H. Chapelle, L.B. Jenson, B. Lankford and P.F. Eisnor.
And made a --> excel-sheet <-- See bottom post #1) with all the noted dimension of Mast/Booms/Gaff - Blocks and Lines.

Hoping for a response from you of anyone,
Regards, Peter

 

[Heinrich]

@Peter Voogt Peter, I have to agree with you. I fail to see the point of comparing two distinctly different ship models to one another. The original Bluenose as built by you and most of the members in the Bluenose Group Build cannot and should not be compared to Bluenose II. I appreciate that @massimotocco has done his research on Bluenose II but fail to see how this has anything to do with or how it places it in a superior category over the original Bluenose models - each with its own research behind it. I cannot imagine that anyone could have researched the original Bluenose in more detail than you have. Certainly, if I compare the two models base on complexity, interior detail, rigging and overall appearance, I have no doubt as to where my vote will go ...

 

[Peter Voogt]

@Peter Voogt Peter, I have to agree with you. I fail to see the point of comparing two distinctly different ship models to one another. The original Bluenose as built by you and most of the members in the Bluenose Group Build cannot and should not be compared to Bluenose II. I appreciate that @massimotocco has done his research on Bluenose II but fail to see how this has anything to do with or how it places it in a superior category over the original Bluenose models - each with its own research behind it. I cannot imagine that anyone could have researched the original Bluenose in more detail than you have. Certainly, if I compare the two models base on complexity, interior detail, rigging and overall appearance, I have no doubt as to where my vote will go ...

Thanks for your response, Heinrich. Of course I appreciate your compliments, but for me it's not about what is good, better, or best. It is about the way you communicate and the intention behind what you are building and write about it. And if you claim to have built something correct and post about it, you’re entitled to have an opinion on it. Not to mention that a dedicated build log of your own build allows you to articulate your views better and remain open to feedback.
Regards, Peter

 

[TexBilly]

Thanks for your response, Heinrich. Of course I appreciate your compliments, but for me it's not about what is good, better, or best. It is about the way you communicate and the intention behind what you are building and write about it. And if you claim to have built something correct and post about it, you’re entitled to have an opinion on it. Not to mention that a dedicated build log of your own build allows you to articulate your views better and remain open to feedback.
Regards, Peter

Thanks, Peter. What I enjoy most about forums like SOS is the knowledge other members bring to the table, especially through build logs. This is especially valuable for someone very new like me. We may not always agree on other members' suggested styles, methods or even "what's accurate" but these bits of feedback all add to our library of knowledge. When no value is presented, how does it benefit anyone?

 

[Peter Voogt]

Thanks, Peter. What I enjoy most about forums like SOS is the knowledge other members bring to the table, especially through build logs. This is especially valuable for someone very new like me. We may not always agree on other members' suggested styles, methods or even "what's accurate" but these bits of feedback all add to our library of knowledge. When no value is presented, how does it benefit anyone?

Thanks for your reply, Bill. It’s also my opinion that we are here on this SoS for each other. To help, learn, educate etc. And of course you may show your results.
And posting just for the posting …….. indeed, what’s te value.
Of course, it's not about ‘reaching the top’ but enjoying ‘the journey to the top’. But once you're ‘at the top’, you're allowed to enjoy the view. And others are welcome to enjoy it too, as long as it's not about jealousy.
Regards, Peter

 

[Roger Pellett]

Just happened on to this. The original post involved building a model of the ORIGINAL Bluenose and discussed use of drawings for Bluenose II as a reference. Bluenose II is claimed by her promoters to be an exact replica of the original because drawings made to build her were based on the original vessel’s half model.

It is possible that the half model does not represent the original Bluenose as built since designs were often changed on the mold loft floor once her designer was able to see her lines laid down full size. Designers sometimes then prepared a new table of offsets for a record of the as built hull. If that was done the new table of offsets, not the half model would be definitive.

Roger

 

[Peter Voogt]

Just happened on to this. The original post involved building a model of the ORIGINAL Bluenose and discussed use of drawings for Bluenose II as a reference. Bluenose II is claimed by her promoters to be an exact replica of the original because drawings made to build her were based on the original vessel’s half model.

It is possible that the half model does not represent the original Bluenose as built since designs were often changed on the mold loft floor once her designer was able to see her lines laid down full size. Designers sometimes then prepared a new table of offsets for a record of the as built hull. If that was done the new table of offsets, not the half model would be definitive.

Roger

Hi Roger. You are correct that the 1st post of the thread on page 1 started about the original BN.
To post the invitation here is because this is the BN Main Support Area and this thread is all about discrepancies and accurate.
And Mr. Tocco posted BN-II photo’s in build-logs of the ‘original’ BN.
We can ask the moderators to add ‘Version Confusion’ at the thread name …….
Regards, Peter

 

[massimotocco]

@Peter Voogt Peter, I have to agree with you. I fail to see the point of comparing two distinctly different ship models to one another. The original Bluenose as built by you and most of the members in the Bluenose Group Build cannot and should not be compared to Bluenose II. I appreciate that @massimotocco has done his research on Bluenose II but fail to see how this has anything to do with or how it places it in a superior category over the original Bluenose models - each with its own research behind it. I cannot imagine that anyone could have researched the original Bluenose in more detail than you have. Certainly, if I compare the two models base on complexity, interior detail, rigging and overall appearance, I have no doubt as to where my vote will go ...

Well, just read this post.....I guess you can build any model you desire if it will make you happy. I only posted the photos of the Bluenose II to add to the conversation that the Bluenose that sunk is not ANYMORE the original!!! It does not exist ever. What exist is the new one. You modelers are spending money buying kits that are not anymore thru to what is in my backyard!!! I sailed on the Bluenose II...Jensen produced an earliest set of lines and plans where he took measurements from the original half-hull carved model used by the ship designer William J. Roue.
I deeply resent the fact when you said 'I have no doubt as to where my vote will go...' I could not care less.
Massimo

 

[massimotocco]

A invitation to Mr. M. Tocco @massimotocco .
As a noted in --> this post <-- in the build-log of Bill, I got the idea "That have I read and seen before".
And as a amateur model builder, I’m not used to immediately switching to the informal 'Dear Massimo' when first contacting a professional model builder.
You introduced yourself in --> this post <-- as building a commissioned build of the BN-II in the Group Build Area for the YuanQing build of the 'original 1912' BN. A further discussion ensued in that thread. Later, an invitation was also extended to continue the discussion in this BN Main Support Area. Although it was started for the YQ PoF kit, later on we also discussed the BN-II and other manufacturers.

Your tekst and photo shote was almost the same as in this build-log's:
--> Build-log by Mark / Nomad <--
--> Build-log by Pierro / The Sailor <--
And you got here the --> Invitation <-- and --> Invitation <-- here.

That is why I am extremely curious to hear more about the reasoning behind what you have already written three times. Is it because, as a professional builder, you feel unheard—thinking, "They just keep building models of the BN that aren't accurate"?
But in many of the build-logs we already indicate that for us it is also a 'Artistic-Lysence (AL) and Free-Interpretation (FI). So, we build with the help of AL-FI. And the 'studies' from H. Chapelle, L.B. Jenson, B. Langford and P.F. Eisnor are also for a great deal 'interpretation'. With all their differences from one another.
I’m not a moderator either. But ever since the start of the YQ-BN Group Build, I’ve been trying to collect everything posted about the construction of a BN.
And made also the --> BN-List <-- to made a overview off all the BN's here on the SoS.

At 1st I have 2 question about your model, shown in your pictures:
1: Why did you make the lanyards between the deadeyes so long that the upper deadeyes rise above the main boom?
View attachment 616484
On the BN-II in the harbor of Nova Scotia those deadeyes are much lower:
View attachment 616485

2: Why have you 'over-dimensioned' 'some' ropes? For instance on the Main Boom and Gaff:
View attachment 616486
Fore a 'commissioned' model I would have asked this question.

As a amature model maker for over 40 years I do also 'some' study when I started with a new model.
Also for my Bluenose I did also 'some' Literature and Photo study.
For the blocks and lines, I compared the necessary aspects between the studies of H. Chapelle, L.B. Jenson, B. Lankford and P.F. Eisnor.
And made a --> excel-sheet <-- See bottom post #1) with all the noted dimension of Mast/Booms/Gaff - Blocks and Lines.

Hoping for a response from you of anyone,
Regards, Peter

Peter, I did not posted photos for criticism....I think you are asking a bit of a silly questions...but to satisfy your curiosity the ropes are all of the correct diameter! Regarding the distance of the lanyards as you know on a rigged sailing ship there isn't one fixed distance between the upper and lower deadeyes...it depends on the size of the ship, the size of the deadeyes and how much adjustment is needed in the lanyards.
The Bluenose II in winter is on drydocks all wrapped and the mast are off the schooner as well...
Massimo

 

[Heinrich]

I only posted the photos of the Bluenose II to add to the conversation that the Bluenose that sunk is not ANYMORE the original!!!

Dear Sir

Please allow me to explain the meaning of the word "original".

relating to, or constituting an origin or beginning;

not secondary, derivative, or imitative

the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made

Bluenose II is a REPLICA or COPY which has neither history as a fishing vessel nor as a racing schooner - she will always be a reproduction; nothing else.

The original Bluenose which fished, raced and sank will always remain the original.

 

[Roger Pellett]

Replicas: The replica Biz is alive and well. IMHO it’s another form of show business. The “Tall Ships” visit us here at the western end of Lake Superior every few years. One year, I had access to a sailboat and was able to sail with them as they left town under sail. It was an impressive sight. Since I can’t do that anymore I avoid the Festival of Sail as it is called like the plague. It’s just vessels tied up alongside the pier, festival goers dressed up like pirates, street vendors, and of course the obligatory rock and roll band.

The fact is that it is virtually impossible today to build an exact replica of a historic sailing vessel as their promoters claim. Modern safety and probably insurance regulations don’t allow it. The first Pride of Baltimore is a cautionary tale. She was designed as a true Baltimore Clipper (correct hull form). She was a beautiful vessel and had a successful sailing career until capsizing and killing four of her crew during a squall in the Caribbean. After deciding to replace her, the owners instructed naval architect Thomas Gillmer to design a new vessel with a greater range of stability. Pride II is also a handsome vessel- in the water. When hauled out she has more of a wineglass shape like a more modern yacht. Historically incorrect but safer. The first Pride’s tragic accident forced Tall Ship promoters to come to terms with the fact that vessel owners and crew in the age of sail were willing to take risks that are unacceptable today. The Pride of Baltimore kit sold today builds Pride II.

Roger