[bolger] Re: as 29 - Dirty Little Secrets
<<
I didn't mean to impugn Gillmer on his design of PoB. I heard that he
did
want to change the hull form for the sake of stability and the powers
that
be in the syndicate wouldn't have it because they wanted an exact
replica.
So, not his fault. Much different tune the second time around.
design, interested in replicas, and we have to respect him for that.
<<
PoB went down about the same year that 'Marques' did pretty much the
same
thing and in the same geographic area as I recall. (Although Marques
wasn't
the boat that PoB was.) Some of the accounts that I read about both say
that skipper error and sudden squall together with all the hatches in
both
boats wide open to was the main culprit. Correct me if that's wrong,
because memory is foggy on this.
read the analysis - it was based on survivor's reports.
There are many stories about this sort of thing in the Caribbean, one
which comes to mind is about a Balto clipper the British had captured
and overloaded (which they loved to do, add guns and bulwarks) chasing
an American privateer and literally vanishing without a trace when a
squall came down. The American sailed back to where the Brit was last
seen. Maybe there was a floating hat or two.
Well, we're not here to argue <chuckle>. "We" is me -n- the cat.
I didn't mean to impugn Gillmer on his design of PoB. I heard that he
did
want to change the hull form for the sake of stability and the powers
that
be in the syndicate wouldn't have it because they wanted an exact
replica.
So, not his fault. Much different tune the second time around.
>>I don't know Gillmer from Noah, he was a very sincere historian of
design, interested in replicas, and we have to respect him for that.
<<
PoB went down about the same year that 'Marques' did pretty much the
same
thing and in the same geographic area as I recall. (Although Marques
wasn't
the boat that PoB was.) Some of the accounts that I read about both say
that skipper error and sudden squall together with all the hatches in
both
boats wide open to was the main culprit. Correct me if that's wrong,
because memory is foggy on this.
>>That bit about the hatches sounds right. I wish I could recall where I
read the analysis - it was based on survivor's reports.
There are many stories about this sort of thing in the Caribbean, one
which comes to mind is about a Balto clipper the British had captured
and overloaded (which they loved to do, add guns and bulwarks) chasing
an American privateer and literally vanishing without a trace when a
squall came down. The American sailed back to where the Brit was last
seen. Maybe there was a floating hat or two.
Well, we're not here to argue <chuckle>. "We" is me -n- the cat.
Craig,
IMHO you are SO correct in this post (included below) it's spooky. However,
having said that; if we agree then who'm I gonna have to fight with in the
future?
I didn't mean to impugn Gillmer on his design of PoB. I heard that he did
want to change the hull form for the sake of stability and the powers that
be in the syndicate wouldn't have it because they wanted an exact replica.
So, not his fault. Much different tune the second time around.
PoB went down about the same year that 'Marques' did pretty much the same
thing and in the same geographic area as I recall. (Although Marques wasn't
the boat that PoB was.) Some of the accounts that I read about both say
that skipper error and sudden squall together with all the hatches in both
boats wide open to was the main culprit. Correct me if that's wrong,
because memory is foggy on this.
Cheers!
Chuck
***********************************
CHUCK MERRELL
MERRELL WATERCRAFT
P. O. Box 80264
Seattle, WA 98108-0264
(206) 764-1298
Email:chuck@...
Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
**********************************
IMHO you are SO correct in this post (included below) it's spooky. However,
having said that; if we agree then who'm I gonna have to fight with in the
future?
I didn't mean to impugn Gillmer on his design of PoB. I heard that he did
want to change the hull form for the sake of stability and the powers that
be in the syndicate wouldn't have it because they wanted an exact replica.
So, not his fault. Much different tune the second time around.
PoB went down about the same year that 'Marques' did pretty much the same
thing and in the same geographic area as I recall. (Although Marques wasn't
the boat that PoB was.) Some of the accounts that I read about both say
that skipper error and sudden squall together with all the hatches in both
boats wide open to was the main culprit. Correct me if that's wrong,
because memory is foggy on this.
Cheers!
Chuck
***********************************
CHUCK MERRELL
MERRELL WATERCRAFT
P. O. Box 80264
Seattle, WA 98108-0264
(206) 764-1298
Email:chuck@...
Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
**********************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. O'Donnell" <dadadata@...>
To: <bolger@...>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 2:39 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: as 29 - Dirty Little Secrets
> >From the Chuckster:
>
> <<
> However, having said that, this is also a good time to point out that
> boat
> designers have been "borrowing" (or "ripping off" if you prefer) from
> fellow
> designers since forever.
>
> --snip--
>
> <<
> Per request, Gillmer drew Baltimore
> as close to the original as possible, which proved to be a colossal
> error.
> Because of the inadequate stability of the original and the clone hull,
> the
> boat capsized and sank a few years ago taking most of its crew to the
> bottom. Now there's a new Pride of Baltimore not designed by Gillmer.
> The
> hull was designed to modern hydrostatics for safety, but the rest of the
> boat looks a lot like the original.
> <<
>
> Hear hear!!
>
> In defense of Gillmer (who might be dead by now, I don't know), he
> *was* specifically asked to make a design-replica, and the problem with
> PoB the first was probably less with "instability of hull" and anything
> Gillmer did than
>
> -- no watertight bulkheads in the vessel, *following 1820s practice*,
> meaning instant flooding in a knockdown
>
> -- apparently some odd decisions by the captain at the time of the
> sinking concerning which sails to leave hoisted; this is documented in
> an article somewhere (can't recall where - Web or a boat magazine) as
> there are sail combinations on schooners you might be well advised not
> to use in certain weather conditions -- an art which few of us know and
> until I read the article had not thought about in the least.
>
> -- PoB had no schedule of radio contact with a shore base (eg "flight
> plan", which seems like plain stupidity on the part of all concerned
> with its operation at the time.
>
> You can't prevent squalls or human error, and I don't mean to
> second-guess anything here. Just point out that due to a collection of
> slip-ups or oversights, none necessarily fatal in themselves, a ship
> was lost and lives were lost.
>
> It also illuminates how it is that in the last century sailing vessels
> could simply disappear "with all hands" without necessarily being
> rotten or overloaded or running into bergs, and gives me quite a bit of
> respect for the sailors in that day.
>
> For a hair-raiser, look at the gunboats which sailed across the
> Atlantic during the affray with the Algerians in the early 1800s (see:
> The Jeffersonian Gunboat Navy, I believe the book was called). I think
> Chapelle also has a drawing of one of these in his History of American
> Sailing Ships (or maybe his history of sailing navy vessels). Of seven
> or ten that went, one was lost.
>
> <<
> You're probably right about Michalak too, but I seem remember seeing
> one of
> his designs, a Micro knock off but without a keel, instead having a lee
> or
> daggerboard (I forget which). I'm sort of foggy on this one, but I
> think
> the reason it was drawn was to solve the "keel anxiety" problem faced by
> would-be first time Micro builders.
> >>
>
> It's a question of further extending the 'instant boat' idea. Would you
> diss Duke Ellington for using the same musical notes that Beethoven had
> to work with?
> For that matter, classical composers are notorious for copping a lick
> or two from someone and composing "Variations on a theme by So-and-So".
>
> And we cannot forget Aaron Copeland working with American folk tunes
> for "Appalachian Spring".
>
>
> <<
> As for yours truly, I've been working on a boat lately called "Test
> Bench"
> which looks too Bolgeresque for comfort, but it's also a boat that's
> necessary and fills a need.
> >>
>
> So? <grin>
>
> If you want to have a boat which has vertical sides and a chine which
> drops down as far as it expands laterally (Bolger's "crossflow"
> argument), you are going to wind up with what looks a lot like a
> "Bolgerbox".
>
> Thomas Clapham, a sharpie innovator, also worked with arcs of circles
> (not just transversely) quite a bit and designed boats which look in
> many cases equally as "strange" as a Bolgerbox -- his BOUNCER series is
> one example, his FLYING PONTOON is another.
>
> If you want a sharpie with a straight chine back to an arc or curve,
> and a round stern (that is, following Chapelle's recipe), you're going
> to wind up with a boat that looks a lot like any of Chapelle's
> "yacht-sharpie" designs.
>
> If you want a cross between a canoe-yawl and a sharpie, are you ripping
> off Commodore Munroe?
>
>
> <<
> I've also recently taken the lines off a no-name dinghy that's been
> around
> here for years. I can't divine the origin of this boat, but I can tell
> you
> that it's the best performing yacht tender and general dinghy that I've
> ever
> seen. Moreover, it's got the cargo capacity of a small pickup truck.
> >>
>
> This, of course, is a traditional way to get good boat plans. Lowndes
> Johnson's "Widgeon" - a small sharpie - is preserved in the collection
> at the Ches Bay Maritime Museum - you can buy plans from them.
>
> He took the lines off an 1890s boat called "Pigwitch" which he admired
> and had been one of the better-sailing small sharpies around. And he
> admits it; or admitted it, as he's deceased.
>
> If you'd like to admire an authentic small sharpie, take a look at
> Widgeon sometime. That's a boat I'd rip off in about 30 seconds were I
> to build a small sharpie by traditional means. But of course I'd buy
> the CBMM plans.
>
>
> Finally <hahahaha> I don't think it's either illegal or immoral for
> someone to buy plans, and go to another designer and say: please use
> this basic design which I like, but give me X, Y and Z. If you paid for
> the plans, you paid for the right to do that, and if Designer #2 says,
> OK, well, there you have it.
>
> You can't have it both ways. If someone alters a PCB design and claims
> it's a "Bolger design" and not a "Joe-Schmoe design", there's a ruckus.
> If someone adapts a Bolger design and publishes it as their design,
> there's a ruckus.
>
> Of course it's a fine line, but let's relax a little. You cannot
> copyright "the thing itself." You cannot copyright a book if all it is,
> is covers and blank pages. You *can* copyright the thoughts and
> expressions that are printed *on* the pages or the picture or drawing
> on the cover.
>
> Someone who wanted to take the lines off an existing Micro and build
> one is perfectly entitled to do so, though I'd question their sanity
> very early in the process -- especially when plans and instructions are
> available at what is a nominal cost compared to the cost of the rest of
> the boat.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
> anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a
> digital camera.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/337/5/_/3457/_/947889592/
>
> -- Check out your group's private Chat room
> --http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
>
>
>
From the Chuckster:
<<
However, having said that, this is also a good time to point out that
boat
designers have been "borrowing" (or "ripping off" if you prefer) from
fellow
designers since forever.
--snip--
<<
Per request, Gillmer drew Baltimore
as close to the original as possible, which proved to be a colossal
error.
Because of the inadequate stability of the original and the clone hull,
the
boat capsized and sank a few years ago taking most of its crew to the
bottom. Now there's a new Pride of Baltimore not designed by Gillmer.
The
hull was designed to modern hydrostatics for safety, but the rest of the
boat looks a lot like the original.
<<
Hear hear!!
In defense of Gillmer (who might be dead by now, I don't know), he
*was* specifically asked to make a design-replica, and the problem with
PoB the first was probably less with "instability of hull" and anything
Gillmer did than
-- no watertight bulkheads in the vessel, *following 1820s practice*,
meaning instant flooding in a knockdown
-- apparently some odd decisions by the captain at the time of the
sinking concerning which sails to leave hoisted; this is documented in
an article somewhere (can't recall where - Web or a boat magazine) as
there are sail combinations on schooners you might be well advised not
to use in certain weather conditions -- an art which few of us know and
until I read the article had not thought about in the least.
-- PoB had no schedule of radio contact with a shore base (eg "flight
plan", which seems like plain stupidity on the part of all concerned
with its operation at the time.
You can't prevent squalls or human error, and I don't mean to
second-guess anything here. Just point out that due to a collection of
slip-ups or oversights, none necessarily fatal in themselves, a ship
was lost and lives were lost.
It also illuminates how it is that in the last century sailing vessels
could simply disappear "with all hands" without necessarily being
rotten or overloaded or running into bergs, and gives me quite a bit of
respect for the sailors in that day.
For a hair-raiser, look at the gunboats which sailed across the
Atlantic during the affray with the Algerians in the early 1800s (see:
The Jeffersonian Gunboat Navy, I believe the book was called). I think
Chapelle also has a drawing of one of these in his History of American
Sailing Ships (or maybe his history of sailing navy vessels). Of seven
or ten that went, one was lost.
<<
You're probably right about Michalak too, but I seem remember seeing
one of
his designs, a Micro knock off but without a keel, instead having a lee
or
daggerboard (I forget which). I'm sort of foggy on this one, but I
think
the reason it was drawn was to solve the "keel anxiety" problem faced by
would-be first time Micro builders.
diss Duke Ellington for using the same musical notes that Beethoven had
to work with?
For that matter, classical composers are notorious for copping a lick
or two from someone and composing "Variations on a theme by So-and-So".
And we cannot forget Aaron Copeland working with American folk tunes
for "Appalachian Spring".
<<
As for yours truly, I've been working on a boat lately called "Test
Bench"
which looks too Bolgeresque for comfort, but it's also a boat that's
necessary and fills a need.
If you want to have a boat which has vertical sides and a chine which
drops down as far as it expands laterally (Bolger's "crossflow"
argument), you are going to wind up with what looks a lot like a
"Bolgerbox".
Thomas Clapham, a sharpie innovator, also worked with arcs of circles
(not just transversely) quite a bit and designed boats which look in
many cases equally as "strange" as a Bolgerbox -- his BOUNCER series is
one example, his FLYING PONTOON is another.
If you want a sharpie with a straight chine back to an arc or curve,
and a round stern (that is, following Chapelle's recipe), you're going
to wind up with a boat that looks a lot like any of Chapelle's
"yacht-sharpie" designs.
If you want a cross between a canoe-yawl and a sharpie, are you ripping
off Commodore Munroe?
<<
I've also recently taken the lines off a no-name dinghy that's been
around
here for years. I can't divine the origin of this boat, but I can tell
you
that it's the best performing yacht tender and general dinghy that I've
ever
seen. Moreover, it's got the cargo capacity of a small pickup truck.
Johnson's "Widgeon" - a small sharpie - is preserved in the collection
at the Ches Bay Maritime Museum - you can buy plans from them.
He took the lines off an 1890s boat called "Pigwitch" which he admired
and had been one of the better-sailing small sharpies around. And he
admits it; or admitted it, as he's deceased.
If you'd like to admire an authentic small sharpie, take a look at
Widgeon sometime. That's a boat I'd rip off in about 30 seconds were I
to build a small sharpie by traditional means. But of course I'd buy
the CBMM plans.
Finally <hahahaha> I don't think it's either illegal or immoral for
someone to buy plans, and go to another designer and say: please use
this basic design which I like, but give me X, Y and Z. If you paid for
the plans, you paid for the right to do that, and if Designer #2 says,
OK, well, there you have it.
You can't have it both ways. If someone alters a PCB design and claims
it's a "Bolger design" and not a "Joe-Schmoe design", there's a ruckus.
If someone adapts a Bolger design and publishes it as their design,
there's a ruckus.
Of course it's a fine line, but let's relax a little. You cannot
copyright "the thing itself." You cannot copyright a book if all it is,
is covers and blank pages. You *can* copyright the thoughts and
expressions that are printed *on* the pages or the picture or drawing
on the cover.
Someone who wanted to take the lines off an existing Micro and build
one is perfectly entitled to do so, though I'd question their sanity
very early in the process -- especially when plans and instructions are
available at what is a nominal cost compared to the cost of the rest of
the boat.
<<
However, having said that, this is also a good time to point out that
boat
designers have been "borrowing" (or "ripping off" if you prefer) from
fellow
designers since forever.
--snip--
<<
Per request, Gillmer drew Baltimore
as close to the original as possible, which proved to be a colossal
error.
Because of the inadequate stability of the original and the clone hull,
the
boat capsized and sank a few years ago taking most of its crew to the
bottom. Now there's a new Pride of Baltimore not designed by Gillmer.
The
hull was designed to modern hydrostatics for safety, but the rest of the
boat looks a lot like the original.
<<
Hear hear!!
In defense of Gillmer (who might be dead by now, I don't know), he
*was* specifically asked to make a design-replica, and the problem with
PoB the first was probably less with "instability of hull" and anything
Gillmer did than
-- no watertight bulkheads in the vessel, *following 1820s practice*,
meaning instant flooding in a knockdown
-- apparently some odd decisions by the captain at the time of the
sinking concerning which sails to leave hoisted; this is documented in
an article somewhere (can't recall where - Web or a boat magazine) as
there are sail combinations on schooners you might be well advised not
to use in certain weather conditions -- an art which few of us know and
until I read the article had not thought about in the least.
-- PoB had no schedule of radio contact with a shore base (eg "flight
plan", which seems like plain stupidity on the part of all concerned
with its operation at the time.
You can't prevent squalls or human error, and I don't mean to
second-guess anything here. Just point out that due to a collection of
slip-ups or oversights, none necessarily fatal in themselves, a ship
was lost and lives were lost.
It also illuminates how it is that in the last century sailing vessels
could simply disappear "with all hands" without necessarily being
rotten or overloaded or running into bergs, and gives me quite a bit of
respect for the sailors in that day.
For a hair-raiser, look at the gunboats which sailed across the
Atlantic during the affray with the Algerians in the early 1800s (see:
The Jeffersonian Gunboat Navy, I believe the book was called). I think
Chapelle also has a drawing of one of these in his History of American
Sailing Ships (or maybe his history of sailing navy vessels). Of seven
or ten that went, one was lost.
<<
You're probably right about Michalak too, but I seem remember seeing
one of
his designs, a Micro knock off but without a keel, instead having a lee
or
daggerboard (I forget which). I'm sort of foggy on this one, but I
think
the reason it was drawn was to solve the "keel anxiety" problem faced by
would-be first time Micro builders.
>>It's a question of further extending the 'instant boat' idea. Would you
diss Duke Ellington for using the same musical notes that Beethoven had
to work with?
For that matter, classical composers are notorious for copping a lick
or two from someone and composing "Variations on a theme by So-and-So".
And we cannot forget Aaron Copeland working with American folk tunes
for "Appalachian Spring".
<<
As for yours truly, I've been working on a boat lately called "Test
Bench"
which looks too Bolgeresque for comfort, but it's also a boat that's
necessary and fills a need.
>>So? <grin>
If you want to have a boat which has vertical sides and a chine which
drops down as far as it expands laterally (Bolger's "crossflow"
argument), you are going to wind up with what looks a lot like a
"Bolgerbox".
Thomas Clapham, a sharpie innovator, also worked with arcs of circles
(not just transversely) quite a bit and designed boats which look in
many cases equally as "strange" as a Bolgerbox -- his BOUNCER series is
one example, his FLYING PONTOON is another.
If you want a sharpie with a straight chine back to an arc or curve,
and a round stern (that is, following Chapelle's recipe), you're going
to wind up with a boat that looks a lot like any of Chapelle's
"yacht-sharpie" designs.
If you want a cross between a canoe-yawl and a sharpie, are you ripping
off Commodore Munroe?
<<
I've also recently taken the lines off a no-name dinghy that's been
around
here for years. I can't divine the origin of this boat, but I can tell
you
that it's the best performing yacht tender and general dinghy that I've
ever
seen. Moreover, it's got the cargo capacity of a small pickup truck.
>>This, of course, is a traditional way to get good boat plans. Lowndes
Johnson's "Widgeon" - a small sharpie - is preserved in the collection
at the Ches Bay Maritime Museum - you can buy plans from them.
He took the lines off an 1890s boat called "Pigwitch" which he admired
and had been one of the better-sailing small sharpies around. And he
admits it; or admitted it, as he's deceased.
If you'd like to admire an authentic small sharpie, take a look at
Widgeon sometime. That's a boat I'd rip off in about 30 seconds were I
to build a small sharpie by traditional means. But of course I'd buy
the CBMM plans.
Finally <hahahaha> I don't think it's either illegal or immoral for
someone to buy plans, and go to another designer and say: please use
this basic design which I like, but give me X, Y and Z. If you paid for
the plans, you paid for the right to do that, and if Designer #2 says,
OK, well, there you have it.
You can't have it both ways. If someone alters a PCB design and claims
it's a "Bolger design" and not a "Joe-Schmoe design", there's a ruckus.
If someone adapts a Bolger design and publishes it as their design,
there's a ruckus.
Of course it's a fine line, but let's relax a little. You cannot
copyright "the thing itself." You cannot copyright a book if all it is,
is covers and blank pages. You *can* copyright the thoughts and
expressions that are printed *on* the pages or the picture or drawing
on the cover.
Someone who wanted to take the lines off an existing Micro and build
one is perfectly entitled to do so, though I'd question their sanity
very early in the process -- especially when plans and instructions are
available at what is a nominal cost compared to the cost of the rest of
the boat.
Hi Tim,
Actually, you're probably correct on this one--I stand spanked . . .
The differences between the two designs (Bolger's AS29 and Tanton's #980)
are so slight that there is probably no chance of coincidence. Even so, I'd
be curious to know the story behind what appears to be the obvious.
Whatever, it seems a bit crazy or at least insensitive even if there isn't
any coincidence to put design #980 in a stock portfolio and publish it on
the net in these days of lightening communications.
However, having said that, this is also a good time to point out that boat
designers have been "borrowing" (or "ripping off" if you prefer) from fellow
designers since forever. For example, William Atkin (according to Bolger,
the one designer he most identifies with and whose career Phil's most
parallels) pretty much took Colin Archer's "magic curves" when he copied
Archer's Rescue Boats in the form of "Ingrid" and "Thistle". W.I.B.
Crealock almost copied Thistle across the board when he drew what became the
"Westsail 32". Phil did "Rose" from lines which were archived as Thomas
Gillmer did "The Pride of Baltimore". Per request, Gillmer drew Baltimore
as close to the original as possible, which proved to be a colossal error.
Because of the inadequate stability of the original and the clone hull, the
boat capsized and sank a few years ago taking most of its crew to the
bottom. Now there's a new Pride of Baltimore not designed by Gillmer. The
hull was designed to modern hydrostatics for safety, but the rest of the
boat looks a lot like the original.
I know one designer whose name has been recently mentioned on this list in
glowing terms and who is still working (at least as of a couple days ago).
That person used to photo-copy lines published in British magazines, file
em' and eventually would get around to changing the sheer and topsides, and
maybe the curve of the stem, and voila, new yacht.
You're probably right about Michalak too, but I seem remember seeing one of
his designs, a Micro knock off but without a keel, instead having a lee or
daggerboard (I forget which). I'm sort of foggy on this one, but I think
the reason it was drawn was to solve the "keel anxiety" problem faced by
would-be first time Micro builders.
As for yours truly, I've been working on a boat lately called "Test Bench"
which looks too Bolgeresque for comfort, but it's also a boat that's
necessary and fills a need.
I've also recently taken the lines off a no-name dinghy that's been around
here for years. I can't divine the origin of this boat, but I can tell you
that it's the best performing yacht tender and general dinghy that I've ever
seen. Moreover, it's got the cargo capacity of a small pickup truck.
By the way, when I get the boat drawn (design name is Gus-Gus after the
Disney Cinderella mouse) I'm going to post the complete plan on "Private
Postings" for free so that anybody who wants it can build one--this design
will be on me. I'll notify the list, so stay tuned.
I guess my message here is, though, that before we get too uppity and start
throwing around terms like "Copyright Infringement" it'd be wise to know a
little more about the nature and generalities of this business.
Cheers!
Chuck
***********************************
CHUCK MERRELL
MERRELL WATERCRAFT
P. O. Box 80264
Seattle, WA 98108-0264
(206) 764-1298
Email:chuck@...
Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
**********************************
Actually, you're probably correct on this one--I stand spanked . . .
The differences between the two designs (Bolger's AS29 and Tanton's #980)
are so slight that there is probably no chance of coincidence. Even so, I'd
be curious to know the story behind what appears to be the obvious.
Whatever, it seems a bit crazy or at least insensitive even if there isn't
any coincidence to put design #980 in a stock portfolio and publish it on
the net in these days of lightening communications.
However, having said that, this is also a good time to point out that boat
designers have been "borrowing" (or "ripping off" if you prefer) from fellow
designers since forever. For example, William Atkin (according to Bolger,
the one designer he most identifies with and whose career Phil's most
parallels) pretty much took Colin Archer's "magic curves" when he copied
Archer's Rescue Boats in the form of "Ingrid" and "Thistle". W.I.B.
Crealock almost copied Thistle across the board when he drew what became the
"Westsail 32". Phil did "Rose" from lines which were archived as Thomas
Gillmer did "The Pride of Baltimore". Per request, Gillmer drew Baltimore
as close to the original as possible, which proved to be a colossal error.
Because of the inadequate stability of the original and the clone hull, the
boat capsized and sank a few years ago taking most of its crew to the
bottom. Now there's a new Pride of Baltimore not designed by Gillmer. The
hull was designed to modern hydrostatics for safety, but the rest of the
boat looks a lot like the original.
I know one designer whose name has been recently mentioned on this list in
glowing terms and who is still working (at least as of a couple days ago).
That person used to photo-copy lines published in British magazines, file
em' and eventually would get around to changing the sheer and topsides, and
maybe the curve of the stem, and voila, new yacht.
You're probably right about Michalak too, but I seem remember seeing one of
his designs, a Micro knock off but without a keel, instead having a lee or
daggerboard (I forget which). I'm sort of foggy on this one, but I think
the reason it was drawn was to solve the "keel anxiety" problem faced by
would-be first time Micro builders.
As for yours truly, I've been working on a boat lately called "Test Bench"
which looks too Bolgeresque for comfort, but it's also a boat that's
necessary and fills a need.
I've also recently taken the lines off a no-name dinghy that's been around
here for years. I can't divine the origin of this boat, but I can tell you
that it's the best performing yacht tender and general dinghy that I've ever
seen. Moreover, it's got the cargo capacity of a small pickup truck.
By the way, when I get the boat drawn (design name is Gus-Gus after the
Disney Cinderella mouse) I'm going to post the complete plan on "Private
Postings" for free so that anybody who wants it can build one--this design
will be on me. I'll notify the list, so stay tuned.
I guess my message here is, though, that before we get too uppity and start
throwing around terms like "Copyright Infringement" it'd be wise to know a
little more about the nature and generalities of this business.
Cheers!
Chuck
***********************************
CHUCK MERRELL
MERRELL WATERCRAFT
P. O. Box 80264
Seattle, WA 98108-0264
(206) 764-1298
Email:chuck@...
Web Site:http://www.boatdesign.com
**********************************
----- Original Message -----
From: <tjfatchen@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 6:02 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: as 29
> BO>Lemme do a little tidying up here for a minute . . .
>
> BO>Yves Marie is NOT "ripping" Bolger off any more than two designers who
do
> BO>America's Cup boats or IOR designs can be accused of "ripping" each
other
> BO>off just because the boats have a similar look.
>
> Chuck, in defence of Peter, the study plans appear to go beyond similar
> looks to major concordance in details. Michalak's boats on the other
> hand have a similar look'n'feel, but are clearly their own boats. I
> don't know the person but on the face of it the two designs are so
> similar that Peter's query would seem entirely justifiable.
>
> Tim Fatchen
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FreeLotto.com is the only internet site to offer three free chances
> a day to win $1,000,000.00. We've already had two $1,000,000.00
> jackpot winners and thousands of other cash prizes. You could be
> a $1,000,000.00 winner tonight!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/445/5/_/3457/_/947604995/
>
> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
> --http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=bolger&m=1
>
>
>