[bolger] Re: Kind words, 'ruckus', and office mngt.
Phil Bolger and Friends wrote:
=====================================================
Recently WOODENBOAT featured RED HEAD, a beautiful Canoe-yawl with
clear roots in HERRESHOFF's ROZINANTE's 'gene-pool'.
- If the name HERRESHOFF is implicitly and explicitly linked with RED
HEAD without immediate and distinct statement of differences/derivation
al character of RED HEAD, there is an immediate risk of 'coat-tailing'
problems.
- If the name HERRESHOFF and ROZINANTE are held in high esteem why
consider 'improving' ROZINANTE? She either is a 'classic' design with
pedigree and good feelings of 'truth' etc. associated with it, which is
only 'true' if it is 100% ROZINANTE - no ifs, buts or high-tech
improvements. Or the exercise is like putting radials and gas-shocks
on a DUESENBERG, slimming the body down to contemporary weights,
bumping up compression for 95 Octane use and then selling it as a
DUESENBERG - only 'better' and "handling like a true classic car...".
- Since the RED HEAD creators and builders - a beautiful boat - pointed
out early that this is an updated ROZINATE, the basic formal homework
has been done - with just a trace of 'coat-tailing' remaining. Why one
could not live with the characteristic stengths and short-comings the
'classic' has is another question.
===================================================
This rigid approach to "classic" designs causes me some concern, since it
easily exceeds the intentions of the designer. LFH created at least three
versions of Rozinante. The first, sketched in "The Compleat Cruiser," had
short gaffs, which LFH extolled. The second, the lines of which are
published in "Sensible Cruising Designs," also originally had short gaffs,
but it had a motor, a short keel and spade rudder, and diagonal planking
over web frames and stringers. The third, "classic" version, published in
"Rudder" and also in "SCD," was more like the original, but it had a Marconi
rig and deeper keel. Clearly, LFH modified his ideas over time and adapted
his designs to suit different clients. The fact that he is no longer
present to carry out further modifications does not impose a moral
obligation on successive designers and owners to adhere to existing designs
without change or else to create new designs that are distinctively unlike
Rozinante. There is a legitimate place for close but not exact copies, such
as Joel White's Haven 12 1/2 a beamier K/CB version of the Herreshoff 12
1/2.
Phil Bolger and Friends are right to emphasize the obligation to give credit
where credit is due. It is also true that unannounced modification of a
designer's work by less skilled hands can damage his reputation for
aesthetic, engineering, or nautical skill. Nor should a modern development
of a design be passed off as a "museum-grade" re-creation. Nevertheless,
changes in economics, technology, and purpose offer opportunities for
creative adaptations of classic designs that might have been seen as
improvements by their originators and that we can respect as sincere acts of
homage.
-Peter Belenky
=====================================================
Recently WOODENBOAT featured RED HEAD, a beautiful Canoe-yawl with
clear roots in HERRESHOFF's ROZINANTE's 'gene-pool'.
- If the name HERRESHOFF is implicitly and explicitly linked with RED
HEAD without immediate and distinct statement of differences/derivation
al character of RED HEAD, there is an immediate risk of 'coat-tailing'
problems.
- If the name HERRESHOFF and ROZINANTE are held in high esteem why
consider 'improving' ROZINANTE? She either is a 'classic' design with
pedigree and good feelings of 'truth' etc. associated with it, which is
only 'true' if it is 100% ROZINANTE - no ifs, buts or high-tech
improvements. Or the exercise is like putting radials and gas-shocks
on a DUESENBERG, slimming the body down to contemporary weights,
bumping up compression for 95 Octane use and then selling it as a
DUESENBERG - only 'better' and "handling like a true classic car...".
- Since the RED HEAD creators and builders - a beautiful boat - pointed
out early that this is an updated ROZINATE, the basic formal homework
has been done - with just a trace of 'coat-tailing' remaining. Why one
could not live with the characteristic stengths and short-comings the
'classic' has is another question.
===================================================
This rigid approach to "classic" designs causes me some concern, since it
easily exceeds the intentions of the designer. LFH created at least three
versions of Rozinante. The first, sketched in "The Compleat Cruiser," had
short gaffs, which LFH extolled. The second, the lines of which are
published in "Sensible Cruising Designs," also originally had short gaffs,
but it had a motor, a short keel and spade rudder, and diagonal planking
over web frames and stringers. The third, "classic" version, published in
"Rudder" and also in "SCD," was more like the original, but it had a Marconi
rig and deeper keel. Clearly, LFH modified his ideas over time and adapted
his designs to suit different clients. The fact that he is no longer
present to carry out further modifications does not impose a moral
obligation on successive designers and owners to adhere to existing designs
without change or else to create new designs that are distinctively unlike
Rozinante. There is a legitimate place for close but not exact copies, such
as Joel White's Haven 12 1/2 a beamier K/CB version of the Herreshoff 12
1/2.
Phil Bolger and Friends are right to emphasize the obligation to give credit
where credit is due. It is also true that unannounced modification of a
designer's work by less skilled hands can damage his reputation for
aesthetic, engineering, or nautical skill. Nor should a modern development
of a design be passed off as a "museum-grade" re-creation. Nevertheless,
changes in economics, technology, and purpose offer opportunities for
creative adaptations of classic designs that might have been seen as
improvements by their originators and that we can respect as sincere acts of
homage.
-Peter Belenky
<<
Our Design #225 ROSE is based, and has always been stated as such, on
Admiralty plans. But, and this is a big but,
- a major and very experienced builder of large wooden vessels could
not build from these plans (!!);
Chapelle's rendering in his American Sailing Craft (I think it is, I'm
sorry, I have a hard time remembering which is which with HIC) and I
know from having seen a rough draft in the file of Chapelle drawings at
Ches Bay Maritime Museum that he traced the original and 'worked with
that' t arrive at the drawing in his book.
The original drawing shows practically nothing of the vessel's
construction, only the 'outer envelope' and dimensions of things like
the keel timbers and the very basics. If there were ever actual offsets
taken by the Royal Navy, the table has long since vanished. There's
nothing on the ballasting, per se (which would have been stone) or on
the spars, per se, which were either assumed to follow conventional
rules or were on a second sheet which was not preserved. Prob the
former.
Apparently it was simply assumed that a shipbuilder would build to
certain conventional standards given such a plan regrading frames,
planking, and all the other bits and pieces that made up a ship of that
day and age.
Given that, it's not a terrible stretch to grant 'recreators' a certain
amount of latitude to suit today's 'conventional standards' for USCG
and bankers' druthers <chuckle>.
Our Design #225 ROSE is based, and has always been stated as such, on
Admiralty plans. But, and this is a big but,
- a major and very experienced builder of large wooden vessels could
not build from these plans (!!);
>>I have seen a copy of the admiralty 'draught' for SULTANA - you can see
Chapelle's rendering in his American Sailing Craft (I think it is, I'm
sorry, I have a hard time remembering which is which with HIC) and I
know from having seen a rough draft in the file of Chapelle drawings at
Ches Bay Maritime Museum that he traced the original and 'worked with
that' t arrive at the drawing in his book.
The original drawing shows practically nothing of the vessel's
construction, only the 'outer envelope' and dimensions of things like
the keel timbers and the very basics. If there were ever actual offsets
taken by the Royal Navy, the table has long since vanished. There's
nothing on the ballasting, per se (which would have been stone) or on
the spars, per se, which were either assumed to follow conventional
rules or were on a second sheet which was not preserved. Prob the
former.
Apparently it was simply assumed that a shipbuilder would build to
certain conventional standards given such a plan regrading frames,
planking, and all the other bits and pieces that made up a ship of that
day and age.
Given that, it's not a terrible stretch to grant 'recreators' a certain
amount of latitude to suit today's 'conventional standards' for USCG
and bankers' druthers <chuckle>.
Dear Phil and Susanne,
Many thanks for the well-thought-out summary. I'm sure it helped dispel
several misconceptions regarding the many-faceted question of attribution.
Interesting, too, about the question of Phil's re-design of "Rose". I
pointed this out to a naval historian friend, who has actually sailed on
'Rose'; drawing attention to the fact that the same guy designed my beloved
June Bug and Chebacco. His look spoke louder than words! - ("fool",
"liar", "pull the other one". . . come to mind).
Best wishes,
Bill
Many thanks for the well-thought-out summary. I'm sure it helped dispel
several misconceptions regarding the many-faceted question of attribution.
Interesting, too, about the question of Phil's re-design of "Rose". I
pointed this out to a naval historian friend, who has actually sailed on
'Rose'; drawing attention to the fact that the same guy designed my beloved
June Bug and Chebacco. His look spoke louder than words! - ("fool",
"liar", "pull the other one". . . come to mind).
Best wishes,
Bill
Thanks for the 'raging' debate.
- Ditto on various remarks on design-evolution.
- No need to feel sorry, Peter Lenihan.
- 'The mess' though can easily be avoided by immediately stating that a
given design effort that looks so very much like a very distinctive
preceding one, is indeed 'derivative' mentioning then and there design-
and designer's name. The 'great minds think alike'-school of defensive
reasoning of 'similar' outcome for similar wish-list does not plausibly
hold all the way to bookshelf- placement - particularly if the 'clone'
appears seemingly without any evolutionary context. If the relationship
has to be coaxed out through personal contact, rather than posted up
front - as on a web-page next to the drawing -, the underlying attitude
gives pause for thought. This lack of foot-noting/ documenting of
relevant sources while formulating a serious 'original' argument for
public/peer-review will usually end your career as either a freshman or
a tenured professor. This degree of proximity to one of the least
mistakable designs ever must come with proper references - NOT
necessarily deferences. A few unambiguos words is all that's usually
needed. Risk of 'ruckus' can thus be reduced to minimal potential.
Recently WOODENBOAT featured RED HEAD, a beautiful Canoe-yawl with
clear roots in HERRESHOFF's ROZINANTE's 'gene-pool'.
- If the name HERRESHOFF is implicitly and explicitly linked with RED
HEAD without immediate and distinct statement of differences/derivation
al character of RED HEAD, there is an immediate risk of 'coat-tailing'
problems.
- If the name HERRESHOFF and ROZINANTE are held in high esteem why
consider 'improving' ROZINANTE? She either is a 'classic' design with
pedigree and good feelings of 'truth' etc. associated with it, which is
only 'true' if it is 100% ROZINANTE - no ifs, buts or high-tech
improvements. Or the exercise is like putting radials and gas-shocks
on a DUESENBERG, slimming the body down to contemporary weights,
bumping up compression for 95 Octane use and then selling it as a
DUESENBERG - only 'better' and "handling like a true classic car...".
- Since the RED HEAD creators and builders - a beautiful boat - pointed
out early that this is an updated ROZINATE, the basic formal homework
has been done - with just a trace of 'coat-tailing' remaining. Why one
could not live with the characteristic stengths and short-comings the
'classic' has is another question.
Our Design #225 ROSE is based, and has always been stated as such, on
Admiralty plans. But, and this is a big but,
- a major and very experienced builder of large wooden vessels could
not build from these plans (!!);
- the owner needed to enhance the hull with additional enclosed volume
to get the bank to loan the funds with a worst-case scenario 'way-out'
as a floating restaurant;
- the original ROSE would likely not have passed COAST GUARD muster for
stability etc.;
- and once you are removed from exact trunnel-counting of the original,
there was a good opportunity to make her bow faster, resulting in a
distinct alteration of her hull-lines.
Ergo, we call her contemporary representation, a 'more-or-less-look-ali
ke' to the historic ROSE. The current owners have had a hard time to
state this publicly, preferring the 'patina of originality' over
clearly stating her more recent origin with all the amenities and
safety for all aboard. Only recently did they publicly associate Phil
Bolger with their vessel. Their long-standing policy of insisting upon
'originality' has interesting consequences for a 'foundation'
interested in representing itself to a sympathetic public. When She
came to Gloucester MA a few years ago, we came out in SHIVAREE,
requested permission to board, were invited as curious locals
presumably, only to find NO ONE aboard who knew the name Phil Bolger...
(Not another grievance please...) Only the Capt. was not aboard.
- Finally, Chuck M's flattering remarks notwithstanding, we can't
afford 'office-help', and thus are fully involved in every aspect of
this small design firm. Since Phil made an offer in '93 Susanne could
not refuse, and Susanne saved Phil's life in '94 (really!!), the bond
has been strong, the work increasingly shared and everything private
and business a 'two-some'. Clearly not everybody's cup of tea...
- Ditto on various remarks on design-evolution.
- No need to feel sorry, Peter Lenihan.
- 'The mess' though can easily be avoided by immediately stating that a
given design effort that looks so very much like a very distinctive
preceding one, is indeed 'derivative' mentioning then and there design-
and designer's name. The 'great minds think alike'-school of defensive
reasoning of 'similar' outcome for similar wish-list does not plausibly
hold all the way to bookshelf- placement - particularly if the 'clone'
appears seemingly without any evolutionary context. If the relationship
has to be coaxed out through personal contact, rather than posted up
front - as on a web-page next to the drawing -, the underlying attitude
gives pause for thought. This lack of foot-noting/ documenting of
relevant sources while formulating a serious 'original' argument for
public/peer-review will usually end your career as either a freshman or
a tenured professor. This degree of proximity to one of the least
mistakable designs ever must come with proper references - NOT
necessarily deferences. A few unambiguos words is all that's usually
needed. Risk of 'ruckus' can thus be reduced to minimal potential.
Recently WOODENBOAT featured RED HEAD, a beautiful Canoe-yawl with
clear roots in HERRESHOFF's ROZINANTE's 'gene-pool'.
- If the name HERRESHOFF is implicitly and explicitly linked with RED
HEAD without immediate and distinct statement of differences/derivation
al character of RED HEAD, there is an immediate risk of 'coat-tailing'
problems.
- If the name HERRESHOFF and ROZINANTE are held in high esteem why
consider 'improving' ROZINANTE? She either is a 'classic' design with
pedigree and good feelings of 'truth' etc. associated with it, which is
only 'true' if it is 100% ROZINANTE - no ifs, buts or high-tech
improvements. Or the exercise is like putting radials and gas-shocks
on a DUESENBERG, slimming the body down to contemporary weights,
bumping up compression for 95 Octane use and then selling it as a
DUESENBERG - only 'better' and "handling like a true classic car...".
- Since the RED HEAD creators and builders - a beautiful boat - pointed
out early that this is an updated ROZINATE, the basic formal homework
has been done - with just a trace of 'coat-tailing' remaining. Why one
could not live with the characteristic stengths and short-comings the
'classic' has is another question.
Our Design #225 ROSE is based, and has always been stated as such, on
Admiralty plans. But, and this is a big but,
- a major and very experienced builder of large wooden vessels could
not build from these plans (!!);
- the owner needed to enhance the hull with additional enclosed volume
to get the bank to loan the funds with a worst-case scenario 'way-out'
as a floating restaurant;
- the original ROSE would likely not have passed COAST GUARD muster for
stability etc.;
- and once you are removed from exact trunnel-counting of the original,
there was a good opportunity to make her bow faster, resulting in a
distinct alteration of her hull-lines.
Ergo, we call her contemporary representation, a 'more-or-less-look-ali
ke' to the historic ROSE. The current owners have had a hard time to
state this publicly, preferring the 'patina of originality' over
clearly stating her more recent origin with all the amenities and
safety for all aboard. Only recently did they publicly associate Phil
Bolger with their vessel. Their long-standing policy of insisting upon
'originality' has interesting consequences for a 'foundation'
interested in representing itself to a sympathetic public. When She
came to Gloucester MA a few years ago, we came out in SHIVAREE,
requested permission to board, were invited as curious locals
presumably, only to find NO ONE aboard who knew the name Phil Bolger...
(Not another grievance please...) Only the Capt. was not aboard.
- Finally, Chuck M's flattering remarks notwithstanding, we can't
afford 'office-help', and thus are fully involved in every aspect of
this small design firm. Since Phil made an offer in '93 Susanne could
not refuse, and Susanne saved Phil's life in '94 (really!!), the bond
has been strong, the work increasingly shared and everything private
and business a 'two-some'. Clearly not everybody's cup of tea...