Re: Single-handed Schooner on eBay
I agree Craig - where I sail in the northernmost top of the Chesapeake
I've had my little sharpie sailing upwind, tracking on her chine in 1'
of water which sits over 3' of floating mud. I still think that is
the coolest trick I've ever done in a boat. Almost like iceboating.
I love that leeboard and kickup rudder!
Frank
I've had my little sharpie sailing upwind, tracking on her chine in 1'
of water which sits over 3' of floating mud. I still think that is
the coolest trick I've ever done in a boat. Almost like iceboating.
I love that leeboard and kickup rudder!
Frank
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:
> >They're completely different animals -- the Scooner is a daysailer
> >that would have made a wonderful one-design racing class; the H&HS
> >is a microcruiser.
>
> Yah, but you cannot sail a sharpie with a 3ft deep daggerboard (or
> 4', or whatever it is) in the Chesapeake and have any fun at all.
> It's that simple.
>They're completely different animals -- the Scooner is a daysailerYah, but you cannot sail a sharpie with a 3ft deep daggerboard (or
>that would have made a wonderful one-design racing class; the H&HS
>is a microcruiser.
4', or whatever it is) in the Chesapeake and have any fun at all.
It's that simple.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www2.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
> I'm now going to have to tellOh, that's interesting. Did they use the "strip" method, or are
> about a dozen guys their Lightning bottoms have the wrong shape
the bottoms made from monolithic slabs of plywood, "Instant Boat"
style?
> and their 2 Stars are forbidden from racing :-(It does say that in the class rules, but I'm sure that local fleet
racing isn't nearly so persnickety.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@y...> wrote:
I wish you hadn't mentioned that,I'm now going to have to tell
about a dozen guys their Lightning bottoms have the wrong
shape,conical developement notwithstanding, and their 2 Stars are
forbidden from racing :-( The rest of the Lightning fleet is safe
however,thanks to fiberglass construction.
Peter Lenihan
>Sue,
> Neither the Lightning nor the Star is made of plywood. The Star
> class rules explicitly forbid the use of plywood, and the Lightning
> is the wrong shape due to the deadrise in the bottom. Many wooden
> Lightnings have plywood decks, but that's it. An amateur developed
> a "strip built plywood" method for Lightning construction in the
> 1990s, but that has been eclipsed by the cold molded (from cedar
> strips) version that WoodenBoat commissioned in 2000.
>
> -- Sue --
> (currently restoring Lightning #2033)
>
> --
> Susan Davis <futabachan@y...>
I wish you hadn't mentioned that,I'm now going to have to tell
about a dozen guys their Lightning bottoms have the wrong
shape,conical developement notwithstanding, and their 2 Stars are
forbidden from racing :-( The rest of the Lightning fleet is safe
however,thanks to fiberglass construction.
Peter Lenihan
> If I built it myself I'd picture $1000 for sails, $500 for paint,So far, it's $800 for the sails (I splurged, and bought from
> rigging and all etc., and perhaps $1000 for a hull made of MDO,
> spars. Toss in $500 for a trailer. $3000.
Payson -- they were apparently the first suit that Bohndell had
sold in five years), maybe $200 in paint if I splurge on really
good stuff, another $100 or so in the incidentals that I can't
cannibalize from a derelict Y-Flyer, and $50 for Home Depot lumber
to make the few parts that I didn't get free. The trailer I got
free, thrown in with a "free to a good home" Y-Flyer. The "motor"
will be the same pair of oars that I use with my Gull, so that's
also free. That comes to $1150, and I can see maybe $100-$150
creeping in somewhere between now and launching (compass, charts,
flags, etc.).
This all got started because I didn't think I had the money for
a $1300 used Lightning, btw. :-)
> And I think I'd still build a Lite-S.They're completely different animals -- the Scooner is a daysailer
that would have made a wonderful one-design racing class; the H&HS
is a microcruiser. My _Shrike_ is going to tide me over for my
cruising needs around the Great Lakes until the Insolent 60 is in
the water, and she'll also make a wonderful trainer for the I60.
The I60 is also too much boat for me to sail by myself, so the
_Shrike_ will let me go sailing even if no one else is in the mood.
-- Sue --
(and since PCB has revised the I60 to look more like the H&HS, the
two will look utterly adorable sailing together)
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
Peter L:
class rules explicitly forbid the use of plywood, and the Lightning
is the wrong shape due to the deadrise in the bottom. Many wooden
Lightnings have plywood decks, but that's it. An amateur developed
a "strip built plywood" method for Lightning construction in the
1990s, but that has been eclipsed by the cold molded (from cedar
strips) version that WoodenBoat commissioned in 2000.
-- Sue --
(currently restoring Lightning #2033)
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
> I shudder to think of the many fine designsNeither the Lightning nor the Star is made of plywood. The Star
> condemned because they are but made of plywood,like the
> Lightening,Star etc......
class rules explicitly forbid the use of plywood, and the Lightning
is the wrong shape due to the deadrise in the bottom. Many wooden
Lightnings have plywood decks, but that's it. An amateur developed
a "strip built plywood" method for Lightning construction in the
1990s, but that has been eclipsed by the cold molded (from cedar
strips) version that WoodenBoat commissioned in 2000.
-- Sue --
(currently restoring Lightning #2033)
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>I can't help my pedantic self. I must point out that the 1-handDidn't say they weren't. Said I'd spend the money if building on a
>schooner and the light scooner are very different boats, and are not
>substitutes one for the other. Perhaps that's the reason for the
><chuckle>.
Lite 'un. If I wanted a single hander I'd build a Scow Schooner or
Garvey say 16 or 18 ft long based upon one or another ofthe many
drawings lurking around. I'd undercanvas it. I'd not refer to it as a
"yacht". <hahaha> There have been some very diminutive schooners.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www2.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
By coincidence, I'd just been reading about the "Singlehanded" or "His
and Hers" Schooner and wondered how well it worked. It was intendend
that it could sail to Catalina Island, a 26 mile offshore trip, single
handed and presumably without capsizing.
I slso wonder if the same principle could be used with a smaller,
cartoppable sailboat? As described, the schooner's hull weight was 150
lbs with the lead-weighted daggerboard an additional 125 lbs. Could a
sailing canoe be designed that would have sufficient ballast and
flotation so that it could be neither capsized or sunk, yet with the
daggerboard removed be light enough for one person to transport? the
"Singlehanded Schooner" comes close, at 150 lbs and 19'6", but it's a
bit heavy and the 125 lb daggerboard would certainly be hefty. But an
80 lb boat with a 50 lb daggerboard...
and Hers" Schooner and wondered how well it worked. It was intendend
that it could sail to Catalina Island, a 26 mile offshore trip, single
handed and presumably without capsizing.
I slso wonder if the same principle could be used with a smaller,
cartoppable sailboat? As described, the schooner's hull weight was 150
lbs with the lead-weighted daggerboard an additional 125 lbs. Could a
sailing canoe be designed that would have sufficient ballast and
flotation so that it could be neither capsized or sunk, yet with the
daggerboard removed be light enough for one person to transport? the
"Singlehanded Schooner" comes close, at 150 lbs and 19'6", but it's a
bit heavy and the 125 lb daggerboard would certainly be hefty. But an
80 lb boat with a 50 lb daggerboard...
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Belenky" <peter.belenky64@p...>
wrote:
Nice rebuttal.And I might add,I am not feverantly apposed to what
you suggest.
However,there are many elements influencing ones desire to build
a boat.The first and perhaps most pedestrian of these
is,money.Certainly if we had unlimited wealth,then the choice is
obvious.If we build to get the chance to be on the water but are
short on cash,then so be it.
Romance is another,perhaps less tangible element.Only the coldest of
hearts,void of any feelings,would not be moved by the
sight,feel,sound and smell of a woodenboat.Those whose spirit has not
been crushed venture out on the limb when undertaking a boatbuilding
project.
Also,in this fast paced"instant" world, it is becoming ever more
difficult to achieve a real sense of accomplishment.
Boatbuilding,amongst many other crafts,does offer the promise of
precisely that.
And plywood......comes in many degrees of quality......just price
a sheet of Bruzneel(sp). I shudder to think of the many fine designs
condemned because they are but made of plywood,like the
Lightening,Star etc......not to mention some classics do-able in
plywood like the Seabird.
At any rate, it still boils down to personal choice and I just happen
to vote for folks to excel in their craftmanship.:-)
And yes, a wooden schooner would be mighty sweet!!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
wrote:
> Now, how does the deteriorating quality of materials affect theseto
> decisions? As suitable materials become more expensive, it seems
> me that you must rethink the whole premise of the project. A boxaccessible
> boat that is worthwhile in A/C exterior fir may not be so in marine
> occume. Instead of that Micro or AS29, you must adopt a refined
> design and acquire a high level of skills. It may be painful to
> would-be amateur boatbuilders that designs that seemed so
> twenty years ago are economically obsolete, while those of acentury
> ago have a secure market niche, but you should always reflect thatdetermine
> the standard of comparison offered by used fiberglass will
> the value of your product. It is easy to find boats in thiswhen
> schooner's size range online, with or without cruising
> accommodations, more seaworthy, faster, better equipped, for $2,000
> to $4,000.
>
> It would be great to own a WOODEN SCHOONER, wouldn't it? Still,
> you think about selling it, write off that feeling to experience.Peter,
>
> Peter Belenky, "landbound backbencher"
Nice rebuttal.And I might add,I am not feverantly apposed to what
you suggest.
However,there are many elements influencing ones desire to build
a boat.The first and perhaps most pedestrian of these
is,money.Certainly if we had unlimited wealth,then the choice is
obvious.If we build to get the chance to be on the water but are
short on cash,then so be it.
Romance is another,perhaps less tangible element.Only the coldest of
hearts,void of any feelings,would not be moved by the
sight,feel,sound and smell of a woodenboat.Those whose spirit has not
been crushed venture out on the limb when undertaking a boatbuilding
project.
Also,in this fast paced"instant" world, it is becoming ever more
difficult to achieve a real sense of accomplishment.
Boatbuilding,amongst many other crafts,does offer the promise of
precisely that.
And plywood......comes in many degrees of quality......just price
a sheet of Bruzneel(sp). I shudder to think of the many fine designs
condemned because they are but made of plywood,like the
Lightening,Star etc......not to mention some classics do-able in
plywood like the Seabird.
At any rate, it still boils down to personal choice and I just happen
to vote for folks to excel in their craftmanship.:-)
And yes, a wooden schooner would be mighty sweet!!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
> Try the Lite-Scooner instead <chuckle>.I can't help my pedantic self. I must point out that the 1-hand
schooner and the light scooner are very different boats, and are not
substitutes one for the other. Perhaps that's the reason for the
<chuckle>.
As far as I can tell, no one with a Light Scooner has failed to
capsize it, and that's with an active crew. It's not a boat for a
single-handed sailor to consider.
Peter
Random Responses:
selling them "down the food chain" in a one-design class. They are
consumables, not durabales.
some perspective. All the people who should know seem to agree that
the quality of WOOD has been declining since the forests of the New
World were openened to European builders, but the quality of
coatings, glues, and (some kinds of) fastenings is much better. An AC
plywood punt, amply epoxy-coated, has a good chance of a longer
working life than the planked boat of 100 years ago painted with
materials that did not keep the wood dry.
with the slavish attachment of cruising sailors to features adopted
by racers for a minute advantage. As yet, we have continued devotion
to the designs of NG & LF Herreshoff, but I suppose that the upsurge
in interest in the designs of Olin Stephens awaits the great man's
passing, and the adequate reduction of the fleet of original boats by
the elements.
Peter
> Well-cut sails will improve performance, but the finestThere is never any return on racing sails, except, perhaps, for
> racing sails will be wasted.
selling them "down the food chain" in a one-design class. They are
consumables, not durabales.
> Now, how does the deteriorating quality of materials affect theseThe assumption that the quality of materials is declining requires
> decisions?
some perspective. All the people who should know seem to agree that
the quality of WOOD has been declining since the forests of the New
World were openened to European builders, but the quality of
coatings, glues, and (some kinds of) fastenings is much better. An AC
plywood punt, amply epoxy-coated, has a good chance of a longer
working life than the planked boat of 100 years ago painted with
materials that did not keep the wood dry.
> It may be painful to would-be amateurFashion is a great contaminant of the yachting scene, which begins
> boatbuilders that designs that seemed so accessible
> twenty years ago are economically obsolete,
> while those of a century ago have a secure market niche...
with the slavish attachment of cruising sailors to features adopted
by racers for a minute advantage. As yet, we have continued devotion
to the designs of NG & LF Herreshoff, but I suppose that the upsurge
in interest in the designs of Olin Stephens awaits the great man's
passing, and the adequate reduction of the fleet of original boats by
the elements.
Peter
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <ellengaest@b...>
wrote:
The one thing that I was not suggesting was that amateur builders
should be satisfied with inadequate materials or workmanship. Both
Bolger and Chapelle, responding to the conditions of different
periods, were trying to explain that there are many levels of
material quality, craftsmanship, seaworthiness, and aesthetics, and
that in building or buying a boat one should not be bound by
prejudices regarding "yacht" standards. That does not mean that a
Fife or Herreshoff classic is not worth infinitely more than a
plywood box boat, but it does mean that in every decision you should
reflect on the time and money available, the intended use, and the
proportionality of all elements of the project.
If, for example, you are planning on building a fine, classic design,
you must be prepared to pay for teak, mahogany, spruce, lead, and
bronze; you must allow enough time to complete the project; you must
acquire or hire the level of boatbuilding skills needed to do justice
to the design and materials; you must outfit the boat with sails and
rigging of comparable quality. If you are building a plywood box
boat, you must recognize that it will never be more than that,
whatever its appearance, performance or durability. Its intrinsic
nature will infect everything you put into it. There is no monetary
reward for elaborate, showy joinerwork or bronze fittings. Varnish
displays fine woods to advantage, but plywood is better concealed by
paint. Well-cut sails will improve performance, but the finest
racing sails will be wasted.
If cheap materials and amateur craftsmanship could produce a
handsome, fast, seaworthy, and durable boat at a fraction of the cost
of a used fiberglass boat, then amateur construction would be
justified. It is more doubtful whether the same design should be
professionally built: even if the job were faster for a professional,
the wages commanded by high skills would make labor costs
disproportionate to the boat's intrinsic value.
Now, how does the deteriorating quality of materials affect these
decisions? As suitable materials become more expensive, it seems to
me that you must rethink the whole premise of the project. A box
boat that is worthwhile in A/C exterior fir may not be so in marine
occume. Instead of that Micro or AS29, you must adopt a refined
design and acquire a high level of skills. It may be painful to
would-be amateur boatbuilders that designs that seemed so accessible
twenty years ago are economically obsolete, while those of a century
ago have a secure market niche, but you should always reflect that
the standard of comparison offered by used fiberglass will determine
the value of your product. It is easy to find boats in this
schooner's size range online, with or without cruising
accommodations, more seaworthy, faster, better equipped, for $2,000
to $4,000.
It would be great to own a WOODEN SCHOONER, wouldn't it? Still, when
you think about selling it, write off that feeling to experience.
Peter Belenky, "landbound backbencher"
wrote:
>...the quality of availablethat
> lumber has gone down considerably since the time of Bolgers
> first pronouncements on using cheap lumber and that the cheap stuff
> of today is hardly worth hauling home much less the effort of
> working it into a boat.
> Beyond that,I find it illuminating that a boat built of"cheap"
> lumber will invariably take as long to build as one built of more
> durable(expensive) lumber.At that point, why degrade your effort or
> cheapen your time? It is personally disturbing to me this apparent
> trend toward rewarding or accepting shoddy work based on a dubious
> premise.A disposable society is not one I am proud of.My view is
> if you are prepared to put time into creating an object of some==========================================
> usefullness,then one should attempt to do their very best personal
> work,whatever that may be at the time.
> While it is also true that a boat can be built out of virtualy any
> material and to some lowest common denominator it doesn't
> neccessarily mean that it has to or that a particular amateur
> builder must do so.
The one thing that I was not suggesting was that amateur builders
should be satisfied with inadequate materials or workmanship. Both
Bolger and Chapelle, responding to the conditions of different
periods, were trying to explain that there are many levels of
material quality, craftsmanship, seaworthiness, and aesthetics, and
that in building or buying a boat one should not be bound by
prejudices regarding "yacht" standards. That does not mean that a
Fife or Herreshoff classic is not worth infinitely more than a
plywood box boat, but it does mean that in every decision you should
reflect on the time and money available, the intended use, and the
proportionality of all elements of the project.
If, for example, you are planning on building a fine, classic design,
you must be prepared to pay for teak, mahogany, spruce, lead, and
bronze; you must allow enough time to complete the project; you must
acquire or hire the level of boatbuilding skills needed to do justice
to the design and materials; you must outfit the boat with sails and
rigging of comparable quality. If you are building a plywood box
boat, you must recognize that it will never be more than that,
whatever its appearance, performance or durability. Its intrinsic
nature will infect everything you put into it. There is no monetary
reward for elaborate, showy joinerwork or bronze fittings. Varnish
displays fine woods to advantage, but plywood is better concealed by
paint. Well-cut sails will improve performance, but the finest
racing sails will be wasted.
If cheap materials and amateur craftsmanship could produce a
handsome, fast, seaworthy, and durable boat at a fraction of the cost
of a used fiberglass boat, then amateur construction would be
justified. It is more doubtful whether the same design should be
professionally built: even if the job were faster for a professional,
the wages commanded by high skills would make labor costs
disproportionate to the boat's intrinsic value.
Now, how does the deteriorating quality of materials affect these
decisions? As suitable materials become more expensive, it seems to
me that you must rethink the whole premise of the project. A box
boat that is worthwhile in A/C exterior fir may not be so in marine
occume. Instead of that Micro or AS29, you must adopt a refined
design and acquire a high level of skills. It may be painful to
would-be amateur boatbuilders that designs that seemed so accessible
twenty years ago are economically obsolete, while those of a century
ago have a secure market niche, but you should always reflect that
the standard of comparison offered by used fiberglass will determine
the value of your product. It is easy to find boats in this
schooner's size range online, with or without cruising
accommodations, more seaworthy, faster, better equipped, for $2,000
to $4,000.
It would be great to own a WOODEN SCHOONER, wouldn't it? Still, when
you think about selling it, write off that feeling to experience.
Peter Belenky, "landbound backbencher"
>If you don't "wring the money out," the boat is likely to "encumberIt seems overpriced to me, but then again, this is Calidaffyfornia
>your estate," wrote PCB. This schooner was built, equipped, and
>maintained by professionals and may easily have $10,000 in it, but I
>would imagine even $5,000 to be a poor investment in a big, plywood
>skiff.
we're talking. A side note, it don't work without a very deep and
heavy centerboard so it isn't a boat for many places along the coast,
or many lakeside locations. Try the Lite-Scooner instead <chuckle>.
If I built it myself I'd picture $1000 for sails, $500 for paint,
rigging and all etc., and perhaps $1000 for a hull made of MDO,
spars. Toss in $500 for a trailer. $3000. So the difference, I guess,
is whether you think you are spending time as a laborer when
building, or at something enjoyable like reading. And I think I'd
still build a Lite-S.
I suspect the owner is a little carried away. I did see a reference
to this "yacht" in the eBay description. Hmmm. "Instant Yachts".
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www2.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Belenky" <peter.belenky64@p...>
wrote:
That indeed may well have been the philosophy that animated most
commercial watermen for they expected the boat to pay for itself
within a year or two.After that it was all gravey,as the saying goes.
Certainly,Bolger has done a great deal of good in bringing boating
and boatbuilding to the masses and his calling for slapping things
together with cheap wood does make the whole venture that much more
feasable.However, it should be remembered that the quality of
available lumber has gone down considerably since the time of Bolgers
first pronouncements on using cheap lumber and that the cheap stuff
of today is hardly worth hauling home much less the effort of working
it into a boat.
Beyond that,I find it illuminating that a boat built of"cheap"
lumber will invariably take as long to build as one built of more
durable(expensive) lumber.At that point, why degrade your effort or
cheapen your time? It is personally disturbing to me this apparent
trend toward rewarding or accepting shoddy work based on a dubious
premise.A disposable society is not one I am proud of.My view is that
if you are prepared to put time into creating an object of some
usefullness,then one should attempt to do their very best personal
work,whatever that may be at the time.
And,I believe it is precisely this ideal of craftmanship that
motivated the early builders of our present day"collectibles"
otherwise we would perhaps be reading WOODENGARBAGE magazine instead
of being inspired by WOODENBOAT.
amateur boatbuilding.He has also written that he is haunted by the
perfect balance of lines that LFH apparently accomplished more often
times then not.I don't imagine he would appreciate a ROZINANTE built
from scrape regardless of the intellectual exercise and black humour
such a boat would generate.
A well built boat will rarely encumber an estate. A pile of lumber
hammered into something that looks like it just might float is
another thing altogether.
While it is also true that a boat can be built out of virtualy any
material and to some lowest common denominator it doesn't
neccessarily mean that it has to or that a particular amateur builder
must do so.
Now,all of this does mean to imply that I am some sort of boat snob!
Far from it,after all,I am whole heartedly building a TIMS for the
Kingston messabout and I like a good fun time as much as the next
guy :-) but it does pain me to see wholesome designs slapped together
and butchered all for the lack of encouragement or a higher ideal.Or
worse,to see the builder frustrated when his boat falls apart way too
soon!
In the end,it boils down to very personal choices and philosophies
and when the backbenchers start hollering it is always good to keep
in mind that it is your money,your time,your effort that is going
into the boat and no one elses.I think that gives you the right to
build whatever and however you want.It is also good form to give a
polite wave from the cockpit as you sail past those same landbound
backbenchers :-)
That's my .02 cents worth.
Peter Lenihan,one drill wonder and boatbum,from along the shores of
the St.Lawrence...........
wrote:
> Certainly, I'm a codger old enough to suffer from "money illusion",is
> losing track of current prices and thinking in terms of concepts of
> value formed long ago, but I noticed that the ad says the schooner
> worth $10,000 and is offered for $5,000. Does that seemNo,not particularly.
> disproportionate to anyone else?
>use
> At today's wage scales, the level of craftsmanship shown in an L.F.
> Herreshoff Rozinante or a Robert Baker Piccolo makes them
> collectibles for wealthy connoisseurs, but the whole point of PCB's
> instant boats, as reflected in all of his commentary, is that they
> can be built quickly and cheaply by someone of modest skills who
> wants to sail efficiently and is willing to forgo compensation for
> his labor. Build them of relatively cheap and common materials,
> them up, and let them go for whatever they can fetch or abandonthem
> when they become expensive to maintain. That was the philosophythat
> animated most commercial watermen in previous centuries and wasPeter,
> promoted by Howard I. Chapelle in "American Sailing Craft"
> and "American Small Sailing Craft".
That indeed may well have been the philosophy that animated most
commercial watermen for they expected the boat to pay for itself
within a year or two.After that it was all gravey,as the saying goes.
Certainly,Bolger has done a great deal of good in bringing boating
and boatbuilding to the masses and his calling for slapping things
together with cheap wood does make the whole venture that much more
feasable.However, it should be remembered that the quality of
available lumber has gone down considerably since the time of Bolgers
first pronouncements on using cheap lumber and that the cheap stuff
of today is hardly worth hauling home much less the effort of working
it into a boat.
Beyond that,I find it illuminating that a boat built of"cheap"
lumber will invariably take as long to build as one built of more
durable(expensive) lumber.At that point, why degrade your effort or
cheapen your time? It is personally disturbing to me this apparent
trend toward rewarding or accepting shoddy work based on a dubious
premise.A disposable society is not one I am proud of.My view is that
if you are prepared to put time into creating an object of some
usefullness,then one should attempt to do their very best personal
work,whatever that may be at the time.
And,I believe it is precisely this ideal of craftmanship that
motivated the early builders of our present day"collectibles"
otherwise we would perhaps be reading WOODENGARBAGE magazine instead
of being inspired by WOODENBOAT.
>I
> If you don't "wring the money out," the boat is likely to "encumber
> your estate," wrote PCB. This schooner was built, equipped, and
> maintained by professionals and may easily have $10,000 in it, but
> would imagine even $5,000 to be a poor investment in a big, plywoodBolger was refering to a particular boat,not his body of work nor
> skiff.
amateur boatbuilding.He has also written that he is haunted by the
perfect balance of lines that LFH apparently accomplished more often
times then not.I don't imagine he would appreciate a ROZINANTE built
from scrape regardless of the intellectual exercise and black humour
such a boat would generate.
A well built boat will rarely encumber an estate. A pile of lumber
hammered into something that looks like it just might float is
another thing altogether.
While it is also true that a boat can be built out of virtualy any
material and to some lowest common denominator it doesn't
neccessarily mean that it has to or that a particular amateur builder
must do so.
Now,all of this does mean to imply that I am some sort of boat snob!
Far from it,after all,I am whole heartedly building a TIMS for the
Kingston messabout and I like a good fun time as much as the next
guy :-) but it does pain me to see wholesome designs slapped together
and butchered all for the lack of encouragement or a higher ideal.Or
worse,to see the builder frustrated when his boat falls apart way too
soon!
In the end,it boils down to very personal choices and philosophies
and when the backbenchers start hollering it is always good to keep
in mind that it is your money,your time,your effort that is going
into the boat and no one elses.I think that gives you the right to
build whatever and however you want.It is also good form to give a
polite wave from the cockpit as you sail past those same landbound
backbenchers :-)
That's my .02 cents worth.
Peter Lenihan,one drill wonder and boatbum,from along the shores of
the St.Lawrence...........
Certainly, I'm a codger old enough to suffer from "money illusion",
losing track of current prices and thinking in terms of concepts of
value formed long ago, but I noticed that the ad says the schooner is
worth $10,000 and is offered for $5,000. Does that seem
disproportionate to anyone else?
At today's wage scales, the level of craftsmanship shown in an L.F.
Herreshoff Rozinante or a Robert Baker Piccolo makes them
collectibles for wealthy connoisseurs, but the whole point of PCB's
instant boats, as reflected in all of his commentary, is that they
can be built quickly and cheaply by someone of modest skills who
wants to sail efficiently and is willing to forgo compensation for
his labor. Build them of relatively cheap and common materials, use
them up, and let them go for whatever they can fetch or abandon them
when they become expensive to maintain. That was the philosophy that
animated most commercial watermen in previous centuries and was
promoted by Howard I. Chapelle in "American Sailing Craft"
and "American Small Sailing Craft".
If you don't "wring the money out," the boat is likely to "encumber
your estate," wrote PCB. This schooner was built, equipped, and
maintained by professionals and may easily have $10,000 in it, but I
would imagine even $5,000 to be a poor investment in a big, plywood
skiff.
losing track of current prices and thinking in terms of concepts of
value formed long ago, but I noticed that the ad says the schooner is
worth $10,000 and is offered for $5,000. Does that seem
disproportionate to anyone else?
At today's wage scales, the level of craftsmanship shown in an L.F.
Herreshoff Rozinante or a Robert Baker Piccolo makes them
collectibles for wealthy connoisseurs, but the whole point of PCB's
instant boats, as reflected in all of his commentary, is that they
can be built quickly and cheaply by someone of modest skills who
wants to sail efficiently and is willing to forgo compensation for
his labor. Build them of relatively cheap and common materials, use
them up, and let them go for whatever they can fetch or abandon them
when they become expensive to maintain. That was the philosophy that
animated most commercial watermen in previous centuries and was
promoted by Howard I. Chapelle in "American Sailing Craft"
and "American Small Sailing Craft".
If you don't "wring the money out," the boat is likely to "encumber
your estate," wrote PCB. This schooner was built, equipped, and
maintained by professionals and may easily have $10,000 in it, but I
would imagine even $5,000 to be a poor investment in a big, plywood
skiff.
I don't know the boat but live about 15 miles from where the picture
was taken. I would be happy to check it out if someone is interested
in buying it.
Scott Calman
was taken. I would be happy to check it out if someone is interested
in buying it.
Scott Calman
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "s_paskey" <s_paskey@y...> wrote:
> I Ran across this while trolling through the eBay sailboats section:
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/
> eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2424788897&category=26433
>
> The ad says it was built in 1987 by Tony Groves. Tony is the fellow
> whose letter to Bolger prompted the design -- could it be that this
> is the original?
>
> Anyone know anything more about the boat?
I Ran across this while trolling through the eBay sailboats section:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/
eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2424788897&category=26433
The ad says it was built in 1987 by Tony Groves. Tony is the fellow
whose letter to Bolger prompted the design -- could it be that this
is the original?
Anyone know anything more about the boat?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/
eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2424788897&category=26433
The ad says it was built in 1987 by Tony Groves. Tony is the fellow
whose letter to Bolger prompted the design -- could it be that this
is the original?
Anyone know anything more about the boat?