Boatbuilding Handymen (idiots)

V-Class · Post by **V-Class** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:27 pm

Why is it some people try and turn a perfectly good boat into something it was never meant to be, ie modernising things. I have just purchased a 32 foot 24foot Linear Rater, built in 1900 and the hull is in mint condition except some mug has cut the counter off and made a transom stern. They also in their infinite wisdom added the ugliest doghouse/cabin top on the planet to it. Why don't they learn to leave well enough alone :(

Dave, 397 · Post by **Dave, 397** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 4:09 am

Well, I think we gotta look at a pretty fine line here...

Is there a possibility that at the time it was done it might have been a rotting old boat ready to cut in many people's opinions, or that the work was done long enough ago that it was "just an old boat"?

I've seen (and had to cut) a few boats now that could possibly have been saved...but they were in many peoples' opinions beyond the point of "feasability". On the other hand, I saw a guy take an H-28 that was hopelessly rotten and do some very un-purist things. Doesn't really look like an H-28 anymore, but it is a sound boat and is still sailing. To a large degree, I'd like to see the boat stay alive more than I'd like to see it wait for my chainsaw with large parts dropping off it in every windstorm...there are a lot of once-wonderful wood boats sitting around like that, and a lot more gone to a bonfire or a landfill in chunks. Maybe the guy was an idiot, but maybe he was the only reason the boat is still living and just did not have the time, inclination or funds to make it a perfectly restored shrine.

Do not get me wrong here, though...I appreciate a lovely and perfect old wooden boat as much as the next guy and maybe a bit more. Good friend of mine is a rather gifted shipwright, and that's all he does. Lot of work. Lot of money. Lot of boats do sadly go by the wayside because of that or possibly just as bad sit in the shed being "restored" into some shrine of a full-size toy model boat instead of being out sailing like they were made to do.

And I guess that's it: at the end of the day, it is/was/should be a boat...not a shrine.

Now, it also sounds like the guy gave you an opportunity, if you are so inclined, to pour heart and soul into making her what she once was. Sounds like that is what you want her to be, and that's cool (read on, OK?). Meanwhile, it's hard to know from the details you gave what the reason she is in that shape actually was. Maybe she wouldn't have been here for you otherwise, who knows?

I have another friend with a beautiful (I think) 1957 Dragon. Old-school sled, and this one has a serious and succesful competition history. Dragons are very sensitive to moisture content, and after living through years in a boathouse with her hull in the water nonstop for a long time and her spars off somewhere she lived through a fire only losing part of her decks...then she sat uncovered in a field for 17 years. Joe found her with planks blown off everywhere and frames torn out behind them!
Long and short, he's a special kind of woodworker with a special kind of understanding. For Joe, she went back together easily...still doesn't have a lick of caulking in her. Sails sweet. Now, there is a bit of a difference. The hulll is not varnished like the Dragons I used to drool at as a little boy, she's painted. Guys on some of the forums he was looking for help on were less than charitable about that, and about a couple of other very sound and commonsense solutions that were not harmful or detrimental but also were not "restorative" in nature. One big difference...the same guys have been working on their "restorations" for years...most of them are full experts on how to sail a Dragon even though most of the "experts" have never actually sailed one...they're still working on her in the garage where she's been for years. Joe sails his twice a week, right?

I also had someone send me a poison-pen e-mail not too long ago about how what all I was doing to my Triton was this horrible butchery, and that I was ruining a "Classic" I should be "restoring". Well, that's great...but my triton was one step ahead of the chainsaw in a lot of respects. Friend of mine has a Triton that is so clean and sweet below you'd swear she was only 5 years old when you stepped below...everything's original!

And it's all coming out real soon, into a nice big burn pile. Fact is, it doesn't really work that well for what he wants to do. Who cares? I do realize that there are some who would argue that a Triton is not a classic in the same way as your woody, but at the same time there are those who would argue just as vehemently that it was. Same way, someone might argue that while it was OK for me to build a very non-stock hotrod from my jalopy of a Triton, Nick's doing the same to a "cherry" one was heresy. Now, I don't think that every old-school Merc that got chopped, channeled, frenched and all was a jalopy in the day. Was that wrong? If my buddy and I both do these mods to our boats, and they let us take the boats to far-off places with speed and safety---I think that's good. Better that for the boats than for them to sit around because no one cared, and better for us to go do it than sit around wishing we had the "right" boat instead of taking a slug of airtools, brains, sweat and effort and using the boats we have as raw materials to build the "right" boat. Just my perspective.

Just like an old car, everyone has a view of what should and shouldn't be done, what should and shouldn't happen. But--- None of it could happen if there were not people through the years who appreciated the inherent value and quality of a good sailing vessel and endeavored to save it somehow...or most of 'em wouldn't be here at all.

Depending on the circumstance...was the guy an "idiot'? Personally, I can't say...I didn't know him, or his motivations. Did you?

Dave

Post by **Tim** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:23 am

There's a major difference between making personal modifications to a boat--any boat--and butchering a boat because one lacks any sense of aesthetics or history.

While I'm not familiar with the Linear Rater mentioned by V-Class, it certainly sounds like a previous owner (PO) performed something of a hack job that was out of keeping with the boat. Of course, we don't know the whole story. But if the hull is truly mint (other than the hacked transom), it seems unlikely that the boat was saved from the boneyard by virtue of the PO's transom stern and doghouse modifications. No one spends the time and money to restore an old hull to mint condition, only to then hack the transom off and build ugly doghouses. Generally, if one is going to that sort of effort and expense, they most likely have the needed sense of aesthetics as well. (Exceptions always apply though.)

Because I believe that aesthetics are one of the most important qualities for any boat (which therefore drives my strong opinions about which boats I do, and do not, like), I take a dim view of modifications that are aesthetically unpleasing. I don't care what the state of the boat might have been--there are still some things that one shouldn't do. If the overall design doesn't suit one's own idea of what a boat needs to be, then I would suggest that a different boat, which possesses more of the qualities they are looking for, may be a better choice for that person.

There is a certain group of hardcore traditionalists who feel that old boats must, for some crazy reason, be only restored to traditional, and that anything other of that is not worth the effort. (Reference those Dragon owners who seemed, according to Dave, to be uncharitable because a derelict hull was saved and--gasp--painted instead of varnished. Give me a break, please. That seems a little unforgiving of them.)

Certain boats are heavily historic in nature, and therefore require more in terms of original restoration. Others are just nice designs that deserve saving because they're nice--not because some piece of history would otherwise be lost. Tritons, for example, fall into this category. They are nice boats that sail well, and therefore are worth "restoring" into whatever makes the owner happy with his own craft. To restore a Triton back to original condition would be silly; the original boats were cold, stark, and cheesy below. Let's be honest here: fuzzy fake wood-grained Formica and bare fiberglass do not beg for "restoration to original"! I'm perhaps as big a fan of Tritons as anyone, but I like them because I find the hulls attractive, and they sail well--as well as being built on a sturdy hull that makes hull-up restoration feasible. Otherwise, they were stark, slapped-together production boats that made a small company rich. I don't feel that interior mods, or doing some of the performance-oriented changes that Dave is undertaking, diminish the quality of the design in any way. More likely they enhance it.

Dave, I'm surprised to hear that you received hate mail about your mods. Most people are enthused just to hear of an old boat like a Triton being saved and loved by a new owner. That person lacks--well, something. Not sure what. He obviously just doesn't agree with your own personal decisions, which has nothing at all to do with whether or not you're "ruining" the boat. Tritons are historic only in the sense that any one of the design still sailing represents an accomplishment. Times change, and the fact that there are any people willing to and interested in keeping one of these old girls sailing certainly says something about the design. But there's nothing particularly historic about the boats as originally built. So enjoy doing your mods because they make the boat what you want her to be.

There's an ongoing--and certainly never ending--debate amongst wooden boat aficionados about the whole "restoration/rebuilding" thing. Aspects of this debate are frequently covered in Wooden Boat magazine. Personally, I would rather see a gorgeous Herreshoff design from 1900 or whatever be rebuilt from the ground up if that's what it takes to save the boat from the kindling pile. The extent of original material doesn't particularly matter to me, as long as the end result is a beautiful, classy boat. The idea, to me, is mostly to save a gorgeous design, not necessarily the materials she was built from.

As I said earlier on, certain boats are undeniably historic in nature, and require a certain style of restoration. But even here, why would a hardcore traditionalist feel that no restoration is somehow better than any rebuilding job that brings the boat back to its former glory, even if not exactly as she was when original? I'm sure there are misguided people who believe that the J-Class yacht Endeavour was probably better off lying in a cold steel hunk in a mud flat rather than having been rebuilt to the beautiful--but different from original--yacht she is today. Personally, I feel this restoration or rebuilding or rebirth or whatever was a resounding success, and I'm happy to see a stunning design from before my time still out there sailing and looking beautiful. So what if the original boat was different? The key, to me, is that the boat was restored with aesthetics in mind first, and that the rebuilding did not compromise the hull or the overall quality of the look.

Therefore, in general I agree that there are many "idiots" out there who do things they shouldn't to their boats. Fortunately, many of their mistakes eventually get corrected by someone with a better sense of class and aesthetics.

Figment · Post by **Figment** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:05 pm

This whole Butchery vs. Salvation debate is a favorite of mine. I never cease to be fascinated by the many differing approaches and resolutions.

As part of my architectural education, I did a year in England on a joint venture of architecture and historic preservation students. The preservationists saw the architects as the evil representatives of all that is new and cheap and soulless in the world, and we architects saw the preservationists as a bunch of stuck-up unimaginitive anachronists. When 30 such people basically live out of a bus for a year, views get exchanged rather thoroughly. We all eventually grew to see the other side of things, and modify our own principles as a result. I'm not going to say that we eventually met in the middle, but after a thousand or so pints of beer we were at least able to listen with our minds open.

One crystalline moment in my mind was on the second day of this venture. When walking the streets of a typical countryside village (think thatched roofs), we noticed a cottage wall being repaired, and the worker was installing plywood as a substrate for the plaster/stucco finish to follow. As this is a perfectly suitable process, I didn't give it a second thought. The preservationist standing next to me said "ugh, PLYWOOD! now why would he want to ruin that cottage like that?!"

There was a reason why this venture went to England. Europe in general, and Great Britain in particular, are light years ahead of north america in this debate. The requisite X-percentage of extremists aside, the debating parties have come to recognize that some things deserve pure preservation, while others can be allowed to change with the times, and still others are best left to the pages of history books. This goes beyond architecture and pervades much of the european mindset. Fundamentally, I think this comes from the fact that Europeans and Americans have different perceptions, and therefore valuations, of history.

Americans scramble for history as a matter of habit. Things (boats, buildings, ideas) are often blindly cherished simply for their antiquity, with little consideration for the true value, or lack thereof.

In my opinion, This american dilution of true value contributes to a general depreciation when regarding things from another age, whereas europeans are conditioned to see past the date and evaluate on a more wholesome basis.

By contrast, Europeans are steeped in history. The cities, the countryside, the waterfronts all wear their history as a matter of course. Europeans know that things of value will survive on that value, and things of the moment are allowed to coexist, and then pass with that moment.
As a result, their conservation efforts have yielded (in addition to the requisite collection of "museum pieces") an architectural fabric that is rich with "historic" structures that live and breathe right alongside their contemporaries, and so the public sees these structures as viable entities, not as burdensome things which must be maintained to a strict academic model.

As this applies to boats;

The case for pure restoration/conservation is pretty hard to make on all but a very small number of historically significant vessels. In fact, I would venture to say that this pure approach is applied far more often than worthwhile with respect to the individual boats. Preservation and perpetuation of the skills and techniques is another matter entirely.

The case for "in the spirit of..." restoration/conservation is almost universally applicable. If the spirit of the design remains, the use of nontraditional processes is not to be avoided. Of course, "the spirit" is open to broad interpretation and therefore is fodder for much debate. Still, it sounds like this is where your PO ran afoul.

How serious is this crime? Well, you bought the boat, so it can't be THAT bad, can it? Do you plan to undo these changes?

We can have fun speculating the reasons for chopping the counter.
Collision damage?
Marina's length restriction? (I've seen it happen)
A really long name?

Who knows why we do the things we do to our boats? Aren't we (boaters), by definition, just a little insane?

My current favorite is the Bertram Moppie down the river with the hot pink topsides.

V-Class · Post by **V-Class** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:05 pm

cheers for the feedback, i realise woodenboats are a little off topic but it has some relevance as we have all seen some peoples idea of good taste. I have included the link for my album page on her http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4288903121 you can draw your own conclusions on the "dog" house and cabin. The counter wasn't cut off for rot reasons, ararently it happened in the early 80's due to someone not liking the counter stern. It was this time that 2 planks of extra freeboard and the cabin top were added. It was converted from a gaffer to bermudan in the 40's.

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4288938245 is what she should look like. Although this boat is 42ft LOD very similar design (1909).

Miro only cost NZ $1000 so i'm not going to complain at all, that must be about $450 US ish?? Long road ahead i'm afraid though.

cheers
Jason.

PS boat is made of double skin Kauri which doesn't tend to rot so that means we have a heap of classic yachts from 1880's etc that are still alive and racing.

Post by **Tim** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:33 pm

Um, yes. There's no comparing the way your Miro looks now, and how the design is supposed to look! Sacrilege! I concur that the modifications were indeed misguided.

I presume you have plans to return the boat to more of her original appearance? Will you be returning to that glorious gaff rig, or keeping the Bermudian?

(If anyone reading this thread has not checked out all the images at both links above, you really must to understand what we're talking about here...)

V-Class · Post by **V-Class** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:05 pm

Yeah plan is to return her to Gaff rig. I have found a yacht the same length that went ashore in 98 that has complete rig and fittings intact, just lost 1/2 the hull. trying to pursuade the owner that it would be nice if he gave the wreck to me :)

Also going to try and source a nice small diesel to tuck into her, i really dislike outboards on counter boats, it's impossible to keep them in the water if the boat is pitching... a waterline length of 24foot and a deck of 32 foot gives some fairly large overhanges me thinks :)