Gypsy Moth IV - YM souvenir pull-out supplement - Collectors Edition!

[BlueSkyNick]

Anybody want mine? You can have it for free.

I think FC was a great guy, having followed his voyage with great interest as a kid, and I also believe it was right to bring the boat back from the dead.

Similarly, I know sponsors need publicity, and YM have invested a lot of time and money too, however I am now becoming somewhat tired of the whole thing.

So Mr Gelder, once the current edition of your fine magazine has been fully distributed and sold, can we have a little less coverage from now on.

Sorry to sound like a grumpy old man - my wife is a lady of a certain age!

 

[Danny_Labrador]

Re: Gypsy Moth IV - YM souvenir pull-out supplement - Collectors Editi

I’d go along with that, YM, YW week after week just read all the same stuff again and again.

 

[tillergirl]

One of the things all the publicity about GM has done for me, is to increase my admiration for Robin Knox-Johnson's non-stop journey. Whilst I agree that YM have done something useful here, I have seen no one ask a question about how GM was allowed to get in that condition. She was, wasn't she in the hands of a museum; I thought museums were supposed to take care of the exhibits in their possession. Does this mean that the Cutty Sark is completely without maintenance as well?

 

[jhr]

Cutty Sark

There was a thread about this some time back, but I can't find it. Cutty Sark is, indeed, in a not-too-brilliant condition and a large wodge of Lottery (?) money has recently been donated to do some repair work. If I remember correctly, the fundamental problem is that nobody can really decide whether (a) she should be a static exhibit or (b) attempts should be made to restore her to a potentially seagoing condition. Option (b) would cost many, many millions and I guess that it's a non starter but I have a feeling (and I wish I could find the ******* thread) that even the several millions allocated to repair work is nothing more than a band aid to keep her looking cosmetically reasonable and to build some kind of shelter to protect her from the weather /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif.

I seem to recall Mirelle making one of his characteristically erudite and well-informed responses on the subject, so perhaps he will do so again. I rather think she is the responsibility of a different body to that which had stewardship of GM4?

Personally, I am unequivocally glad to see GM4 back where she should be, rather than rotting to pieces in Greenwich.

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Cutty Sark

Flattery will get you almost everywhere!

Yes, owned and managed by a different body. Here are some details of the problems, and the planned "restoration" (my italics) on the Cutty Sark Trust website.

These plans are indeed controversial.

There has been some fairly exciting correspondence in the pages of "Classic Boat" (q.v.!) in which Brian Kennell, the shipwright who has been responsible for the outstanding restoration, to sailing condition, of the older and even more decayed Colchester first class smack
Pioneer, CK 18 urged the Cutty Sark Trust to do likewise with their vessel, however, the devotees of "conservation of the original fabric" have got their way.

Personally, I do not think that an organisation which stepped the mainmast through the keel onto the dock are the best people to decide what to do with the ship, and I agree with Brian Kennell that a team of good shipwrights and a large pile of teak logs (both obtainable) would be a better way to go about things, with the ship restored to sailing condition.

This would cost a lot more - but the result would be a ship that the nation could feel proud of, rather than a mummified corpse.

At the heart of this argument is an argument about the nature and purpose of museum conservation.

On the one hand are those, such as the Cutty Sark Trust, who feel that it is important to conserve orginal structure, almost regardless of the condition of that structure, so that future generations can see and study it.

On the other hand are those, such as the Pioneer Sailing Trust, who believe that only by having the vessel afloat, sailing and in regular use, at the price of replacing almost all the original structure, can we truly understand these vessels, by knowing exactly how to handle them, and keeping them in a seaworthy state.

Edited to add - I don't think much of an organisation whose website prints this on their website, and leaves the typographical error uncorrected for months:

"Below the keel plate there is a wooden keel of American Rock Elm, and below that a false keel of softwood. The starboard strake and strakes up to a height of 8 ft above the keel are of Rock Elm, while the ship side and main deck planking are of East India Teak. The fastenings are of yellow metal (Muntz metal)."

They mean the garboard strake, not the starboard strake, of course, the "false keel of softwood" is a worm shoe, and they might have explained what Muntz metal is when they were about it.

Are these people fit to be trusted with an icon of our national heritage?

 

[Achillesheel]

Re: Cutty Sark

Haven't read the supplement yet - SWMBO will insist on talking to me when I want to read YM.

But I do like the photo of GMIV, Lively Lady, and Suhaili - wish i had been there.

I am sorry I missed the opportunity to look over Suhaili at last years LBS. Does anyone know if any of the three will be there this year?

 

[tillergirl]

Re: Cutty Sark

I think the 'original structure' v 'working exhibit' arguement can go on forever. What bugs me is that if you decide 'original structure' then you ought to do something about maintenance. Look at the example of the Vasa. That clearly would not last outdoors as an original structure or even a partial original structure which it really is, so the Swedes built a museum around it. Any original structure outside of wood and steel ain't going to last without maintenance. The Victory is rebuilt as necessary. But who thought they could own GM4 and put it on display without looking after it? They ought not be trusted with any other valuable items.

I agree incidently that both Cutty Sark and GM4 should be kept as a working exhibits.

 

[jhr]

Re: Cutty Sark

Thanks - fascinating stuff. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the Cutty Sark Trust.

I have to say that to see a nineteenth century Tea Clipper thrashing along under full sail would be a fabulous sight, and worth a few bob of taxpayer's money, imho. I once went round her when I was a kid and, even then, she seemed folorn and sterile, stuck in a dry dock. Not what she was built for.............

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Cutty Sark

As Joshua Slocum put it, in "Sailing alone around the world" "It is a law at Lloyd's that the Saucy Sue, rebuilt entirely out of the Saucy Sue, is still the Saucy Sue."

The Trust set up a false dichotomy in their report by suggesting three options -

- do nothing and dismantle the ship when she becomes unsafe, say 2007

- "replication" i.e. build an identical vessel

- do as they intend.


They say " ...the replica option would preserve the landmark function of the vessel but would in no real sense be the Cutty Sark. The primary significance of the vessel - that she is the last surviving and best extreme clipper - would be lost."

Some may differ, feeling as I do that the primary significance of the vessel as the last and best extreme clipper is best preserved by renewing the structure as original and sailing her to Australia and back on a regular basis. The skills to do just that exist in this country.

And surely very few of us think that a ship has any business at all being a "landmark".

A ship which has its masts stepped through the keel rather than on it, and which has a nasty, rotten, leaking, plywood deck, is in no sense preserving its primary significance as an extreme clipper. It does that by being an extereme clipper, and going to sea.

 

[halcyon]

Re: Cutty Sark

It would have been far better to have bought back to Falmouth, and used the money we spent on the eyesore in the dock rebuilding the Cutty Sark.
It would at least have been attractive, and useful.

Brian

 

[kds]

Sorry you feel like that - I rather enjoyed it.
Ken

 

[SimonJ]

Re: Gypsy Moth IV - YM souvenir pull-out supplement - Collectors Editi

Agree - enough is enough!
Pity about the yankee jib that Crusader provided. Ok it is mitre cut but who made it? The junior apprentice? Look in the repeated photos at the way the way the luff tape is sewn on with all the wrinkles! Surprised they have not withdrawn it and provided another. Would YOU buy a sail from Crusader ...?

 

[gerry99]

Re: Gypsy Moth IV

I think that the saddest thing of all is that I read that C&N are closing their yard and a lot of the fabulous craftsmen who worked on her will be made redundant! It remains to be seen whether other yards grasp the opportunity to take and keep these skilled craftsmen or whether their skills get dissipated. Anyone want to take a bet as to how long it will be before the C&N yard will be turned over to residential development?