gypsy moth, waste of money?

T

tyce

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 Jan 2004
Messages
1,554
Location
cumbria
Visit site
i suspect i may get a bit of critisism for this one but here goes anyway.
would anyone agree that restoring the gypsy moth, too sea going condition seems a massive waist of money, okay i can understand for a few of our older sailing generation it may bring back rose tinted memorys, but if its that well loved why did it slowly rot away in its home over the years where were all its fans then.
i can understand the argument that it will be used as a youth training boat for a small number of people (after the grown ups have had a world girdling jolly).
but with the 1 million pound required to do it up, you could but a fleet of awbs therefore giving alot more oppurtunitys to kids by introducing them to our sport.
apologies to all who have worked hard on this project, its just my opinion, and as i was born along time after the travels of gypsy moth it means nothing to me.
 
OK - its a fair point but I won't agree. I enjoy museums and feel that the Gypsy Moth project - like museums, is a good way of acknowledging and celebrating man's achievement.
Its probably costing less than a morning's bombing in Iraq - or will that soon read Syria.
 
Happy to hold my head above the parapet on this one - YES it is a waste of money. Preserve the boat if they must, but to bring her back to 'sea-going' condition doesn't warrant the expense IMHO. Sooner the difference was spent teaching youngsters to sail.
 
On the one hand I thnk it's a complete waste of money. On the other hand, it couldn't go on rotting in its dry dock for much longer before some money had to be spent. But it's not my money that's being spent and it will be put to good use after the jolly so I don't have any objections to the restoration. It does sound a tad expensive though.
 
Remember that it was on public display for 30 odd years, and hundreds of thousands of people saw it, fascinated even in a concrete tomb, including me as a kid (now 47). I was so enthralled by the epic, that I made a copy in Balsa and was made to parade it at school in assembly.
Lest we forget our history, why then bother maintaining HMS Victory, raising the Mary Rose, SS Great Britain, Dunquerque Little Ships, or any other form of museum piece. We do it because someone cares enough to do it, and usually with public funds acquired through fund raising, and occasionally HMG pitches in with a few quid if they see an angle in it.
Besides, there are always fans of history and people who keep old cars, tractors, thatched houses etc, and people pay to go see them on display or at shows. There are a lot of people (who don't necessarily wear rose tinted specs or over 60) on this Forum who keep wooden boats up to scratch well past their intended use by date. Nobody is having a pop at Richard Matthews (MD Oyster Marine) for rescuing a 1902 Fife hulk from the Essex mud and restoring that after 30 years neglected, or Velsheda, Endeavour or any of the other J Class. These all require a small 3rd world economy to do.
The point about buying a fleet of AWBs instead of restoring history means that a privleged few will get a ride, most won't. Putting GM IV to work for a year or two will promote our heritage and give a chance for another few hundred thousand (non-paying) public to look at it.
It seems that history now only has a life span of 35 years or less, just like the general trend in society. I rue this lack of appreciation of where we came from which is probably why we keep making the same mistakes.

I just bought a new AWB and throughly enjoyed restoring (non-profitably) the current boat. I can see both sides, and enjoy experiencing both.


Jim
 
I suppose she is part of our maritime history but I believe that Chichester did not rate the boat very highly himself.

Personally I would prefer to donate to something which would benefit greater numbers.
 
Jim,

My initial reaction was to agree with Tyce, that restoring the boat is a collosal waste of money, which could be better spent on a fleet of AWB's... but...

Reading your argument, and thinking about it, you are absolutely right.... its part of our heritage, and needs saving....... if all our ancestors had held the same attitude there would be no Mary Rose etc etc
 
\"no Mary Rose\" ????

That's a bit over the top, isn't it? The Mary Rose is about 500 years old, and is a unique example of warships of that era. Now that was a ship that is definitely part of our heritage and deserved saving. The Gypsy Moth, on the other hand, is . . . . .
 
Re. Your right it\'s a waste of money.

Yachting is an industry based on dreamers wasting money. The whole thing is based on us spending the kids inheritence on something we like rather than something we need. So what better monument could there be.

Chichester & Gypsy Moth IV inspired a generation with their Boys Own style of adventuring. Many of whom set out on their own adventures as a result. So why shouldn't she sail again?

For not a great deal of corporate money, about the amount HMG might spend in a week enquiring into why dunked biscuits are wet, it means that apprentices are learning, an adventure will be had, worldwide commercial profiles will be raised and an ongoing visitor attraction and training vessel will remain into the future.
Oh! and yes they are improving her sailing qualities just a bit.

Of course I'm a bit brainwashed because I visited her on Thursday. What am I thinking? We could buy lots of AIS receivers instead.
 
Whilst I agree with your basic sentiments, the anticipated cost for returning to full sea going standard (> £1 million, I believe), for a boat that Sir Francis didn't rate very highly seems wasteful in the exreme. By all means spend some, just enough, to preserve it, but get it under cover, Falmouth Maritime? The money can be spent on much more deserving causes.
 
I agree. It seems an awful lot of money to get Gypsy Moth back into full sea-going trim for not a lot of benefit. Surely it would be better to just spend enough to preserve her as a museum piece. At lot more people would get the chance to see her.

On another note, what chance that B&Q will still be around in 30 years time!
 
The money can be spent on much more deserving causes.

This is the bit that makes me see <font color="red"> red </font> . Let's not celebrate the millennium with a big splashout essentially useless building (the dome) because we could build 5.7 hospitals and 3.5 schools.

Let's face it, the Scottish Parliament could be in an agricultural utility building at a tenth of the price.

And don't forget . . . the Space Program is an utter waste of money - let's spend the money instead on ten thousand more social workers and some Aids research.

Yeah, right . . . all very laudable but . . .

Civilisation is where it is now because of people and activities that push the boundaries, not because of soap opera scriptwriters. We are in serious danger of forgetting this and sinking back into the slime from whence we came.

I initially thought the GM restoration was a nonsense - the boat was a pig to sail, and SFC went round in a gimballed chair moaning and sipping G&Ts in between horrendous three hour sail changing sessions.

BUT - it was a great piece of history, it pushed the boundaries and it inspired a nation.

Spend as much of my tax on it as you want . . .

- Nick
 
Who's money is it to waste? as far as I am concerned it is part of our heritage as an island nation and to retain that heritage needs piece's of the past brought back to life...I remember as a wee nipper watching the live TV broadcast of her retun to Falmouth just as last week I sat with a tear in my eye watching Dame Ellen's return. She may have sailed like a pig but would it not be great to see a pig sail again???

Paul.
 
A laudable waste but only a small one

Why restore a mediocre boat ?
Why restore a mediocre cathedral ?
Why restore a mediocre car ?

Because it is what we do.

Besides IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY that is being spent. If someone wants to spend money on it then let them.

I deplore the money you waste on your garden. Is it worth restoring ? But you think it is.
 
Re: A laudable waste but only a small one

Agree with Woodentop - my feelings on Gipsy Moth aren't particularly strong one way or the other, but it's a bit facile to moan about the money spent on her, when in real terms and in comparison to what governments, companies, and individuals blow every day, it's not that much money at all.

If you say 'What's the point in restoring her?' then where do you draw the line? As above, do you let cathedrals rot? Do you only save something once it's the last of its kind and over 200 years old?
 
Re: A laudable waste but only a small one

I've seen the Gypsy Moth and frankly it's a piece of sh1t and should be burnt.
There is no sentiment in restoring junk.

A 1962 Mercedes roadster is one thing, but the fact that poor old Chichester actually made it around the world on that piece of crap is testament to his sailing ability, not the rubbish yacht, if you can call it that. I am quite sure that Chichester wants it incinerated as much as I do, if nothing else than for being such an eye-sore next to the Cutty Sark.
 
Re: A laudable waste but only a small one

Wasn't it Tristan Jones who said he never became sentimental over boats? (although I believe he made at least one exception) I doubt very much if Sir FC would want the old girl burnt. The Wright brothers plane was by todays standards a pretty crap aircraft. I don't know if that was preserved but I bet a whole heap of aviation enthusiasts either wished it was or fight tooth and nail to conserve it. By the same token I think GM should be preserved - she is part of our nautical heritage and neither her lines, looks or performance should detract from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Y
Quick Aries 1000 anchor windless noisy
Replies
0
Views
109
yotter
Y

Share this page

Top