More August CB quibbles

[Kristal]

Did anybody see the letter in CB captioned "Moving Experience"? I don't know if I'm reading it wrong, but the correspondent agreed that CB's suggestion of moving Cutty Sark to Battersea Power Station was an inspired idea, and then goes on to offer a yet more intrepid one: for her to serve as an extension to the Greenwich Museum (presumably the National Maritime) or even a classic ferry to connect the two. The rest of the letter makes some suggestions for other London sites of interest, with the aforementioned "classic ferry" running on the Thames between them.

Surely, the correspondent can't be suggesting using Cutty Sark as a ferry vessel up to Kew. I personally would love to take Crystal up to Kew and Richmond myself, except for the small matter of our two masts. Cutty Sark has one more than us, and to remove them to facilitate the traversing of bridges would be utterly unforgivable.

I can't believe this is what the writer of the letter is suggesting, but I've read it twice now, and unless there is a misprint...

/<

 

[Peterduck]

I thought that Cutty Sark was an extension of the N.M.M. as it is; to move it further away and then think that the link is strengthened is the sort of thinking that politicians use. In Melbourne we have a very nice square-rigger locked in an old dry-dock. It's the centrepiece of the small maritime museum that we have. It's small because the government don't want it any bigger; in fact they tried to close it down completely until the public uproar changed their mind.
Peter.

 

[Kristal]

Cutty Sark

I think she is still owned and maintained by a charitable trust which is a seperate entity from the NMM, as they are still trying to drum up funds to replank her in teak. The electrolysis experiment should be underway by now, too. But it is certainly sad that they are appealing to individuals to donate because they can't get enough from the so-called Heritage funds from the National Moneyspinner (shocking in itself). But we all know about the national attitude to maritime heritage...

Now, last year I was discussing a possible idea with the former co-owner of Crystal: to organise some kind of old boat event to help raise money for the fund. They were asking for £5000 per plank, for which you would have your name carved on the plank itself - immortality at a price! We thought it would be nice if, in return for aiming to provide a couple of planks from the event, the names of the boats taking part could be carved on instead.

I don't know if they are still offering this deal, and I haven't thought of it since so this isn't a "Lets do it!!" scheme, was just a nice idea at the time.

/<

 

[PeterWillis]

Cutty Sark: some clarifications

The letter in question was tongue-in-cheek, in case this wasn't obvious, but not as far fetched as it seems to have become. My initial reading of it some months ago now was that there could be a 'classic' ferry, not that said ferry would be the CS herself (since that would presumably be incompatible with keeping in Battersea Power Station). There are also good reasons (bridges, mostly) why CS would be an unsuitable choice of boat.

For the record, CS is owned by her own charitable trust, and is not formally connected with the NMM.

When the Heritage Lottery Fund make awards, they do so on the basis that an equivalent (usually) amount will be raised from other sources - which can actually be award-giving charities.
The wooden boat event is a nice idea. I daresay the Cutty Sark Trust would be willing to "offer" any "deal" within reason which involved it receiving substantial funds.

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Cutty Sark: some clarifications

I have been enjoying the correspondence on the Cutty Sark in your pages, Peter.

I am of Brian Kennell's persuasion.

She needs an honest rebuild, starting with the keel,
just like this one.

Otherwise, what is the point?