Preservation vs. maintenance

Seagreen

Seagreen

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Jul 2005
Messages
2,299
Location
Tied up away from the storm. Oh yes.
Visit site
Prompted by the post on "oldest vessel in commission", got me thinking over the day.

So, for those of us involved with older boats, the question is "preservation versus maintenance".

By that, I mean that (and I really believe that) boats are best preserved by being maintained in a seaworthy condition, and that "preservation" is at best nothing more than a stopgap, delaying the inevitable demise of the vessel. So, I believe if an old vessel is capable of being restored to a working condition, she ought to be as, like the Gypsy Moth IV, Boadicea and Cleone, that's the best way to "interpret" them and preserve them for future generations.

OK, I also realise "budget" has a huge hand in this, but what do the rest of us think?
 
I agree, also it breaks my heart to see them languishing in the back of some boatyard, mostly because somebody has run out of the where with all to see them right. Still I don't think it happens as much these days, as there does seem to be a greater interest in vintage / classic vessels.

I digress slightly but back to the original question, yes! absolutely, they should be used, because in use, they will get the maintenance that will keep them going......well hopefully?
 
It's an interesting question and one that has been exercising my mind a bit. Should I work towards 'restoring' Border Maid, or should I maintain and adapt her to my needs. The former could be taken to mean replacing the alu spars with wooden, doing without electricery and indeed probably doing away with any kind of engine (maybe a vintage Seagull would be authentic). I am more inclined to combine the best and most useful bits of new technology and equipment with traditional features. A bit like bringing a house of historic interest up to modern standards of insulation, fire safety etc while maintaining the character as far as possible.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Should I work towards 'restoring' Border Maid, or should I maintain and adapt her to my needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I go along with, 'present needs' as long as these don't conflict with the overall look of the vessel. My pet hate is wheel-houses on prawners - as aesthetically pleasing as tractor wheels on an Aston Martin. Cleone may be very old, and froma distance is going to be as authentic as I can make her, but still has all the mod cons.. Well, I'm working on the idea of a fridge, anyway..
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
A FRIDGE!!!!!!!!!!








You WIMP! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
A step further of course is restoration or preservation. I think that boats that are currently in, or very nearly in commission can either be preserved or maintained. I prefer the maintained route, in fact I think continually upgrading systems but keeping oringinal structure and layout as far as possible adds to the history of a boat, much in the same way listed buildings are preserved. By all means fit an engine, fridge, electronics, but don't fit deck houses, and dinettes where none existed.

On the other hand, if the boat is well out of commission, then preservation may be necessary if funds are not available to restore.
 
I had this problem when I bought my early-1900's Pinnace - restore to original or restore to 1945 when most of them had their decks raised. I went for the latter because I had no history on the boat but I was certainly tempted to put on a brass funnel.
 
I fully agree with the sentiments expressed. In my case, [which is all too common,] I ran out of budget. I also ran out of the physical ability to do the necessary work through arthritis. It was a real battle to maintain the Old Tart until she could find a new custodian to keep her in the style to which she had become accustomed. Forbsie has a very good point in asking "to what point in the ship's 'life' do you restore her?" I certainly wasn't going to replace the live fish well which originally would have taken up the middle [and best] third of the hull; that is now a very comfortable saloon. So I elected to 'preserve her' in a form which suited the use to which I wanted to put her; a cruising yacht. So she became an Edwardian-style cruising yacht, with no outward show of electrickery, save a radio antenna at the top of the mizzen-mast if you looked up there.
Peter.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A FRIDGE!!!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

And in keeping up with the Victorian opulent style, I've lined the forepeak berths with leopard print plush... The wet locker is now a jacuzzi. Not.

/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

But seriously, my chief problem is keeping the vessel "as was". Among my problems is the future change of rigging from stainless wire to galvanised, with lanyards. Technically, the galvanised bottlescrews were "the latest thing" in 1860, but I think deadeyes would suit her better. Also, I've an expensive but useless, though type approved set of oil nav lamps from DHR. Useless because the flames are not in line with the dioptric lenses so they don't show very bright at all. Maybe I'll fettle them a bit. They'll look great bolted on the light boxes, but I'm not happy with the state of flux with LEDs and I'd like to get an approved LED light to fit in them. Something really bright using zero watts of power. But the maintenance really is "not-so-little-and-very-often". Not for the faint hearted. But then, she's a proper boat...

/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
I don't quite understand your "unhappy with the state of flux" about LEDs. I fitted the lightboard-mounted nav Lights on my old 'Swallow' with LEDs and they worked very well. Mind you, these were not the LED-in-a-bulb-base that you can buy over the counter. I made up my own setup, so that the LEDs were facing the lens of the lamp, maximising the output. Also, I used red and green LEDs, not white ones. I found that white LEDs in the coloured nav lamps produced a white spot in the middle of a coloured lens, and from a distance you couldn't see the colour properly. The stern light is of course, white.
Peter.
 
Good subject for those who are working keeping a classic seaworthy. But is it really a case of either or? Maintaining a useable vessel in a seaworthy condition is in itself preservation. I do not have a problem either with uprating or improving the yacht's systems by using modern materials or fittings/instruments etc. Lots of newer stuff is better than the original and can be used without spoiling the 'originality'. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
While I agree that maintenance will help to preserve something, I dont think it is the same really: while maintenance does 'preserve' a boat in working order, I'm not at all sure a 'preserved' boat would be useable. Cutty Sark before she caught fire was a case in point. 'Preserved' yes. Seaworthy? very far from it. Would Victory or Warrior be able to put to sea in their current state of preservation? Let alone fight a battle and survive it - assuming there is anyone around who would actually know how to handle them.
 
I think the main difference is that preservation places a premium on originality, both of design and of actual materials.
So a perfectly preserved Viking longship recovered from a salt marsh has original timber. It is important to conserve and preserve as much of that as possible, even if seriously weakened by age and decay.

An old boat that has been maintained however will have a constantly evolving turnover of materials and design features.
So if galvanised wire came in 1860 or Wykeham-Martin in 1885 or synthetic hemp lookalike in 1983, that's fine.

But it would be a major error on a "preserved" museum piece to incorporate a feature that hadn't been invented when the boat was launched.
 
I'm really all on the "maintenance" side of things.
Ideally, I'd like vessels which are still notionally whole, like the Cutty Sark, Trincomalee and Warrior, and the Victory for that matter, to be refurbished to working standard. The Warrior and Trincomalee and especially the Cutty Sark should be restored to full working order. There are enough people who skipper other square rigged sail training vessels to provide a pool of knowledge to provide expertise.
The Cutty Sark, since it has to have fundamental reconstruction anyway, ought to be brought back to working spec and be used again as a sail training vessel. I think the reconstruction budget is about £25 million, but rebuilding as a vessel maybe wouldn't add more than £5 million to the budget, and then she'd have a whole new lease of life.
 
A very interesting discussion. We had major rot problems in the cabin tops and wheelhouse on Melissa which meant that the whole lid had to be replaced. The hard decision was firstly that 1960s building techniques had inherent structural problems. which had lead to the rot. The original structure was mahogany which does not like fresh water. The old adage that wooden yachts rot from the top down came to mind.

We finally went for teak which is much more rot resistant. We kept the cabin and wheelhouse shape but increased the size of the widows to let in more light and put in an extra door to the wheelhouse for safety as only having one could be a problem. We made a change in the main saloon which had two Pullman type berths which were almost impossible to use and meant the seats were very uncomfortable to sit in when having a meal at the table. Otherwise she is much as John Bain designed her.

The result is a yacht that is much lighter and more pleasant to live in and should last another 40 - 60 years without rot. I hope John Bain would have approved of the slight changes, but should we have used mahogany again and kept the windows to the original design? I wonder.

We have changed the Perkins 4107 36 hp for a Beta 50 hp because she was under powered and the Perkins even afte a rebuild sprayed oil arround and was environmentally unacceptable.

She is now much better suited to the family's needs and a joy to be on but not preserved in aspic.

I suppose a 45 year old yacht now has a new lease of life and is giving pleasure.

A bit of a ramble, but the thread struck a chord with my thought processes.

James
 
I agree that use is what preserves a yacht more than anything else. I enjoy adapting and the evidence on board is that previous owners have done that too. If making changes that are not too radical means that more happy useage follows then I am all for it. Bosun will keep being used as long as I can afford it and then I will pass her on to the next careful owner.
 
[ QUOTE ]

But it would be a major error on a "preserved" museum piece to incorporate a feature that hadn't been invented when the boat was launched.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree entirely, but I bet Nelson would have given his back teeth, other arm etc, for a hefty diesel in Victory to let him get at the Frogs at Trafalgar more quickly! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I bet Nelson would have given his back teeth, other arm etc, for a hefty diesel in Victory to let him get at the Frogs at Trafalgar more quickly!

[/ QUOTE ]

And Radar, so that he didn't have to chase them across the Atlantic and back. He may have thought 18" Naval guns a bit un-sporting, though, and as for Aircraft Carriers! Work of Satan!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top