Restoration, replica or newbuild?

V

visaroine

New Member
Joined
5 Sep 2006
Messages
2
Visit site
Dear Sirs,

I am a tradiotional vessel enthusiast from finland, and I`m taking part in a discucssion forum about yacht and historic vessel restoration.

I am looking for comments and facts on where the line is drawn between restoration and a newbuild or replica. This seems to be difficult matter, to which nobody seems to have an “easy” answer. I would therefor like to ask you a couple questions about your views on this matter.

The questions are:

How much can you take apart of a vessel at one time to keep it original? For example, if you´ve stripped off everything except the keel, and then rebuild everything stripped, can you still call it the same (original) vessel? What if after this you change the keel?

Is the vessel still the same, if 99,9% of wood has been changed? I know lots of wooden boats that have had all of their wood changed, but never at one time, to keep them original.

Does using original plans make it a replica?

What are your views on where the limit should be? ( And I do realise the fact that a vessel with a “history” can be more valuable than a newbuild)


Thank You in advance for your answers and views.

Mr. Visa Roine

Helsinki, Finland


PS. If you have information on where I could get more information (publications, officials, agencies etc.) on this matter, please tell me!
 
When I "bought" Kestrel her condition was such that she had earlier been destined for the bonfire. Her condition was such that there was no option but to rebuild her if I wanted to go sailing.

Today the only bits I haven't replaced are around two thirds the hull planking, the tiller, the mast and boom. It was only possible to save what I did of the planking with the use of liberal quantities of epoxy and the mast by scarfing 3 foot on the bottom.

The important part I think is whether the boat retains its 'soul'. At any stage of the rebuild Kestrel would have been recognisable as herself, even though it would have been much quicker to have taken the lines off and built a new one. If all I'd been left with was the tiller though I don't think you could say it was the same boat. As it is I feel that Kestrel still has the same soul, has always existed and is therefore the same boat.

Make any sense?
 
[ QUOTE ]
nobody seems to have an “easy” answer.

What are your views on where the limit should be? ( And I do realise the fact that a vessel with a “history” can be more valuable than a newbuild)




[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "easy answer"

my views on where the limit should be,... are that a neat and defined limit is a daft idea.

why is a "limit" needed?... what problem would such a limit fix?

I frankly dont care what anybody else thinks about if Victorious is the original boat or not. And her value is not of much importance either.
I rebuilt her..(where does "rebuild" fit into your list? ). cos i wanted to.. I guess i now Own her... but consider myself more a custodian than an owner.
When and if i sell her my concern will be more for her future than the price i get for her

<shrugg>
 
Perhaps limit isn't the word I'd use - or perhaps it is - but I think there has to be a point at which it might suit some people to take the lines of an old boat and rebuild a replica. Horribly expensive, but it does have some advantages, and if you only had, for instance, stem, hog, keel and sternpost that were usable - imagine everything else needed replacing - you would probably be better off starting from scratch.

That is, of course, if it is the boat's design that you liked her for. If you get a kick out of the boat being original and old, like I do, then building a replica - yes, I think replica is the right word, by the way - wouldn't be the way to go. Nor could she be called original, but some people don't care a jot about that.

I agree personally with Kestrel's point about the "soul" of the boat. I've had two requests to build a replica of my boat in the last two years, and I did think how strange it would be to go aboard a replica - then it occurred to me that even if they looked the same, they wouldn't have the same spirit, the same smell etc. nor any of the special things that make Crystal Crystal.

Frankly, if I had the sort of disposable income where I could calmly ponder "Restoration, replica or newbuild?" for my next boat, knowing all were in my power should I so choose, I'd relish the opportunity.

/<
 
If an old boat catches your eye.....not sure you can ponder in advance.
Victorious was dug up and taken home. Then the spine sorted, retaining as much original as possible..... The each frame removed, and refurbished or replaced as needed..fastened to the old planking. some frames that looked fine at first glance... proved to be scrap when inspected... much the same applied to deck, planking etc,etc
A best you can only make a wild (and usually optimistic) guesstimate as to how much "original boat" will survive... By the time you know the percentage new/old.. It's too late to change your mind.
About the same time as i started Victorious, Another guy bought a boat of about the same age and type, But she was afloat and cost a few grand to buy...Took it home and sebuilt it in much the same fashion...He ended up with much less original boat than i did!
So if you love it.. You do what needs to be done and go sailing in the result!
 
The most famous example of this dilemma is of course HMS Victory of which I believe it is said that every timber has been replaced at least 4 times since she was launched.

So is the hallowed spot on board where Nelson fell actually it? Everything has been renewed several times since!

But IMHO, as she was never actually fully taken to pieces - she always remained a constructive entity, she could be regarded as the 'original' construction. All the extensive work on her has been carried out as maintenance - not even 'restoration' in the sense of this discussion.

To have been 'restored' she would have to have been stripped down and refurbished to as near as new as possible as one job. Though one could argue that that was done when she was first placed in her current berth - she was apparently in pretty poor shape structurally at the time.

I reckon 'New build' is starting from scratch: Any wooden class boat is built from a set of plans, my Eventide being one of several thousand built from MGs original drawings for example. so she is not a replica. I suppose though, a Newbuild from original or lifted drawings of a 'one off' could be regarded as a replica so that if MG had only bult one Eventide, mine built 20 years later would be a 'replica' of the original.

But at what point a 'restoration' becomes a 'rebuild' I would not like to say: Joshua Slocum built his 'Spray' on the lines of a derelict someone gave him - using the old boats components as a pattern for the new. So was Spray 'Newbuilt', or a replica of the earlier boat? Slocum definitely built Spray from the keel up, and only used the old vessel for patterns.

I think though that a replica is built to look as nearly the same as the original as possible, so that the material, quality and location of fittings for example will be replicated.

But try telling any naval type that HMS Victory is not really 'Victory'.....
 
Quoting from memory, didn't Slocum actually have a wonderful sentence to the effect that it was hard to tell at what point the old Spray turned into the new Spray? I certainly don't have the impression that he simply built a new boat alongside the old. I may be wrong - anyone got the book handy?

I think the timescale and the balance of maintenance v. restoration is an important factor, but only a psychological one. Wooden boats don't last, so everything gets replaced in its turn sooner or later. If done progressively over time, keeping the spirit of the old boat intact, then it does retain its old identity. It is the same boat.
But the same degree of replacement done in one go does not feel the same.

Imagine two scenarios:
1) Victory virtually continuously repaired, restored over time, as has happened. Maybe 95% of timber replaced.
2) Victory totally abandoned in 1840, left rotting on a mudflat, rescued, and rebuilt using 95% new timber.

Case 1 is still really the Victory. Case 2 is a replica, albeit authentic.
 
Its an argument that will go on and on... probably without a definitive answer and doesn't only count for boats.
I remember seeing a painstakingly "restored" 1930's Bullnose Morris which had been built from parts found after a barn fire. Photographs of the fire showed complete destruction of the car, apart from a chassis cross member.
That was the only original part on the restoration, yet it carried the original registration number.
Apparently it counted as a restoration as the remnant bore the chassis number.
 
OK: alongside HMS Victory is HMS Worrier - sorry, Warrior. Another fine 'preserved' historic naval ship. Last used as a pontoon for shipping in Milford Haven before her complete 'restoration' . So Victory is still 'original' while Warrior is 'restored' although both ships probably contain little or nothing of the material used in the original construction.
 
"So Victory is still 'original' while Warrior is 'restored' although both ships probably contain little or nothing of the material used in the original construction."

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.
Victory has spent most of her life afloat (dry-docked about 1935?) and rigged basically as original. So the ongoing repairs will have been carried out continuously since 1805, under a variety of craftsmen and surveyors, each with different methods and variations in style of work. These differences will have accumulated to this day, and to a trained eye will form an important part of her history.
My theoretical "Victory" raised from the mud and rebuilt in a year by a team of modern restorers would have none of this patina of history. It would simply be an interesting exercise in mimicking old techniques.

Incidentally, the Bulnose Morris example, if correct, is almost certainly illegal. There is a scale of points for originality of all major components, which must total I think eight if the car is to be allowed to retain its original registration. A new chassis is permissible, but only if sufficient of the other components are original (original to the car, not other cars of the same period).
 
I\'ve known \"Kestrel\" since 1972. She is definitely the same boat

...but in infinitely better condition than since before Hervey Benham bought her, in the 20's, I reckon.
 
Looking at \"Pioneer\" in the Colne Smack and Barge Match, on Saturday..

what I saw was a perfectly legitimate first class Colne smack, thundering past Mersea Stone quite literally a stone's throw from the beach, with a large and vocal crew yelling "WATER!!!" at the merely large smack ahead of her. A magnificent sight and one that I will long remember.

Now, "Pioneer" was exhumed from West Mersea mud as an utter wreck, but just sufficient to re-create her lines, whilst her rig was reconstructed from a single photograph.

On the other hand, I own a 1930's yacht which has been in use, apart from the War years, more or less continually apart fromk winter layups, and which is maintained on the Forth Bridge principle.

Which is "more original"?

Probably "Pioneer", as she has no engine, no electrics or modern navaids and depends on the skill of her crew.

But frankly, they both are, because both are still sailing.

What I detest is an "authentic" corpse like the "Cutty Sark", entombed in a dry dock and rotting and rusting away, and unable to demonstrate HOW SHE SAILS AND BEHAVES AT SEA.

Arugments made by her owners about "authentic structure" cut no ice at all with me when the varnish is peeling off the original teak deckhouses in sheets and they have even banged in the hatch wedges the wrong way round. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif Still, what do you expect from people who have stepped the masts through the keel on the dock bottom? /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Until PIONEER was resurrected we had no real idea of how this sort of smack behaved or how very, very different she is from the Lowestoft trawler EXCELSIOR.
 
Aah. The eternal question. If you took a splinter from a Hepplewhite chair, and inserted it into a new chair built to the same design, tried to auction it as a genuine Hepplewhite chair, and got caught... You might be in trouble. Fine if you rebuild a boat though, with half the tiller from the original, it seems. The reason for this is that the latter is a more open process, and the former distinctly dishonest. The answer is some 'jobs' do not fall easily into any of those categories. The challenge seems to be futile: replica or restoration? can be answered very easily with the word 'neither' or 'a mixture of the two.' To put it in one category seems to be falling victim to the tyranny of categorisation. The real question, I think, is which you should aim for. And if restoration, to restore the boat to its original purpose (racing perhaps, in which case non-original reinforcement may be required), or to restore it to its original substance and appearance. An interesting case is Donald Campell's Bluebird. Some want to restore it to its glory, but others see that as a distortion of history, as history remembers the crash more than the boat. Those people (and I'm one of them) think it should be preserved as a wreck. To go further with this subject, see what restoration building architects say as well, as they've been at it for longer and with more resources, and more people behind it. And finally, remember that every single cell in your body has changed in the last 12 or so years. So are you are rebuild, restoration or work iin progess?! Perhaps, so long as there is some continuity of identity, you can claim anything is the real thing. Then again maybe you can't...
 
Unless you're racing, it probably doesn't make any difference, but I think it's a simple question of how much is replaced how quickly. One of the beauties of a wooden boat is that you can change pieces as required. Eventually, like our bodies, all the pieces might be replaced. No problem there, but when you lift the ship's bell and slide another boat under it, you can't call that the same boat. If someone puts on my shirt, he doesn't become me. 10% replaced a year? 20%? 30%? Getting people to agree on a number might be hard, but the concept isn't. I have a relationship with my boat that is comparable to my relationship with my dog, my boat doesn't feel like an inanimate object, but I'm not buying the new wood/old soul arguement. I'm glad that people are building reproductions of great old boats, but I can't ignore that the Emperor's naked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

A
HELP! Trapper 300 Restoration - Seeking Blueprints for a Unique Family Yacht!
Replies
2
Views
254
Neeves
N

Share this page

Top