NealB
Well-Known Member
Would it be the old fashioned 'depth of hold' (say deck to keel top) or 'draft', do you think?
What does 'depth' mean on a 1980's builder's certificate?
- Thread starter NealB
- Start date
345000
Well-Known Member
The term refers to the moulded depth of the hull, defined as the distance from the bottom of the keel to the sheer line.
Oldhairy
Well-Known Member
I doubt it.
I seem to remember it as a part of the Tonnage measurements. IIR it is the depth on the centre line at the widest part of the vessel measuring the depth between the upper part of the keel and the underside of the main deck. Or where that deck would be if there was no superstructure
NealB
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's pretty much my understanding, too.
The important thing is, I don't think it is anything to do with 'draft'.
NealB
Well-Known Member
Aha .... I wonder which end of the keel is the 'bottom'?
Do you mean the lowest pat of the ballast keel (ie the bit that will touch ground first)?
Or, do you mean the upper part where it joins the hull? I think old timers would mean this, in the context of their wooden hulls.
If, as I suspect, you mean the latter, then I think you, Oldhairy and myself are in agreement.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Agree. It is the designer's calculation of the depth measurement required for registered tonnage. May, or may not be accurate and no doubt a subject for discussion at measurement. Not so important for yachts but has a significant influence for ships where owners seek to minimise tonnage.
NealB
Well-Known Member
Thanks Tranona.
I think I'm convinced (I've been talking at cross purposes with someone who assured me his boat draws over 6 feet, whereas I had only ever heard of that design with a 5 foot draft).
I think I'm convinced (I've been talking at cross purposes with someone who assured me his boat draws over 6 feet, whereas I had only ever heard of that design with a 5 foot draft).
BrianH
Well-Known Member
The survey for my Part I registration, depth was an internal cabin measurement at the centre-point but some short distance abeam, from cabin sole to deck-level.
I note from a copy of the Certificate of Survey (under 24m) for my 9.4m LOA vessel, Tonnage Calculation (Metric), the measurements for Length, Breadth, Depth are 9.04m, 1.85m and 3.5m respectively. This resulted in 9.04 Tons for registration.
This is for a boat where the builder's certificate specified a displacement of 5.1 Tons ... in cruising trim it is very much more, about a third more, I noted when recently craned out.
I note from a copy of the Certificate of Survey (under 24m) for my 9.4m LOA vessel, Tonnage Calculation (Metric), the measurements for Length, Breadth, Depth are 9.04m, 1.85m and 3.5m respectively. This resulted in 9.04 Tons for registration.
This is for a boat where the builder's certificate specified a displacement of 5.1 Tons ... in cruising trim it is very much more, about a third more, I noted when recently craned out.
NealB
Well-Known Member
BrianH
Well-Known Member
I have just checked my builder's certificate (HR 1981) and 'depth' is not defined in the English translation, only 'Draft', at 1.15m.
NealB
Well-Known Member
My 1974 Lloyd's register of yachts says "depth is taken from the top of floors to top of upper deck beams amidships".
Seems conclusive.
Seems conclusive.
Quandary
Well-Known Member
11 posts all from the UK and so far not one where draught is spelt correctly.
I know I am being pedantic but it is our language, why should we let the Septics take control of it?
I know I am being pedantic but it is our language, why should we let the Septics take control of it?
BrianH
Well-Known Member
As one of the 11 posts, my one reference to the word was a literal copy from the builder's specification where the Swedish 'Djupgående' was translated as 'Draft'. How's your Swedish?
And to further the pedantry, my post was not from the UK.
Quandary
Well-Known Member
As one of the 11 posts, my one reference to the word was a literal copy from the builder's specification where the Swedish 'Djupgående' was translated as 'Draft'. How's your Swedish?
And to further the pedantry, my post was not from the UK.
I can understand Swedes translating in to septic, that is where their big market is, but why do those of us communicating in English now have to accept and use foreign versions of our language. Unfortunately many other nations have abandoned English too, American is a much simpler language and we are all able to understand it well enough.
In English we have two words 'draught' and 'draft' with distinctly different meanings, that precision is the strength of our own language that we should not abandon lightly.
My apologies for categorizing you as British, I could have avoided the offence by being more thorough.
NealB
Well-Known Member
Thank you: an interesting comment!
I think both the spellings are 'correct' nowadays, especially in the context of boats.
I've sailed since the early 1960's, and have always been an avid reader of anything about boats.
I'll happily use either spelling, without feeling Americanised in anyway (Grrrr ... this site wants me to spell that with a 'zee', which does annoy me!).
Just because I had a few spare minutes, I nipped down to have a look at a few of my books, all published in English English.
It seems to confirm my thinking.
My bound set of original Yachting Monthly from 1930, uses 'draught', as does Eric Hiscock, in 'Cruising under sail'.
(OK 2 - 0 to you).
However, both my Lloyd's Registers of Yachts (one from 1950, the other from 1974), use 'draft'.
(2 - 2)
John Illingworth, in 'Offshore' (1949) uses 'draft', as does Nic Compton in 'Notable Boats' (very recent).
(That's 2 - 4)
Des Sleightholme uses 'draft' in 1966, as does the Yachting World Handbook (edited by Peter Johnson) from 1967.
(2 - 6)
I'm afraid you lost this particular battle some decades ago.
Edit: sitting beside me, I just happen to have a beautiful, leather bound, version of 'The Universal Dictionary of the English Language', from 1938. It was edited by Henry Cecil Wyld B.Litt., M.A., (plus loads of other letters), Late Merton Professor of English Language and Literature in the University of Oxford. He is remarkably chilled about it, "Draft: an alternative spelling of draught"
Last edited:
macd
Well-Known Member
I suspect draft/draught is not so clear as is often supposed. Many words in current use were exported to North America in several forms, particularly in Elizabethan times when spelling was much less rigorous and than it is today. "Draft" and "draught" both existed at the time (as did "daughter" and "dafter" for a female child 
). Even "tyre" (for the tread on a wheel) had the alternative "tire" in english English, along with many other examples. Over time, the US and UK came to prefer different versions, partly by popular usage, partly through the efforts of people like Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) to rationalise spelling.
The truth is that many supposed Americanisms are nothing of the sort, but arcane Anglicisms. It is rarely safe to assume that something is an Americanism simply because it looks like one. And don't get me started on "-ise", "-ize" endings...
). Even "tyre" (for the tread on a wheel) had the alternative "tire" in english English, along with many other examples. Over time, the US and UK came to prefer different versions, partly by popular usage, partly through the efforts of people like Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) to rationalise spelling. The truth is that many supposed Americanisms are nothing of the sort, but arcane Anglicisms. It is rarely safe to assume that something is an Americanism simply because it looks like one. And don't get me started on "-ise", "-ize" endings...
Last edited:
NealB
Well-Known Member
Thanks macd, that's my (totally non-expert) understanding too.
It applies in other contexts:
- one of my boyhood heroes, the much maligned Captain Bligh, recorded "knots per hour" in the logbook of HMS Bounty
- Bill Bryson, I recall, suggests that the American pronunciation of "River Thames" (something to rhyme with 'claims', but with the 'th' sound as in 'though'), is older than our current "Tems".
It applies in other contexts:
- one of my boyhood heroes, the much maligned Captain Bligh, recorded "knots per hour" in the logbook of HMS Bounty
- Bill Bryson, I recall, suggests that the American pronunciation of "River Thames" (something to rhyme with 'claims', but with the 'th' sound as in 'though'), is older than our current "Tems".
Quandary
Well-Known Member
Oh dear, so many willing to surrender, it is fortunate that we still publish dictionaries attempting to maintain the correct definition of our language, though if most do not want to use them, I suppose there is little point.
I realize it is my own fault, far too old and from a generation where a good understanding and correct use of English was regarded as worthy.
I realize it is my own fault, far too old and from a generation where a good understanding and correct use of English was regarded as worthy.
NealB
Well-Known Member
My last say (not really PBO stuff now!), but language has always evolved.
'Draught' or 'draft': everyone (even you!) knows precisely what is meant.
macd
Well-Known Member
Before writing that, you might have consulted the nearest english English has to an authoritative dictionary, the OED:
draft: Mid 16th century: phonetic spelling of draught
Or, to put it another way, oh dear, so many willing to cling to their misconceptions.
Incidentally, your use of "definition" is misplaced. The issue is spelling.
Other threads that may be of interest
