Hello
I have reached the standing rigging steps in my project. I have a lot of good books including Biddlecomb and Peterson’s rigging of ship models…All these books present the forestay strapped on to the bowsprit with some fancy lashings and a collar. However, my instructions show the forestay being lashed down in the bow to some sort of eye bolt. As you know its hard to find pictures of clipper ships. But the ones I have seen (mostly models and diagrams) show the forestay in the bow.
My question is this. Is this alleged change in rigging a function of time that just evolved into what seemed better? Or is my very scant evidence a bunch of whooey, and I can rig my big rope onto the bowsprit if i choose. I do want to stay accurate historic, so any wisdom wood be fantastic.
Thanks
Wendell
You seem to have omitted the name of the ship you are referring to, above–this can complicate the answers.
But, as a (very) general rule; wooden bowsprits were only as fixed to the ship as were the masts. The sprit relied very much on weight to hold it in place, as its shrouds are more for longitudinal alignment. The angles for bobstays limited by the amount of forefoot available (they are “bobbed”–cut-short–stays for that very reason).
So, you’d not want to lash important stays, like the fore stay or main stay, to a spar that might shift, or break in a sea.
When the bowsprit became metal, it was more permanently affixed to the fabric of the ship. So, you could just add some pad-eyes, or a stop to the metal spar to take a fore or main stay.
Given that both fore and main stays were often doubled, it was as easy to pass one down along side of the sprit, and the other to the opposite side. This arrangement could easily be misunderstood, and interpreted by a model-maker as being lashed “to” a spar, instead of alongside same.
That’s my 2¢; others’ differ.
I’m guessing by looking at your earlier posts that you are building the “Sea witch”?
I’ve seen two sail plans for “Sea witch”, one in “The search for speed under sail” by Howard Chapelle where it looks like the forestays go to the bowsprit
http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Clippers/Fotos/021%2028a%2015%2015%20x%209.jpg
and a book “Ship models - how to build them” by Charles Davis where it looks like they go to the knightsheads.
http://www.pietrocristini.com/clipper_sea_witch.htm
Looking at other sources, e.g. “The American-built cipper ship” by William L. Crothers -
“Fore and mainstays went double, generally to a seizing not far removed from the point where they were to be set up. For the forestay, this end was generally the knightheads…”
The brig “Irene” by Petrejus also has her forestays at the knightheads, as does Andrew Bowcock’s raider C.S.S “Alabama” and the clipper "Thermopylae"for example.
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/ee274/cerberusjf/?action=view¤t=therm_deck_bow.jpg
However, H.M.S. “Victory” has her forestays seized to the bowsprit, as does U.S.S. “Constitution”, the frigate H.M.S.“Diana”, many of the bluff-bowed merchantmen and some with clipper bows in Chapelle’s “Search for speed under sail”.
My guess is that it has to do with the shape of the hull, the distance of the foremast from the bow and the height of the foremast. I guess the angle of the stays would have to be within certain limits to be effective. If the bow was bluff, the foremast would be nearer to the bow (e.g. HMS Victory), so the forestays were seized to the bowsprit and the bowsprit reinforced with gammoning, bobstays etc. If the bow had finer lines like a clipper (e.g. clipper “Challenge”) the bow would extend further forward of the foremast to help preserve buoyancy and the forestays could be seized to the knightheads if the angle was within the limits. But that’s a guess…
You can see photos of U.S.American clippers with forestays either attached by the knightheads or to the bowsprit in “British and American clippers” by David MacGregor.
so there is a mixture among clippers. You are right I am building the Lindberg Sea Witch. But i have scratch built several things (that I broke) E.g. Dolphin Striker, parts of the bowsprit etc. I’m a clutz especially when I keep going back and changing the way the hul is painted. Flipping that ship around tends to break things off.
All the drawings I’ve seen of the witch have the big forestay inserting right up in the bow. So i guess I’ll rig it that way.
Which matches the instructions which is a shock. Generally the instructions would be good to start a campfire.
thanks guys
Wendell
Yes, there’s a mixture. In some of the British clippers with Aberdeen bows, the forestays were attached to the knightheads which were aft of the tip of the bow.
So the instructions got something correct? I guess it had to happen one day 
Cheers
John.
One book I read on merchant sailing ships stressed how much variation there was in rigging, far more so than in naval ships. It indicated that when a new master came on board, he often made major rigging changes- the master of a merchant vessel had pretty free reign on how he wanted ship rigged. This even went so far as changing ship to bark, and vis versa.
That’s good info, Don. I don’t think Sea Witch had another skipper besides Roger Murray. But she made the run for 11 years.
Cheers
Wendell