National Historic Ships Replica Register

[Leo No2]

You can get into all sorts of semantics about what's original.

 

Sculptor (about which I know a little bit) had a new keelson in 1947 and a replacement engine, of a different type, in 1961. In 1985 she had a new cabin and in 2011/12 she had a replacement wooden bottom (and as Ian has intimated, not in Elm but Opepe although the three front planks, I am advised, remain 'original' but how original?). However Sculptor remains, I think, true to her origins and on the HSR. She will require ongoing maintenance in future years (as, of course, will all historic boats) and you can only use what's available at the time. The important aspect of historic boat ownership is, I think, that they are maintained in the spirit of historical accuracy bearing in mind what is available in terms of expertise and supply of 'parts' which is where this forum helps a huge amount.

[cheshire~rose]

Python was built in 1929 then shortened and had a different cabin fitted by BW in 1982 There is less than 70% of the original 1929 boat intact and as her conversion is not older than 50 years it would make it questionable whether she ought to be on the register or not. Not only is she on the register but has received a grant from them so is clearly acceptable.

 

Having read Historic ships own publication "Conserving Historic Vessels" it gave me a much greater understanding of how it is necessary to accept certain modifications to a vessel to keep it functioning rather than to become a static museum exhibit. I think far too many people get hung up about how much of a boat is original. boats wear out if they are used and using a boat will mean there will be some loss of the original fabric of that vessel. A bit like "Triggers Broom" there are a lot of vessels out there that have a large percentage of their fabric that is a lot newer than the original build date of the boat. So long as it is done sympathetically and by people who understand the original techniques for building then why worry?

[c c]

Are Cutty Sark or HMS Victory on the National Historic Ships Register?

"Intact" is a clever word to use. It merely means "complete", "whole" or "unbroken".

Gives a new meaning to 70% complete.

[Giant]

Are Cutty Sark or HMS Victory on the National Historic Ships Register?

 

Yes, of course: Cutty Sark, Victory.

 

They are also in the National Historic Fleet, which is a subset of the registers containing ~200 vessels that are considered to be of the greatest significance, and to span the spectrum of history and vessel design. At a glance through the list it appears that eight of those are narrowboats.

[JamesWoolcock]

Are Cutty Sark or HMS Victory on the National Historic Ships Register?

"Intact" is a clever word to use. It merely means "complete", "whole" or "unbroken".

Gives a new meaning to 70% complete.

They certainly are but in the rather elevated 'National Historic Fleet'.

Go to www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk and all will be revealed.

 

James

[c c]

They certainly are but in the rather elevated 'National Historic Fleet'.

Go to www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk and all will be revealed.

 

James

Yes, sorry, I was having a knock at the 70%

[koukouvagia]

Yes, sorry, I was having a knock at the 70%

I may be a bit dim this morning, are you saying you think 70% complete is a bit optimistic for the Cutty Sark, presumably after the fire?

It is claimed that more than 90% of the present restoration of the Cutty Sark is original. That's a good deal more than my historic boats.

[onionbargee]

The licence on historic narrowboats should be by length of accomodation space. Unconverted and original the cheapest, full length cabin, 10 % off.