They don't make 'em like that any more . . .

[Daniel]

Captain Kidd's Adventure Galley, brand spanking new out of Deptford, was so leaky that he had to abandon her in Madagascar in 1698.

In 1612, Thomas Best's Red Dragon, only a couple of weeks out of port and in calm weather, broke her main yard. Examination showed that the yard was made out of hemlock and was rotten, "which sheweth the badnes of the tree, the want of care in Mr. Burrell [the "great shipbuilder of the day"] and of honestie or skill in Chanlar."

During the 1620-21 expedition to Algiers, the English vice-admiral wrote that of his six royal ships, three were completely unfit for sea, "being very laboursome and unable to carry out their lower tier of ordnance in any gale of winds." His flagship, the Lion, had bolts i pieces, the false stem decayed, an unstable orlop deck without enough knees to support it, and labored all its oakum out of her seams in the least foul weather.

The Vasa, on her 1628 maiden voyage, proved so unstable that one gust of wind toppled her over and sank her.

My favorite of all: when the buccaneer captain Cornelius Essex set out from Jamaica in 1680, before he even got to Portobello, the bow of his barque had begun to fall apart so completely that he had to tie the whole front of the vessel together with ropes.

Why were 17th century ships, even the richest and most expensive ones made for the kings of the era, so prone to be completely unseaworthy? With Kidd or Essex, you could reasonably say that it was environmental factors: teredos and lack of opportunity to careen. But how on earth do royal shipbuilders keep their jobs (or even their heads) after giving their kings such shoddy work?

[Mission]

How many boats have you read about from that time period that were very well-built? Could it be that that was the best they could do given the requirements of the ships and the materials available? Or perhaps with long-distance traveling ships being so much in demand they were trying to get the ships done very quickly and so quality suffered.

I'm just hypothesizing. I got a job working at a small machine shop just after graduating high school. The owner explained to me that there were three qualities of a job: good, fast and cheap. The customer could have any two of the three qualities he wanted, but never all three. It was up to them to decide which two were most desired.

[Capt Thighbiter]

Could it be the ultimte examples of doing work for the Government, ie the lowest bidder gets the job. Then its up to the winning shipyard to now turn a proffit with the meager bid that they won. Which means all kinds of short cuts and damn pursers tricks. Robber bolts, twice laid rigging, masts made to look like spruce, and a host of other obfustications may have been the norm, unless the ship owner oversaw the entire build themselves.

Even then the shipyard likely could pull some funny business.

[William Brand]

I think people were fired after the Vasa. People most certainly were fired.

A ship is a machine of so many variables. Having poured over my share of draughts over the years I have learned just how vulnerable a ship is to leaks. There are simply too many pieces all pinned together. The keel alone is made up of so many separate parts, that the failure of any one piece can cause cascading problems throughout the whole ship. The swelling and contracting of wood on a ship creates exponential issues once weight and wear become factors at sea. Take for instance the Batavia that was said to carry 180 feet of Scandinavian pine for her mainmast. That's over 15 tons of wood resting on the keel. Pick the wrong piece of wood for the mast step and 'so long, ship'. When you begin to consider the sheer numbers involved and the many different tangible forces working for, with and against a ship, travel by sea becomes quite a gamble. Insurance brokers in Europe certainly thought so. It's ever so important to know the shipwright before and a good carpenter ever after.

This is why it's important for re-enactors to know that they can't feasibly play a crew of 1710, sailing a ship of 1650. You don't brave the sea in an antique. You trade up and you trade often.

[Daniel]

How many boats have you read about from that time period that were very well-built?

Only one that comes to mind is the Charles, which Avery took and renamed Fancy. Contemporaries mentioned that she was already a good sailor, and then became even faster when Avery razed her afterdecks. I guess Tew's Amity must have been pretty good too; she was just a sloop, but made it to the Indian Ocean and back, then made it to the Indian Ocean again and still was fast enough to catch the Fateh Muhammad.

Could it be that that was the best they could do given the requirements of the ships and the materials available? Or perhaps with long-distance traveling ships being so much in demand they were trying to get the ships done very quickly and so quality suffered.

I'm just hypothesizing. I got a job working at a small machine shop just after graduating high school. The owner explained to me that there were three qualities of a job: good, fast and cheap. The customer could have any two of the three qualities he wanted, but never all three. It was up to them to decide which two were most desired.

My favorite way of summarizing that rule is "Fast, cheap, or good: pick no more than two." In this case, however, the ships were tremendously expensive and very poor quality, although the construction may have been fast.

[hitman]

O.O.P. but possibly the highest or pherhaps the lowest example of this would be the U.S.S. America (74). Launched in 1782 scrapped due to rot it 1786. This is blamed as I recall on the use of green timber and other problems due to the nature of war time construction.

[Coastie04]

The nature of wartime construction on ships is not necessarily a thing of the past. How many liberty ships went down during WWII due to poor and/or hasty construction? Add in to the fact that they just didn't have the same knowledge base for shipbuilding that we do today. Ironically, I was just quoting a book earlier today on the pub and ran across a couple quotes that are perfect for this discussion as well, regarding the first Pride of Baltimore. She was an extremely accurate reproduction of a baltimore clipper, but not necessarily a good seagoing vessel. From "Tall Ships Down" by Daniel S. Parrott:

Even within the context of the renaissance of traditional sail, the Pride was exceptionally intricate, arcane, and committed to the past.

As fondly as the Pride is remembered by many, the vessel's less flattering characteristics were well-known to those who sailed her. In particular, elements of the hull and rig flexed and shifted dramatically in a seaway, earning her the nickname the 'Flexible Flyer.' When sailing to windward it was not uncommon to see a steady stream of seawater passing one's bunk on its way to the bilge and back into the ocean by way of the hourly pumpout...In terms of the rig, by the time the Pride sailed for Europe in 1985 she was on her third jibboom, one of which broke in conjunction with the fore topmast failing; on another occasion a bowsprit was replaced. These experiences may have been common enough aboard the privateers of old, but, if so, they represent a level of authenticity with which Pride of Baltimore Inc. was not entirely comfortable.

Additionally, the author describes baltimore clipper designs in general:

They had not been built as long-term investments, thus 'these hastily built vessels did not enjoy long lives.'

I realize that these boats are way OOP, but I believe that these passages do explain some of the problems that just came with the territory back then. Baltimore clippers were built essentially as wartime boats for smuggling small cargo loads in to blockaded ports. Not all boats were built well, not all were maintained well. Furthermore, sometimes people just complain about their particular boat's deficiencies more than the next person. Just go to any sailboat forum and look for the discussion (they all have them) about monohulls vs. catamarans. Then dig a little (not much digging is usually necessary) and you will find that some boats are just designed better and/or built with better quality materials. You tend to hear a lot of griping and warnings about the poorly built boats.

One last bit to add about one of the original examples in particular... The USCGC Eagle bent one of her main yards in 2001, due to hauling on one brace while not easing the other. This was a steel yard. It would not be completely inconceivable to me that there was a bad order given, or miscommunication that could lead to the breaking of a wooden yard. Afterwards, a little cover up could be concocted for the benefit of all onboard in the eyes of their superiors/investors saying that it was rotten and therefore not their fault.

Arrrgh!

[hitman]

As I recall the Liberty ships original design had a major flaw that wasn't corrected for over a year and caused them to split in half under the right stress. Also don't forget the U.S.S. Scorpion and the U.S.S. Thresher with victims of preventable flaws.

[Coastie04]

Another good reference is the book "Six Frigates" by Ian W. Toll. Although I don't have a copy on hand to pull a quote or two from, I do recall that since these six sister ships (as much as wooden boats can be, especially back then and built in different cities) were actually built in different yards by different shipwrights, that they had extremely different sailing qualities. There was also a lot of commentary about the naval yards, their available supplies, and their willingness to part with the best of their stock. Again, it's OOP, but a good read for any nautical history lover.

Arrrgh!