Dbc. a, 1898.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



4 88 



Keel Sloops and Centerboard Cutters. 



A SHORT time since we commented on the ilarine Journal's mention 

 of Valkyrie as a "keel sloop;" and that paper, quoting our words, re- 

 plies as follow s: 



"We have observed that nur esteemed contemporary has invariahly 

 classed Valkyiie as a cutter, but for wha', reason we have always 

 failed to perceive. The lenn "keel sloop'' is distinctly perspicuous 

 and certainly describes the yacht to a nicety. A sloop is any vessel 

 rigged with onejiiast and carrying head sails. It is the rig which 

 always determines the i^lass of the vessel, and not the hull. A sloop 

 does not necessarily carry a centerboard. The Colonia is a keel sloop 

 and so is Valkyi-ie, while the Vigilant is a centerboard sloop. The 

 term "sloop,'' as specifying; this rig, is seldom heard in England, how- 

 ever, where "cutter" is the common expression. But the typical 

 English cutter yacht, narrow beam, straight stem, deep hull and mov- 

 able bowsprit, is not nearly so common now as it used to be. The 

 type has approximated closely to our typical sloop-yacht in hull as 

 well as rig. But the term cutter is also applied to a ship's boat pro- 

 pelled by oars, and to a swift steam vessel, as a revenue cutter. There- 

 fore the'appellation "keel sloop" is especially perspicuous and exactly 

 describe.^ the Valkyrie as no other words could. So far even as her 

 hull is concerned, in beam or style, the Valkyrie does not approach 

 the ideal cutter style. 



"It is, of course, unnecessary to state these things for the informa- 

 tion of Forest and Stream, but we mention the matter merely to 

 show that we used the term advisedly, and for the benefit of any of 

 our readers less well informed who might be inclined to dispute the 

 point. ■" 



The whole question of cutter and sloop is so old that many yachtsmen 

 have lost all interest in the discussion; but on the other hand there 

 are many who have come into yachting only since the disappearance 

 of the American sloop with the building of the Burgess boats, and to 

 whom thequpstionisnewandinterestine. As strict accuracy of nomen- 

 clature is always desirable in technical matters, it is perhaps worth 

 while to look closely into the discussion which has come up between 

 the Marine Journal and the Forest a>d Stream, especially as the 

 Joumii\ from its high technical standing, may rightfully assume to 

 speak with snme authority. 



Before giving our reasons for classing Valkyrie, as well as many 

 American yachts, as cutters, let us look at some of the statements 

 made by the Ma-i ine Journal: In the first place, that paper is correct 

 in saying that it is the rig and not the hull which determines the class 

 of vessel, though, as will appear, this statement requires a great 

 deal of qualification and explanation in the present case; and also it 

 points out very properly that a sloop does not necessarily carry a 

 centerboard. 



WheB It comes to a definition of the term "sloop," and its combina- 

 tion with the term "keel,''' the Marine Journal is very much at sea, 

 or more properly, ashore, as its attempted definition is that of a 

 landsman, as found in any standard dictionary. So far from being 

 "any vessel rigged with one maat and carrying headsails," the sloop 

 is but one, and the least numerous and important one at that, of the 

 two great fleets of single-stick vessels to which the general character- 

 istics of "one ma»t and carrying headsails" can properly apply. 



While there are certain modifications of the siugle-masted rig 

 which are neither sloops nor cutters, the great majority of the rig 

 may be divided into these two classes, the points of difiference between 

 them being numerous and radical. ■W ithout going back so far as to 

 determitie which is the older, the cutter or the sloop, the inquirer 

 who takes u\> the history of the subject about the middle of the last 

 century, %vill at once remark a most radical difference. The cut- 

 ter rig of that date is essentially a sea-going rig, showing plainly its 

 derivation from the smaller naval vessels of the day; in fact, it was 

 mainly used In the British navy. In proportions and mechanical 

 details the rig was an adaptation of the schooner or brig to a single- 

 masted vesael, with the same square topsails and cumbersome and 

 complicated gear. The sloop of the same time, on the contrary, as 

 found in the same waters, of the Chaanel and the North Sea, was a 

 shoal water craft, probably of Dutch origin, and the rig, evolved from 

 the necessities of inland navigation, was of the most simple and 

 primitive form, derived from the sailboat instead of the naval vessel, 

 a long mast and bowsprit rigidly set up, and with a large mainsail, 

 one jib and perhaias a fore and aft topsail. In Holland, in England 

 and in America the small simply-rigged sloop was extensively used 

 for inland navigation, buth for commerce and pleasure, so far as the 

 latter end was followed at the time; while the cutter was used for all 

 sea work, whether in smuggling, in chasing smugglers, or in the few 

 yachts of the day. 



This prime difference once noted, we may pass over almost a cen- 

 tury, and take up the question some twenty-five years back, at the 

 time when the Single stick rig first began to compete with the schooner 

 in American yachting. During this long period the cutter had disap- 

 peared as a smuggler or chaser of smugglers, and had come into gen- 

 eral use in Great Britain as a pleasure yacht, first with its high sides 

 pierced with gun ports, and its square topsails, then without its arma- 

 ment and with fore and aft topsails, but still preserving Its main char- 

 acteristics. 



On this side of the watm- the development of a century had been ex- 

 clusively coufiQi d to the Dutch sloop instead of the British cutter, and 

 the type had attained its perfection in the noble sloops of the Hudson 

 Kiver, with their huge lower masts, heavy fixed bowsprits and single 

 jibs. Wherever vessels were used in American inland waters, the sloop 

 alone was found, the SQjall river schooners coining in at a later date; 

 it was the passenger boat, the carrier of bricks, lumber, hay and grain, 

 and the plea-sure yacht or the small sailboat, differing in size and fin- 

 ish, but almost uniform in model and rig. 



It was about 1870 that the sloop yacht began to increase in size and 

 numbeiaand compete seriously with the;schooner, which up to this 

 time had monopoJi-i-d ail ot the racing at home and abroad in the 

 sizes over .Wft., and we will take the sloop rig of that day and compare 

 it with the cutter t ig as then found in British waters. 



The sloop sail plan in general outline was very lofty, but short on 

 the base, a high oarrow rig, and this sail plan was made up of a large 

 mainsail with great hoist and short galT, a single jib of great size, and 

 a very small working topsail. The mast, which was stepped far for- 

 ward, was very long in proportion to the waterline, the masthead or 

 doublings was short, and the topmast was a short, fight spar, out of 

 all proportion to the lower mast. The bowsprit was a large and 

 heavy timber, generaUy square, octagonal or even triangular in sec- 

 tion and solidly built in as a part of the hull and bitlwarks. 



This bowsprit was supported by a heavy main bobstay and often a 

 variety of smaller bobstays, according to the individual tastes of the 

 bi.ildeV or shipsmith. The mast was set up with shrouds and its sole 

 support in a fore and aft direction was a heavy jibstay, from the mast- 

 head through a beehole in the bowsprit and tnen down to the stem, 

 just inside of the main bobstay The topmast was permanently 

 shipped iu two iron caps, and could not be housed when in use, and 

 was only shipped and unshipped with ditflculiy when repairs made 

 it necessary. The whole rig was as fixed, rigid and inflexible as that 

 of a toy yacht; the spars, once shipped when the yacht was built, re- 

 maiuid in place until ihey rotted or blew away. 



The cutter rig differed from the sloop iu every point mentioned, the 

 outline of the sad plan was long and low rather tlian narrowand high, 

 the mainsail had a long boom, a very long gall, and a short hoist, this 

 sail being but a moderate proportion of the total area; in place of the 

 one large jib, carried always, and reduced iu area only by reefing or 

 taking out the "bonnet,''' there were two headsails, the jib proper, set 

 to the bowsprit end as in the sloop, and the fore staysail, set to the 

 Btemhead. The topsail was much larger in proportion than in the 

 Sloop, and a greater variety of sizes was carried. 



The mast of the cutter, a short slick, but with long masthead, was 

 stepped near thn middle third of the waterline, further aft than in the 

 sloop, and was supported in a totally different manner; it was inde- 

 pendent of the bowsprit, the forestay running from the masthead to 

 the stem of the > acht at the deck, where it was set up with a tackle, 

 and in addition, ou each side o£ the masthead was a pendant and run- 

 ner, set up with a ttickle also, to take the strain of the jib, the weather 

 tackle being always set up, and the lee one slacked oil, when off the 

 wind to allow the boom to swing oft'. 



The topmast of the cutter was of great length, almost or quite that 

 of the lower mast, and this taunt spar was so fitted that it could be 

 readily lowered to the cap or even stowed on deck in a strong breeze. 

 Tne bowsprit was a clean round spar, also fitted to run in and out eas- 

 ily, and to this end the solid bobstay of the sloop, with its preventers 

 and "baby" bobstays. was replaced by a short bobstay of copper or of 

 wire rope, and a strong tackle, by which it was set up. The two bow- 

 sprit shrouds were also rigged with tackles, so that they could be 

 shortened and set up again when the bowsprit was "housed," or drawn 

 in on deck in bad weather. The jibstay of the sloop was lacking in 

 the cutter, there being uo stay from the masthead to the bowsprit 

 end. 



The sloop was limited to just three working sails— a large mainsail, 

 a large jib and a working or gafftopsail. The cutter, on the contrary, 

 carried a mainsail, five or six jibs, two forestaysails, two topsails and 

 a gafftrjTsail— a second and smaller mainsail for very heavy weather 

 or for saving the racing mainsail iu makiug passages. Whatever the 

 conditions of sea and wind, the spars of the sloop were fixed and tm- 

 m ivable, and she was limite<l, outside of the spinaker, jibtopsails and 

 clubtopsail, to three working sails, with the choice of stowing the top- 

 sail entirely and of reefing the mainsail and jib. The cutter, on the 

 other hand, could exercise an almost tinrestiicted choice as to the 

 spars and sails for any pariicular weather, ranging from the whole 

 mainBail and the largest jib and forestaysaU of very light material, 

 with a yai-d or sprit topsafi instead of the jibheaded working topsail, 

 down to the boused topmast with whole lower sails, or the reefed 

 mainsail with smaller jib to suit it; or, further down, until her topmast 



was on deck, her bowsprit housed well Inboard, her mainsail stowed 

 on the boom and a small heavy storm trysail set, with its correspond- 

 ing st^rm jib. 



The sloop was a great sailboat or toy yacht, fitted for light weather 

 and unable to adapt her spar and sail plan to more severe conditions. 

 The cutter was essentially a miniature ship, with housing spars set up 

 by runners and tackles, and with a large outfit of sails for all weather-, 

 and capable in an hour's time of making a radical change in her entire 

 sail I5lan. 



This vast difference In the two rigs is found in the primitive craft of 

 the last century, in the yachts of less than a generation ago, and later, 

 some dozen years back, when had just begun the process of adapta- 

 tion and improvement which has resulted in the extinction of the 

 American sloop rig. 



"With these essential points of difference were some minor ones that 

 are worth noting, though they were more matters of mechanical de- 

 tail than of principle. 'While the mainsail of the sloop was made of 

 cotton, usually of very light canvas, and was laced along the foot to 

 the boom, that of the cutter was of hemp, linen, of heavier texture; 

 and the foot was made full and rounding, not laced, to the boom, but 

 falling below it, the clew made fast by an outhaul, allowing it to be 

 set up or slacked off, according to the dampness of the w-eather, the 

 tack being hauled down to the deck by another tackle, or triced up 

 when it was desired to reduce sail The boom of the sloop was 

 usually supported by a single "toppinglift," from the masthead to the 

 boom end, on one side of the sail; while the cutter had two similar 

 lifts, on« on each side of the sail, but running from the slings of the 

 mainsheet instead of the boom end, and known as "quarter lifts." 

 Then, too. the mainsheet of the sloop was rove with but one hauling 

 end, amidships; while that of the cutter was led with one end to each 

 quarter and along each side of the deck; one thus being to windward 

 all the time. 



The method of setting the jib was also very different, the one big 

 jib of the sloop was permanently lashed to hanks which ran on the 

 jibstay, the sail being stowed on the bowsprit and kept out there 

 through the season; on the cutter each of the many jibs was set on its 

 own luffrope, there being no jibstay; the tack was loose and was 

 hooked to a ring which traveled on the bowsprit, and one jib could be 

 quickly lowered, taken in, and stowed below in its bag, a larger or 

 smaller one being set in its place. The club or jnckyard topsails, too, 

 were different, tho.se of the sloop being set on spars parallel with the 

 gaff and topmast, while the topsail yard and jackyard of the cutter 

 crossed the topmast and gaff respectively. 



The minor mechanical details of the cutter were more numerous and 

 perfect than the sloop, all tending to carry out the great principle of 

 adaptability to all possible conditions. 



Those yachtsmen who watched and studied, as so many did, the 

 Scotch cutter Madge when she came tri New York in 1881, and who 

 from constant use were familiar with the sloop of that day, such as 

 Shadow, Mistral or Schemer, will recognize the distinctive features 

 which we have pointed out as belonging to the two rigs. If the fact 

 has not struck them before they may note in this connection that 

 to-day the sloop rig has entirely disappeared save in a few old yachts 

 of the smaller classes, so much so that whpn once in a while on the New 

 York Y". C. cruise a veritable sloop with single jib, clumsy bowsprit 

 and short topmast, falls in with the fleet for a day or two, coming 

 from some out-of-the-way nook and disappearing no one knows 

 where, even old yachtsmen look at her with wonder. The typical 

 sloop yachts, those which made the rig famous, Arrow, Gracie, 

 Fanny and Hildeeard, have been so thoroughly altered that they are 

 as near to the modern cutter rig as it is possible to make them, and 

 the term "sloop" now fails to describe them correctly. 



While many features of the cutter rig were adapted to American 

 yachts between 1880 and 1886, the turning point in the great change 

 of rig is marked by the building of Puritan in the latter year. She and 

 the many Burgess singlestickers which followed in the next six years 

 were essentially cutters in rig, both sp&r and sail plans being based on 

 the principles which we have already shown were characteristic of 

 that rig. At the same time there is no question that the American 

 modification of the conventional cutter rig has been from the first an 

 improvement on the original. The general proportiions of the rig and 

 the subdivision of the sails has been retained, though in applying the 

 rig to different models and different climatic conditions many minor 

 proportions and mechanical detaUs have been altered, and for the 

 better. 



While the modern proportions of mast and topmast differ from the 

 fashionable fad of 1880. the characteristic long housing topmast of the 

 cutter is found on all American yachts in place of the stubby broom- 

 stick that served as a topmast for the old sloop. Ou many of the first 

 American cutters the bowsprit was fitted to house, in the conventional 

 British fashion, but with different models on both sides, the housing 

 bowsprit is now almost a thing of the past in America and England, 

 In setting the jib American practice is not tmiform, the sail being 

 sometimes set flying and sometimes on a slay; but in the distinctive 

 characteristic of the cutter rig, the use .of two headsails in place of 

 one, the British custom is followed exclusively. The use of runners 

 and tackles is also universal, while the fittings of spars and blocks, 

 the hounds, masthead, gamm»m strap and a hundred details are taken 

 from the cutter and not from the sloop. 



It must be said that in almost all cases an improvement has been 

 made on the original detail, but that detail was taken from the cutter 

 rig and not the sloop. 



There are three importint points of American practice which have 

 been retained on this side and adopted on the other— the use of cotton 

 in place of linen, the lacing of the mainsail to the boom and the cut- 

 ting of the clubtopsail with the yards parallel to topmast and gaff in- 

 stead of crossing them. 



The many changes of keel contour in both sloop and cutter, and the 

 adoption of the length and sail area rule, have led to alterations in 

 the position of mast, length of bowsprit and other detailsj but they 

 have not affected the mam proportions and principles which distin- 

 guish the cutter rig from the sloop, and the ng of the larger Amer- 

 ican single-stick yachts to-day is a modification of the cutter rig that 

 has no relationship whatever to the national sloop rig of 1880. 



We have thus far confined the discussion to the limits laid down by 

 the Marine Journal, the rig and not the hull as determining the class; 

 but most of our readers know that there is really much more involved 

 in a thorough consideration of the question. While it is the rig, 

 strictly speaking, which gives the name, it has happened in practice, 

 as a mere matter of convt-nience. and in default of suitable terms, 

 that the names which properly belong to the rigs alone have been 

 transferred to the hulls which carried them. This practice has been 

 followed in America and England for a dozen years, and though tech- 

 nically incorrect, it has the sanction of usage and convenience. 



Under this enlarged definition the term "sloop" is understood to 

 mean a vessel rigged as we have described, and also possessing cer- 

 tain marked characteristics of hull. To compare the hulls as we have 

 already compared the rigs, it will be necessary to select some certain 

 period, and we will take the sloop and cutter during the period of 

 their greatest development and improvement apart from each other, 

 the one in America and the other in England, and each entirely free 

 from any influence of the other. This time wUl be from 1800 to 1880, 

 after the latter date the two types coming into direct competition in 

 American waters. 



The yacht which carried the sloop rigup to 1880 possessed a strongly 

 marked individuality, there was nothing of compromise about her, the 

 sloop men had the courage of their convictions, and built their boats 

 and areued for them t>oldly in many a hot discussion. The typical 

 sloop up to that time was a vessel of great proportionate beam to 

 length, yery fimited draft, small displacpment, with light and bulky 

 baUast, stone, slag, and sometimes iron, distributed over the inside of 

 the hull, a large cockpit and trunk cabin, and a large centerboard and 

 no outside keel. These were the essential features of the design, and 

 to them may be added the secondary features of heavy and bulky 

 wooden build, a low freeboard amidships, a very crooked shter with 

 high tjow and e.speciaUy a high stern, a nondescript "clipper stem," 

 and a short, heavy coimter, the steering being done by a wheel instead 

 of a tUler. 



The sloop model shows comparatively little change in shape and 

 proportions from the primitive forms down to the yachts of a very 

 recent period, but the model of the cutter has changed materially 

 from time to time, according to intended use, and, in the case of 

 yachts, to measurement rules and improvements in construction. 

 While always much deeper than the sloop, the cutter model was origi- 

 nally very wide, differing little, if any, from the sloop in beam. 



In the course of the pectdiar evoluiion which British yachts under- 

 went between 1840 and 1880 under the stimulus of racing and the old 

 tonnage rule, the proportions of the original models were greatly 

 changed, the depth t)eing increased and the beam gradually decreased. 

 Up to about 1870 the principal cutters were of moderate beam and 

 depth, showing a hollow or S section quite similar to the section 

 adopted here in recent years in the new keel boats. The proportion 

 of beam to length ran down very rapidly between 1870 and 1880, as the 

 use of a lead keel became universal, and at the latter date it was but 

 1 to ,5, or 16ft. beam for 80£t. l.w.l., and in the next five years it ran to 

 the extreme point, in Galatea, of nearly six beams, even going as high 

 as seven in the smaller classes. 



None of the older and wider cutters ever crossed the Atlantic, and 

 American yachtsmen troubled themselves very little about foreign 

 and presumably inferior models until they were forced to do so by the 

 attacks of the early "cutter cranks,'" about 1878, and the actual in- 

 vasion of the sloop's waters by a hostile fleet of British models, either 

 imported or built here from imported designs. 



These "tj"pical" cutters, imported about IbSiD, were all small, and 

 even more extreme In narrow beam and great (lepth than the larger 

 cutters of the day, and their rig, with its preposterously short lower 

 maat and equally long topmast represented the extreme carrying out 



of a fashionable fad which was popular in England only for a short 

 time. Considering the interest which these peculiar craft excited 

 among American yachtsmen, and the hot arguments over their mf>rit8 

 as compared with the sloop, it most naturally followed that from 

 that time to the. present day the word "cutter''' has been understood 

 to mean exactly such a yacht as Madge or Clara, ignoring all past or 

 future verieties of the rig and model. 



The characteristic features of these cutters were narrow beam, great 

 depth and draft, and corresponding heavy displacement, a fl-it side, a 

 very straight sheer with high freeboard amidship, a plumb stem, a 

 long counter tapering to a fine edge, a flush deck and no cockpit or 

 cabin trunk, while the bottom of the yacht was carried down in a fair 

 curve into a deep keel of lead, there being no centerboard. Many of 

 these points, though characteristic, were merely secondary, such as 

 the use of a tiller for steering, the absence of a cockpit, the sheer and 

 contour of stem and stern ; the essential principles of the cutter, dis- 

 tinguishing it from the sloop, being greater displacement, different 

 proportions of beam and depth, the shaping of the hull into a keel, 

 dispensing with the centerboard. and the use of lead ballast in place of 

 iron, stone or slag, such ballast being placed outside the vessel. It is 

 interesting to note also that the cutter was of much more elaborate 

 and stronger construction than the sloop, and was built from a design 

 on paper made by a professional yacht dpsigner, while the sloop, as a 

 rule, was produced by the builder alone from a half model cut out of 

 wood. 



Literally speaking, had the rig of Madge been transferred to 

 Schemer, and vice verm, the first would have become a sloop and the 

 latter a cutter; a sort of renuctio ad ab.'iurjfam which shows how 

 faulty and inadequate Is the dictionary definition according to 

 ris. While tho extension of the two terms to cover the model and 

 hull as well as the rig has led to much confusion, it was perhaps the 

 easies., and best method at the time of distinguishing the two rival 

 types. 



In our opinion then, the distinction between the cutter and sloop, 

 according to the popular us« of these terms, involves certain import- 

 ant principles of rig and hull, accompanied by a still larger number of 

 minor characteristics, and where a question arises of the classing of a 

 particular vessel, it must be decided not on one or two alone, but on a 

 maj'->rity of these principles and details. The addition of a lead keel 

 and a double head rig to an old centerboard sloop does not necessarily 

 make her a cutter, nor does the possession of a centerboard, a cock- 

 pit, a wheel or a cabin trunk make a vessel a sloop. 



Coming now to the h^art of the whole discussion, let us look at the 

 earlier Cup defenders, the great Burgess-Paine trio. Taking the sail 

 plan first, that of Puritan, Mayflower and Volunteer has nothing In 

 common with the sloop rig of the time, as shown on Gracie, Arrow 

 and Fanny. Not only are the proportions different, but the number 

 and disposition of the sails is directly the opposite of the sloop. It is 

 true that the mainsail is lashed to the boom, the topsails are cut in 

 Amprican fashion, the topmast is shorter than in the small imported 

 cutters, while there are many improvements in minor mechanical de- 

 tails, but in spite of this it needed but a glance at Puritan in company 

 with such typical vessels as the sloop Gracie and the cutter Genesta 

 to show^ that she was utterly unlike the former and very like the latter. 



Now, looking at the hull, the first point which strikes the eye is the 

 beam of the yacht, which is tlioroughly American in extent, even 

 wider by several feet than the old cutters. The next feature, how- 

 ever, the form of the topsides, including the sheer, stem and counter, 

 is merely that of the cutter, every characteristic of the sloop's top- 

 sides being lacking. Taking next the yacht out of water the broads 

 side view shows a cutter of moderate draft, with a little drag to the 

 keel and a moderate rake to the sternpost, but nothing at all sugges- 

 tive of the straight keel, square forefoot and plumb sternpost of the 

 sloop, while the greatly increa.sed depth and the positive keel outside 

 the hull, and that of lead, too. all point to the cutter rather than the 

 sloop as the original point of departure from which all alterations 

 have been made. 



Coming to the midship section, a marked departure from the com- 

 pre.ssed beam of the extreme cutter is found, the beam and bilge sug- 

 gesting the old sloop, but as we go downward into the reversed curve 

 of the floor continued into the deep keel all resemblance to the sloop 

 is lost, the section beiug really a revival of the old cutter section of 

 the days before the beam was sacrificed to the tonnage rule. On deck 

 and below we look in vain for the cockpit and great cabin trunk of the 

 sloop, but we find the same centerboard trunk and board, still an es- 

 sential feature of the design in Puritan 



In summing up this inventory of leading features, we find that two, 

 and two only, of the vital ones, are derived from the sloop, the beam 

 and the centerboard ; the others are taken from the cutter, improved 

 in some details, the form of the topsides is copied directly from the 

 cutter, the depth, amount of displacement and midship section are 

 each a Gomproiiii.se, but to an extent that was condemned by the 

 theory and practice of the sloop men, but which finds its counterpart 

 in one stage of the cutter's development ; while the lead keel was 

 taken bodily from the British. The construction of the early "com- 

 promise" was that of the cutter rather than the sloop, and would hnve 

 been still better had it leaned even more to the former and furlher 

 from the latter. 



Considering not the vessel alone, but the previous training of her 

 designer, his expressed opinions, and the loncj controversy over 

 points of design which preceded her building, we have always classed 

 Puritan as a centerboard cutter, and have denied tbe tardy claims of 

 relationship put forward by the s'oop men after she had proved a 

 success, and not the failure they confidently predicted. While in no 

 sense a servile copy of British models, and displa)ing in all parts of 

 her hull ami rig the skill and enterprise of her designer and those as- 

 sociated with him, she was essentially a cutter and not a sloop. 



'Whatever question might be raised over her. there was no possible 

 ground for dispute iu the later yachts. Volunteer, with still greater 

 depth, and then the large fleet of Burgess cutters in which the center- 

 board was entirely discarded. In deference to national prejudices, it 

 has been the custom of most American writers to class ail of these 

 later yachts, more particularly the successful ones, such as Pappoose 

 and Gossoon, as "keel sloops"; but, in addition to the fact that all 

 of the.se yachts possessed the distinguishing characteristics of the 

 cutter, in hull and rig ; it is also true that there has never existed in 

 this country a class of typical keel sloops. 



Although keel schooners were numerous in American waters, the 

 sloops were almost exclusively centerboard craft, and without the 

 least semblance of an outside keel, even of wood. Tne Yacht List of 

 1674, out of a total of over 500 yachts, shows but seven keel sloops of 

 any size over 30ft. 1 w.l and only two of these over 40ft. There are in 

 the same list a couple of dozen small keel boats, about 18 to 25ft. l.wl., 

 mostly located about Boston, but in none of our researches have we 

 been able to discover any well defined type of keel sloop in this country 

 prior to the beginning of the cutter agitation and the importation of 

 designs and yachts from England. The few keel boats other than the 

 large schooners existing here were as exceptional as the few center- 

 board sloops and catboats existing at the same time in England, and it 

 is impossible to group them into any distinct class The American 

 sloop was a centerboard sloop, the type which first displaced her was 

 the centerboard cutter, and the only disTinct type of keel single-sticker 

 which this country has ever known is the cutter, whether of moderate 

 beam like Bedouin, or great beam, like Uolonia. 



The nearest approach to a native keel sloop was found iu Eastern 

 waters nearly fifteen years ago; the vessel, in various sizes from 25 to 

 35ft. I.W.I., being built substantially on the moulds then used for cen- 

 terboard yachts, but with a deep outsidn keel of oak and a sloop rig. 

 While these were really keel sloops, though they violated the most 

 sacred canon of the sloop men in carrying an iron shoe behiw the oak 

 keel, they were few in number; and with the spread of cutter ideas 

 they soon disappeared, giving place to the imported "lichen boat" of 

 about the same proportion ot beam and draft, but with the conven- 

 tional cutter rig and a deep body, the midship section showing a fair 

 S curve which merged the hull proper into the wide and deep leaii 

 keel. 



There have been more important changes in yachting on both sides 

 of the Atlantic within the past ten years than in the previous half cen- 

 tury; many and complex causes have been at work— the extreme to 

 which the old Thame* rule ran itself, the defeat of the old sloops by 

 the imported cutters, followed by the defeat by the American cutters 

 built to meet them of the larger cutters which challenged for the Cup, 

 the abandonment of many old measurement rules in favor of the 

 length and saU area rule, improvements in construction and ballasting, 

 the use of steel and of composite build. 



One important result has been the total extinction of the American 

 centerboard sloop, even the existing vessels of that type having been 

 so radically altered that they are no longer recognizable. Another im- 

 portant result has been the widening of the once narrow British cutter 

 to its original proportions, with many changes of secondary details. 

 A third result has been the construction of a' new and better pleasure 

 fleet in America, stUl wide, and in some cases still retaining the center- 

 board; but based primarily on those principles of safe proportions, low 

 weight and seagoing rig, which from the first have, constituted the 

 greait superiority of the cutter over the sloop. 



If the Burgess boats are, as we contend, properly cutters, it is not 

 necessary to discuss the later Herreshoff craft, tli^y are identical in 

 jirinciple and differ mainij' in having even greater draft. 



If Gloriana is a sloop in rig or hull, what, then, were Fanita and 

 Vixen, the representatives of the 46ft. class, up to the time that Amer- 

 icans began to adopt the id^as embodied in the cutter? One may 

 search iu vain through the history of American yachtiuEr for anything 

 in the pa-it suggesting the model or rig of Gljriana, Wa.^p, Navahoe 

 and (;;olonia: all that he will find will be in direct opposition to the 

 model, the ri^ and the ballasting of these yachts. Tne most marked 

 suggestion of the sloop principles in some years is found in the ex- 

 treme beam, the high bilge and the live ballast of Vigilant, but the 



