Part 1 (2/2)
The chines of the sharpie were of oak planks that were of about the same thickness as the side planks and 4 to 7 inches deep when finished. The chine logs were sawn to the profile of the bottom and sprung to the sweep of the sides in plan view. The side frames were mere cleats, 1-1/2 by 3 inches. In the 1880's these cleats were shaped so that the inboard face was 2 inches wide and the outboard face 3 inches wide, but later this shaping was generally omitted.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 3.--Plan of typical New Haven sharpie showing design and construction characteristics.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 4.--Plan of a large Chesapeake Bay sharpie taken from remains of boat.]
At the fore end of the sharpie's centerboard case there was an edge-bolted bulkhead of solid white pine, 1-1/4 or 1-1/2 inches thick, with scuppers cut in the bottom edge. A step about halfway up in this bulkhead gave easy access to the foredeck. In the 1880's that part of the bulkhead above the step was made of vertical staving that curved athwarts.h.i.+ps, but this feature was later eliminated. In the upper portion of the bulkhead there was often a small rectangular opening for ventilation.
The decking of the sharpie was made of white pine planks 1-1/4 inches thick and 7 to 10 inches wide. The stem was a triangular-sectioned piece of oak measuring 6 by 9 inches before it was finished. The side plank ran past the forward edge of the stem and was mitered to form a sharp cut.w.a.ter. The miter was covered by a bra.s.s bar stemband to which was brazed two side plates 3/32 or 1/4 inch thick. This stemband, which was tacked to the side plank, usually measured 1/2 or 5/8 inch by 3/4 inch and it turned under the stem, running under the bottom for a foot or two. The band also pa.s.sed over a stemhead and ran to the deck, having been shaped over the head of the stem by heating and molding over a pattern.
The sharpie's stern was composed of two horizontal oak frames, one at chine and one at sheer; each was about 1-1/2 inches thick. The outer faces of these frames were beveled. The planking around the stern on these frames was vertical staving that had been tapered, hollowed, and shaped to fit the flare of the stern. This vertical staving was usually 1-3/4 inches thick before it was finished. The raw edges of the deck plank were covered by a false wale 1/2 to 3/4 inch thick and 3 or 4 inches deep, and by an oak guard strip that was half-oval in section and tapered toward the ends. Vertical staving was used to carry the wale around the stern. The guard around the stern was usually of stemmed oak.
The c.o.c.kpit ran from the bulkhead at the centerboard case to within 4 or 5 feet of the stern, where there was a light joiner bulkhead. A low coaming was fitted around the c.o.c.kpit and a finger rail ran along the sides of the deck. The boat had a small square hatch in the foredeck and two mast holes, one at the stem and one at the forward bulkhead. A tie rod, 3/8 inch in diameter, pa.s.sed through the hull athwarts.h.i.+ps, just forward of the forward bulkhead; the ends of the tie rod were ”up-set”
or headed over clench rings on the outside of the wale. The hull was usually painted white or gray, and the interior color usually buff or gray.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 5.--Chesapeake Bay sharpie with daggerboard, about 1885. (Photo courtesy Wirth Munroe.)]
The two working masts of a 35-to 36-foot sharpie were made of spruce or white pine and had a diameter of 4-1/2 to 5 inches at deck and 1-1/2 inches at head. Their sail hoists were 28 to 30 feet, and the sail spread was about 65 yards. Instead of booms, sprits were used; these were set up at the heels with tackles to the masts. In most sharpies the sails were hoisted to a single-sheave block at the mast heads and were fitted with wood or metal mast hoops. Because of the use of the sprit and heel tackle, the conventional method of reefing was not possible.
The reef bands of the sails were parallel to the masts, and reefing was accomplished by lowering a sail and tying the reef points while rehoisting. The mast revolved in tacking in order to prevent binding of the sprit under the tension of the heel tackle. The tenon at the foot of the mast was round, and to the shoulder of the tenon a bra.s.s ring was nailed or screwed. Another bra.s.s ring was fastened around the mast step.
These rings acted as bearings on which the mast could revolve.
Because there was no standing rigging and the masts revolved, the sheets could be let go when the boat was running downwind, so that the sails would swing forward. In this way the power of the rig could be reduced without the bother of reefing or furling. Sometimes, when the wind was light, tonging was performed while the boat drifted slowly downwind with sails fluttering. The tonger, standing on the side deck or on the stern, could tong or ”nip” oysters from a thin bed without having to pole or row the sharpie.
The unstayed masts of the sharpie were flexible and in heavy weather spilled some wind, relieving the heeling moment of the sails to some degree. In summer the 35-to 36-foot boats carried both masts, but in winter, or in squally weather, it was usual to leave the mainmast ash.o.r.e and step the foremast in the hole just forward of the bulkhead at the centerboard case, thereby balancing the rig in relation to the centerboard. New Haven sharpies usually had excellent balance, and tongers could sail them into a slip, drop the board so that it touched bottom, and, using the large rudders, bring the boats into the wind by spinning them almost within their length. This could be done because there was no skeg. When sharpies had skegs, as they did in some localities, they were not so sensitive as the New Haven boats. If a sharpie had a skeg, it was possible to use one sail without s.h.i.+fting the mast, but at a great sacrifice in general maneuverability.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 6.--North Carolina sharpie with one reef in moderate gale, about 1885. (Photo courtesy Wirth Munroe.)]
Kunhardt[5] writing in the mid-1880's, described the New Haven sharpie as being 33 to 35 feet long, about 5 feet 9 inches to 6 feet wide on the bottom, and with a depth of about 36 inches at stem, 24 inches amids.h.i.+ps, and 12 inches at stern. The flare increased rapidly from the bow toward amids.h.i.+ps, where it became 3-1/2 inches for every 12 inches of depth. The increase of flare was more gradual toward the stern, where the flare was equal to about 4 inches to the foot. According to Kunhardt, a 35-foot sharpie hull weighed 2,000 to 2,500 pounds and carried about 5 short tons in cargo.
[5] C. P. Kunhardt, _Small Yachts: Their Design and Construction, Exemplified by the Ruling Types of Modern Practice_, New York, 1886 (rev. ed., 1891, pp. 287-298).
The sharpie usually had its round stern carried out quite thin. If the stern was square, the transom was set at a rake of not less than 45.
Although it cost about $15 more than the transom stern, the round stern was favored because tonging from it was easier; also, when the boat was tacked, the round stern did not foul the main sheet and was also less likely to s.h.i.+p a sea than was the square stern. Kunhardt remarks that sharpies lay quiet when anch.o.r.ed by the stern, making the ground tackle easier to handle.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 7.--Plan of a Chesapeake Bay terrapin smack based on sketches and dimensions given by C. P. Kunhardt in _Small Yachts: Their Design and Construction, Exemplified by the Ruling Types of Modern Practice_, New York, 1886.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 8.--Plan of North Carolina sharpie schooner taken from remains of boat.]
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIGURE 9.--Plan of North Carolina sharpie of the 1880's.]
The cost of the New Haven sharpie was very low. Hall stated that in 1880-1882 oyster sharpies could be built for as little as $200, and that large sharpies, 40 feet long, cost less than $400.[6] In 1886 a sharpie with a capacity for 150 to 175 bushels of oysters cost about $250, including spars and sails.[7] In 1880 it was not uncommon to see nearly 200 sharpies longside the wharves at Fairhaven, Connecticut, at nightfall.
[6] Hall, _op. cit._ (footnote 3), pp. 30, 32.
[7] Kunhardt, _op. cit._ (footnote 5), pp. 225, 295.
<script>