HMCo #983s Rugosa II

"[1926-06-17] Thu 17: [Thermometer] 43 - 67 [degrees]. A very cold night. Fine & calm. Later SE [wind], moderate. Harold Vanderbilt here and took away Vagrant [#719s]. Got Alerion [#718s] out of boat house to water & paint. Launched Rugosa II [#983s]." (Source: Herreshoff, Nathanael G. Diary, 1926. Manuscript (excerpts). Diary access courtesy of Halsey C. Herreshoff.)

"No. 773 & Class [#773s, #774s, #775s, #776s, #777s, #778s, #779s, #780s, #781s, #782s, #783s, #804s and #955s, #983s].
Oct[ober] 29 1915.
Frame spaces 16".
Planking 1 3/8/
Timbers at head 2 1/8 x 2 1/8 increasing both ways 5/64" per foot for 6 1/2ft, then parallel.
Deck 1 3/8". Upper side of deck is height marked (S).
Outside of keel plank 1" below rabbate (R).
Top of lead straight line, 28 1/2" vertically above bottom flat of keel. Forward end of [frame] # 17.
Make bottom of lead 1 5/8" deeper than figures." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. [Handwritten [in ink and pencil] notes in Offset Booklet HH.4.184.] October 29, 1915. Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection, MIT Museum, Cambridge, MA.)

"The New Bedford schooner Harlequin [#934s] was launched Friday [April 23, 1926] from the Walker's Cove yard and taken up under the shears to have her masts stepped. In the shed, the Brooks 47 foot composite schooner [#954s Mary Rose] is in shape to be launched at any time, and the two New York 40's [#955s Marilee and #983s Rugosa II] are receiving their inside finish. About every space in the shop not occupied by something bigger, has a 12 1/2 foot water-line boat in some stage of completion, filling it up." (Source: Davis, Jeff. "Yachting Gossip." Providence Journal, April 25, 1926, p. ?.)

"The well-known yawl Rugosa II, which won the Bermuda race in 1928, as well as many other contests, was sold yesterday by Russell Grinnell of Providence, R. I., to William E. Larcombe of Perth Amboy, N. J. Commonly considered one of the New York Y. C. forty-footers, she was built to their lines, but with changes made by Nat Herreshoff. For years she was about the fastest yawl of her size afloat.
Her sale was made through Sparkman and Stephens, who announced six other transfers." (Source: Anon. "Yawl Rugosa II Is Sold. Craft is Purchased by Larcombe." New York Times, February 4, 1938, p. 14.)

"The 'Rugosa,' three-time entrant in the Bermuda Race and 1928 winner, added another chapter to her career by riding out hurricane 'Carol' [on August 31, 1954] without mishap. Roland H. Cramer, her owner, says he had 180ft of Nylon and 10ft of 1/2in chain secured to one of your 28-pound Hi-Tensile Danforth anchors ... we held securely . . . the entire strain during the height of the blow was taken by the Danforth anchor ..." (Source: Anon. [Title?] Yachting, 1954 [p. 121?].)

"Rugosa II, winner of the 1928 [Bermuda] race, was built by Herreshoff in 1926 to New York 40 specifications although she carried a yawl rig from the beginning. Henry R. Herrmann of Westport, Conn., who describes her as 'a beautiful boat' was Rugosa's owner until last year when she was sold to become a charter boat in the Virgin Islands." (Source: Wallace, William N. "Longevity Marks Bermuda Victors. 16 of 22 Yachts That Won Race are Still Active. New York Times, March 31, 1968, p. B1, B3.)

"Classic Nat Herreshoff NEW YORK 40-class RUGOSA, 1926. Superbly maintained. LOA 59', LWL 40', beam 14'3", draft 8'6". 75hp diesel. Ready for cruising. Currently chartering U.S. Virgins. Deck and interior layout original. RUGOSA, PO Box 10477, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Isl, 00801. 809-774-8917. $100,000." (Source: Anon. [Classified Ad.] Wooden Boat #42, September/October 1981, p. 153.)

"RUGOSA --- 68' OA, 58' OD. Classic L Francis [sic, i.e. N. G.] Herreshoff NY 40 built in 1926 and in good shape. She's been actively sailing right up to the present, she's just had her bottom and topsides done and is for sale because her owners of the past 15 years have business commitments that will not allow them the time to use her. Located Ft Lauderdale. Asking $95,000." (Source: Moss Yachts, Ft. Lauderdale. [For Sale Ad.] Yachting, January 1984, p. 245.)

"The year 1916 saw the Herreshoff Mfg. Co. launch a dozen New York 40s for members of the New York Yacht Club. The boats were alike in shape and rig, but owners could select from several interior arrangements. Soon, because of the intensity of their racing, they became known as the 'Fighting Forties.'
Designed as roomy flush-deckers --- some yachting writers criticized them as 'sailing houseboats' --- the New York 40s lacked the grace of their predecessors, the New York 50-footers ..., but were less expensive to operate, requiring fewer paid hands and less costly boatyard maintenance. Given their overall dimensions and freeboard, it is doubtful if a designer other than NGH could have created such good-looking hull shapes. The New York 40s have some hollow in their bows, a handsome sheer, and nicely sculpted transoms; they remind one of the Cup defender Resolute [#725s], foreshortened to fit within a 59-foot overall length.
Although not planned for ocean racing, one boat of the class, Memory [ex #778s Black Duck], rigged as a Marconi yawl, entered the Bermuda race of 1924 --- and won! Perhaps because of the publicity accorded Memory, two more boats, Marilee [#955s] and Rugosa II [#983s] ... were ordered shortly afterward. Rugosa II won the Bermuda race of 1928. (Rugosa II now sails from Bristol at the hands of her new and most appropriate owner, NGH's grandson, Halsey C Herreshoff.)" (Source: Bray, Maynard and Carlton Pinheiro. Herreshoff of Bristol. Brooklin, Maine, 1989, p. 82.)

"N/A"

"[Item Description:] HMCo Plan 74-75. Blueprint detail plan titled 'Quick Working Shackles for Blocks Hal & Double Sheets. Job 1-336. Mentioned vessels include: #711s, #712s, #713s, #714s, #715s, #716s, #717s, #720s, #721s, #773s, #774s, #775s, #776s, #777s, #778s, #779s, #780s, #781s, #782s, #783s, #804s, #891s, #955s, and #983s." (Source: Herreshoff Manufacturing Co. (Newman, H.F.) (creator). Blueprint. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Acc. 2004.0001.0184. WRDT08, Folder 17, formerly MRDE06. 1923-03-12.)
① ②

"[Item Description:] Typed "Specifications For 40ft One-Design Class. #983 [RUGOSA]'. With penciled note in upper margin 'Drafting Room'. 3 pages." (Source: Herreshoff Manufacturing Co. (creator). Specifications. MIT Museum, Hart Nautical Collections, Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection Item HH.6.023. Box HAFH.6.1B, Folder Hull No. 983s. No date (1925-12-23).)
① ② ③

"[Item Transcription:] [Printed circular, two sheets of paper:] New York Yacht Club The Cruise 1927
Additional Racing Instructions Run From Huntington To New London—16Th August
In case of no wind at Huntington at the proposed time of the Start on the 16th August, the following signals will be made by the Flagship: etc. ... [Plus printed circular:] New York Yacht Club
List of yachts, measurement certificates of which were on file with the Race Committee on August 1, 1927, which will be valid for the Cruise.
SCHOONERS: C Class
C 2 OHONKARA [#827s]
C 7 VAGRANT [#719s]
C 3 VANITIE
D Class: D 25 ADVANCE
D 7 CONSTANCE
D 22 WILDFIRE [#891s]
D 5 LYNX
E Class: E 4 AURELIA
E 9 QUEEN MAB [#698s]
E16 SHAWNA
F Class: F3 CURLEW
F 4 MARY ROSE [#954s]
F 1 PLEIONE [#714s]
F 11 CACHALOT
G Class: S.C. 11 CLYTIE
S.C. 12 NADJI
S.C. 9 NOKOMIS
S.C. 6 SEVEN SEAS
G 1 WANDERER IX
G 7 MALABAR VII
H Class: H 3 FLYING FISH
H 2 ADVENTURER
KETCH: H 7 ANGELICA
SLOOPS
J Class: J 1 KATOURA [#1050s]
L.0. Class: L.0. 1 GEORGIA
L.0. 4 GREY DAWN
L.0. 5 MIRAGE
L.0. 3 NIMBUS
M Class: M 5 CAROLINA [#721s]
M 3 CHIORA [#713s ex-IROQUOIS II]
M 38 DOLLY
M 4 IBIS [#715s ex-GRAYLING]
M 1 PRESTIGE [#1058s]
M 6 SPARTAN [#712s]
10 Meter Class: 10M 9 BLAZING STAR
10M 7 BRANTA
10M 4 CYTHERA
10M 11 DRAGON
10M 8 ESQUILA
10M 6 NARCISSUS
10M 14 NAUTILUS
10M 10 RAEBURN
10M 12 REDHEAD
10M 10 REVENGE
10M 13 SHAWARA
10M 3 SYNTHETIC
10M 1 TWILIGHT
10M 5 VALENCIA
N Class: N 2 ALICE
P Class: P 1 BUTTERFLY [#586s ex-NELLIE]
50 Class: N. Y. Y. C. 52 ANDIAMO [#716s ex-SAMURI]
40 Class: N. Y. Y. C. 42 COCKATOO [#775s ex-DOLLY BOWEN]
N. Y. Y. C. 50 MARILEE [#955s]
N. Y. Y. C. 46 MISTRAL [#774s]
N. Y. Y. C. 47 PAMPERO [#781s ex-PAMPARO]
N. Y. Y. C. 45 TYPHOON [#773s ex-MAISIE]
N. Y. Y. C. 49 ROWDY* [#776s]
30 Class: N. Y. 1 ALERA [#626s]
N. Y. 7 ALICE [#632s ex-TABASCO]
N. Y. 9 AMORITA [#635s ex-ADELAIDE II]
N. Y. 15 BANZAI [#640s]
N. Y. 4 INTERLUDE [#629s ex-MAID OF MEUDON]
N. Y. 5 LENA [#630s ex-PINTAIL]
N. Y. 11 ORIOLE [#637s]
N. Y. 13 PHANTOM [#648s ex-MINX]
N. Y. 17 PHRYNE (Rig changed to jib-headed mainsail.) [#643s]
Q Class: F. I. S. 3 CHANCE [#1059s]
F. I. S. 1 CYRILLA II [#1054s]
F. I. S. 2 JUDY [#1055s]
F. I. S. 4 MAMEENA [#1060s]
YAWLS M Class: N. Y. 51 REVERY [#720s ex-ACUSHLA]
M 1 RUGOSA II [#983s]
... August 1, 1827. [Compared to the equivalent list from 1924 the number of boats has increased from 49 to 73, while the number of Herreshoff-built yachts has shrunk from 37 to 32 or 44%.] [Incl envelope from Race Committee NYYC to NGH, labeled in red 'Rating & allowance' and postmarked August 4, 1927.]" (Source: NYYC. Correspondence (circular) to Members. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_73330. Measuring and Measurement Rules (Box 2), Folder B2F07, formerly MRDE15. 1927-08-01.)
① ② ③

"[Item Transcription:] After getting back to my office and to the routine of getting out the magazine [Yachting] again I want to write and let you know how much I enjoyed meeting you at Coconut Grove, and how much I appreciated the talks we had together.
I also want to thank you for giving me your views on a good rule for the Bermuda race. I will bring this matter up at the next meeting of the committee, and I know that your views will carry a great deal of weight.
In this connection, might I ask if it would be advisable to use one-half of the overhangs with the freeboard deduction, instead of the two-thirds as you suggested? Would not the one-half work out better when we take into consideration the number of cruising boats already in existance[sic] that have somewhat shorter overhangs than boats of a racing type of the same size? What effect would
this change have on producing a desirable type if boats were built to the rule?
With kind regards to Mrs. Herreshoff, I am
Very truly yours,
H.L. Stone [Incl NGH draft reply:] I thank you for your very interesting letter of [April] 1st. Our talk, I assure you was mutually enjoyed.
About the advisability of including a portion of over hang in length measurement. There is no question at all but overhang gives a vessel more power and speed, up to an indefinite limit. Also, up to a smaller limit overhang adds to the good seagoing qualities of a yacht having her ballast as low as it is absolutely secondary to be able to carry sail enough to be at all weatherly (by weatherly I mean able to work to windward in rough water and against surface set carried by the wind).
Experience has shown that this advantage gained by over hang is very roughly measured by adding to the water line length 1/3 the sum of the overhangs. Certainly not as much as all the overhangs or even one half the over hangs, but more than than 1/4 the overhang. A much more rational way is to measure the length for speed above the l.w.l. at the average height representing that part of freeboard that becomes submerged and useful by giving longer sailing lines.
The height adopted for measuring quarter beam length in the Universal Rule is ['1/10 beam' crossed out and replaced with] an approximation for the purfon[?] and since in use ['had better' crossed out and replaced with] might be adhered to, although I am of opinion that 1/54 or 1/60 of overall length above l.w.l. w[ou]ld be a better position in which to measure (may I call it) 'Rational length'.
The amount of over hand that is really desirable to have the best seagoing boat appears to be an unsettled ratio to l.w.l. and therefore better be left undetermined. But there is danger in too much overhang. It appears to me it w[ou]ld be the best to rule out any yacht with overall length of more than 150% of l.w.l. The reports from owners of the NYYC 40s [New York 40s] that have sailed in the Bermuda & other long distance races don't indicate any objection to their overall length of 145% of l.w.l. In fact both owner & sailing master of RUGOSA II [#983s] expressed admiration at her seagoing qualities and easiness while laying to for 22 hours in a NE gale on way home from the last Bermuda race. Free board not being at all and[sic] a direct element for or against speed, but for safety at sea, would it not be better to decide on a limit of least free board, as say, 11% of l.w.l. at bow and 7 1/2% of l.w.l. at point of greatest beam and at the stern, and not attempt to include it in the speed measurement. With the correct measurement of overhangs for speed qualities I don't see that a boat having short ends has any disadvantage in racing either in ocean or short course racing." (Source: Stone, Herbert L. (incl NGH reply). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_23750. Correspondence, Folder 69. 1929-04-01.)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] I have been thinking of entertaining the Cape May Race which starts from New London June 21st, but I notice in the January number of YACHTING that they have put on a new restriction, namely, for the cruising class outside ballast shall not exceed 45% of the displacement. There is also to be a racing class in which outside ballast may exceed 45% but I am not interested in going into that class.
Will you please advise me whether RUGOSA II [#983s] can qualify for the cruising class." (Source: Grinnell, Russell. Letter to Nystrom, Charles G. G. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33220. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1931-01-12.)
①

"[Item Transcription:] I am enclosing entry blank of RUGOSA II [#983s] in the Cape May Race together with measurement certificate and a statement from the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company (builders) covering ballast ratio.
As the ratio is well over 45% I suppose that this statement will be acceptable in place of a certificate by the measurer, which would involve a lot of work on his part." (Source: Grinnell, Russell. Letter to Clark, Reuben B. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33240. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1931-05-14.)
①

"[Item Transcription:] [Envelope with penciled notes on verso:] 40ft RUGOSA II [#983s]
wl. 41.62 ft
Displ 876 cuft = 56000 lbs
Lead mean 23750 lbs
Added 750
[Sum] 24500
24500 / 56000 = 0.438 [Ballast Ratio]
The mean displ. of [New York 40] class boats given to H.W. Webb in July 1925 was that due to 40.75 lwl = 811 cuft
811 cuft = 51800.0[sic, i.e. 51900] lbs
Outside lead ratio 24500 / 51800 = .473
25374 / 51800 = .48.8 (included lead shoe added in 1916-17)
.474
25440
876
56100
Mean w[ei]g[h]t original 23800
Extra piece forward 724
[Sum] 24574
Approx. wgt added 1916 800
Av[erage] of original class, outside 25374 [Undated. Filed with other 1931 / 1932 RUGOSA II displacement correspondence.]" (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Envelope / Calculations. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33160. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. No date (ca1932).)
①

"[Item Transcription:] The Race Committee of the Cape May Race require a statement as to the ratio of outside ballast and displacement.
You advised, me some time ago that the ratio of RUGOSA II's [#983s] ballast to displacement was 50%, which being over 45% puts her in the Racing Class.
I do not like to ask the Measurer of the N.Y.Y.C. to measure her for the purpose of determining this ratio, and as I did not claim that it was under 45% I think that a simple written statement from you will be satisfactory. Can you send me this within a few days." (Source: Grinnell, Russell. Letter to Nystrom, Charles G. G. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33230. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1932-05-04.)
①

"[Item Transcription:] Thank you for sending me copy of your letter to Dr. Webb, and I shall be much interested to learn what his reply is.
I have been looking over my files in order to check up on this serious error in calculation of the RUGOSA's [#983s] ballast ratio, and I am enclosing copies of three letters which give the history of the matter fairly well.
You will note that on January 12, 1931, when I first heard of the proposed ballast restriction for the Cape May Race, I wrote Mr. Nystrom, and as indicated in my letter of May 4th he evidently advised me verbally that it was 50%; and sometime between May 4th and May 14th, as indicated by my letter of the latter date, the Herreshoff Company sent me a written statement which I in turn sent to the Chairman of the Cape May Race Committee, and which must have stated that the ballast ratio was either 50% or 56%. You can undoubtedly get a copy of this statement from the company files.
The whole matter is very annoying to me, and somebody has evidently made some terrible blunders; and as I stated, when Mr. Nystrom and I called on you, I think it is the duty of the Herreshoff Company to secure from Dr. Webb (without cost to me) a certificate stating exactly what this ratio is. It will evidently figure out so close to 46% that I am sure if it is slightly over it would be possible by some slight alteration to have her qualify for the Cruising Class. If Dr. Webb figures that it is slightly over 46% I should like to have you tell me what can be done to reduce it to the required figure." (Source: Grinnell, Russell. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33250. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1932-06-09.)
①

"[Item Transcription:] While in Bermuda I was told that you felt that it was due to my advice that the Regatta Committee inserted the clause in the racing rules of this year's. race thereby barring the 'RUGOSA' [#983s] from entering. I would like to correct this impression, which is only partly true.
In the winter of 1930 Edmund Lang, of the New York Yacht Club, asked me to get up a rule for measuring the heavier type of cruising boats, especially those which would have little or no chance in ordinary class racing under the Universal Rule. I got up a slight modification of the present Bermuda Rule and inserted the clause that the ratio of ballast to displacement should not exceed 46%. I did this to prevent one of my own schooners, the SACHEM, from racing in the Cruising Division, but also had in mind the New York 40 Footers such as your boat, MEMORY [#778s], and others.
I also recommended to Mr. Lang that a separate class be given for boats which exceeded this ratio should he deem advisable, but he did not do so. I was also instrumental in the adoption of this same rule in the Cape May Race last year, stating to the Committee that in a race where a good part of the course is apt to be to windward that the yacht with the high ratio of ballast to displacement would be very much faster than one with a low ratio. I also suggested to them that a special class be given for such yachts, but otherwise using the same rule. I am not sure whether this was adopted or not.
I was asked to give my views this year by the Bermuda Race Committee, and strongly advised them to insert such a rule, however exempting from it any yachts which had previously raced such as your boat and 'MEMORY'. I was most emphatic in making this statement, and told them I did not think this rule was as important in a race to Bermuda as in a coastwise race where the ability to go to windward is a greater factor. Nevertheless, I thought it advisable to have it in as there is no telling what type of short ended racing boat, lightly built, might care to enter.
They did not make any report to me after my recommendations, but I heard later that they did not exempt yachts that had already entered from this ruling. I made this recommendation as simply my personal views in the matter not pressing it in any way, and I think the Committee made a mistake in not allowing your boat to enter should you wish to do so. I also think 'RUGOSA' should be allowed to enter in future Bermuda Races if this rule were still in force, but for coastwise races I think the 46% rule should be strictly applied.
The average heavily built yacht has all sorts of interior fittings which weigh a good deal, many with heavy solid spars such as 'MALABAR X', and if this is the type of boat the race is given for primarily, it seems to me a hardship to the owners to allow a much lighter built yacht lacking at least some of the interior fittings which the other have. The result, of course, is the same with 'SACHEM', although I would much prefer to go to sea on 'RUGOSA' than on this schooner.
I thought I had better write you regarding the matter above so you would know exactly what my stand in the matter is. As things turned out, I would have doubted if 'RUGOSA' would have been at her best in this year's race. There was practically no windward work, and except at the start the sea was always quite rough with plenty of wind and the boats were travelling at somewhere near their limit speeds. The race had no variety in it, and was quite uninteresting for this reason." (Source: Alden, John G. Letter to Grinnell, Russell. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33200. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1932-07-19.)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] I received the other day a very interesting letter from John G. Alden, and I am enclosing copy of it together with a copy of my reply. I thought you would be interested in this correspondence and I would be glad to have your comments.
It is amusing to note that in his first paragraph he says the report that he is responsible for the obnoxious move is only partly true, and then goes on to explain that he was wholly responsible for it, having suggested it apparently of his own volition to Mr. Lang for the New York Yacht Club, and further stating that he was instrumental in securing its adoption for the Cape May Race. How he could have been anymore responsible I fail to understand.
Have you heard anything from Dr. Webb yet, and are you still of the opinion that my boat [#983s RUGOSA II] would come within the 46% limit? I have said nothing to anybody about this for I want to be sure that it is a fact before there is any discussion. If you would like to talk over the matter again I could easily run down to Bristol to see you, and would be very glad to do it.
I think Mr. Nystrom would probably be interested in these letters, so when you see him please show them to him." (Source: Grinnell, Russell. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33170. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1932-07-27.)
①

"[Item Transcription:] I was very glad to get your letter of July 13th in which you so clearly explain your part in securing the adoption of the 46% ballast rule for the Bermuda and Cape May races.
It is true that I am one of the many who have held the belief that you were mainly responsible for this rule and that your interest in the matter had been stimulated by the desire to obtain a business advantage for yourself; as this rule as well as other provisions of the racing rules were obviously built around your own distinctive design. I am saying this, not because I wish to be unpleasant, but because I believe that you are not aware of this rather wide-spread opinion, and I feel that it is so generally held that I am doing a favor to you in advising you of it and in giving you an opportunity to refute it. I assure you that I have not been instrumental in giving circulation to any such general opinion, but a number of people have expressed this belief to me without any suggestion on my part.
I also want to assure you that I am not responsible for planting this thought in the mind of anyone in Bermuda. During my visit there last spring I sensed a strong resentment against the fact that the tendency of the rules is to make a second—rate affair of their main sporting event, for which they offer a very handsome trophy. Their British sporting instinct seemed to be offended. In discussing this subject with one prominent Bermudian, he said 'You know who is back of it all don't you?', and upon my replying 'No', he said 'John Alden'.
My main concern in the subject is not due to the fact that the RUGOSA [#983s] has been out-lawed but because I believe that on general principles the whole theory is wrong, and that such restrictions if persisted in will do great harm to yacht design and yacht racing. I venture the opinion that not since the beginning of the world, in any major sporting event, have the best qualified candidates until now been barred because they might win. How ridiculous it would be, and how soon public interest would be lost in the English Derby and the Grand National, for instance, if horses possessing the necessary characteristics for greatest speed and endurance should be barred simply to give the second-raters a clear field. To my mind a race is a race, and if an event such as the bi-annual Bermuda race is to survive it must be open to all contestants which are in fact sea-worthy and otherwise safe.
One of the unfortunate features of the ballast rule is that while it bars out certain boats because they are too fast, the Committee admits that they are sea-worthy and in every way suitable to make the voyage by permitting them to go in a special class. In my opinion a boat built as the RUGOSA is with every pound of material serving a useful purpose both in the hull and aloft, thus being buoyant and subjected to less strain, would survive a real thrashing much longer than a boat with a heavily built hull, heavy interior fittings and heavy spars and rigging.
Another small item in the rules which has always annoyed me is the premium put on high bulwarks. On what possible grounds can such construction be considered an advantage in ocean racing? A rail sufficiently high to give a toe-hold, supplemented by adequate life lines, is far superior; in fact, it gives equal protection and allows the deck to instantly clear when any water is shipped.
I could go on at length in expressing my views on these several points, but I think I have said enough to make clear to you the opinion held by many others besides myself. If the present policy is to be continued the only sensible and logical plan would be to have the main trophy available to everyone, with a secondary prize for those not so well qualified. This would clear the Bermuda race and similar events from being characterized, as I have heard them characterized, as 'fat men's races'.
Trusting that you will accept this in the spirit in which it is written, and with the hope that we may meet some day and discuss the subject more fully, I am," (Source: Grinnell, Russell. Letter to Alden, John G. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33180. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1932-07-27.)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] I received your letter of July 27th and would have answered it sooner, but have been away a good part of the time; in fact, if I were to answer it in detail it would make a very long letter and I will not attempt to do this at present. I am very glad you have written me as you have and wish to thank you for doing so.
Of course, I am fully aware that my actions are criticised by many yachtsmen, but I don't see how I can help it if I am to have anything to do with the making of measurement rules. I am in the rather unfortunate position of being connected with rule making and having a good many of my own boats in the races, besides having boats of my own. A great deal of the criticism is, I believe, based on ignorance of details and also from some sources, on jealousy. I realize I have made a great many enemies, but I can assure you everything I have done has been for what I consider the best interests of the sport and for no other reasons whatever.
I am rather surprised and hurt at the attitude of the Bermudians, as you mention, but when I was down there this summer there seemed to be none of this then. Eldon H. Trimingham suggested I write you as in my last letter, and while I know he and I have not fully agreed on racing rules, I' felt sure that we had only an honest difference of opinion. However, I do know that Paul Hammond has done his best to discredit me in every way, largely due to the fact that he was barred from carrying his unusually oversized mainsail without having it measured. I was largely responsible for this ruling, although, of course, I only had one vote on the committee, and it was obviously unfair and would not have been allowed by any measurer in the New York Yacht Club.
We are, I am afraid, very far apart on what our idea of a proper racing boat to Bermuda should be. Of course, none of the yachts racing down there are so-called 'fast boats' and the limitations put on are simply one of degree. The method of restricting the ratio of ballast to displacement was first proposed by Francis Herreshoff and I believe it was published in a magazine article in Yachting a number of years ago. It appealed to me at once and when I was asked by Edmund Lang to get up a special rule for the New York Yacht Club I proposed this restriction so that there would be a division between the so-called racing classes and the cruising division. The 46% was arrived at because 'DORADE' had just this ratio and it was passed unanimously by the committee which included Olin Stephens, Philip Rhodes the well known designer, Herbert L. Stone, and I had opinions from other designers, including Frank Paine, recommending its adoption.
I consider this ratio a very liberal one indeed and doubt very much if it is possible to build a yacht equipped with the usual complete fittings, such as are desired today, by at least 90% of their owners, and also one built approximately as heavily as either Lloyd's or Herreshoff's scantlings, and have the ratio over 46%. The 'SACHEM' has a ratio of 48% and her scantlings are, I consider, too light for ocean going and considerably lighter than Lloyd's require. I am inclined to think the same might apply on your own boat, though I admit 'RUGOSA' [#983s] is probably strong enough.
I would favor two division's of cruising boats, one under the ratio of 46% and one above, with the understanding that those above should be fully equipped for cruising and built under the Herreshoff or Lloyd's scantling tables. If this division proved more popular in racing to Bermuda or elsewhere, I would certainly favor its being given more prominence, but I doubt if there would be more than a handful of yachts racing under it.
'MALABAR X' as a whole is built lighter than either [entire next line obscured in crease and unreadable], as is the case with most of my other smaller cruisers. They have never come anywhere near the 46% ratio, and if I were really anxious to favor my own boats I would, of course, lower the ratio still further.
In regard to the matter of bulwarks I also can not agree with you there. I admit that the low rail sheds water to better advantage, but a high rail breaks the wind, adds to the ship-shape appearance, and gives a far better bracing for the rail stanchions above it. It also keeps odds and ends from washing overboard, and certainly gives a somewhat better foothold.
I do not believe in placing a premium on a high rail and I do not believe in penalizing it; therefore, in the rule used by the New York Yacht Club we only use 1/2 of the bulwark height, which the other designers, besides myself, seem to think about equalizes the extra windage, etc.
The full height bulwark, as in the Bermuda rule, was taken from the original English rule and I believe it was proposed by Mr. Herbert Stone. I agree with you that it is incorrect as now written.
As you may know, the Cruising Club is at present working on a modified rule. I don't know just what they are doing, as I am not on the committee, although I have been asked to submit data. Also, the New York Yacht Club is planning to revise its cruising rule and the basic principle of the revision will be to keep the 46% ratio of ballast to displacement factor. I am perfectly willing to admit that a light displacement boat is more buoyant and, in a way, more seaworthy, but no one wants a lightly built hull and very few owners wish to leave out the necessary luxuries they like below decks. There is only one ocean race a year and I have yet to find anyone who is willing to give up these luxuries (or necessities) for the sake of the extra speed obtained.
I really don't know what you refer to by 'my type' of boat.
I would like very much to talk matters over with you at some later day, and wish to again thank you for writing me as you have done." (Source: Alden, John G. Letter to Grinnell, Russell. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33290. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1932-08-16.)
① ② ③

"[Item Description:] Penciled table titled 'Offsets of Templates of Lead on [#983s] RUGOSA 2nd'." (Source: MIT Museum, Hart Nautical Collections, Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection Item HH.6.023. Table. Box HAFH.6.1B, Folder Hull No. 983s. 1933-01-18.)
①

"[Item Transcription:] [Envelope from Russell Grinnell to NGH postmarked Jun 9 1932 with penciled notes by NGH:] Jan[uar]y 19, 1933 Gave Chas Nystrom the following -
RUGOSA [#983s] Displ at 41.65 ft w.l. = 876 cuft = 56064 lbs. HMCo calculation of lead keel 26250 lbs.
Ratio of lead to displ. 26250/56064 = 46.8%
Av. of class of 12 [New York 40s] 40.75 w.l. = 811 cuft = 51904 lbs. Outside lead 24362 lbs. Ratio .469." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Envelope / Calculations. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_33260. Subject Files, Folder 37, formerly 27. 1933-01-19.)
①

"[Item Description:] Brokerage listing (File No. 43) for #983s RUGOSA II. Dimensions, particulars (Rig: Yawl, Location: Herreshoff, Price: $15000/offer). Penciled note 'Sold 2/38'. Undated, but the penciled note suggests a date of February 1938 or earlier." (Source: Belknap & Paine, Yacht Brokers (creator). Broker Listing. MIT Museum, Hart Nautical Collections, Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection Item HH.6.111. Box HAFH.6.3B, Folder Brokers Listings. No date (1938 ??).)
①

"[Item Description:] Spreadsheet listing original contracts (from 1923 to 1940) by HMCo in the collection of HMM (apparently from the gift of Everett Pearson). Listed boats are: #380p, #381p, #388p, #389p, #391p, #392p, #393p, #395p, #886s, #933s, #934s, #954s, #955s, #962s, #983s, #999s, #1002s, #1017s, #1054s, #1055s, #1057s, #1074s, #1078s, #1122s, #1125s, #1130s, #1131s, #1147s, #1152s, #1153s, #1154s, #1156s, #1157s, #1164s, #1170s, #1173s, #1174s, #1175s, #1175s, #1176s, #1177s, #1179s, #1180s, #1191s, #1192s, #1193s, #1195s, #1196s, #1198s, #1199s, #1200s, #1201s, #1202s, #1203s, #1206s, #1207s, #1208s, #1209s, #1210s, #1211s, #1212s, #1213s, #1214s, #1215s, #1216s, #1217s, #1218s, #1219s, #1220s, #1222s, #1224s, #1236s, #1226s, #1227s, #1228s, #1230s, #1232s, #1234s, #1237s, #1238s, #1240s, #1241s, #1243s, #1244s, #1245s, #1246s, #1247s, #1248s, #1249s, #1250s, #1251s, #1252s, #1253s, #1254s, #1255s, #1256s, #1257s, #1258s, #1259s, #1260s, #1261s, #1262s, #1263s, #1264s, #1265s, #1274s, #1275s, #1277s, #1279s, #1280s, #1281s, #1282s, #1283s, #1284s, #1285s, #1286s, #1287s, #1302s, #1303s, #1315s, #1508s." (Source: Rickson, Norene (creator). Table. Herreshoff Marine Museum Collection Item LIB_4220. HMM Library Rare Books Room (HMCo Contracts), Folder [no #]. No date (2010s ?).)
① ② ③ ④

Note: This list of archival documents contains in an unedited form any and all which mention #983s Rugosa II even if just in a cursory way. Permission to digitize, transcribe and display is gratefully acknowledged.

• Davis, Charles G. "Racing on a Forty-Footer." Yachting, December 1921, p. 265-268, 309. (3,596 kB)
  Document is copyrighted: No. Wonderful account of New York 40 racing during the eventful 1921 cruise of the NYYC, written by yacht designer, artist and author C. G. Davis, who had sailed on #773s Monsoon ex-Maisie.
• Kleinhans, Lewis. "New York 40s and 50s." In: Schoettle, Edwin J. Sailing Craft. New York, 1928, p. 229-243. (3,032 kB)
  Document is copyrighted: No known copyright restrictions. Class description and history.
• Sauerbrey, Florence. "The Fighting Forties." Maritime Life and Traditions #18, Spring 2003, p. 50-61. (5,411 kB)
  Document is copyrighted: Yes. Class description and history. Vessel biographies. Lines plan. Construction plan. Sail plans (sloop and yawl).
• Herreshoff Manufacturing Company. [Contract for #983s Rugosa II, New York 40 Yawl (including specifications).] Herreshoff Marine Museum Collection. Bristol, RI, December 23, 1925. (1,839 kB)
  Document is copyrighted: Yes. Copyright holder: Herreshoff Marine Museum. Original building/sales contract. Vessel description, scantlings, payment terms, delivery date. Includes detailed vessel specifications.

• Rugosa II (MIT Museum-made index card)
• Rugosa II (MIT Museum-made index card)
• Note: The vessel index cards comprise two sets of a total of some 3200 cards about vessels built by HMCo, with dimensions and information regarding drawings, later or former vessel names, and owners. They were compiled from HMCo's early days until 1920 and added to in later decades, apparently by Hart Nautical curator William A. Baker and his successors. While HMCo seems to have used only one set of index cards, all sorted by name and, where no name was available, by number, later users at MIT apparently divided them into two sets of cards, one sorted by vessel name, the other by vessel number and greatly expanded the number of cards. Original HMCo cards are usually lined and almost always punched with a hole at bottom center while later cards usually have no hole, are unlined, and often carry substantially less information. All cards are held by the Francis Russell Hart Nautical Collections of the MIT Museum in Cambridge, Mass.

Name: Rugosa II
Type: Yawl
Length: 40'
Owner: Grinnell, Russell

Source: Herreshoff Manufacturing Company. "A Partial List of Herreshoff Clients." In: Herreshoff Manufacturing Company. Herreshoff Yachts. Bristol, Rhode Island, ca. 1931.

• Rugosa II
• Note: The L. Francis Herreshoff index cards comprise a set of some 1200 cards about vessels built by HMCo, with dimensions and / or ownership information. Apparently compiled in the early 1930s, for later HMCo-built boats like the Fishers Island 23s or the Northeast Harbor 30s are not included. Added to in later decades, apparently by L. F. Herreshoff as well as his long-time secretary Muriel Vaughn and others. Also 46 cards of L. F. Herreshoff-designed vessels. The original set of index cards is held by the Herreshoff Marine Museum and permission to display is gratefully acknowledged.

Name: Rugosa II
Type: 40' yawl
Owner: Russell Grinnell
Year: 1926
Row No.: 583

Source: Herreshoff, L. Francis. "Partial List of Herreshoff-Built Boats." In: Herreshoff, L. Francis. Capt. Nat Herreshoff. The Wizard of Bristol. New York, 1953, p. 325-343.

Month: Dec.
Day: 23
Year: 1925
E/P/S: S
No.: 0983
Name: Rugosa II
OA: 59' 0"
LW: 40"0"
B: 14' 0"
D: 8' 2"
Rig: Yawl
Amount: 32,500.00
Notes Constr. Record: Marconi Yawl Rigged Cruising Yacht
Last Name: Grinnell
First Name: Russell

Source: Vermilya, Peter and Maynard Bray. "Transcription of the HMCo. Construction Record." Unpublished database, ca. 2000.

Note: The transcription of the HMCo Construction Record by Peter Vermilya and Maynard Bray was performed independently (and earlier) than that by Claas van der Linde. A comparison of the two transcriptions can be particularly useful in those many cases where the handwriting in the Construction Record is difficult to decipher.

"[See also:] Specifications for 40' one-design class - Offsets of templates of lead on Rugosa II. In: Technical and Business Records pertaining to the Herreshoff Manufacturing Company, Series VI, Folder HH.6.23 (Hull No. 983), Box HAFH.6.1B." (Source: Hasselbalch, Kurt and Frances Overcash and Angela Reddin: Guide to The Haffenreffer-Herreshoff Collection. Francis Russell Hart Nautical Collections, MIT Museum, Cambridge, Mass., 1997, p. 63-79.)

"See also: Henry M. Devereux Collection, Coll. 120, Daniel S. Gregory Ships Plans Library, Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc., 120.43 Comparison study of NY 40's MISTRAL, TYPHOON and RUGOSA II Designer, Nathanael G. Herreshoff, Delineator, Henry M. Devereux; Design #214; Builder, Herreshoff Manufacturing Co.; Circa 1926." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. September 24, 2010.)

"Date of delivery was originally specified as 'on June 1st, 1926' as per original contract in collection of Herreshoff Marine Museum." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. January 15, 2015.)

"Built in 176 days (contract to launch; equivalent to $185/day, 318 lbs displacement/day)." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. January 16, 2024.)

"Sail area 'about 2000 square feet' from original contract in collection of Herreshoff Marine Museum." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. September 22, 2014.)

"Displ. 876 cuft = 56000 lbs as per back-of-an-envelope calculations which have survived in the Herreshoff Archives of the Herreshoff Marine Museum (HMM Subject Files, Folder 37 new, 27 old)." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. April 16, 2017.)

Note: Research notes contain information about a vessel that is often random and unedited but has been deemed useful for future research.