HMCo #670s Seneca

"... Seneca [Name], 670 [Building Number], 27 [Rating], 32.27 [Waterline], 28.02 [L = length at 1/4 beam as for Universal Rule], 8.9 [B = breadth of waterline as for Universal Rule], 6.7 [d = draft of water as for Universal Rule], 269 [D = displacement in cubic foot as for Universal Rule (= 17,184 lbs or 7.7 long tons)], 1170 [Sail Area], 1430 [Sail limit Present rule], -260 [Diff.], 1167 [Sail limit Proposed rule], 3 [Diff.], [Notes] ..." (Source: Herreshoff, N. G. "Formula for Obtaining the Limit of Sail-Area in Yachts when Measured by the Universal Rule Formula." Bristol, R.I., July 13, 1907 with later additions. Original handwritten (in ink) document with penciled additions. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE06_00080.)

"Letter from Rowley[?] Murphy - July 1957 says: Her first schooner rig [which she came out with in 1924] was like that of Ventura [#711s, a New York 50 that had been converted to schooner in 1923 by Herreshoff for Canadian yachtsman Aemilius Jarvis] --- Marconi Mainsail, gaff foresail, jib, no bowsprit. Most successful. Later was given a full staysail rig, but it was too much aloft in a breeze & with the small staysail too little." (Source: Herreshoff, L. Francis. [Handwritten note on Index Card for Seneca.] Collection of the Herreshoff Marine Museum, undated, ca. July 1957).

"Among the medium-sized racers of that time was the 'P' boat 'Seneca,' which I think was the first 'P' Captain Nat designed. She was only thirty-two feet W.L. but a very pretty yacht of almost the same model as the 'Q' boat 'Eleanor.' If I remember right, she successfully represented the United States in the races against Canada on the Great Lakes." (Source: Herreshoff, L. Francis. The Wizard of Bristol. The Life and Achievements of Nathanael Greene Herreshoff, together with An Account of Some of the Yachts he Designed. New York, 1953, p. 275.)

"BRISTOL, R. I., May 18 [1907] --- ... The Rochester Y. C. 27-rater, for the Canada cup defence, will be shipped to Charlotte, N Y. next week. She is about 46 foot over all and 30 foot water line." (Source: Anon. "Bristol Notes." Boston Globe, May 19, 1907, p. 47.)

"... The yacht Seneca, which will defend the Canada cup on Lake Ontario in August against the Canadian challenger for the Rochester Yacht Club, was launched yesterday [May 22, 1907] at Herreshoff's." (Source: Anon. "Handicap Yacht Racing." New York Evening Post, May 23, 1907, p. 6.)

"Seneca, the Canada Cup defender, built by the Herreshoffs for a syndicate of Rochester yachtsmen, has been launched at Walker' s Cove yard, Bristol. She was given a trial trip yesterday [May 23, 1907], and will at once be shipped to Charlotte, N. Y., the port of Rochester. The new craft fits into the P, or 27 foot division, under the new rule of measurement . She is about 46 feet over all, 30 feet on the waterline, 9 feet 3 inches beam, 7 feet draught, and will spread about 1,150 square feet of canvas. It Is the first time that the Wizard of Bristol has entered into the lake racing game, and his handiwork will be watched with the greatest of interest. The Canadian challenger will be picked from one of four boats, three of these being built from the boards of well-known English designers." (Source: Anon. "Yachting Notes." Brooklyn Daily Eagle, May 24, 1907, p. 6.)

"The racing sloop Seneca [#670s], recently launched at the Herreshoff boat shop, owned by Winfield P. and Charles J. Pembroke of Rochester, N. Y., and the 57 foot racing sloop Winsome [#664s], owned by H. F. Lippitt were given a trial spin in the bay Wednesday [May 22, 1907] afternoon." (Source: Anon. "Bristol and Vicinity." Bristol Phoenix, May 24, 1907, p. 2.)

"The American boats to defend the Canada Cup are from the board of Herreshoff and Gardner. The Herreshoff boat Seneca was launched on Thursday [May 23, 1907. Sic. Not on May 22, 1907?.] at Bristol. She will be rushed to completion and taken to the lakes for trial against the Gardner boat, which is being built for the defense of the cup. The boat is a 27-foot sloop, designed on the same general lines as the New York 30-footers, and looks to be an exceptionally fast craft, to which the defense of the cup may be safely left. The two boats are not only to defend the Canada Cup, but will compete at Jamestown in the International race for the Roosevelt trophy." (Source: Anon. "Canada Boat Coming." New York Times, May 26, 1907, p. C4.)

"The first of the Canada's cup races was a ghastly surprise to Canadians.
They went down to Charlotte, N. Y., on Lake Ontario, not cock sure of winning by any means, but confident that they had a boat in Adele that would make every finish at least exciting, and that in the windward work would make even Herreshoff the Great sit up and take notice. In all of which they were bitterly disappointed. It looked very much for a long while as if this first race would never take place. There were wigs on the green over the measurement question. The rules give the challengers the right to stipulate the class, and the Royal Canadian Y. C, of Toronto, in offering their third challenge for the trophy stipulate the 27ft. class or class P. The Rochester Y. C. agreed, and as the universal rule, the terror of amateur or slightly skilled measurers, was coming into force, it was further agreed that: Each club shall submit to some person mutually agreed upon a plan of its representative yacht, on which shall be lines from which calculation of her displacement can be made and a measurement of her 'L.' This design must be certified as being correct by her designer, and the referee's report made from this design shall be final. W. P. Stephens, of Bayonne, N. J., is the man selected by mutual agreement as the referee.
The Royal Canadian Y. C. made sure their boat was nicely within the limit, and then asked the Rochester people how they stood. Rochester thought they were all right; at least, Herreshoff, the designer of their defender Seneca had said so. What about her plans? Well, they never had had any, but they would get them. But they reckoned without their designer. The Wizard of Bristol had never given up plans before, and he was not going to give them up now. Canadians insisted. What was to be done? Herreshoff sent a couple of dimensions by telegraph and faded away into some unapproachable spot. It was said that Seneca was never lined out, but was built from a model, and the model was locked up, and Herreshoff had the key. It was a deadlock. The real trouble was that Seneca was slightly over measurement. There were some heated reminiscences exchanged between club representatives about how the Canadian challenger Invader was over measurement at Chicago in 1901, and how the American defender Iroquois was measured with her mainsail wet and shrunk in 1905. The huge roach to the after leach of Seneca's mainsail was pointed to as an example of how Herreshoff had tried to grab sail area, and the odd strut, like a little bowsprit at the mast head, that throws her fore-stay out of alignment, was given as another instance. There was unofficial talk of Seneca being withdrawn through being unable to qualify as to measurements, of the Canada's cup being handed over to the challengers, and by them in turn to its donors, the original Canada syndicate, and of a match for anything from a flag to $4,000 being sailed between Adele and Seneca, all of which was air, picturesque, but hot.
Finally they compromised by having Seneca weighed, so as to get her displacement. They could have done this in the first place without any jangling, and it was clearly a concession on the part of the Canadians, for they were waiving their undoubted right to the submission of the plans to Mr. Stephens.
Seneca was hauled out and weighed the morning of the race. Her gross weight was found to be 17,000 pounds. It is odd how they came to the round figures, but after deducting the tackling and carriage they found she weighed 16,446 pounds. This was a little better --- 53 pounds --- than Herreshoff had said, but it still did not provide a large enough displacement divisor to bring her in the class. It was found necessary to reduce the area of the sails, or rather its measurement, by ten square feet. This was accomplished by shifting up the spreaders and raising the mainsail. This brought up the base of the perpendicular some inches and shortened the whole.
These alterations took all morning. They began in Charlotte Harbor, and were completed out in the lake, the judges allowing a postponement of the start until 1 P. M., within thirty minutes of the limit set for starting. ...
... The time limit was perilously near up when Seneca floated across the line, but she had a minute and forty-eight seconds to spare. If she had had to go another hundred yards there would have been 'no race.'
...
The five possible races in the contest are alternately triangular and windward and leeward, the first being twenty-one mile courses, the second eighteen miles. The time limit is five hours.
Later figures comparing the measurements of Adele and Seneca give this:
Adele. Seneca.
Length on deck 43ft. 1in.; 47ft.
Breadth: 9ft. 3in.; 9ft.
Draft 6ft. 5in.; 6ft. 6in.
Waterline length 29ft. 8in. 32ft.
Ballast 12.6271bs. 9,500lbs.
Sail area 1,347sqft. 1,150sq.ft.
Displacement 19,901lbs. 16,446lbs.
Seneca also wins the second race on Monday, Aug. 12 [1907]. C. H. J. Snider." (Source: Snider, C. H. J. "Seneca Defending Canada's Cup." Forest and Stream, August 7, 1907, p. 262.)

"[See also long second part article by C. H. J. Snider. Seneca won the Canada's Cup.]" (Source: Snider, C. H. J. "Seneca Defending Canada's Cup." Forest and Stream, August 24, 1907, p. 302.)

"FOR SALE --- Class P 27-rater 'SENECA' winner of Canada's Cup 1907. Designed by Nat. G. Herreshoff. Built by Herreshoff Manufacturing Company. Defeated Canadian Challenger, Adele, three straight races in breezes from six to twenty-five miles. Bids will be received up to October 1st [1907]. Owners reserve right to sell on first satisfactory offer. If not sold by October 1st, yacht will be put up at auction. Address, Cute E. Noxon, Sec'y, Rochester Yacht Club, 20 Trust Building, Rochester, N.Y." (Source: Anon. "For Sale." Yachting, September 1907, p. x.)

"[Detailed account of Seneca's win of the Canada's Cup with numerous photos.]" (Source: Snider, C. H. J. "The Races for the Canada's Cup." Yachting, October 1907, p. 204-207, 238.)

"Addison G. Hanan has bought the Herreshoff twenty-seven-footer Seneca, which was built by Herreshoff for the Rochester Yacht Club to defend the Canada Cup this year, and which toyed with the Canadian challenger Adele in the cup races. The victory was especially sisgiflcant in view of the fact that the three leading British designers were all commissioned to build challengers. Of the three boats turned out by Fife, Mylne, and Payne, the Payne boat Adele was much the best and was chosen to race for the cup. The Herreshoff boat beat her in all kinds of weather and defeated her most decisively at the point of sailing at which the Canadian was supposed to be invincible.
After the last Canada Cup races Hanan declared Seneca was the best boat he had ever handled, while Herreshoff says she is the fastest boat he ever built under the new rule." (Source: Anon. "Hanan Buys Seneca. Best Boat Herreshoff Ever Built to Present Measurement Rule." New York Times, October 12, 1907, p. 10.)

"... The Canada's cup has come to be regarded as next in importance to the America's Cup. It represents Great Britain and the United States, and in the contests for its possession the highest skill in the designer's art in England and in this country has been employed. Last year no less than three yachts from the hands of the same number of English designers, Fife, Payne and Mylne, were competitors for the honor of representing Canada. Only one boat, Seneca, designed and built by Herreshoff, was provided by the defending club. It was enough. The cup never had been so easily defended before. The victory of the defender was so easy that it was believed by many that some years would elapse before another challenge would be received. Those who thought so did not know the pluck, determination and national pride of the Canadians.
It is somewhat surprising that the challenging club should have chosen the 27-foot class again, remembering that in that class all of the best designing talent of England was overwhelmingly beaten by Herreshoff last year. The slight changes that have since been made in the rating rules will give the English designers no advantage. There is no reason whatever to doubt that Mr. Herreshoff can turn out a slightly modified Seneca that will do as well as, if not better than, that marvelous boat did when she won the Canada's cup and has done since in her many races in the waters about New York. Has some English designer made an important discovery which he thinks will enable him to produce a boat about twice as fast as any of those that were turned out for the challenger last year? Certainly a long stride in his art will have to be taken by the designer of the challenger if he closes the absurdly wide gap between Seneca and Adele. In view of this fact it is. as we have said, rather surprising that the 27-foot class was chosen again by the challenger. The British designers have not greatly distinguished themselves in that class.... Rochester Herald." (Source: Anon. "The Canada's Cup." Forest and Stream, November 21, 1908, p. 832.)

"The Seneca, Herreshoff's unbeaten wonder, the centre of all the row between the R. C. Y. C. and the Rochester Club, is open to the highest bidder.
This boat was designed and built in 1907 by the Herreshoffs to defend the Canadian Cup. The Canadians clearly showed at the time of the that she was not eligible under the rules, but Commodore Jarvis was too good a sportsman, so he pitted against the wonder the Temeraire and was beaten.
The Seneca was taken in October, 1907, to the Atlantic coast, and there won everything in 1908, including the Corinthian Cup, of Long Island Sound. She has been beaten only once, and then it was a larger boat, and in a very heavy sea.
The Rochester Yacht Club desired to bring her back this summer to again defend the Canadian Cup, but the R. C. Y. C. maintained that she did not belong to the Great Lakes, and, therefore, was not eligible for the cup races. It was due mainly to her that the race was called off this year.
The boat is a freak craft, and built for speed, but she is certainly a marvel in that line, and has, on account of her great speed, been known as the Herreshoff wonder or the Greyhound.
The Seneca is namelessly advertised for sale in The Rudder as the winner of the Canada's Cup in 1907 and the Corinthian Cup in 1908. The boat will not likely be bought by the Rochester Club. It will probably be an outsider who will get her." (Source: Anon. "Seneca Now For Sale. Yacht That Caused Row Over Canada's Pup On The Market." The Montreal Gazette, March 18, 1909, p. 2.)

"... The big boat yachtsmen have not viewed with entire satisfaction the admission of A. G. Hanan's Seneca to the club fleet last year. This boat, built originally for racing purposes with virtually no cabin, won the Canada Cup for the Rochester Club and appeared in salt-water racing for the first time last year. The application for enrollment of the Seneca to the New York Yacht Club fleet was at first refused on the ground that the boat did not conform to the general rule that an enrolled yacht must be suited for cruising. Changes were then made to conform with the requirements, and Seneca was then admitted to the fleet, and later she won the Manhasset Bay Challenge Curt for the Indian Harbor Yacht Club. ..." (Source: Anon. "Bar Small Boats from New York Y. C." New York Times, April 8, 1909, p. 8.)

"... The 27-rater Seneca, winner of the Canada cup, will be back on the lake this summer, as she has been purchased by Eric C. Moore of the Rochester Y. C. from A. G. Hanan. ..." (Source: Anon. "Notes from the Week's Log." April 25, 1909, p. 41.)

"No. 6585 --- For Sale --- Famous Canada's Cup Winner yacht Seneca; price for immediate sale $3,000. Description: Designed and built by Herreshoff Mfg. Co., in 1907. Built of the best material and workmanship, no expense spared. Absolutely in A-1 condition. Dimensions: 46 ft. o. a., 32 ft. w. l., 9 ft. 1 in. beam, 6 1/2 ft. draught, 1,170 sq. ft. of sail. Measurement; Class P, 30.70. Inventory: Sails --- One Ratsey jib, balloon jib, and mainsail made in 1911. Only used for one race. Ratsey jib, balloon jib, mainsail and spinnaker made in 1907. One Herreshoff working jib, No. 2 jib, storm jib, reaching jib, balloon jib, spinnaker and mainsail. All running rigging and spars in first-class condition. One cable and anchor. Anchor manufactured by the Herreshoff Mfg. Co. One substantial dinghy; two sets of oars. All in A-1 condition. Cabin accommodations: Sleep six, two in main cabin and four in pipe bunks. Curtiss w. c.; ice-box; cabin lighted by electricity; compass, side lights, riding lights, etc. Eric C. Moore, 69 Stone Street, Rochester, N.Y." (Source: Anon. "For Sale." Rudder, March 1912, p. 155.)

"The Canadian cup defender Seneca, a Class P boat, has been bought by Aemilius Jarvis, Jr., a Canadian yachtsman, and will be raced in connection with the Perry Centennial at Put-in-Bay in August." (Source: Anon. "Ticks from the Ship's Clock." Forest and Stream, April 19, 1913, p. 499.)

"... Of the 1800 members of the Royal Canadian Yacht Club of Toronto nearly 150 have joined the various contingents sent by the Dominion to the European war. Among the members that have been killed in action was W. D. P. Jarvis, the eldest son of Aemilius Jarvis, the well-known yachtsman. W. D. P. Jarvis at the time of his death was the owner of the 31-rater Seneca. ..." (Source: Anon. "Notes from the Week's Log." Boston Globe, May 16, 1915, p. 58.)

"No. 14234 --- For Sale --- Famous Canada's cup winner, Class P sloop Seneca, 46 ft. o. a., 32 ft. w. l., 9 ft. 1 in. beam, 6 ft. 6 in. draught. Designed by N. G. Herreshoff, and built by Herreshoff Manufacturing Company at Bristol, R. I., in 1907. Double-planked, all hollow spars, three suits of sails, one almost brand-new by Ratsey, another suit by Ratsey in first-class condition, and a Herreshoff cruising suit. Sail area, 1,176 sq. ft.; measurement Class P, 30.70. She is in absolutely first-class condition, as tight as a bottle and in perfect shape. Cabin sleeps six, two in main cabin and four in pipe berths. Curtis toilet, ice-chest. Cabin lighted by electricity. Compass, side-lights, riding lights, etc. All standing and running rigging, spars and equipment in first-class condition. Tender, Herreshoff anchor cable, etc. Outside lead ballast, displacement 16,150 lb. Can be purchased at a sacrifice price. May be seen in Canada by applying to Hollis Burgess Yacht Agency, 15 Exchange Street, Boston, Mass. [Similar ad in Yachting March 1923, p. 123.]" (Source: Anon. "For Sale." The Rudder, March 1916, p. 134.)

"With her canvas torn and her rudder gone, the famous racing yacht, Seneca, owned by Commodore Aemilius Jarvis of the Royal Canadian Yacht Club of Toronto, was hauled from the sand bar at Holland cove near Pultneyville, where she was found lying on her beam side, and is today moored securely in the waters of the Rochester Yacht Club, which she formerly represented in defending the Canada cup. It is expected that the boat will be taken at once to Toronto.
A crew from the Charlotte life saving station pulled the boat out of the sand. Charles van Vorhis, skipper of the Iroquois having gone to Holland Cove to look after the boat, shortly after she was found [sic]. According to Alonzo Holland, the three members of her pirate crew, consisting of deserters of the American contingent of the Canadian army, anchored her before they abandoned her at the end of their fugitive cruise, but a gale tore her from her mooring and landed her upon the sand bar." (Source: Anon. "Seneca Securely Moored. She Will be Taken Back to Toronto." Watertown, NY Daily Times, August 12, 1916, p. A 16.)

"46' N.G. Herreshoff P-class sloop (now re-rigged as staysail schooner) built 1907; yellow pine/oak/bronze; a classic needing TLC. Maine 15,000." (Source: William Cannell Yacht Brokerage. [Classified Ad.] Wooden Boat #52, May / June 1983, p. 152.)

"N/A"

"[Item Description:] Penciled pantograph hull sections titled 'No 670 [#670s SENECA]. 27 Rating. From model originally made Seot[ember] 23, [19]06 for 57ft class, not used. Altered for #668 [DOROTHY Q], 22 rating and again for #669 [ELEANOR]. Scale length 1in per ft. Breadth & depth 13/12 of 1in per foot. Length w.l. 32ft 3 1/4in. L = 28.02. 1907 [SENECA was contracted for on February 6, 1907.]'. With two sets of calculations, the first crossed out and the second one marked 'After oiling & adjusting [the pantograph] arriving at a total displacement of 268.5cuft [= 17184lbs] and a wetted surface of 325[sqft]." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Pantograph Hull Sections. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE04_01570. Folder [no #]. 1907-(02 ?).)
① ②

"[Item Description:] Penciled pantograph lead sections titled 'Lead for 670 [#670s SENECA] Scale. Length 1/8. Breadth 12/13 of 1/8. Feb[ruary] 28 1907'. With calculations and note 'No. 670. Required 10330lbs with c.g. [at] .570 of w.l. (Frame spaces 10 1/2in - # 8 on w.l. waterline 32ft 2 1/4in.) 10330 * 1728/710 = 25160cui ...' and concluding with note 'Result. 25100cuin on 29.02 frame= 10310lbs'. With 'Note. About 200lbs was cut off near aft end and added in dead wood near forward end. Also some 200lbs added inside near mast'." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Pantograph Lead Sections. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE04_08750. Folder [no #]. 1907-02-28.)
① ②

"[Item Description:] Handwritten (in ink and) table / design rule titled 'Formula for Obtaining the Limit of Sail-Area in Yachts when Measured by the Universal Rule' and signed 'Nath'l G. Herreshoff. Bristol R.I. July 16, 1907'. With formula 'Sailarea not more than C * B * (L * d * D)^.025 in which C = constant depending on rig, as follows: Sloops & Yawls not carrying topsails C=8.75. Full rigged Sloops C=9.8. Full rigged Schooners and Yawls C=9.3. L = length at 1/4 beam as for Universal Rule. B = breadth of waterline as for Universal Rule. d = draft of water as for Universal Rule. D = displacement as for Universal Rule. The following are examples of application of the above formula to some well known yachts designed by the author. Measurements for Universal Rule'. Followed by tabulated data showing Building Number, Rating, Waterline, L, B, d, D, S, Sail limit Present rule, Diff., Sail limit Proposed rule, Diff., and Notes for Buzzards Bay 15 [#503s class], KILDEE [#460s], SIS [#536s], DOROTHY Q [#668s], SENECA [#670s], N.Y.Y.C. 30 [#626s class], NEWPORT 30 [#463s class], ELECTRA [#530s], SPASM [#538s], PLEASURE [#545s], NEITH [#665s], DELIGHT [#679s], GLORIANA [#411s], ALTAIR [#539s], AVENGER [#666s], DORIS [#625s], WINSOME [#664s class], IROLITA II [#658s], YANKEE [#534s], CONSTITUTION [#551s], RELIANCE [#605s], PETREL [#510s], QUEEN [#657s], INGOMAR [#590s], WESTWARD [#692s], AND [KATOURA] [#722s]. [In an article in the March 5, 1905 Boston Globe (p40), N. G. Herreshoff argued that unless there be a stricter limit on sail area in the present Universal Rule, there would be only few cruising yachts racing. This formula is apparently an attempt to address the above issue. See elsewhere for complete spreadsheet transcription.]" (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Penciled Table. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE06_00080. Folder [no #]. 1907-07-13.)
①

"[Item Description:] Handwritten (in ink) rating rule titled 'Formula for Obtaining the Limit of Sail-Area in Yachts when Measured by the Universal Rule' and signed 'Nath'l G. Herreshoff. Bristol R.I. July 16, 1907'. With formula 'Sailarea not more than C * B * (L * d * D)^.025 in which C = constant depending on rig, as follows: Sloops & Yawls not carrying topsails C=8.75. Full rigged Sloops C=9.8. Full rigged Schooners and Yawls C=9.3. L = length at 1/4 beam as for Universal Rule. B = breadth of waterline as for Universal Rule. d = draft of water as for Universal Rule. D = displacement as for Universal Rule. The following are examples of application of the above formula to some well known yachts designed by the author. Measurements for Universal Rule'. Followed by tabulated data showing Building Number, Rating, Waterline, L, B, d, D, S, Sail limit Present rule, Diff., Sail limit Proposed rule, Diff., and Notes for Buzzards Bay 15 [#503s class], KILDEE [#460s], SIS [#536s], DOROTHY Q [#668s], SENECA [#670s], N.Y.Y.C. 30 [#626s class], NEWPORT 30 [#463s class], ELECTRA [#530s], SPASM [#538s], PLEASURE [#545s], NEITH [#665s], DELIGHT [#679s], GLORIANA [#411s], ALTAIR [#539s], AVENGER [#666s], DORIS [#625s], WINSOME [#664s class], IROLITA II [#658s], YANKEE [#534s], CONSTITUTION [#551s], RELIANCE [#605s], PETREL [#510s], QUEEN [#657s], INGOMAR [#590s], WESTWARD [#692s], AND [KATOURA] [#722s]. [In an article in the March 5, 1905 Boston Globe (p40), N. G. Herreshoff argued that unless there be a stricter limit on sail area in the present Universal Rule, there would be only few cruising yachts racing. This formula is apparently an attempt to address the above issue. See elsewhere for complete spreadsheet transcription.]" (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Handwritten Rating Rule. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE06_00260. Folder [no #]. 1907-07-16.)
①

"[Item Description:] Blueprint table titled 'Formula for Obtaining the Limit of Sail-Area in Yachts when Measured by the Universal Rule' and signed 'Nath'l G. Herreshoff. Bristol R.I. July 16, 1907'. With formula 'Sailarea not more than C * B * (L * d * D)^.025 in which C = constant depending on rig, as follows: Sloops & Yawls not carrying topsails C=8.75. Full rigged Sloops C=9.8. Full rigged Schooners and Yawls C=9.3. L = length at 1/4 beam as for Universal Rule. B = breadth of waterline as for Universal Rule. d = draft of water as for Universal Rule. D = displacement as for Universal Rule. The following are examples of application of the above formula to some well known yachts designed by the author. Measurements for Universal Rule'. Followed by tabulated data showing Building Number, Rating, Waterline, L, B, d, D, S, Sail limit Present rule, Diff., Sail limit Proposed rule, Diff., and Notes for Buzzards Bay 15 [#503s class], KILDEE [#460s], SIS [#536s], DOROTHY Q [#668s], SENECA [#670s], N.Y.Y.C. 30 [#626s class], NEWPORT 30 [#463s class], ELECTRA [#530s], SPASM [#538s], PLEASURE [#545s], NEITH [#665s], DELIGHT [#679s], GLORIANA [#411s], ALTAIR [#539s], AVENGER [#666s], DORIS [#625s], WINSOME [#664s class], IROLITA II [#658s], YANKEE [#534s], CONSTITUTION [#551s], RELIANCE [#605s], PETREL [#510s], QUEEN [#657s], INGOMAR [#590s], WESTWARD [#692s], AND [KATOURA] [#722s]. [In an article in the March 5, 1905 Boston Globe (p40), N. G. Herreshoff argued that unless there be a stricter limit on sail area in the present Universal Rule, there would be only few cruising yachts racing. This formula is apparently an attempt to address the above issue. See elsewhere for complete spreadsheet transcription.]" (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Blueprint Table. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Acc. 2004.0001.0169. WRDT08, Folder 16, formerly MRDE06. 1907-07-16.)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] I wish to thank you for your letter of congratulation [on #670s SENECA's win of the Canada's Cup] of the 14th inst., and also want to express our great appreciation of the wonderful boat that the 'SENECA' really is.
I, personally, feel myself that you certainly built us a most wonderful boat, as the Canadians did not even have a peek in.
The 'SENECA' is equally fast in all kinds of weather and on all kinds of courses and with her you have won a reputation for yourself that will always remain with the sailors of the Great Lakes.
Yours very truly, ..." (Source: Pembroke, W.P. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_09600. Correspondence, Folder 28, formerly 149. 1907-08-16.)
① ② ③ ④

"[Item Description:] thank you for sending measurements for #610s MIMOSA III, I want to file down the rating to the last possible point, hate to bother you but it is going to be no cinch to hold our own against the #670s SENECA and the holding of the Manhasset Cup means a lot to my fellow members of the American Yacht Club and to me" (Source: Wainwright, Stuyvesant. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_34490. Subject Files, Folder 42, formerly 32. 1907-12-13.)
①

"N/A"

"N/A"

"[Item Description:] Will you kindly give me quarter beam length, displacement and draught of #670s SENECA, incl. NGH reply: am a little uncertain as to trim on your overall length as different than last year's measurement but can interpolate, [figures follow]." (Source: Hallock, William (incl NGH reply). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_34690. Subject Files, Folder 42, formerly 32. 1908-06-11.)
①

"[Item Description:] #670s SENECA fit to be represented in NYYC question, NGH suggests a cabin trunk could be added" (Source: Hanan (incl NGH reply). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_00540. Correspondence, Folder 1_14, formerly (84). 1908-06-12.)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] [Typewritten signed letter on 'Cary Smith & Ferris' stationery:] There has been a long discussion in my mind about Naval Architecture. I contend that it is an art not a science.
That the form can only be obtained from a model made by the designer and then checked off to secure the proper balance and displacement. That the conception of the rig is the same problem, both of these factors arrived at from practical experiments with boats and sailing them. That the problem of the form of sails is the same. That no professor of Naval Architecture can teach such things.
I have arrived at these conclusions partly from looking a you[r] models at the club. I have been making models for 50 years and have never been able to satisfy myself with a drawing. I cannot get the refinement of form that can be obtained from the model.
I also contend that there is no Royal road to success in sailing vessels. That no money and training in Naval Architecture will attain the end, without the perception of form and ability to express that form with wood and tools.
As you and myself have supplied the rest with ideas of original rig, gear and construction, I ask if my conclusions are correct. I congratulate you on the success of the 'SENECA' [#670s].
[Incl NGH draft reply:] Bristol Aug 6 '08
My dear Mr Smith
Your very interesting letter came while I was away.
I quite agree with you in your views of Naval Architecture,- at any rate in its condition of the present time. I formerly had an idea there must be a scientific basis for the form of vessels and tried hard to get on to it but without success. The catamaran of 33 years ago was the result of research for a scientific sailing craft, but it didnot come to stay --- ironically[?] however, that the narrow minded ones ruled it out for racing. The bulb keel boat is a study in another channel, but neither the catamaran or bulb keel have the practical value that the full bodied boat has,- which is the type you have adhered to rather persistently.
I had the impression that you always developed the form from the drawings and not the models, but I see I was misinformed. We develop the form from the model.
I thank you for your kind words about 'SENECA'.
Believe me, very truly yours ... " (Source: Smith, A. Cary (incl NGH reply). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_20030. Correspondence, Folder 55. 1908-07-27.)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] I have taken up the question of having the draft rule amended as soon as possible, but of course it will mean calling another conference which we will try to get through early in October.
As far as I can learn the opinions of the yachting men I think the following changes will be brought up for discussion.
1. Amend the draft rule.
2. Make every yacht built after Jan. 1st 1908 rate at the top of her class in class racing.
3. Go back to the 60% time allowance scale.
4. Straighten out the measuring of sail area. The present method of measuring spars alone does not give satisfaction. One suggestion is to measure the diagonal from throat to clue instead of calculating it as we now do. The Club topsail as at present measured can be easily beaten by making your working topsail tack very low.
5. Allow the 33 foot class to carry Clubtopsails.
There is also some talk of bringing in the W.L. into the formula as you suggested to me the other day. I hardly think this will materialize though as I am afraid to touch the rule itself as it would mean an entire change of classification which we do not want.
Why would a 70 foot schooner cost so much more than the old [New York] 70s. That matter is still in the air but I hope to pull it off if I can get some one other boat built in the class. Incl. NGH reply: I hope you will be able to put the changes thru. It is very important to future building. It would be a shame to be obliged to build all the larger boats with centre boards if you wished to race them successfully. I[?]wrote[?] [George] Cormack about it a few days ago, that is about draft restriction and sail restrictions. I didn't mention the proportion of modifying the L by taking mean of quarter[?] beam[?] length and waterline for it might seem as if I was asking too much. I am however of the opinion that it would put our measurement in more perfect form and cause the rating to be index[?] of the racing speed of a yacht. The fact that there would have to be no new measurement taken than the measurer has at present is very much in its favor, and as for classification that would be very easy fixed by allowing all craft now built to remain in their present classes, but to give time allowance as by their new measurement.
I cannot agree with in abolishing time allowance in classes. It would be a big mistake, and has always proven so. Build your one design classes when it can be carried out, but to ask every one to build to the class limit will never hold for any length of time. Take the Ram bu the horns and straighten our the time allowance rules so the little end of the class will have as nearly as possible only[?]an equal chance of wining as the big end. Just because there happened to be two or three exceptionally fast boats that got in at the bottom of the classes this year and sweeped many of the prizes is no reason to abandon time allowance altogether. The little boats merited part of their winning --- not all. Part is due to the fact that the new boats are much larger than their rating, while the new allowance tables have been based on the performance of the older type which were much smaller than their rating. The time allowance table wants adjusting, which is an easy matter. But in making adjustments don't forget the fat that AVENGER [#666s], DORELLO, SENECA [#670s] all have features that gave them an advantage over their larger rivals. The smaller craft were allowed all the draft they need. The larger were not. The smaller were the latest productions and having hollow spars & c. Is it wise to allow hollow spars? I am about ready to say yes, having in mind the fact that it is getting more and more difficult to procure timber for solid ones and the day will soon arrive when all spars will be built up and then it will be just as easy to have them hollow as solid.
At first I was opposed to the spar measure and ruled for calculating the maximum area. I have come to like it excepting the fact of swinging the end of swinging the end of mainboom too long for open water sailing. Measuring the actual diagonal will help this, but you cannot measure it alike two different days. Perhaps you could establish a minimum height for the mainboom to swing, say when resting on a crotch take the measure there and then hoist sail and let the measurer see that it is not lower when correctly set. The topsail trouble can be easily got over by assuming the area of the working topsail the difference between [formula] and [formula], or say any club topsail < [formula]. The coefficient 15 may not be correct but I think nearly so.
I know no reason why the 33ft class or 27ft class should not carry club topsails if the rig is measured to topsails, using P instead of H in the formula for after sails. I believe in it if one wants to pull the little strings, as it educates the younger set for handling larger craft.
About the cost of the [New York] 70s [#529s MINEOLA, #532s RAINBOW, #533s VIRGINIA and #534s YANKEE]: They were built at $32600 about --- a set of four in one design. There was little profit at that price. A single one would cost thus at least $36000. Today labor and material are about 10% higher which would bring it to 39600. Then if schooner rigged add 5% which would bring one of the 70s built today & schooner rigged at $41580. The proposed 64 rating schooner would have a little less over all length and breadth, but would have from 5 to 15% more displacement and consequently more lead." (Source: Duncan, W. Butler (incl NGH reply). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_68850. Measuring and Measurement Rules (Box 1), Folder B1F02, formerly MRDE15. 1908-08-21.)
① ② ③ ④

"[Item Transcription:] Butler [Duncan] gave me a letter of recent date in which you suggest that something should be done in the way of alteration in rules of measurement to permit additional draft in yachts to be built in the future.
I have always considered that the tax on draft was too great, and I think that we agree that we have dealt with the penalties on canvas rather leniently. So I fancy if we permitted an increase of draft we must be careful not to allow the increase in sail; otherwise the intention of the rule would be destroyed.
On the increase of draft as suggested by you, would it be possible to build a centre-board boat that would have an equal chance under certain conditions to meet successfully a keel boat. I merely ask this question for the reason that if such a case was possible it would be interesting again to get back to the two types, keel and centre-board; but as I am not at all in sympathy with the centre-board, do not care much about that consideration.
Another matter to be considered is if the draft limit should be increased, would it not be unfavourable to QUEEN [#657s], ISTALENA [#663s], AURORA [#667s] and AVENGER [#666s]? and could AURORA and ISTALENA's lead be lowered to the advantage of these boats? It would seem to me that it would benefit them.
It looks at present as if we were on the eve of a revival in racing. I sincerely trust that such may be the case. When you have time I hope you will write me fully.
Incl. NGH reply: Aug 28. I am pleased to hear from you and trust you are in better health, and that your eyes are not giving you so much trouble.
There seems to be a possibility as Butler may have told you, of some yachts being built to race in the larger classes. It seems to me a shame to build to to [sic] restrictions that handicap the craft from being the most perfect creation conceivable, for good wholesome and fast sailing yachts.
It is very evident that the present restrictions on draft detract from the best qualities being obtained &[?] yachts of over about 35 ft wl. and the restriction on sail area is never[?] approached except in freak craft or racing machines fit for light winds only.
Aside from these two restrictions I think our present rules have developed an extremely good type of yacht, and compared with the type in vogue five to ten years ago, decidedly faster than I ever expected.
I have spent some little time in trying to perfect the measurements & restrictions rules. (It seems desirable to have restrictions to prevent freak designs) and I have some formula that I am quite sure will prove satisfactory. For restriction of draft ans[?]
Draft < (L + 2 1/2 B = 10 ) / 9, and another one which is better but takes logarithms to work it, is < .666 (L * B^2)^(3/10). This allows a little more draft in the intermediate sizes such as AVENGER & AURORA and just about what they should have.
I would recommend that centre-boats should be restricted to 3/4 the draft of keel boats of equal size and that the centreboards be constructed of wood and weighted only enough to sink them.
I worked out a formula for the limit of sail area last year [see document and blueprint dated July 16, 1907] and have not been able to improve on it. It would allow a sail area on some of our well known yachts as follows a little more than QUEEN actually has and slightly over AURORA & AVENGER, slightly less than SENECA [#670s] and a little more than the NYYC 30s [New York 30s].
It is Sail area , C * B * 4th root of (L * d * D) in which I is a constant = to 8.75 for sloops & yawls with topsails = 9.8 in full rigged sloops & = 9.3 in full rigged schooners & yawls. L = quarter beam length, d = draft of water, D = displacement, all as used in the Racing rules. It is worked out easily by aid of logarithms, or with the slide rule.
Replying to your questions. I think it quite possible to build a centreboard boat with the proposed restriction in draft that would under certain conditions compete with the keel type, but in the larger yachts centre-boards are a nuisance that should only be put up with when it is absolutely necessary to use the yacht in shallow waters.
If the QUEEN was allowed more draft and the lead lowered, she could carry a larger rig which would make her faster. Probably enough faster to pay for the increased rating. But still it is a question if the extra 2ft of draft would hold her to windward as well as the board.
AURORA and ISTALENA would be improved by lowering the lead, and the same would apply to AVENGER but not in so marked degree." (Source: Cormack, George A. (incl NGH reply). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_68810. Measuring and Measurement Rules (Box 1), Folder B1F02, formerly MRDE15. 1908-08-27.)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] I enclose herewith a copy of the amendments proposed for the Atlantic Coast Conference meeting called for the 8th. No doubt you have already received copies direct from headquarters. I have marked the author of these amendments insofar as I know (with exception, of course, of yourself).
I effect to be present at this meeting as a delegate from the Y.R.A. of Massachusetts, together with Charlie Adams. What do you think of these proposed amendments? Do you think the practical operation of the Rating Formula, so far, demands any change[?] in some or any change in L or L.W.L.? It seems to me that until some winning boat is produced under present rules that shows radically wrong or dangerous features that we should let 'well enough alone' and not go about mixing[?] up the innards[?] of the 'laity'[?] with continual changes. Surely, my own personal experience in sailing on and against such yachts as your AVENGER [#666s], SENECA [#670s] and ELEANORA [#552s ex-EFFORT II], and my own DORELLO show them to be magnificent sea boats always under perfect control. In model and structure they seem perfect, hence why change? I wish I could hear from you on this subject before this meeting.
We are getting pretty well settled in our new home in Newton and are much pleased with the change. We hope to see you or yours here at a not distant date. [Incl. envelope.]" (Source: Owen, George. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_69100. Measuring and Measurement Rules (Box 1), Folder B1F02, formerly MRDE15. 1908-10-03.)
① ② ③ ④

"[Item Description:] Penciled table listing OA, LWL, QBL, %, L = LWL + 1/2(QBL-.93LWL), and Mian[?] for Buzzards Bay 15 [#503s], KILDEE [#460s], DELIGHT [#679s], NYYC 30 [#626s], SENECA [#670s], SPASAM [#538s], NEITH [#665s], GLORIANA [#411s], ALTAIR [#539s], AVENGER [#666s], DORIS [#625s], WINSOME [#664s] class, MINEOLA [#529s] class, INGOMAR [#590s] and QUEEN [#657s]. With three formulas for L, one by 'NGH proposed', the other by Louis M. Clark and the third by NGH [apparently the old one]. On verso of printed receipt card by Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co. Undated, the latest of these boats is from 1908 suggesting this to have been prepared for the Universal Rule revision of 1908." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Penciled Calculations. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE03_01780. Folder [no #]. No date (1908).)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] As I wrote you, I forwarded our report to the New Yorkers, recommending if any alteration in the racing rule was made that it be the change you suggest. They immediately sent one of their representatives, Mr. [Clinton] Crane, over here to say they could not under any consideration agree to that, and expressed themselves that it was very unfortunate we should split on this matter.
Now, of course as you can readuly see I am only placed on the committee from the fact that my boat has been the chief cause of all the excitement, and I do not propose to stand in the way of the New York Yacht Club if they wish to change the racing rule, just in order that my boat [#666s AVENGER] may not suffer by any change that is likely to be made. I had much rather sell her for what I can get and give up racing rather than have them feel that I am grinding my own axe in the matter. I, therefore, told them that as far as I was converned I should be prepared to stand by anything that the other four members of the committee agreed upon. [Louis M.] Clark is strongly in favor of your change and very decided ideas of his own.
These are guided more by what he feels is best for the smaller class, as those are the boats around here in which he is chiefly interested, and he proposed the following sliding scale formula, which I enclose on his card as he had made it out. This will probably be the compromise and the New Yorkers will accept it.
I enclose copy of report of the Committee which will be considered at the conference.
The sliding scale of allowance of Q.B. seems to me to be all right in the larger boats, but it dees seem to me that in boats under 40 feet it is too large &, when it gets down to the small boats I think that 95% is too large altogether.
I do not like the classification either for the small boats the present 15 foot raters will measure approximately just under 17 feet & I think they should not be ruled against.
I enclose letter received from [Charles Lane] Poor as to the cube root tables of allowances. I think that the 60% of the present formula is near enough right for the present. Incl. NGH reply: I have ready carefully your letter of 20 and I must say I admire the honorable stand you are taking, in not considering your own vested interests in the matter, but it appears to me you are being made a martyr, and that at least one of the N.Y. end of the Committee has vested interests that is the principal[?] cause of the present[?] attack on the rating rule and if that is the case I am afraid I would not give in to them so readily. Besides, I cannot convince myself that the rule proposed by the the[?] New Yorkers or by Mr. Clark is a correct measure of racing speed as it only deals with quarter beam length above a certain prescribed ratio to waterline length. The effect of shortening QBL in return[?] rule is same (nearly) as shortening[?] waterline[?] down[?] still showing[?] Q.B.L. stops which is not rational. If Q.B.L. has value when its length is between 93 & 94% of L.W.L. it certainly has nearly the same value when it is between 92 & 93% of w.l. and it[?] will almost[?] it[?] has a proportional value when it is down to below 85% of L.W.L. Both AVENGER[?] [#666s] and SENECA [#670s] have low freeboard, but both have won a reputation as fine able sea boats, and it is unjust to frame a rule that will force[?] them to a disadvantage in racing.
Why don't the N.Y. designers try to beat them, instead of framing a rule that will give them little chance. I am sending you a comparison of the formulae[?] for value of L as suggested by New Yorker[?], Clark & myself.
You will see that in New Yorker's L is increased over mine by .035 LWL and Clark's by (LWL^(3/2))/200[?], a small amount in each case, which I would willingly accept if the minus values of QBL - .93 LWL or QBL - (LWL 100*sq-rt([?])/100 be not dropped out. but my formula is simpler to work and better.
I have had in mind for several years, there could be devised ideal values for L and D in the mean[?] formula which were entirely independent of the load water line and actual displacement of a vessel. - L to become a mean length of the entire hull and D and exponent of the cubical content of the entire hull. Then the measurer would do his work, once for all when the vessel in on the stocks, and after afloat they[?] can change the ballast or trim until the vessel sails best. Of course prohibiting changing ballast within a day before a race. I have taken this scheme up again and have it quite well contrived and will send you a detail of it in a few days. Don't you think it will be a grand thing it it can be carried out?
I think I am right in saying the object of the measuring rule is to measure a yacht for what she is worth in racing and to give preference to 'good wholesome yacht' over a racing machine. The size but not the personal equation of the crew should be one of the factors, in anything the equation we have adopted in passing fair one size of yacht to with (R + L * sq-rt(S)) / (c [unreadable]. The L is really the speed factor and sq-rt(S) / cube-rt(D) are the factors that stand for[?] a good wholesome yacht. But to keep yachts in the wholesome form and proper for sailing in open waters as well as to enter harbors, limitations of draft of water and to the size of usual sail area, are found to be missing.
The present question that vexes is How shall the measurements of the factor L be taken? It must be a length measure of the hull of the vessel that most correctly represents the speed for racing. Experience has taught us that one single measurement will not do. That whatever one is taken the form will be distorted in such a way that more speed will be obtained and generally to the disadvantage of good simic[?] general[?] qualities.
Length of keel alone has been tried and abandoned. In the same way length of water line, length over all, have found[?] when used alone to distort the form for[?] that of a good wholesome yacht. Now the last length measurement, length at quarter beam at one tenth breadth along load water line plane is found not satisfactory. That although it gives a vessel of good form it does not correctly measure the racing speed.
If we know what proportion overall LWL QBL should be to each other to give the best results in every vessel one way would be smooth and a rule of length [crossed out: like that proposed by Mr Clark on our N.Y. friends] would answer, but unfortunately we don't know the correct proportion and probably never will, be[?] for it would verie[?] in for[?] vessels of different proportions of breadth & depth & amount of sail & c. [Incl. envelope.]" (Source: Duncan, W. Butler (incl NGH reply). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_68730. Measuring and Measurement Rules (Box 1), Folder B1F02, formerly MRDE15. 1908-11-20.)
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥

"[Item Transcription:] Answering yours of June 21st, would say that the breeze in the race on Saturday was not by any means excessive, as all the 'L' 'M' and 'N' boats easily carried club topsails, so we have not yet had an opportunity to stretch the sail out of shape. The entire trouble with the mainsail is I think that the principal draft is too near the center of the sail, helping to cause a tight leach. It may be that by correcting this draft or in other words bringing it further forward. We may be able to change the center of effort somewhat. The objection to reducing the sail and our rating is that we did not get any corresponding allowance as we must go to the top of the class, and the stepping of the mast might be done, but the question then arises how far in advance should we place it. What bothers me is that I never heard that the SENACA [sic, i.e. #670s SENECA] who had a high narrow rig had any trouble of this character.
Mr. Hallock took the measurement yesterday, and I am awaiting his figures to see if we have any great latitude to help us to make any change.
Regarding the fixing of the present sail, we naturally would very much like to have you do it, and we would hate to entrust it to anybody else, but we do not see how this can be accomplished, unless we have you pass on the sail when the boat is under way in a good breeze. At the moment, we cannot think of sending the boat round to Bristol, as we want to practice in all the local races.
Upon having Mr. Hallock's final figures, we will again communicate with you.
Yours very truly, ... [The letter appears to be referring to #687s NAULAHKA, the P-boat just delivered to challenge #670s SENECA for the Manhasset Bay Challenge Cup. The previous weekend, on June 19, 1909, at the Larchmont Yacht Club's spring regatta, Naulahka had sailed her first race with disappointing results, having been beaten on actual time by the smaller #626s ALERA as reported by Forest & Stream of June 26, 1909, p. 1021. The next year, in 1910, Wainwright would acquire NAULAHKA and rename her CARA MIA.]" (Source: Wainwright, Stuyvesant. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_22990. Correspondence, Folder 67, formerly 135. 1909-06-23.)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] Order book with carbon copy duplicates of instructions given by NGH titled 'Herreshoff Mfg. Co. Orders from N.G. Herreshoff'. Relevant contents:
§82: Work Order [For] #670s. [When wanted] First week of May. Rigging [2 pages] (1907-03-15)
§84: Work Order [For] #670s. [When wanted] First week of May. Blocks (1907-03-15)." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Order Book. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE08_03460. Folder [no #]. 1900-02 to 1909-10.)
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫ ⑬ ⑭ ⑮ ⑯ ⑰ ⑱ ⑲ ⑳ ㉑ ㉒ ㉓ ㉔ ㉕ ㉖ ㉗ ㉘ ㉙ ㉚ ㉛ ㉜ ㉝ ㉞ ㉟ ㊱ ㊲ ㊳ ㊴ ㊵ ㊶ ㊷ ㊸ ㊹ ㊺ ㊻ ㊼ ㊽ ㊾ ㊿
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫ ⑬ ⑭ ⑮ ⑯ ⑰ ⑱ ⑲ ⑳ ㉑ ㉒ ㉓ ㉔ ㉕ ㉖ ㉗ ㉘ ㉙ ㉚ ㉛ ㉜ ㉝ ㉞ ㉟ ㊱ ㊲ ㊳ ㊴ ㊵ ㊶ ㊷ ㊸ ㊹ ㊺ ㊻ ㊼ ㊽ ㊾ ㊿
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫ ⑬ ⑭ ⑮ ⑯ ⑰ ⑱ ⑲ ⑳ ㉑ ㉒ ㉓ ㉔ ㉕

"[Item Description:] Penciled table titled 'P Class' with data for OA, WL, QBL, B, d, D, S, S/WS for #670s SENECA, #687s NAULAKHA, #708s CORINTHIAN and four versions of an unnamed design --- probably #709s JOYANT. Undated (JOYANT was designed in early 1911.)" (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Penciled Table. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE03_01820. Folder [no #]. No date (early 1911 ?).)
①

"[Item Transcription:] [Typewritten letter on 'Raymond, Pynchon & Co.' stationery:] Many thanks for yours of June 8th. I agree with you that the fifty-five foot class is a good racing class, and it has the advantage of not being as expensive as our present boats. The trouble with it is, however, that the accommodations are not quite large enough to give those of us who are not fortunate enough to be able to own steam yachts, sufficient room to meet our requirements in cruising.
My own idea is that our present class is the ideal size and I will talk with my friends during the next few weeks and see if it is possible to interest them in new boats of the 'K' class. I am going to [p. 2]outline to them a new boat which I assume would have a somewhat larger hull than the present ones, longer over-hangs with about the same rig, but somewhat better proportioned from the fact of its not having such a big club topsail. Hollow mast, gaff, and club topsails spars, solid topmast and possibly boom. It is useless for me to talk to them on any other lines, except that of highest possible speed.
There was more or less disappointment, as you know, over the belief that our present boats did not seem to embody in their design all the best features for highest speed. The fact that we have done so well with them has been due to extremely good handling and the nerve to race them with their big rigs in all sorts of weather.
Should we decide to build again, we must not be put in the position of having boats which can so easily be outbuilt as our present ones.
I am not sure that I shall be at the boat races in New London, but it is possible, and if so, I will see you there.
In the mean time, if you have any further suggestions to make, please write me and [p. 3] and if you can give me an approximate idea of the cost of this new class, please
do so.
I assume that such boats as I have outlined would be able and at the same time have all the sail which you think would be necessary to get best results. With best regards, as always, I am,
Sincerely yours, ... [Incl. crossed out penciled NGH reply on verso:] It was very interesting to yours of June 16th, and I see you favor strongly the same class that you now have, but with larger hulls than your present one design boats, and with exaggerated overhangs and about the same sail spread, which of course is in line of improvements arrived at in the smallowetant[?] after a few years of racing.
I am a little surprised at your criticism of your present boats which I have had the impression that they were rather fast and well proportioned for what they were designed for. Of course, in 1906 when they were designed I could not foretell the changes made in 1908 rule change that allowed them more draft and placed them below the class limit and made it possible to build much larger vessels for the class.
The 1908 rules are not developing perfect boats by any means. It was a great mistake not measuring the overhangs and it seems not be advisable[?] to limit sizes in yachts of class by some means to keep them near one size.
It appears quite possible to built a boat to rate in the 65 class that would be very much larger than your present boats.
For instance a boat a boat exagualid[?] about as much as Corintian[?] [#708s CORINTHIAN?] in the P class w[ou]ld be about 100ft o.a. & 67ft lwl, 19ft beam and a displacement of over 60% greater and sail area 20% greater than the[?] your present boats. The largest of the P class and apparently a successful one is twice the displacement and nearly 30% more sail area than SENECA [#670s] which was champion in the P class for some time and would now[?] give the new boats good racing if put up against them. SENECA was built at the same time as ISTALENA [#663s] and her sisters and in model is almost exactly like them, so you can see what sheniges[?] are going on in the smaller class, and that it is possible to built a boat of most any size to race in a specified class, and there would be conditions under which the smaller ones will win --- probably a minor part of the races, though.
The cost of yacht in K class will be about $12 to $15 [corrected to $16] per cu ft displacement depending upon size and details of constriction, thus the craft mentioned given[?] would, if built in a simple[?] manner & composite construction, cost about $38,000, or if built of steel with elaborate finish might run[?] up as high as $50,000. ISTALENA could be reproduced at the present time for $27,000 or about $14 per cu ft. [Incl. a second and final, not crossed out penciled draft reply:] I did not reply to yours of 16th ult. expecting I might see you in New London and discuss the matter there. I hope to see you soon, either here or at the head of the sound.
It appears as if the size of a yacht can be changed a good deal for a given rating, and as far as I can see the rating rule is working well excepting (as I mentioned before) allowing exaggerated ends, which of course make a vessel bad at sea, both for safety & comfort. I hope there will be an amendment or change made in the rating rules to cover this defect.
It is difficult to give an estimate of cost of new yachts until the actual size is defined. It would be somewhere between 12 & 16 dollars per cuft disp[lacement]." (Source: Pynchon, George M. (incl NGH reply). Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_24070. Correspondence, Folder 70. 1911-06-16.)
① ② ③ ④

"[Item Description:] Handwritten (in ink) rating rule-related table on two pages with dimensions LOA, LWL, overhang fore & aft, mean length, freeboard fore & center & aft, breadth deck & w.l., draft, cube-root (displacement), 1st mast mean length, 1st to 2nd mast, J, P1, H1, B1, G1, V1, T1, P2, P2a, H2, B2, Q2, Y2,T2, sail area, sqrt(SA), sqrt(SA - NYYC Rule) for #605s RELIANCE, #499s COLUMBIA, #725s RESOLUTE, #529s MINEOLA, #663s ISTALENA, #666s AVENGER, New York 50s (#711s, #712s, #713s, #714s, #715s, #716s, #717s, #720s, #721s), #411s GLORIANA, #685s ADVENTURESS, #617s COCK ROBIN II, #586s NELLIE, #709s JOYANT, #708s CORINTHIAN, #670s SENECA, Bar Harbor 31s (#592s, #593s, #594s, #595s, #596s, #597s, #598s, #599s, #600s, #601s, #602s, #603s, #604s), New York 30s (#626s, #627s, #628s, #629s, #630s, #631s, #632s, #633s, #635s, #636s, #637s, #638s, #639s, #640s, #642s, #643s, #647s, #648s), Newport 29s (#727s, #728s, #737s), #691s MORE JOY, #446s ALERION II, Buzzards Bay 550s (#733s, #734s, #736s, #738s, #741s), #617s COCK ROBIN II, #493s JILT, #732s SADIE, #460s KILDEE, Buzzards Bay 15s (#503s Class), Buzzards Bay 12 1/2s (#744s Class), #703s FLYING CLOUD, #669s ELEANOR, #722s KATOURA, #692s WESTWARD, #657s QUEEN, #719s VAGRANT II, #698s VAGRANT, #663s ISTALENA, and #743s HASWELL. With penciled note 'Measurements in ft & inches. Results in ft & decimals'. Undated (the youngest boat on this list is from 1914/1915 and this was probably prepared in preparation for NGH's sail area rating rule of 1914/1915)." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Handwritten Table. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE15_00100. Folder [no #]. No date (1914 / 1915 ?).)
① ②

"[Item Transcription:] I suppose it may interest you to know that the NUTMEG III [ex-CORINTHIAN #708s] won the leg in the Lipton Cup again this year; also the North Shore Championship and the Corinthian Yacht Club Championship, all three with a larger margin than she had last year.
Both the ITALIA and BRITOMART had two disqualifications each, but even if they had not had these, we would have been ahead.
Mr. Lee, who owns the ITALIA, is talking of a new boat, and I suggested to him if he was going to build a new one, he had better see you, as although your price might be a little higher than some other, it was a fast boat he was after, he could stand the price. If you do happen to build a boat for the class next year, I will do my best to beat her just the same, and will endeavor to do so before they get her tuned up, although I think the NUTMEG will be a hard boat to beat in anything from medium air down, we expect to challenge Hannan[sic, i.e. Hanan, owner of #670s SENECA] for the Manhassett Bay cup next year.
Yours very truly, ..." (Source: Jones, Allen C. Letter to N.G. Herreshoff. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MR_06010. Correspondence, Folder 21, formerly 141. 1915-09-18.)
①

"[Item Description:] Penciled table titled 'P Class' with data for OA, WL, Beam, Breadth at wl, Draft, Displacement, cube-root(D), Sail area, sqrt (S), Rating, wetted surface, S/WS, cube-root([blank]) / wl for #670s SENECA, #687s CARA MIA, #708s CORINTHIAN, #709s JOYANT, NAHMA ([designed by Addison G.] Hanan [and built by B.F. Wood in 1916]) and 'Proposed' [design]." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Penciled Table. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE03_01190. Folder [no #]. No date (1916 or later ?).)
①

"[Item Description:] Penciled table showing LOA, LWL, Beam, Draft, QBL, Stem, [symbol], sft[?] and Displ[acement] for KATOURA [#722s], WESTWARD [#692s], VAGRANT, QUEEN MAB [#698s], CONSTITUTION [#551s], RESOLUTE [#725s], WINSOME [#664s], 2nd IROLITA [#658s], DORIS [#625s], AVENGER [#666s], 50 Footers [#711s], ADVENTURESS [#685s], IROLITA [#591s], FLYING CLOUD [#703s], BELISARIUS [#1266s], NEITH [#665s], AZOR [#578s], NAULAKHA [#687s], SENECA [#670s], NY30s [#626s], SENTA [#688s], DOROTHY Q [#668s], FLIGHT [#607s], PLEASURE [#907s], QUAKERESS [#676s], KILDEE [#460s], and the 12 1/2ft Class [#744s]. With formulas for mean length L, Draft limit by rule and freeboard at three positions. Undated, on verso of NYYC invitation dated December 11, 1933 but listing of BELISARIUS which was built in 1934/1935 indicates that this was written at that time or later. Filed close to and possibly related to what appears to be an early version of NGH's 'Observations on the Proportions of Sailing Yachts' from July 1936." (Source: Herreshoff, N.G. (creator). Tabulated Dimensions. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE02_03040. Folder [no #]. No date (1936-07 ?).)
① ②

Note: This list of archival documents contains in an unedited form any and all which mention #670s Seneca even if just in a cursory way. Permission to digitize, transcribe and display is gratefully acknowledged.

• Anon. "Seneca." Wooden Boat #200, January/February 2008, p. 16, 18. (231 kB)
  Document is copyrighted: Yes. Copyright holder: Wooden Boat Magazine. Restoration update.
• Snider, C. H. J. With photographs by R.B. Price. "The Races for the Canada's Cup." Yachting, October 1907, p. 204-207, 238-239.
  Detailed report of Seneca's win of the Canada's Cup. Many photos.
• Helpard, Lynn. "Seneca. A Yacht with a Glorious Past and a Bright Future." Atlantic Boating News, May/June 2009, p. 10-11. (897 kB)
  Document is copyrighted: Yes. Copyright holder: Atlantic Boating News. Vessel history. Restoration report.

• Seneca (HMCo-made index card)
• Seneca (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: Seneca
Type: J & M
Length: 32'4"
Owner: Pembroke, M. P.

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

• Seneca
• 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: Seneca
Type: 32' sloop
Owner: M. P. Pembroke
Year: 1907
Row No.: 614

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: Feb
Day: 6
Year: 1907
E/P/S: S
No.: 0670
Name: Seneca
LW: 32' 4"
B: 9' 0"
D: 6' 8"
Rig: J & M
K: y
Ballast: O. Lead
Amount: 5250.00
Notes Constr. Record: P. Class.
Last Name: Pembroke
First Name: M. P.

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.

"Universal Rule Class P." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. March 7, 2009.)

"Built in 105 days (contract to launch; equivalent to $50/day, 164 lbs displacement/day)." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. January 16, 2024.)

"Sail area 1212 sqft from untitled two-page rating-rule-related table handwritten (in ink) by N. G. Herreshoff with multiple dimensions for the most important Herreshoff-designed yachts. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum. MRDE15, Folder [no #]. Undated (the most recent boat dates 1914/1915 and the table was probably prepared in preparation for NGH's sail area rating rule of 1914/1915)." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. September 16, 2020.)

"[Sail area 1170 sq.ft..]" (Source: Herreshoff, N. G. "Formula for Obtaining the Limit of Sail-Area in Yachts when Measured by the Universal Rule Formula." Bristol, R.I., July 13, 1907 with later additions. Original handwritten (in ink) document with penciled additions. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE06_00080.)

"Displacement 268.5 cu.ft. [= 17,184 lbs] from untitled two-page rating-rule-related table handwritten (in ink) by N. G. Herreshoff with multiple dimensions for the most important Herreshoff-designed yachts. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum. MRDE15, Folder [no #]. Undated (the most recent boat dates 1914/1915 and the table was probably prepared in preparation for NGH's sail area rating rule of 1914/1915)." (Source: van der Linde, Claas. September 16, 2020.)

"[Displacement (269 cubic feet = 17,216 lbs).]" (Source: Herreshoff, N. G. "Formula for Obtaining the Limit of Sail-Area in Yachts when Measured by the Universal Rule Formula." Bristol, R.I., July 13, 1907 with later additions. Original handwritten (in ink) document with penciled additions. Halsey C. Herreshoff Collection at the Herreshoff Marine Museum Item MRDE06_00080.)

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