Old old town?

[MikeH]

I got an old wood and canvas canoe from an old marine shop that is closing. It has probably been sitting since the 50’s or earlier. I’m told that it is an Old Town but I don’t know how to verify what it is. It has a serial number stamped in the wood on the floor 520. What do I look at to determine what this is? The surface of the canvas is rough and cracked, it has a removable floor, it’s red and has the name “The Redskin” painted on it with a painted Indian with a headdress. The inside appears to be remarkably well preserved.
Thanks for any help!

 

[MGC]

Mike, Visual queues are very important for identifying canoes.
If you can post pictures of the decks, seats, thwarts, stems, planking it might make it possible to help you figure out what you have. Old wood and canvass canoes are frequently identified as "Old Towns" but sometimes they are not. There were quite a few companies building wooden canoes leading up to the modern composite boats that have since (largely) replaced them.
Mike

 

[Benson Gray]

It will take more than a serial number alone to identify this canoe as Mike suggested. Can you provide some pictures of the serial numbers and surround areas from both inside stems, pictures of the decks, seats, thwarts, floor rack, and a profile? Thanks,

Benson

 

[MikeH]

These pics were taken before I put it into storage. I can take some more of specific parts, I’m just not sure what will be useful. I’ll try to do it tomorrow if it isn’t raining here. The guy I got it from is certain it’s an Old Town, he and his family have been in the boat business for a very long time, but I also realize details can change given enough time. Thanks!

 

[Dave Osborn]

It’s a Rushton. One of the most sought after builders.
Old Town vs Rushton is like Chevy vs Mercedes.

 

[samb]

That is a beauty. Enjoy it.
Sam

 

[MGC]

Mike, thanks for your follow-up. The pictures confirm that it is 100% not an Old Town.
And, as has been suggested by Dave. possibly a Rushton. A few more and better images could help to confirm that. There are a few things that stand out that suggest that it is not.
First, a Rushton stem is a bit wider than those of other builders. That does not seem to be true of this canoe.
Next, a Rushton stem would have Rushton, Canton NY stamped on the top of the stem. This would be present on both stems. Related, the stamps used to number Rushton canes are quite specific. The numbers visible in your images are not made using those stamps, they are too large. A Rushton would also have the length of the canoe stamped on the stem.
On the further topic of Rushton markings, the stem bands (if original) would have Rushton stamped into them in the section that sits over the deck, again using a very specific stamp. You should look for that. Finally, typically a thwart will also be stamped with Rushton, Canton NY.

Then there are the seats, thwarts and decks on this canoe that need to be considered. The stern seat has the correct appearance and shape. The bow seat is odd. It is mounted directly to the rails and not to cleats as one would expect. That's not to say this could not have been built this way, it's just not something that is typical.
The thwarts have the appearance of old B grade Rushton thwarts and do not display the elegant shape that we normally see on a Rushton.
Finally, the decks are lobed as you would expect on a Rushton. But they look really large. Without better pictures to really look these over I'm not convinced yet.
Something to look for on Rushton canoes (and also period St. Lawrence County canoes that were built by Brown or Wells etc.) is a very wide top plank. This is a very solid "tell" when you find it.
Finally, the shape of the stem does not seem to turn back enough to be a Rushton canoe.

To my eye, is this a SLBW canoe? If so, the bow seat mounting is not correct and that stem is still not elegant enough.
More pictures please!
Hopefully someone more familiar can chime in.

 

[MikeH]

Thank you for the quick replies! I will get better and more pictures, I just may have to wait a couple of days till I can get some help pulling it out. I will also wipe some of the dust off of it, who knows what I will see then. I don’t think it has been moved since the 1960’s.

 

[samb]

My Rushton Navahoe looks very similar. There are no Rushton markings apart from on the stem band. Both seats are bolted directly under the gunnels and the number on the stem (I'm told) doesn't match typical Rushtons, it has the same gunnels and thwarts as yours seem to show, mine also has the wide top plank which MGC refers to. The length of the deck covers two ribs. The thwarts are chamfered underneath.

Photos from the side showing the rise of the gunnels will give the experts something to help

 

[MGC]

For some reason I always forget about the Navahoe. That is definitely a logical possibility.
The shape of the hull was altered and it was deliberately made lower than the Indian Girl. That would make it resemble the canoe Mike has acquired. Taking another look at the pictures, the decks only appear to be larger on the end where the lobes look split.
So, it looks like Dave may have won the door prize.
A measurement on that top board and a 1.2 wide stem would lock it in.

 

[MikeH]

I see the similarities. I will plan to pull it out and take some measurements this weekend. What to board exactly are you referring to? This is all new terminology to me but this canoe has grabbed my interest in its history and construction techniques used back then.

 

[samb]

The top board along the side as seen here:

 

[samb]

For some reason I always forget about the Navahoe. That is definitely a logical possibility.
The shape of the hull was altered and it was deliberately made lower than the Indian Girl. That would make it resemble the canoe Mike has acquired. Taking another look at the pictures, the decks only appear to be larger on the end where the lobes look split.
So, it looks like Dave may have won the door prize.
A measurement on that top board and a 1.2 wide stem would lock it in.

As I understand it, the alteration was to the curve of the sheer, not the height. Both are stated as 21" in the catalogues I can access.
Sam

 

[MGC]