Brodbeck Planking pattern

[JClearwater]

Attached is a picture of the planking pattern on my Brodbeck, formerly Bill Conrad's canoe. I thought it was interesting how Fred Brodbeck did his goring. The shear strake has a "notch" where two pieces of plank were joined. The photo is of the port side bow. The opposite side is done the same but the notched plank is one rib further back. You can also see further back (eighth rib) that he did the same thing. I don't know if any other builder did it that way. It may be significant of nothing but it is interesting none the less. All the planking is wide at least 3.5", some are 4" wide. This canoe is a rather early one - no stamped in serial number, but it does have, written in pencil, #153 on the stern stem. I don't know if that is a serial number or not. This canoe is in rough shape and will challenge my abilities. I will have to restock my liquor cabinet for this one.

Jim

 

[MGC]

What catches my eye are the tacking patterns. Most of us tend to run a diagonal and stick with it. Top down, left to right...that's how it starts out. When he starts putting a 4th tack in, the tacks start to appear in pairs. What is odd is that after a few boards, the pattern shifts to a right to left diagonal. It doesn't really matter except it is a bit odd to see a shift 1/4 of the way down the hull.
It would be interesting to see the rest of the planking pattern.

 

[patrick corry]

It would be interesting to see the rest of the planking pattern.

I agree.

 

[JClearwater]

I'll try to take a couple more pictures tomorrow.

 

[JClearwater]

Ok, let's try this. Additional pictures attached, all from the port side.
Mike, Maybe I look at things from a too practical viewpoint but I never put much stock in formal tack patterns. I always figured the old boys put a tack in where a tack was needed without trying too hard to set a standard pattern, especially when it's going to be covered with canvas and never seen again. It also makes a difference if you are right or left handed and which direction you are moving - bow to stern or stern to bow. The last picture shows tacks that are set between planks so the tack head catches both planks. There are five in this picture alone. I expect Fred did that to save on tacks and save on time driving them in. All the tacks are copper and the heads are a little bigger than the brass ones we use today.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Jim

 

[MGC]

Thanks for the added images. Now it is possible to see how that canoe was gored.
There are a million ways to skin that cat. In the end, you are making a few boards fit on a shaped surface.
WRT tacks, there really is not any significance to how it is done. That said, I have noticed that many builders have a tendency to follow a pattern. What stood out to my eye is that whoever built this canoe did not. There are several "mini" patterns. Can we conclude this is simply a more utilitarian approach or that the builder was in a hurry, or that a few people were involved in driving the tacks? Not really. But to my way of thinking, and based upon how I tack, I would think that the builder was not particularly fussy. One of the things I tend to notice when I work on an old canoe is how carefully it was built. Case in in point. For all of the desirability, the construction of later Rushton rag canoes, was pretty mediocre. Board fits, wood selection, all of those details were not all that well executed. I see a planking gap on image 7251A here that I personally think looks pretty mediocre. That and looking at the randomness of the tacks, I might conclude that Brodbeck was not super fussy. Nothing wrong with that. It's a just a canoe and once the canvas is on, you would never see that. That takes nothing away from its scarcity or value, but it does reflect upon the maker. Most folks, when they tack, are thinking about how the tacks line up on the rib with the goal being to secure the plank, but not line up tacks in the rib so that you would weaken it. That is (in part) where that diagonal stems from.

 

[Gil Cramer]

It is always interesting to see how different builders addressed the change in girth in a canoe. Thompson simply tapered the planks and cut the plank below the shear plank to keep it horizontal. Morris installed a short plank in the quarters to make goring easier . Others used other techniques. BTW, Thompson and Morris canoes tended to hog more than others.

 

[MGC]

It is always interesting to see how different builders addressed the change in girth in a canoe. Thompson simply tapered the planks and cut the plank below the shear plank to keep it horizontal. Morris installed a short plank in the quarters to make goring easier . Others used other techniques. BTW, Thompson and Morris canoes tended to hog more than others.

Totally agree. It's fascinating to see the variations.
Very interesting observation about hogging. I've never dealt with a Thompson canoe and the Morris and Veazie canoes I've owned were not hogged but I have seen a few that were. Maybe Morris ain't all he's cracked up to be? Those inside rails are not one of my favorites.

 

[Michael Grace]

Regarding fussiness, Jim, I wonder if you might have a very early Brodbeck - perhaps from his very beginning as a builder. I have two Brodbecks but haven't skinned either one yet so I cannot say anything about the planking fit or the tacking patterns. However, I can say that these two are exquisite canoes. I always thought of Morris as the pinnacle of cedar-canvas canoe construction... until I got to know Brobeck!

Most of the canoes I've seen from Brodbeck are very nice, and I'd go so far as to say that the two I have (guesstimating both from 1919, and the ones I know best) are of truly superb craftsmanship. His attention to detail in these two canoes was simply extraordinary. One of these canoes, which lived its entire life until very recently only a mile or so from Brodbeck's shop, is in near-perfect original condition and has its original paddle and two original backrests. White the canoes themselves are just stunning, the backrests really blew me away. I've never heard of any others but there is no doubt these are original. They have the same aged finish, they are of the same unusual style as the thwarts and seat frames, and they show the same attention to detail, like I've never seen in any other example of a backrest (not even Willits).

All of this is to say that your canoe's planking and tacking patterns are a bit rough by any standard, but that's okay if it gets the job done. What's fascinating is that this roughness is so completely incongruent with the overall quality of other (later?) Brodbeck canoes. Brodbecks are rare, but you might have an even rarer piece of history there, Jim.

 

[MGC]

The copper tacks do suggest an early canoe.
I did not mention it earlier, although it does jump out, on image 7248A, there is one plank that has six tacks on one rib and what looks like a crack in the plank. That was likely a repair many years ago.
WRT tacking patterns, you can also see that from the inside of the hull, although it is a bit more of a challenge to pick out the detail.

 

[JClearwater]

Despite the canoe's obvious hard life and exposure to the weather in the last several decades the hull shape is remarkably good. It is not hogged and the curves are still fair. The decks and thwarts are mahogany. Seat frames appear to be oak, inwales are spruce. Gunwale caps are long gone so what they were made of is unknown as well as their shape. The fit of the decks to the inwales is remarkably tight and well done. The tops of the cant ribs are set into the inwales slightly so that the planking lays flat against the inwale making for a finer look at both ends. The inwales are chamfered along the bottom inside corner to provide a nice feel for your fingers. That was not done on any other canoe I own. Not on either Morris, Old Town, Crandell, Rushton etc. They all have an corner edge left square. The inwale tips also protrude beyond the face of the stem. There is no outside stem. The seat frames and thwarts are shaped so they have an arch to them enhancing all the non-parallel lines of the canoe and also in a like manner to the old birch bark canoes. My intention is to do the old girl justice and bring her back to her former glory. It's going to be a project to say the least. I just finished the Morris I was working on and will post pictures of it next week. I will be diving straight into the Brodbeck. Jean is the one who wanted a Brodbeck. She also wanted the Rushton IG which is how I ended up with the Burn Pile Rushton that we made the video about. The things we do for our spouses.

Jim

 

[Todd F]

Well done. Look forward to seeing your work. My wife say she agrees, although she is not happy with the Morris in the living room....

 

[chris pearson]

Jim. Super cool boat. Both my Gerrish’s have a bevel on the lower inside edge of the inwales. Brodbecks I’ve seen have planks going to the top of the inwale and the outside rail too, and the rail was mahogany…..

 

[MGC]

As Chris points out, Gerrish was quite particular about the finish details, even the treatment of inside rails. This image is from a newer canoe than the Broadbeck Jim is restoring but it's still a very old boat with some very interesting details.

 

[chris pearson]

Can’t imagine there are too many around. Didn’t he build out of his garage?

 

[ALCEDO ATTHIS]

Jim, un bateau super cool. Mes deux Gerrish ont un biseau sur le bord inférieur intérieur des étais. Les Brodbeck que j'ai vus ont des planches qui vont jusqu'au haut de l'étais et jusqu'au bastingage extérieur, et le bastingage était en acajou…

just for that , very nice

 

[Benson Gray]

Didn’t he build out of his garage?

Yes, the 1904 New England Business Directory and Gazetteer listed his address as 5222 Washington Street.

The link below shows how it looks now from Google street view. Bill Conrad visited many years ago and the owner mentioned that he had found lots of canoe tacks in the garage when he moved in.

Benson

Street View of 5222 Washington St · Google Maps

5222 Washington St, West Roxbury, MA 02132

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[1905Gerrish]

Jim, you could have saved lots of money in liquor and time purchasing mine I tried to sell you

Certainly, an earlier Brodbeck. Brodbeck used Chestnut in his early canoes so I'm guessing the oak you mention might be Chestnut and his early canoes looked much like a Gerrish canoe. The builder tag will let you know if you have an early one being small, diamond shaped as well. Mine has the same round head tacks and I've seen them used on other early Charles River canoes. The number 153 seems right to me for a serial number. As far as I know he started in 1898 per the newspaper article I have on him. His canoe production was pretty low. Our good friend Fitz has uncovered the earliest known and posted years ago about locating one with lap jointed hand thwart into the rails. The planking notches are common on old canoes. I have worked on many with the trait. One of the few traits that set the old ones apart from the rest. How about some photos of the decks, seats and thwarts?

Michael, I totally agree. Fred made the finest canoes!

Zack

 

[Benson Gray]

The builder tag will let you know if you have an early one

He has an early one and the tag is shown below. The screws are not original.

Benson

 

[MGC]

The comments here about Brodbeck's exceptional attention to detail have been gnawing at me. Not having any hands-on experience with these canoes to draw from, I am struggling to accept that Brodbeck is such a master and especially looking at the build details of this particular canoe. Early or not, it does not look like it was built by an extraordinarily meticulous person.
Even a conclusion that Morris is so ultimately masterful is a stretch for me. When I look at and work on a Morris canoe, I am always puzzled by the build choices. Who would think it is a good idea to take a soft piece of wood, bore open pockets into it, split it and then use it where those bare pockets (inside rails) will trap water? That is (in my opinion) a really poor construction choice. I am not questioning the quality of build. This questionable (my opinion) construction was well executed, but build quality aside, the design choice is poor. There are other period practices that were not as subject to rot. Then, I look at those stems and again I find myself wondering, who would have chosen to use cedar wood for that purpose? Yes, it is easy to shape and bend, it is light and rot resistant, but because it does not hold screws very well, the outside stems get attached with rivets? That is a good "fix" to the problem of screws pulling out, but anyone who has had to deal with the Morris rivets must have wondered, what were they thinking? The rivets are horrible.
Morris does not get my top votes for masterful builder. And without any personal experience with Broderick, I'm not in the camp where he would be at the top of my list either.
From my experience, the most well-built and perfectly constructed canoe that is logically constructed is an Old Town. If my 1907 AA double gunwale Old Town is typical of the canoes they were building at that time, then Old Town is at the top of my list. The fits of every single piece of mahogany were absolutely perfect. The wood, all of it, is gorgeous. My canoe, original except for one canvasing and a seat re-caning, held its form for 115 years and never developed a spot of rot or weakness. It was used hard. When bought it I looked at images of the canoe being used by its original owners for gunwale pumping, jousting, pictures of it swamped up to its rails.
There has to be a reason why Old Town survived and built so many canoes, when these other builders did not. Yes, I know that Morris never recovered from the fire.