Cure Time?


Hello All-
I'm almost done with my 29 Kennebec restoration. It is much more utilitarian than some of the fine examples I've seen on this site, but I am pleased with it and soon, I will fish from it. This site has been a great source of advice, whether from direct answers to my posts or going through the archives. THANKS!!!!
I just put my 3rd coat of Kirby's on the hull. All I have left is to bend and install the stem bands and paint the gunwhales(sp?) and decks. How long should I wait before strapping it onto my car so the straps don't cut into the hull paint?
Hi David,

I can't answer the question but I use pieces of that foam pipe insulation about 10" long to cushion the straps anywhere they touch the canoe. The insulation is sliced along the side and it slides over the strap or rope.


Hi Dan,
That is a great idea, I will use it. And hopefully be patient enough to wait a bit before I do!
hi David.

I found that it takes a long time to fully cure the paint. I left rope marks that went away. the stuff is almost like rubber. It bounces back. My rule of thumb is I try to wait a week before tying it down to the Jeep. Wouldn't it be nice if we had gunnel clamps and ya never had to throw a rope over the hull? Somebody call Yakima.

In case you had not thought of it. I use blue masking tape to hold my stem bands in place whilst installing them. I found it much easier.
I was talking to a horseman I know and asked where he gets large pieces of sheepskin. He told me tack shops carry sheepskin strips with velcro to encase the bridle. I haven't looked for it yet but that's where I'm heading. I will then velcro the sheepskin onto the straps and forgetaboutit.
the gunwhales(sp?)

the gunwhales(sp?)

Gunwhales seems to be a spelling variant used by a very small minority of writers. The more accepted form is "gunwale" (pronounced gun'l), and even the variant "gunnel" seems more accepted.

"Gunwhale" is used so little that it is not even recognized by Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, though it is recognized in the parent of that dictionary, Webster's Third Unabridged.

The spell checker for the Word Perfect word processing program acknowledges both "gunwale" and "gunnel" as correct, but flags "gunwhale" as incorrect; both the spell checker for MS Word and the spell checker used by these forums acknowledge only "gunwale" as correct, flagging for correction both "gunnel" and "gunwhale."

A search of "gunwhale" in the WCHA forums produces but 6 hits, as against 77 for "gunnel," and 163 hits for "gunwale." A similar search on the WoodenBoat Magazine forums produces 119 hits for "gunwhale," 349 for "gunnel," and 563 for "gunwale."

Some readers would view the use of "gunwhale" as incorrect; others would probably view it as a (harmless) affectation; and others (like me) don't really much care. I use "gunwale" myself, since it seems least likely to raise any question or cause any confusion, and I usually see no reason to use unfamiliar or obsolete terms when a commonly-accepted one is available.

Of course, when writing about a canoe, the term "rail" (inner rail, outer rail) is sometimes used instead of any of the other terms.

But you get to chose when you are the writer.
The number of times a word gets used is not a logical basis for accepting an incorrect word as correct (though it is good to see that Greg's research shows the correct form of the word used most often). In the case of "gunwale" vs. "gunwhale", there is a clear and obvious answer about which is correct. The term gunwale refers to the raised horizontal member along the sheer of a gunboat- a place where guns are rested or mounted. Hence "gun" (obvious) + "wale" (refers to a raised horizontal ridge, whether on fabric, skin, a boat or whatever). I think we know what a "whale" is, and even though I've seen a lot of whales, I've never seen one used as a place for resting a gun!

Can you tell that those of us who are not at the Assembly are bored?

Actually, I'm spending the week working on restoration of an early Willits, canvasing and filling an Old Town sponson sailing canoe, and finishing the last details on a Canadian wood-canvas canoe. So not all is lost. But Andre's photos from Peterborough this week still make me nostalgic...

Dave Wermuth said:
I found that it takes a long time to fully cure the paint. I left rope marks that went away. the stuff is almost like rubber. It bounces back. My rule of thumb is I try to wait a week before tying it down to the Jeep. Wouldn't it be nice if we had gunnel clamps and ya never had to throw a rope over the hull? Somebody call Yakima.

Last time I moved mine I didn't throw any straps over the hull. I cover the alum ladder rack on my pickup cap w/ a sliced out pool 'noodle' held on w/ nylon zip ties. I made a loop of rope from the forward thwart over and around the forward rack & back along the top of the cap & used a short rachet strap hooked to the rear thwart & back over and around the rear rack and forward to meet the rope. Just a few moves of the rachet made it tight enough to sink the rails onto the foam solid enough to transport at highway speeds w/out additional support.

Not from the sounds of it; only 3 canoes on the go? perhaps you should consider applying yourself in the future...;)
Would you have place the lone bid on that nice boat from Orleans, MA:confused:
Off to the assembly tomorrow for the day, what a great event. Wish I could have camped and taken it all in, but at least I get to take in two days' worth.
Yeah Andre, I know- I'm a slacker. Oh well... And no, that's not me who bid on the canoe, but I know who it is... I'll keep him/her nameless at this point, but it's a good person who would give it a great home. No, really, it's not me! (though I sure did think about it!)

Looks very nice, I saved a couple of pictures since it had the period paint on it, I thought it was simple but elegant. Would have had thwarts originally,no? and what would the pieces around the coaming be for, a canopy perhaps? or do they not appear original?
Yes, the paint scheme is nice. The thwarts are missing. It should have two very wide ones of mahogany.

The hardware on the inside face of the coaming is to mount a canopy. These brackets and the rest of the hardware were sold aftermarket, and you can often tell because they are usually not mounted straight. This type would have served in pairs, and usually there would have been three pairs (as here). The setup came with three pieces of flat spring steel, about 1/2" wide by abot 1/8" thick, and each of which was jointed in the middle to fold. Fold one piece out straight, insert one end into the bracket on one side, bend it over and insert the end on the opposite side of the canoe. You end up with three semicircular hoops over the cockpit of the canoe, and this would have supported a cloth canopy.

The brackets turn up regularly on these canoes, but the rest of the outfit is extremely difficult to find. The spring steel pieces would have been easy to lose. They were small, and if you didn't know what they were for you'd likely have a hard time guessing. Thus, I'm sure most are now buried in landfills far and wide.

gunwhales (sp?)


I do not agree that "inwhale" is "incorrect, though it is not a spelling I would use. I would say that it is not a preferred spelling.

Most linguists today would disagree with the idea that the number of people using a word form is not a logical or "correct" basis for accepting a word or spelling of a word. Indeed, most would reject the notion that a spelling such as gunwhale is "incorrect." And most would assert that how many people prefer a usage or spelling is a primary test of acceptability.

Linguists often describe themselves as either prescriptivists, who judge something to be right or wrong, correct or incorrect, or descriptivists. Descriptivists accept the idea that language is evolutionary, and that words, their definition and usage and spelling change over time, with new words coming into use and other words fading from use. They prefer to assess whether a word or spelling is acceptable or effective in the circumstances it is used. So "gunwhale" would be acceptable on the WCHA or WoodenBoat forums, because it is readily understood by most readers. It would be much less acceptable to use with a general group of readers, who will might not understand the word, and would not be able to look it up in a standard dictionary.

English spelling was not standardized until the 19th century, when Victorian society put most everything into "correct" and "incorrect" pigeonholes and prescriptivists ruled the linguistic roost. But most linguists today accept that language admits of great variety and is always changing. "Correct" spelling and usage is not consistent between different English-speaking populations. Colour/color and -ise/-ize are two ready examples. In the U.S. we say "The jury is out" treating the collective as a singular noun. In Britain and many former British colonies, the preferred usage is "The jury are out" treating the collective as plural. You would seriously ruffle feathers if you told a Londoner that the second sentence was "incorrect." Indeed, the second sentence is the "Queen's English," while the first sentence would be considered just a United States variant by British scholars. And of course, the "Queens English" is a dialect now spoken by only a very small percentage of the English speaking world. "Correct" and "incorrect" can be loaded words, and I prefer not to use them about spelling, syntax, or usage.

As you said, those of us not at the Assembly are bored. But I will be paddling in Maine next week, and won't care at all about wales.