Need help identifying two Chestnut models.

[David H NH]

Model 1 Red 15foot x 34/35 #124412
Model 2 Green 16ft x 34 #74046.
Thank you and appreciated

 

[MGC]

Hi David,
Lucky you. Two W/C canoes is a great start to a collection
Unlike Old Town or Kennebeck canoes that the WCHA has build records for, Chestnut canoes are not identifiable by serial number. IDing these canoes is a bit of an art form that requires a good eye, some considerable experience and lots of patience. You should be able to identify (hopefully) the models. You will likely never know the build dates. except possibly pre-fire, 50's/60's, that sort of thing.
We have several regulars on the forum who are pretty good at identifying the PeterNuts. If you post pictures, they may be able to help you to zero in on what you have. Be sure to include images of the shear, decks, ribs and rib spacing to help with the process. If there are decals, be sure to include those as well.
While we are waiting for your images, you might be able to pin things down on your own with a tape measure. There is an excellent site, the Wooden Canoe Museum, that shares quite a bit of PeterNut information. You might figure things out with a visit to

Chestnut Canoe Company | Wooden Canoe Museum

woodencanoemuseum.org

Mike

 

[David H NH]

Thank you Mike. I was told the red boat was a Bobs Special but looking at it think it could also be a Chum. The green boat I was told was an Oglivy. I now believe the to be a Kruger or Boone. Preferred by me and very happy. You have a good day and thanks for all the advice!

 

[Murat V]

In your case, the ribs might be a great way to determine what models you have rather than just standard hull length/width measurements. BOBS ribs should be only 1/4" thick and are noticeable thinner than the typical 3/8" thickness of ribs on other models. For the Ogilvy models, ribs would be 3" wide spaced very close together, 1/2" apart. Ribs on a cruiser (Kruger or Boone) would be only 2-3/8" wide.

Post as many pics as you can, just like MGC mentioned and folks will have a better clue

 

[David H NH]

Thank you very much for your help and suggestions[

Here are photos of the Green Canoe.

And Red

Thank you

 

[Dan Lindberg]

green - Ogilvy - close 3" ribs and that distinctive end shape

red - could be a Bob's - others should know better than me

 

[David H NH]

Thank you. I originally thought Oglivy but seemed too light. Perhaps the owner exercised it well and it lost weight. LOL

 

[Murat V]

Dan is right about the Ogilvy. It might have had some modifications done. Can you also post a close-up of the decals on the bow decks? The decals changed over the years and might be useful to help narrow down the approximate time frame. They might also be reproductions put on after a restoration.

 

[David H NH]

Yes here are deck decal images

 

[Dave Osborn]

I thought Oglivy’s ribs were about 1/2” apart.
The one I restored was that way. The ribs on the green canoe look like spacing is quite a bit more. The red one looks Bob-like.

 

[Murat V]

Decal on the Ogilvy is a reproduction. Perhaps the deck were replaced at some point. Looks like the outwale is a replacement as well. Unfortunately that limits the ability to date it.

For the red canoe, the frontal image you posted shows a little bit of hull distortion (being pulled in) with a center thwart that maybe too short. This would narrow your width measurement and lead to confusion when looking at the catalogs. But the decal on the red canoe is a clue to its age. It is one of Chestnut's later versions, roughly 1970 - 1972 when they they switched over from water-slide transfers to a vinyl backed design with the square transparent border. These decals were peel and stick style so were quickly slapped onto the deck and were not always evenly placed. Looks like the ribs on this one are the 2-3/8" wide type. After 1967, the 15 foot CHUM came with ribs that were 2-3/8" wide x 3/8" thick. Check the thickness of the ribs to confirm if it is CHUM (3/8") or a BOBS (1/4").

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

For the red canoe, the frontal image you posted shows a little bit of hull distortion (being pulled in) with a center thwart that maybe too short.

Good eye, Murat. But I only see distortion on the right side. Do you think that a too-short thwart would cause such an asymmetrical distortion, or might it instead be due to the canoe's being stored/leaned on it's right gunwale.

I'm no Chestnut expert but I've seen several and own a Nova Craft aramid Bob Special. The width and plan view of the gunwales looks more like a Bobs than a Chum to me, unless the perspective is being foreshortened or otherwise distorted by the camera lens, which is not uncommon.

 

[MGC]

I am not expert (or even close) on Peternuts, but I have worked on enough (and owned several) to have a thwart theory. It is my opinion that they must have had a supply of pre-cut thwarts, one size fits all, in their production area. If the thwart was a bit too short (and it seems they always were) they would simply pull the rails in and throw in the short thwart. The resulting Peternut pucker (as I call it) can be seen in this before and after from a canoe I recently overhauled. The before is a 100% original canoe, never massaged, only used. I added nearly 3/4 of an inch to the thwart to sort out the lines. I reused the thwart instead of making a new one because it is very pretty birds eye maple. My 14 foot Fox has the exact same pucker.

 

[patrick corry]

hull distortion (being pulled in)

Similar Chestnut center thwart issue on a '50's-'60's 15' Chum. Sorry, I don't know how to rotate the image....

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

Similar Chestnut center thwart issue on a '50's-'60's 15' Chum. Sorry, I don't know how to rotate the image....

Patrick, you have to rotate the image with your photo app before uploading it.

Your (and MGC's) Chestnut "pucker" seems to be almost symmetrical on both sides, unlike David's, which seems to me to be on one side only.

 

[Murat V]

I am not expert (or even close) on Peternuts, but I have worked on enough (and owned several) to have a thwart theory. It is my opinion that they must have had a supply of pre-cut thwarts, one size fits all, in their production area. If the thwart was a bit too short (and it seems they always were) they would simply pull the rails in and throw in the short thwart. The resulting Peternut pucker (as I call it) can be seen in this before and after from a canoe I recently overhauled.

"Peternut pucker"...I like that!

It does seem like they used a pre-cut supply of thwarts for a time. I'm wondering if these boats might date to around the time Chestnut widened some of their forms. This seems to have occurred circa 1961 according to the existing catalogs. Ken Solway talks about this in his book and published a photo showing how additional wood had been scabbed onto the original form to increase the beam. He guesses this happened in the late 1950s, but at the time of his publication (1997), I don't believe he had access to all the catalogs we do today.

The pre-1960 catalogs mention the following widths of their pleasure line:

Chum: 15 x 33 x 12
Pal: 16 x 34 x 12

After 1961, these same pleasure boats are listed as:

Chum: 15 x 34 x 12
Pal: 16 x 36 x 12

That one inch increase in beam for the 15 footer and 2 inches for the 16 footer would definitely show up as a "Peternut Pucker" if they were still churning out a standard sized thwarts.

Good eye, Murat. But I only see distortion on the right side. Do you think that a too-short thwart would cause such an asymmetrical distortion, or might it instead be due to the canoe's being stored/leaned on it's right gunwale.

You're quite right, Glenn. The subtle 'pucker' appears to be only on the right side of the image. Maybe the slight distortion on that side was caused by improper storage issues in this case. Perhaps another photo by the owner will help.

 

[MGC]

The canoe I shared images of is circa 1964.