Possible Pre-Fire Chestnut - Twozer

[Murat V]

Wanted to get the Forum's opinion on a possible pre-fire Chestnut (1904 - 1921). Apologies for the poorer quality photos taken during a freak snow squall right after I set it up outside...

It looks to have seen some restoration during its lifetime so not everything is original, but here are the details that led me to this conclusion. Please feel free to chime in with your opinions & observations.

- dimensions perfectly fit with the pre-fire numbers of a Twozer (15' x 31" x 11-1/2"). This was measured using the earlier technique mentioned in the 1920 catalog after which Chestnut seem to have changed its measuring system...

"In the past we have measured our canoes for catalogue purposes as follows: - for width from inside to inside of ribs and for depth from top of rib to top of gunwales. We are now changing that method to agree with that in use elsewhere and in the future measurements will be for width, from outside to outside of canvas at widest point, and for depth from top of gunwales to outside of canvas.​

- the post-fire numbers for the Twozer put the dimensions at 33" wide and this one doesn't reach that width no matter how it is measured.

- features closed gunnel construction with copper nails

- ribs are 2-3/8" wide tapering to 1-3/8" where they disappear behind the inwale

- the cant ribs are not the wider type seen in later model canoes but are similar width (untapered) as the ribs in the hull

Evidence of previous restoration is as follows:

- the heart shaped decks don't look original to me. They are quite bright compared to the existing woodwork, lack major crowning and have minimal undercut. The Chestnut decal also looks slightly worn but the colors are still "fresh".

- center thwart is birdseye maple and nicely carved but not sure if this would have been the original style for this model.

- The existing canvas has torn off the sheerline revealing newer looking planking secured with brass tacks rather than copper. Haven't fully removed the canvas yet to reveal any original planking.

- the 3/8" brass stem bands are secured with brass #4 Robertson square drive screws instead of slot screws.

Any other things I should be looking at to confirm pre- vs post- fire? It'll also be my first attempt at working with a closed gunnel system so any tips or suggestions would be most welcome.

 

[John Sand]

I'm not a canoe expert, but I respect your detective work and reasoning.
I own a mystery canoe myself, with evidence of repairs and replacements.

 

[Andre Cloutier]

Its a closed rail chestnut, dont rely too heavily on dimentions but in those years extreme beam is measured at the bilge, not the rails.
Has had some heavy handed work, like decks and caps but pretty kool. Decal obviously newer, should be slots only as no Robertsons before 1923 iirc lol.
Did you ever get my paddle inquiry i sent you ?

 

[Murat V]

Thanks Andre. Hope you don't mind a few follow-up questions.

1. Would it be correct to assume Chestnut continued with closed rail system well after the 1921 fire so there are post-fire closed rail Chestnuts out there?

2. Cant rib width has been listed as criteria for determining age. Why would cant ribs suddenly get wider in the post-fire period? Was this just an evolution in building for a stronger hull or was it related in any way to the original forms being destroyed?

 

[Dan Miller]

One of the key features distinguishing pre- and post-fire Chestnuts is the shape of the stem tip. On post-fire canoes, the stem is beveled all the way to the tip. On pre-fire canoes, the bevel stops below the rails, leaving a blocky chunk at the tip of the stem.

 

[Murat V]

Thanks Dan. Will definitely be checking that out once the stem band and other parts near the tip are removed.

Might be a dumb question, but do the top rail caps need to be removed in order to re-canvas?

 

[Benson Gray]

1. Would it be correct to assume Chestnut continued with closed rail system well after the 1921 fire so there are post-fire closed rail Chestnuts out there?

2. Cant rib width has been listed as criteria for determining age. Why would cant ribs suddenly get wider in the post-fire period? Why would cant ribs suddenly get wider in the post-fire period? Was this just an evolution in building for a stronger hull or was it related in any way to the original forms being destroyed?

Page six of the Chestnut catalog with a 1925 price list at https://woodencanoemuseum.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Chestnut Canoe Company 1925.pdf says "All canoes are made with double open gunwales but canoes with single, closed gunwales will be made to order without extra charge." There should be some post-fire closed rail Chestnuts out there.

Cant ribs are commonly installed after the canoe has been removed from the form so the width, count, location, style, and other details are not dictated by the form like other ribs. These factors are all left to the whim of the builder. It is not surprising that these might be different when several other fundamental construction techniques have also been changed.

You might be able to recanvas a canoe without taking off the top rail caps but will probably find it much easier if you do remove them. Good luck,

Benson

 

[rbudge]

I have been working on a 1920's Chestnut Cruiser lately and it has the same nicely rounded thwarts as yours does. I vote for original.