Rushton Navajo
- Thread starter chris pearson
- Start date
OP
OP
chris pearson
Michigan Canoe Nut
It’s not a Navajo. It’s most likely a St Lawrence Whistle Wing. Mahogany double gunwales is a giveaway.
The example and flier at the link below shows higher points.
Benson
St Lawrence Boat Works
I have recently received the gift of a St Lawrence Boat Works 16' wood/canvas canoe. The canoe has mahogany 23" decks, the thwarts and inner and outer gunwales are also mahogany. There is a Whistle-wing logo on the deck. The canoe is in excellent condition because of being stored in a barn for...
MGC
Scrapmaker
I have accumulated quite a few images of StLBW WW's. None of them have the low shear line seen in the image posted by Chris. The photos included in the link shared by Benson show the expected shear quite well.
What I have not seen on any of the WW's is the Rushton deck hardware that can be seen in Chris's post.
None of the 5 canoes I have pictures of have double gunwale's. They are all open rail.
What I have not seen on any of the WW's is the Rushton deck hardware that can be seen in Chris's post.
None of the 5 canoes I have pictures of have double gunwale's. They are all open rail.
Last edited:
Michael Grace
Lifetime Member
The images in
forums.wcha.org
show three presumed St. Lawrence Boat Works canoes (at least one of which is labeled), each of which has its own distinct stem profile and sheer profile. The one in post #18 looks very much like the one shown in Chris' posts above. Multiple building forms and/or changes over time could have resulted in different profiles.
The flier shown in post #2 of that thread (also below) is misleading - the image of the canoe under construction is taken from an earlier Rushton catalog. If memory serves (I don't have my catalogs with me here), every detail of that canoe matches the one shown in the Rushton catalog. The cuts of the completed canoes are also straight out of Rushton literature; compare the two attachments here. There certainly could have been changes in canoe construction details between the times that these images were made in the Rushton shop and the time when Whistle Wings were produced.
Alternatively, or in addition, some of these canoes could have been made by other people who came out of the Rushton boat shop, using forms from the original shop or built to mimic the Rushtons they knew.
St Lawrence Boat Works
I have recently received the gift of a St Lawrence Boat Works 16' wood/canvas canoe. The canoe has mahogany 23" decks, the thwarts and inner and outer gunwales are also mahogany. There is a Whistle-wing logo on the deck. The canoe is in excellent condition because of being stored in a barn for...
show three presumed St. Lawrence Boat Works canoes (at least one of which is labeled), each of which has its own distinct stem profile and sheer profile. The one in post #18 looks very much like the one shown in Chris' posts above. Multiple building forms and/or changes over time could have resulted in different profiles.
The flier shown in post #2 of that thread (also below) is misleading - the image of the canoe under construction is taken from an earlier Rushton catalog. If memory serves (I don't have my catalogs with me here), every detail of that canoe matches the one shown in the Rushton catalog. The cuts of the completed canoes are also straight out of Rushton literature; compare the two attachments here. There certainly could have been changes in canoe construction details between the times that these images were made in the Rushton shop and the time when Whistle Wings were produced.
Alternatively, or in addition, some of these canoes could have been made by other people who came out of the Rushton boat shop, using forms from the original shop or built to mimic the Rushtons they knew.
Attachments
Last edited:
OP
OP
chris pearson
Michigan Canoe Nut
This is very interesting……and puzzling.
MGC
Scrapmaker
I went through my pictures again. It looks like I received images (different ones) of the same canoe from two different people. Apparently I have images of 4, not 5 canoes that are believed to be SLBC's.
Unlike the other 3, the canoe with the lowest profile is a sponson canoe. I am not sure if that has significance but it should be noted. That canoe also (as far as I can tell) does not bear a WW decal or a SLBC tag.
We may never understand how true to Rushton's builds these canoes were constructed, but if we accept that they were done on his forms, then we should also presume that the stems, inside and outside, were built on specific forms. We know that any change in the shape of the stems affects the height of the stems, lengths and bend of the inside rails and also the shape of the decks.
Assembly of significantly differing components would be a major headache in any kind of volume shop. Examine any builders shop and you will see patterns and forms that are specific to each form. Willets shop cited as an extreme example.
It would not be likely that there would any significant variation presuming the use of the same forms and patterns.
A change of stem height and curve must be very deliberately done. The canoes that were built off of my form in the 1970's would be roughly identical to canoes made from that same form in the 1920's or earlier.
As Michael notes, there were other builders who were producing Rushton like canoes. Many of these used virtually identical components and build techniques. They were also very consistent about marking them with their own names. A Wells or a Brown are marked as such.
Were any of the WW canoes built by other hands? Quite possibly. The contract build that was the norm for Rushton may have continued.
To further complicate this, presuming that we wanted to alter the shape of the stem (and all related parts), it is very possible to "adjust" the form by attaching longer inside rails and then attaching the reshaped stems farther out. This would reduce the curve. Or, you could also alter the form to push the curve out which I suspect is how Brown built the torpedo stemmed Rushton look alike that I own. These are not high volume methods.
It's quite thought provoking.
Unlike the other 3, the canoe with the lowest profile is a sponson canoe. I am not sure if that has significance but it should be noted. That canoe also (as far as I can tell) does not bear a WW decal or a SLBC tag.
We may never understand how true to Rushton's builds these canoes were constructed, but if we accept that they were done on his forms, then we should also presume that the stems, inside and outside, were built on specific forms. We know that any change in the shape of the stems affects the height of the stems, lengths and bend of the inside rails and also the shape of the decks.
Assembly of significantly differing components would be a major headache in any kind of volume shop. Examine any builders shop and you will see patterns and forms that are specific to each form. Willets shop cited as an extreme example.
It would not be likely that there would any significant variation presuming the use of the same forms and patterns.
A change of stem height and curve must be very deliberately done. The canoes that were built off of my form in the 1970's would be roughly identical to canoes made from that same form in the 1920's or earlier.
As Michael notes, there were other builders who were producing Rushton like canoes. Many of these used virtually identical components and build techniques. They were also very consistent about marking them with their own names. A Wells or a Brown are marked as such.
Were any of the WW canoes built by other hands? Quite possibly. The contract build that was the norm for Rushton may have continued.
To further complicate this, presuming that we wanted to alter the shape of the stem (and all related parts), it is very possible to "adjust" the form by attaching longer inside rails and then attaching the reshaped stems farther out. This would reduce the curve. Or, you could also alter the form to push the curve out which I suspect is how Brown built the torpedo stemmed Rushton look alike that I own. These are not high volume methods.
It's quite thought provoking.
Last edited:
