restored V replica

[anth]

This came to mind ... :?:

A replica is a competely new hull.....
So if i used a few original pieces from a wreck or an old hull  say a " stem piece" I then incorporated it into a new hull theory is it's a restored hull...?
How much must remain original to be called original and not a replica.

Just a thought i hope i have explained my self correctly.....interested in what other PD think..... :wink:


cheers Anthony

[derekwarner_decoy]

Hi PD's & Anthony... I can see Rumpold :respect2  of the Olde Bailey  imploring to the Jury  :gather  :gather  :gather  :gather that a stern post.... being one of the three principal construction elements or members  of a planked   vessels hull  surely would constitute that the final structure is now a restored hull and not a replica

As you have clearly noted and the Oxford Concise confirms that a replica is ....."a duplicate work made by the original artist.....a copy or model , esp on a smaller scale"

So to take this issue one step further, if say the Federal Government offered Federal funding for restoration projects... the use of a stern post must qualify for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Derek    :music  

[Bill Worden]

I've had a long career in what American's call historic preservation and the British world calls heritage conservation.

One problem is with the question posed; it assumes that restoration and replica are the only alternatives, and that's not the case.

The key issue is "integrity." In the process, did the original structure retain structural and functional integrity?  Using one stern post in an otherwise new object clearly won't do it.

It seems obvious that taking a few odds and ends and making a new structure is not a restoration, although that word has come to be popularly used for all sorts of work that renews something, even if it changes it significantly. Technically (and that's how funding programs will use the word) restoration means taking an original "historic resource" and returning it to the state it was in either as new or at a time of great historic significance. When you have only a few pieces, you aren't returning something to a previous state; you are creating a new object containing some old elements. That object may resemble or duplicate the original from which the pieces were taken, but it isn't the original.

Even the Frauenkirche in Dresden, famously rebuilt after sixty years as a pile of rubble, cannot really be said to be restored.  It's true that every usable piece of stone was placed back in its perceived original position. Still, those stones are a visible minority, since they were not cleaned, giving the reconstructed church a spotted appearance it never had before.  Then too, one surviving wall had been tilted slightly out of plumb in the firestorm and had to be left that way.  The adjoining new walls had to be fit against it as possible, creating a discontinuity, perfectly visible to any passer-by, that certainly did not exist in the original. The interior decoration was determined after careful study, but there's much presumption in that, since so much available evidence was fire damaged or destroyed and weathered for six decades. Then you get to the structural changes made to correct original design problems, subtle changes made to honor present-day codes, and you've arrived at a wonderful and admirable result which is not, in strict terms, a restoration.

It's not quite a replica, either.

A reconstruction it might well be.

The same is true for many projects involving ships. "Restoration" is tossed around in the publicity, but, strictly speaking, that's not what happens in many cases.  Look at the recent statements concerning Medway Queen.  There are clearly hints that the hull now being worked on won't be a duplicate of the original, which was dismantled on site at Dumbhead Creek. Current regulations are cited.  Although I haven't seen it said, it may well be that the structure is being treated by the shipping authorities as a new hull (which it appears to be, in fact) which must meet present standards.  There might be any number of ways in which the original Medway Queen might not have met such standards, such as stability, watertight subdivision, scantling specs, etc.  As an existing ship, the authorities might well have "grandfathered" these perceived deficiencies and allowed operation.  With the construction of a new hull, even with some elements of the old hull incorporated, there may be no choice but to treat it as a new vessel which must meet present regs.

The Swiss paddler Blumlisalp was lengthened a bit when reconstructed, for stability reasons and to provide space for a sewage tank. She was also given sponson tanks for stability.  In this case the project started with a complete, floating vessel retaining "integrity" in spite of neglect.  Integrity was lost, however, by the insertion of a hull section which was neither intended nor built originally. The result, which is admirable, is not a restoration but a practical reconstruction.

This is not to criticize such projects. Especially for operational vessels, there are all sorts of problems and issues that must be solved.  Some construction/inspection regulations may be able to be adjusted or waived, but others may not. Safety regulations are more stringent now than in the past, and inspectors and regulators know that if a tragedy occurs, even one unrelated to a regulatory concession, they can be held responsible.  Preserving and operating an historic steamer is not a bed of roses.

That said, I know of few funding programs that would look with favor on a "restoration" consisting of taking a few odds and ends and building a new object, whether it would be a vessel or a building.  There's precious little such money out there and those who administer it always have plenty of applications from projects which involve resources with "integrity."  

A simple look at the standards for funding of any program will tell whether a reconstruction might qualify.  Most historic preservation/heritage conservation programs won't fund such projects.

Medway Queen might be a happy exception.  Even there, if the Heritage Lottery and the British historic ship authorities hadn't diddled around for years, claiming that she was not of historic interest, etc., there might have been a hull with integrity to be restored.  So even if what's happening isn't quite the restoration we all hoped for, there's justice in the lottery paying for the job.

There are all sorts of terms for the treatment of old things.  Restoration, replica, reconstruction, rebuilding, repair, remodelling, and so forth.  This reflects the possibilities that exist, as well as the willingness of people to deal with historic objects with a greater or lesser degree of respect. None imply criticism, since conditions and funding vary so widely.  But there is a hierarchy of desirable treatment, based on the integrity and historic significance of the original resource.

[Bill Hudson]

BW,

Well put.

Bill

[Roderick Smith]

I logged on to add the third term 'reconstruction' or 'rebuilding', and Bill has already raised it, with a good explanation of the reasoning, and of related areas.
The same issue arose in tram preservation (in Australia, but undoubtedly everywhere else).  Many trams have been rebuilt from a severely-deteriorated body found on a farm, possibly on the original underframe (with corroded portions replaced), but then have had to be placed on electrical gear from other trams, from which gear is still available.  I believe that this is termed 'reconstruction'.

If the same work had been done, piece by piece, with each change spread by 2 years, and the tram had been kept in the depot instead of on a farm, we would all have described it a a well-preserved original.  [The 'grandfather's axe joke: it is now 70 years old, and has had only three new handles and one new head in its life].

The argument always rages in railway preservation.  It isn't practical to take a loco back to original condition: it wouldn't be allowed to run.  In a different thread I have described the creation of a new PS Curlip.  It will look very much like the original, but is longer so that it can be in survey for 55 passengers, and hence handle a whole bus load of touring retirees (an important regular traffic for tourist operations).  See www.paddlesteamercurlip.com.au.  If a project can't be financially sustaining, it can't be commenced at all.
When I wrote up the Randell Cadell fleet in a different thread, PS Mary Ann was as close a replica as available records would allow.  I described PS Lady Augusta as a lookalike: only half the length of the original, but styled to resemble it.

I'll e-mail my tramway museum contact, and obtain a statement of the terminology as used here.  There is a formal definition, because they gained accreditation as a museum, and hence had to adopt national standards.  [IIRC the word conservation is a fourth category; the vehicle is kept alive as it was, with further deterioration arrested, but it becomes useless for operational purposes].

Regards,
Roderick B Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor

[Excelsior]

I'll add 'representative' here.  The Curlip & Lady Augusta come under this heading.  They are built to give an idea of what the original was, but without being to the same design.  A replica must be as close as possible to the orignial.  

A rebuild uses the original as it's 'foundation', but has a lot of new elements in it.  Even if the design differs from what it was originally, it may still be claimed to be authentic.  The Hero & the Medway queen fit this.  Many vessels were rebuilt throughout their lives, just because it's happened now, it isn't necessarily a new vessel.  On the Murray the Decoy & Gem were both lengthened in the 19th century, the Pevensey was burnt in 1932 & rebuilt using parts from the Decoy, vessels like the Canberra, Pyap, Melbourne, Avoca & Rothbury are virtually unrecognisable from when they were built.  They're all considered to be original & restored despite the fact they've had major rebuilds in their lives.

For restoration, the basic structure of whatever is considered the 'essence' of the item must remain intact.  Because of the history of the Murray boats, the hull is considered to be the vessel.  Things like machinery & superstructure were often changed throughout a vessel's working life.

[anth]

Thankyou Excelsior in an essence you have answered my question perfectly  :wink:

cheers Anthony

[Bill Worden]

I have to put in another two cents worth here.

The fact that a historic resource may have undergone alteration during its history does not provide a basis or excuse for further alteration once that resource is recognized as having historic significance.

The normal course of the practical life of a commercial vessel, for example, generally has taken place without any concern for, and likely without any interest in, any possible historic significance.

Alterations can acquire historic significance over time; the alterations made to a vessel--or to a building--during its life are part of its history, and some or all of that may deserve or demand to be preserved.

That's vastly different from deciding to alter the resultant product of that history, once that history is recognized as important.  No matter how carefully done, alteration of a recognized historic resource will have a negative effect on its historic significance. It may be necessary, it may be unavoidable, but those responsible need to know what the value is of the object they are dealing with and understand what they are doing to it.

That's not at all the same thing as a commercial vessel operator deciding to lengthen a vessel for the sake of additional income from the vessel.

The classic American example of an altered resource of the greatest possible importance is George Washington's house at Mount Vernon.  The original house, inherited by George, was a one-and-a-half story dwelling of no great size and no pretensions.  In the course of Washington's life it was greatly expanded, given a full second story, given the famous columned "piazza" facing the Potomac, and decorated within with paneling and decorative plaster in the latest fashion.

If one restored Mount Vernon to its "original" state, one would destroy George Washington's house.

But does the fact that the house as it stands is more alterations than original material justify altering it now?

How can one identify as "original" a vessel that has had one or more  major rebuildings and no longer resembles her state at the time of construction?  She may be authentic, she may be vastly important as a historic object, but words mean what they mean.  She is not original

It's true in most countries that legally the hull is the vessel.  The official number travels with the hull, whatever use it may serve.  But to suggest that as long as the hull is preserved the vessel is "original" is likewise misuse of language.  It is, of course, the same vessel. But it may or may not be in a preserved state.  After all, if I recall rightly, if Gem were restored to her original state she would become a barge.

Likewise, if the Pevensey as she stands dates from 1932, restoring her to her original state would destroy the steamer "created" in 1932, which has value of its own, and would inevitably, create a vessel on the same hull but consisting substantially of replica material.  Just as one should not alter an authentic steamer built in 1932 to look older than it is, one should not treat Pevensey in that same way.

I've seen Pyap and Rothbury and seen photos of Avoca.  I certainly do not consider them original and restored.  I'm glad they continue to exist and to operate, but simply on the basis of propulsion, one cannot hold them up as representative of the great era of steam on the Murray. A trip on a diesel-driven paddle vessel is simply not the same thing as on a vessel that retains steam propulsion.  The sounds, smells, and vibrations are, quite simply, very different.  It is inappropriate to suggest to the public that a trip on a diesel truly represents the history of the Murray as a trip on Adelaide or Pevensey would do. And that's not to address obvious issues of the appearance of the upper works.

The minute one admits that the new Medway Queen will be a reconstruction (it is not a rebuild, as the original structure did not survive), one has given up any reason to call the result "authentic." That's not a criticism; events have controlled the situation and made a less-than-ideal outcome inevitable. It will, I am sure, be as "authentic" as circumstances permit.  That's not the same thing.

I suppose that the public use of terms like restoration for all sorts and degrees of work on old things is just one sign of a public-relations kind of language usage that ought to avoided in a discussion of serious issues of preservation.

[Excelsior]

You're forgetting that any changes made to a vessel now, whatever the reason, become part of its history.  In 50 years the extra cabin built into the port side of the Pevensey in the 80s will be just as significant as the rest of her, the current structure of the Hero will have a history of its own & will be an important part of that boat's heritage.  Especially as it has allowed the vessel continued existance.  As for boats like the Pyap, Rothbury & Melbourne....  I did say they were rebuilt, but those rebuilds have become a significant part of each boat's history, even though it would have been considered new work when completed 30, or 40, years ago.  Don't forget, history isn't stagnant, we create it every day!  And who's to judge that what we do is less important than what has come before?

The thing about this topic is that it comes down to personal interpretation & the individual project in question.  There are so many shades of grey that we'll never agree on strict definitions.

[Roderick Smith]

I asked my long-standing friend Warren Doubleday to comment.  We were at university together (and formed Monash Railway Club).  Warren went on to be a civil engineer, has been the consultant engineer for many railway and tramway preservation projects.  His main involvement has been with Ballarat Tramway Museum (IIRC the first tramway museum in Australia to gain accreditation as a museum through the museums organisation).  He is also a leading light in Council of Tramway Museums of Australasia (Cotma, http://members.optushome.com.au/cotma/main.html), where he has espoused many of the same issues as were raised in this Paddleducks thread.

In his cover note, he commented: 'My view is be honest in what you say about your work - if you "restored" it, from what did you start, how much re-construction, was  it rebuilt from plans etc and what records have you kept.  A major area of discussion in some circles, and it is good to have it; when people say "restored to original condition", oh dear, complete with the original oil, paint, wood etc.  Or is "restored to original appearance" and how did we determine what the original appearance looked like - colour schemes, interiors, wheel types etc.  A couple of years ago, PBPS restored a combined van/carriage and had the original photo and today's photo in Narrow Gauge and then said "restored to original condition" (I think from memory).  But it was then "spot the differences" competition and there were plenty of differences'.
I enclose his two enclosures to me.
* A scan of a page from Institute of Engineers Heritage and Conservation guidelines (currently not findable on the web).
* A powerpoint presentation which Warren gave to Association of Tourist Railways (a national peak body) in 2006.
More material and policies are available through the Cotma website.
The experiences with trams are highly relevant to paddleboats: equipment which could well be 100 years old, with materials which deteriorate in the environment, being used for active preservation in an era with stringent oh&s rules.

Regards,
Roderick B Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor