A Ralph Cahoon Painting of a Sailor holding a Cape Cod Painting with Mermaid and Girl, signed L.R. "R. Cahoon" oil on Swedish masonite Dimensions: 16 inches  More »

A Ralph Cahoon Painting of a Sailor holding a Cape Cod Painting with Mermaid and Girl, signed L.R. "R. Cahoon" oil on Swedish masonite Dimensions: 16 inches ;by 20 inches. Reference: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Cahoon) Early life Cahoon was born in Chatham, Massachusetts in 1910 to a family directly descended from the first Dutch Settlers of Cape Cod. Growing up close to the Atlantic Ocean, young Ralph spent many of his days sailing, fishing, digging clams, and sketching the coast. As he grew older, clamming and fishing slowly became secondary to his burgeoning interest in art. By the time he attended high school, he had started to apply his artistic interest and talent by taking a correspondence course in cartoon drawing and even submitted works to his school paper. Upon graduation Ralph attended Boston’s School of Practical Art where he focused primarily on commercial art, rather than his preference of decorative art. Frustrated with the ideological differences he encountered in art school, he returned to his native Cape Cod after his graduation. [edit]Career Cahoon''s young career took a dramatic turn in 1930 when he met and subsequently married (in 1932) a young Harwich woman named Martha Farham. The daughter of a well-respected and successful furniture decorator, Axel Farham, Martha introduced Ralph to the art of furniture decoration. Under her father’s tutelage Martha had become adept at free-hand decoration and introduced Ralph to the technique. After their marriage, the Cahoons moved to Osterville, and later to Cotuit where they would start a successful business decorating and selling antique furniture. In 1953 their careers took another twist when one of their customers, the wealthy New York socialite, art dealer, and future co-owner of the New York Mets, Joan Whitney Payson convinced them to frame some of their designs. Furthermore, Payson offered to show their works in her Long Island Gallery. Their foray from furniture decoration into “wall art” proved successful and both Cahoons went onto to produce numerous works over the ensuing decades. While much of their earlier furniture decoration shared the same Pennsylvania Dutch inspired motifs, their easel paintings marked the first significant diversion in Ralph and Martha’s palettes and styles. While Martha continued to work in muted tones, Ralph experimented with brighter and more contrasting colors. More importantly, Ralph developed the subject matter and style that made his paintings must haves for any distinguished family that summered on the Cape. Although he did not entirely abandon his Pennsylvania folk art roots, Ralph started painting whimsical scenes of sailors and mermaids frolicking on the backs of whales, in hot air balloons, on majestic ships, and countless other fantastic settings. As his commissions grew, Ralph would often incorporate his patron’s businesses, homes, or professions into the finished work along with the standard mermaids and sailors. In the end, Ralph Cahoon’s paintings were successful because they attracted a client base of wealthy, old money families that frequented vacationed or owned estates on the Cape or the Islands. The carefree, lighthearted antics portrayed in Ralph’s paintings appealed to patrons’ romantic associations with the Cape and were neither pretentious nor controversial. Ralph continued painting up until his death in 1982. Martha continued painting after Ralph’s death and even in her waning years continued to produce small crayon drawings up until her death in 1999. Today Ralph Cahoon’s paintings are highly sought after by collectors with his more important paintings exceeding $100,000 at public auction. The Cahoon Museum of American Art in Cotuit, Massachusetts features many of Cahoon''s works. [edit]References Peter Falk: Who Was Who in American Art Michael David Zellman: Three Hundred Years of American Art   « Less

An Irish Portrait Miniature of a Boy Holding a Book, Circa 1800 The miniature, in its original rectangular wood and eglomise frame, depicts a young boy dressed in a red  More »

An Irish Portrait Miniature of a Boy Holding a Book, Circa 1800 The miniature, in its original rectangular wood and eglomise frame, depicts a young boy dressed in a red outfit with a lace collar standing holding a peach in his left hand and a black book in his right. Dimensions: 2 3/8 x 2 inches.   « Less

A Set of Twelve China Trade Pith Paper Pictures of Children Holding Lanterns, Circa 1860 The charming pictures are within a Chinese-style black and gold lacquered frame.  More »

A Set of Twelve China Trade Pith Paper Pictures of Children Holding Lanterns, Circa 1860 The charming pictures are within a Chinese-style black and gold lacquered frame. Each picture depicts two children colourfully dressed holding different lanterns. Dimensions: Height: 14 1/2 inches x Length: 17 1/4 inches Provenance: O''Shea Gallery sold November 1994   « Less

A Set of Six China Trade Pith Paper Pictures of Furniture, Circa 1840-50 Each picture depicts a different grouping of Chinese furniture, and porcelain including urns and  More »

A Set of Six China Trade Pith Paper Pictures of Furniture, Circa 1840-50 Each picture depicts a different grouping of Chinese furniture, and porcelain including urns and dishes. ;The paintings are each contained within a decoupage and aqua églomisé frame with gilt highlights. Dimensions: Length: 17 3/4 inches x Height: 13 1/2 inches. Provenance: Graham & Oxley Antiques London.   « Less

A Chinese Oil of H.M.S. Euryalus, 1860-70 Oil on Canvas The painting depicts the ship under steam and sail approaching land with hills and in the bavckground and  More »

A Chinese Oil of H.M.S. Euryalus, 1860-70 Oil on Canvas The painting depicts the ship under steam and sail approaching land with hills and in the bavckground and numerous ships in the bay. ;She flies a Blue Ensign off the spanker as well as a blue square flag above the mizzen mast. On each mast there is a "crow''s nest" and in each are a group of ;sailors while others can be seen on board. Unusually for a China Trade picture below the ship is a coa The oli Dimensions: 21 high x 26 1/4 inches frame (sight: 17 1/2 x 22 3/4 inches. Type: Frigate ; Armament 50 (main-deck, 28 x 8-inch. 65 cwt., 9 feet long ; quarter-deck and forecastle, 22 x 32-pounders, 45 cwt. 8 feet 6 inches long, Monk''s.)  Launched : 5 Oct 1853 ; Disposal date or year : 1867  BM: 2371 tons ; Displacement: 3125 tons  Propulsion: Screw  Machinery notes: 400 hp  Designed by the Surveyor''s Dept. for the screw.  The Euryalus (1853), lmperieuse (1862), Chesapeake (1855), and Forte (1858) were on similar lines. 15 Apr 1854 captured Russian brig Patrioten [Prize Money per London Gazette of 21 Jul 1857]. 16 Apr 1854 proceeds arising from the captured Russian merchant vessel Victor, [per London Gazette of 21 Jul 1857]. 10 Aug 1854 guns were landed and sent up to the British battery, in charge of men under officers from the Edinburgh, Duke of Wellington, and Euryalus - see p. 423-4 at www.archive.org/details/royalnavyhistory06clow 1854 Bombardment of Sveaborg 26 Feb 1856 To join the Imperieuse at the Downs 23 Apr 1856, Present at Fleet Review, Spithead ; Captain Ramsay, CB 1860 Portsmouth 24 Jan 1862 Portsmouth. Commissioned. 12 Aug 1862 Arrived Hongkong from Plymouth. 11 Sep 1862 Japan. 15 Nov 1862 Hongkong. 1863 Bombardment of Kagosima, Japan 1864 Bombardment and capture of Simono-seki, Japan 1864 China station.   « Less

A Chinese Watercolour and Gouache on Pith Paper Painting of a Basket of Flowers, Circa 1850-60 The watercolour painting is on pith paper formerly called rice paper. ;It  More »

A Chinese Watercolour and Gouache on Pith Paper Painting of a Basket of Flowers, Circa 1850-60 The watercolour painting is on pith paper formerly called rice paper. ;It depicts a basket filled to overflowing with flowers. ;The painting is within an eglomise and dedcoupage frame. Frame size: 17½ x 13½ inches China Trade watercolours, although produced as early as the late 18th century, enjoyed the height of their popularity in the 1840’s and ‘50’s. ;Travels to China were difficult and expensive, and those from the West that could afford to make the journey did not wish to return empty-handed. Similar to the Grand Tour of the Continent, China was one of the ultimate elite destinations and anything of quality that was brought back immediately became status symbols. Watercolours, available in a variety of subjects and quite handsomely bound, were a popular choice not only due to their aesthetics, but also because of the ease of which they could be carried; large oil paintings and bulky ceramic objects did not lend themselves well to transport. Although a commodity produced for business, the watercolours were very well done, often by well-respected artists. Many of the artists did not work in watercolours often; one of the most respected artists at the time, Sunqua, painted primarily in oils. He worked in watercolor and gouache in the 1830’s- late 1840’s, producing albums and single paintings for export and trade during this time. He was an accomplished artist, whom Crossman says: “...would seem to belong to an Italian or European tradition of ship and port painting”, so good were his compositions and palettes. The first cultural exchanges appeared in the 16th century, when Italian Jesuit missionaries began filtering into China; as the literati widely rejected their Christian teachings, the Italians hurried to find another channel though which to forge bonds in the East. They began sending accomplished artists and teaching European painting techniques instead, forming a particular aesthetic that remained popular for centuries. The earliest China Trade pictures were produced on both Chinese and European paper; “Beginning in the 1780’s, the Chinese artists used western paper for most of their watercolours for the export trade… Supplying the Chinese with the raw materials for a product which was to be sold in the West was not unusual, since it occurred in many fields of manufacture. The other paper commonly used for watercolours and gouaches after 1800 or 1810, was pith, which has been mistakenly called ‘rice’ paper, both at that time and today…’ The so-called rice paper is made of the pith of the Aralia papyrifera. The pith is soaked before cutting; the workman then applies the blade to the cylinders of pith, and, turning them round dexterously, pares them from the circumference to the centre, making a rolled layer of equal thickness throughout’. The pith paper was a very fragile medium on which to work, and many of the watercolours on pith which have survived are cracked and broken.” The pictures were then mounted into albums with a silk ribbon, often blue but not always, and bound between boards covered with brightly coloured and patterned silk. Although it was extremely fragile, pith paper was widely favored due to its nature; the gouache used by the Chinese sat on the surface of the paper and produced a bright and sparkling effect. Very fine detail could be achieved whilst maintaining clean, vibrant colours. The material did not lend itself to the flat wash of colour favoured for European watercolours. Gouache, from the Italian guazzo, "water paint, splash") is a type of paint consisting of pigment suspended in water. Gouache differs from watercolour in that the particles are larger, the ratio of pigment to water is much higher and there is the presence of an inert white pigment, such as chalk. This makes gouache heavier and more opaque, with greater reflective qualities. Popular subjects included Chinese costumes, birds- often with richly painted backgrounds, fish, insects and junks and sampans. The shimmering paint served to heighten the exotic nature of the works, and the charming naiveté added to the perceived indigenous nature of the paintings. The art was made “…for strangers, strangers with an entirely different set of aesthetic presumptions and expectations, stands outside the major currents of art produced for a Chinese audience. It occupies a space which is neither wholly Chinese nor wholly European, but which can, by the nature of the compromises it makes, tell us a lot about how one culture saw the other in the age before photography. It did not exist separately from, but rather as an integral part of, the relationship between China and the West…” Although produced in the mid-19th century, the works remain as naïve, exotic and desirable now as they did when seen for the first time.   « Less

A Set of Six Chinese Watercolours of Butterflies and Insects, Circa 1850 The six watercolours are painted with butterflies and insects on pith paper within blue silk  More »

A Set of Six Chinese Watercolours of Butterflies and Insects, Circa 1850 The six watercolours are painted with butterflies and insects on pith paper within blue silk ribbons. ;The frame is an aqua colour ground on an églomisé border with decoupage flowers. Dimensions: Height: 13 3/4 inches x width: 17 3/4 inches China Trade watercolours, although produced as early as the late 18th century, enjoyed the height of their popularity in the 1840’s and ‘50’s. ;Travels to China were difficult and expensive, and those from the West that could afford to make the journey did not wish to return empty-handed. Similar to the Grand Tour of the Continent, China was one of the ultimate elite destinations and anything of quality that was brought back immediately became status symbols. Watercolours, available in a variety of subjects and quite handsomely bound, were a popular choice not only due to their aesthetics, but also because of the ease of which they could be carried; large oil paintings and bulky ceramic objects did not lend themselves well to transport. Although a commodity produced for business, the watercolours were very well done, often by well-respected artists. Many of the artists did not work in watercolours often; one of the most respected artists at the time, Sunqua, painted primarily in oils. He worked in watercolor and gouache in the 1830’s- late 1840’s, producing albums and single paintings for export and trade during this time. He was an accomplished artist, whom Crossman says: “...would seem to belong to an Italian or European tradition of ship and port painting”, so good were his compositions and palettes. The first cultural exchanges appeared in the 16th century, when Italian Jesuit missionaries began filtering into China; as the literati widely rejected their Christian teachings, the Italians hurried to find another channel though which to forge bonds in the East. They began sending accomplished artists and teaching European painting techniques instead, forming a particular aesthetic that remained popular for centuries. The earliest China Trade pictures were produced on both Chinese and European paper; “Beginning in the 1780’s, the Chinese artists used western paper for most of their watercolours for the export trade… Supplying the Chinese with the raw materials for a product which was to be sold in the West was not unusual, since it occurred in many fields of manufacture. The other paper commonly used for watercolours and gouaches after 1800 or 1810, was pith, which has been mistakenly called ‘rice’ paper, both at that time and today…’ The so-called rice paper is made of the pith of the Aralia papyrifera. The pith is soaked before cutting; the workman then applies the blade to the cylinders of pith, and, turning them round dexterously, pares them from the circumference to the centre, making a rolled layer of equal thickness throughout’. The pith paper was a very fragile medium on which to work, and many of the watercolours on pith which have survived are cracked and broken.” The pictures were then mounted into albums with a silk ribbon, often blue but not always, and bound between boards covered with brightly coloured and patterned silk. Although it was extremely fragile, pith paper was widely favored due to its nature; the gouache used by the Chinese sat on the surface of the paper and produced a bright and sparkling effect. Very fine detail could be achieved whilst maintaining clean, vibrant colours. The material did not lend itself to the flat wash of colour favoured for European watercolours. Gouache, from the Italian guazzo, "water paint, splash") is a type of paint consisting of pigment suspended in water. Gouache differs from watercolour in that the particles are larger, the ratio of pigment to water is much higher and there is the presence of an inert white pigment, such as chalk. This makes gouache heavier and more opaque, with greater reflective qualities. Popular subjects included Chinese costumes, birds- often with richly painted backgrounds, fish, insects and junks and sampans. The shimmering paint served to heighten the exotic nature of the works, and the charming naiveté added to the perceived indigenous nature of the paintings. The art was made “…for strangers, strangers with an entirely different set of aesthetic presumptions and expectations, stands outside the major currents of art produced for a Chinese audience. It occupies a space which is neither wholly Chinese nor wholly European, but which can, by the nature of the compromises it makes, tell us a lot about how one culture saw the other in the age before photography. It did not exist separately from, but rather as an integral part of, the relationship between China and the West…” Although produced in the mid-19th century, the works remain as naïve, exotic and desirable now as they did when seen for the first time.   « Less

A Set of Four China Trade Watercolours on Pith Paper of Sea Shells, Circa 1850 The watercolour and gouache paintings on pith paper depict selections of sea shells- an  More »

A Set of Four China Trade Watercolours on Pith Paper of Sea Shells, Circa 1850 The watercolour and gouache paintings on pith paper depict selections of sea shells- an unusual subject for Chinese paintings. Dimensions: Height: 13 3/4 inches x Length: 16 1/4 inches China Trade watercolours, although produced as early as the late 18th century, enjoyed the height of their popularity in the 1840’s and ‘50’s. ;Travels to China were difficult and expensive, and those from the West that could afford to make the journey did not wish to return empty-handed. Similar to the Grand Tour of the Continent, China was one of the ultimate elite destinations and anything of quality that was brought back immediately became status symbols. Watercolours, available in a variety of subjects and quite handsomely bound, were a popular choice not only due to their aesthetics, but also because of the ease of which they could be carried; large oil paintings and bulky ceramic objects did not lend themselves well to transport. Although a commodity produced for business, the watercolours were very well done, often by well-respected artists. Many of the artists did not work in watercolours often; one of the most respected artists at the time, Sunqua, painted primarily in oils. He worked in watercolor and gouache in the 1830’s- late 1840’s, producing albums and single paintings for export and trade during this time. He was an accomplished artist, whom Crossman says: “...would seem to belong to an Italian or European tradition of ship and port painting”, so good were his compositions and palettes. The first cultural exchanges appeared in the 16th century, when Italian Jesuit missionaries began filtering into China; as the literati widely rejected their Christian teachings, the Italians hurried to find another channel though which to forge bonds in the East. They began sending accomplished artists and teaching European painting techniques instead, forming a particular aesthetic that remained popular for centuries. The earliest China Trade pictures were produced on both Chinese and European paper; “Beginning in the 1780’s, the Chinese artists used western paper for most of their watercolours for the export trade… Supplying the Chinese with the raw materials for a product which was to be sold in the West was not unusual, since it occurred in many fields of manufacture. The other paper commonly used for watercolours and gouaches after 1800 or 1810, was pith, which has been mistakenly called ‘rice’ paper, both at that time and today…’ The so-called rice paper is made of the pith of the Aralia papyrifera. The pith is soaked before cutting; the workman then applies the blade to the cylinders of pith, and, turning them round dexterously, pares them from the circumference to the centre, making a rolled layer of equal thickness throughout’. The pith paper was a very fragile medium on which to work, and many of the watercolours on pith which have survived are cracked and broken.” The pictures were then mounted into albums with a silk ribbon, often blue but not always, and bound between boards covered with brightly coloured and patterned silk. Although it was extremely fragile, pith paper was widely favored due to its nature; the gouache used by the Chinese sat on the surface of the paper and produced a bright and sparkling effect. Very fine detail could be achieved whilst maintaining clean, vibrant colours. The material did not lend itself to the flat wash of colour favoured for European watercolours. Gouache, from the Italian guazzo, "water paint, splash") is a type of paint consisting of pigment suspended in water. Gouache differs from watercolour in that the particles are larger, the ratio of pigment to water is much higher and there is the presence of an inert white pigment, such as chalk. This makes gouache heavier and more opaque, with greater reflective qualities. Popular subjects included Chinese costumes, birds- often with richly painted backgrounds, fish, insects and junks and sampans. The shimmering paint served to heighten the exotic nature of the works, and the charming naiveté added to the perceived indigenous nature of the paintings. The art was made “…for strangers, strangers with an entirely different set of aesthetic presumptions and expectations, stands outside the major currents of art produced for a Chinese audience. It occupies a space which is neither wholly Chinese nor wholly European, but which can, by the nature of the compromises it makes, tell us a lot about how one culture saw the other in the age before photography. It did not exist separately from, but rather as an integral part of, the relationship between China and the West…” Although produced in the mid-19th century, the works remain as naïve, exotic and desirable now as they did when seen for the first time.   « Less

A Set of Four 17th Century Engravings of Horses and Horsemen, George Simon de Winters, Published Nuremberg, Circa 1673. The hand coloured copper plate engravings are  More »

A Set of Four 17th Century Engravings of Horses and Horsemen, George Simon de Winters, Published Nuremberg, Circa 1673. The hand coloured copper plate engravings are from George Simon de Winters authoritative work Bellerophon, sive eques peritus... on the subject of equestrian training. ;They predate similar works by Newcastle, Cavendish and Eisenburg. ;The engravings are considered technically superior to the later works, many of which copied De Winters'' plates. Theses engraving are now in a gilded wood frame with French mounts and include plates 5, 22 and 56, Dimensions: 21 inches high x 24 3/4 inches wide Provenance: with Trowbridge Gallery and then private Rhode Island Collection. Reference: (http://www.georgeglazer.com/prints/sporting/horses/winterdress.html) Georg Simon Winter von Adlersflügel was a German horseman, veterinarian and director of many stud farms. ;He wrote a number of works in German related to the care and training of horses including Bellerophon, New Treatise on Equestrian Topics (1672), which was translated into Latin, French and Italian and illustrated training techniques as well as the softer, more humane bits (mouthpieces) for the horses that he advocated. ;He also published a book on veterinary medicine in 1674. Peter Paul Tröschel was an etcher born in Nuremberg, Germany. ;The son of engraver Hans Tröschel, he engraved portraits and views and worked for publishers. ;He signed his works P.T. Bénézit, E. Dictionnaire critique et documentaire des Peintres, Sculpteurs, Dessinateurs et Graveurs. ;France: Librairie Gründ, 1966. ;Vol. 8, p. 387. Lipperheide 2913; Brunet V, 465 Monteilhet, André. Thomas Ritter, trans. ;“Winter von Adlersflügel.” ;History of German and Austro-Hungarian Equestrian Art. ;18 September 2003. ;http://www.classicaldressage.com/articles/history.html#a ;(9 September 2004)   « Less

A Sailor''s Woolwork Picture- woolie- of the Six-masted Sail and Steamship The Great Eastern, Circa 1865 Designed by Isambad Kingdom Brunel and built by J. Scott Russell  More »

A Sailor''s Woolwork Picture- woolie- of the Six-masted Sail and Steamship The Great Eastern, Circa 1865 Designed by Isambad Kingdom Brunel and built by J. Scott Russell & Co. at Millwall Yards on the Thames, London, 1854-57, the "Great Eastern" was the largest ship of its time. It traveled to American a number of times and became the ship which lay the much of the transatlantic telegraph cable system between Britain and The United States. Under Sir James Anderson she laid 4,200 km (2,600 statute miles) of the 1865 transatlantic telegraph cable. Under Captains Anderson and then Robert Halpin, from 1866 to 1878 the ship laid over 48,000 km (26,000 nautical miles) of submarine telegraph cable including from Brest, France to Saint Pierre and Miquelon in 1869, and from Aden to Bombay in 1869 and 1870. The image depicted in this woolie shows the ship before it was converted to allow it to lay cable. Dimensions:14 ½ x 29 inches. Illustrated: "Woolies: Sailors'' Embroidered Folk Art," Antiques and the Arts Weekly, January 28, 2000, p. 68. Reference: (tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern) The SS Great Eastern was an iron sailing steam ship designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. She was the largest ship ever built at the time of her 1858 launch, and had the capacity to carry 4,000 passengers around the world without refueling. Her length of 692 feet (211 m) was only surpassed in 1899 by the 705 feet (215 m) 17,274 gross ton RMS Oceanic, and her gross tonnage of 18,915 was only surpassed in 1901 by the 700 feet (210 m) and 21,035 gross ton RMS Celtic. Brunel knew her affectionately as the "Great Babe". He died in 1859 shortly after her ill-fated maiden voyage. ; ; After the Great Exhibition of 1851, which had publicized America''s wealth and natural resources, waves of people were eager to emigrate from Britain to America and Brunel realised the potential of a ship purpose-built to carry emigrants there. On 25 March 1852, Brunel had made a sketch of a steamship in his diary and wrote beneath it: "Say 600 ft x 65 ft x 30 ft" (180 m x 20 m x 9.1 m). These measurements were six times larger than any ship afloat; such a large vessel would benefit from economies of scale and would be both fast and economical, requiring fewer crew than the equivalent tonnage made up of smaller ships. Brunel realised that the ship would need more than one propulsion system; since twin screws were still very much experimental, he settled on a combination of a single screw and paddle wheels, with auxiliary sail power. Using paddle wheels meant that the ship would be able to reach Calcutta, where the Hooghly River was too shallow for screws. Brunel showed his idea to John Scott Russell, an experienced Naval Architect and ship builder who he had first met at the Great Exhibition. Scott Russell examined Brunel''s plan and made his own calculations as to the ship''s feasibility. He calculated that it would have a displacement of 20,000 tons and would require 850 horsepower (630 kW) to achieve 14 knots (26 km/h), but believed it was possible. At Scott Russell''s suggestion, they approached the directors of the Eastern Steam Navigation Company. Eastern Steam Navigation Company The Eastern Company was formed in January 1851 with the plan of exploiting the increase in trade and emigration to America. To make this plan viable they needed a subsidy in the form of a mail contract from the British General Post Office, which they tendered for. However, in March 1852 the Government awarded the contracts to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, even though the Eastern Company''s tender was lower. This left them in the position of having a company without a purpose. Brunel''s large ship promised to be able to compete with the fast clippers that currently dominated the route, as she would be able to carry sufficient coal for a non-stop passage and the company invited him to present his ideas to the board. He was unable to attend due to illness and Scott Russell took his place. The Company then set up a committee to investigate the proposal, and they reported in favour and the scheme was adopted at a board meeting held in July 1852. Brunel was appointed Engineer to the project and he began to gather tenders to build the hull, paddle engines and screw engines. Brunel had a considerable stake in the company and when requested to appoint a resident engineer refused in no uncertain terms: ; ; ; ;...I cannot act under any supervision, or form part of any system which recognises any other advisor than myself...if any doubt ever arises on these points I must cease to be responsible and cease to act. He was just as firm in the terms for the final contract where he insisted that nothing was to be undertaken without his express consent, and that procedures and requirements for the construction were specifically laid down. ;Construction Although Brunel had estimated the cost of building the ship at £500,000, Scott Russell offered a very low tender of £377,200: £275,200 for the hull, £60,000 for the screw engines and boilers, and £42,000 for the paddle engines and boilers. Scott Russell even offered to reduce the tender to £258,000 if an order for a sister ship was placed at the same time. Brunel accepted Scott Russell''s tender in May 1853, without questioning it; Scott Russell was a highly skilled shipbuilder and Brunel would accept an estimate from such an esteemed colleague without question. In the spring of 1854 work could at last begin. The first problem to arise was where the ship was to be built. Scott Russell’s contract stipulated that it was to be built in a dock, but Russell quoted a price of £8-10,000 to build the necessary dock and so this part of the scheme was abandoned, partly due to the cost and also to the difficulty of finding a suitable site for the dock. The idea of a normal stern first launch was also rejected because of the great length of the vessel, also because to provide the right launch angle the bow of the ship would have to be raised 40 feet (12 m) in the air. Eventually it was decided to build the ship sideways to the river and use a mechanical slip designed by Brunel for the launch. Later this scheme, too, was dropped on the grounds of cost. Having decided on a sideways launch, a suitable site had to be found, Scott Russell''s Millwall, London, yard being too small. The adjacent yard belonging to David Napier was empty, available and suitable, so it was leased and a railway line constructed between the two yards for moving materials. The Great Eastern''s keel was laid down on 1 May 1854. The hull was an all-iron construction, a double hull of 19 mm (0.75 inch) wrought iron in 0.86 m (2 ft 10 in) plates with ribs every 1.8 m (6 ft). Internally the hull was divided by two 107 m (350 ft) long, 18 m (60 ft) high, longitudinal bulkheads and further transverse bulkheads dividing the ship into nineteen compartments. The Great Eastern was the first ship to incorporate the double-skinned hull, a feature which would not be seen again in a ship for 100 years, but which is now compulsory for reasons of safety. She had sail, paddle and screw propulsion. The paddle-wheels were 17 m (56 ft) in diameter and the four-bladed screw-propeller was 7.3 m (24 ft) across. The power came from four steam engines for the paddles and an additional engine for the propeller. Total power was estimated at 6 MW (8,000 hp). She also had six masts (said to be named after the days of a week - Monday being the fore mast and Saturday the spanker mast), providing space for 1,686 m2 (18,148 square feet) of sails (7 gaff and max. 9 (usually 4) square sails), rigged similar to a topsail schooner with a main gaff sail (fore-and-aft sail) on each mast, one "jib" on the fore mast and three square sails on masts no. 2 and no. 3 (Tuesday & Wednesday); for a time mast no. 4 was also fitted with three yards. In later years, some of the yards were removed. According to some sources (see External links) she would have carried 5,435 m² (58,502 sq ft). This amount of canvas is obviously too much for seven fore-and-aft sails and max. 9 square sails. This (larger) figure of sail area lies only a few square metres below that the famous Flying P-Liner Preussen carried - with her five full-rigged masts of 30 square sails and a lot of stay sails. Setting sails turned out to be unusable at the same time as the paddles and screw were under steam, because the hot exhaust from the five (later four) funnels would set them on fire. Her maximum speed was 24 km/h (13 knots). Scott Russell bankruptcy At the beginning of February 1856 Brunel advised the Eastern Company that they should take possession of the ship to avoid it being seized by Scott Russell''s creditors. This caused Scott Russell''s bankers to refuse to honour his cheques and foreclose on his assets and on 4 February Scott Russell suspended all payments to his creditors and dismissed all his workmen a week later. Russell''s creditors met on 12 February and it was revealed that Russell had liabilities of £122,940 and assets of £100,353. It was decided that his existing contracts would be allowed to be completed and the business would be liquidated. He issued a statement to the Board of the Eastern Company in which he repudiated his contract and effectively handed the uncompleted ship back to them. When the situation was reviewed it was found that three quarters of the work on the hull had not been completed and that there was a deficit of 1200 tons between the amount of iron supplied and that used on the ship. Brunel meanwhile wrote to John Yates and instructed him to negotiate with Scott Russell for the lease of his yard and equipment. Yates replied that Scott Russell had mortgaged the yard to his banker and that any negotiation would have to be with the bank, who after weeks of wrangling agreed to lease the yard and equipment until 12 August 1857. The Eastern Company began the task of completing the ship. Work recommenced in May and took longer than expected to complete. Brunel reported in June 1857 that once the screw, screw shaft and sternpost had been installed the ship would be ready for launching. However, the launch ways and cradles would not be ready in time since the contract for their construction had only been placed in January 1857. Under pressure from all sides, the lease of the shipyard costing £1,000 a month, and against his better judgement, Brunel agreed to launch the ship on 3 November 1857 to catch the high tide. ;Launch Brunel had hoped to conduct the launch with a minimum of publicity but many thousands of spectators had heard of it and occupied vantage points all round the yard. He was also dismayed to discover that the Eastern Company''s directors had sold 3,000 tickets for spectators to enter the shipyard. As he was preparing for the launch some of the directors joined him on the rostrum with a list of names for the ship. On being asked which he preferred, Brunel replied "Call her Tom Thumb if you like". At 12:30 pm Henrietta (daughter of a major fundraiser for the ship, Henry Thomas Hope) christened the ship Leviathan much to everyone''s surprise since she was commonly known as the Great Eastern; her name subsequently changed back to Great Eastern in July 1858. The launch, however, failed, as the steam winches and manual capstans used to haul the ship towards the water were not up to the job. Brunel made another attempt on the 19th and again on the 28th, this time using hydraulic rams to move the ship, but these too proved inadequate. The ship was finally launched at 1:42pm on 31 January 1858, using more powerful hydraulic rams supplied by the then-new Tangye company of Birmingham, the association with such a famous project giving a useful fillip to the fledgling company. She was 211 m (692 ft) long, 25 m (83 ft) wide, with a draft of 6.1 m (20 ft) unloaded and 9.1 m (30 ft) fully laden, and displaced 32,000 tons fully loaded. In comparison, SS Persia, launched in 1856, was 119 m (390 ft) long with a 14 m (45 ft) beam. Fitting out The launch of the ship cost £170,000, a third of Brunel''s estimate for the entire vessel, and it had yet to be fitted out. It was difficult to get any more money from the Eastern Company''s investors as the company was close to becoming bankrupt. To prevent this happening, a new company was formed, the "Great Ship Company", with capital of £340,000. They bought the ship for £160,000, which left enough funds for fitting her out. The Eastern Company''s shareholders were given the market value of their £20 shares (£2 10s) towards payment for shares in the new company and the Eastern Steam Navigation Company entered liquidation. Tenders were invited for fitting the ship out, and two were received - one from Wigram and Lucas for £142,000, and the other from John Scott Russell for £125,000. Brunel had taken a long holiday on medical advice and was absent when the contract was awarded to Scott Russell. The work was begun in January 1859, and was completed by August. Maiden voyage 30 August 1859 was given as the date of the first voyage but this later put back to 6 September. The destination was Weymouth, from which a trial trip into the Atlantic would be made. Following this the ship would sail to Holyhead, its home port for American voyages. The company had made an agreement with the Canada''s Grand Trunk Railway to use Portland, Maine as its US destination and the railway company had built a special jetty to accommodate the ship. William Harrison was appointed Captain in 1856; he drowned in 1860. On 9 September the ship had passed down the Thames, and out into the English Channel, and had just passed Hastings when there was a huge explosion, the forward deck blowing apart with enough force to throw the No. 1 funnel into the air, followed by a rush of escaping steam. Scott Russell and two engineers went below and ordered the steam to be blown off and the engine speed reduced. Five stokers died from being scalded by superheated steam, while four or five others were badly injured and one had leaped overboard and had been lost. The accident was discovered to have been caused by a feedwater heater''s steam exhaust having been closed, while the explosion''s power had been concentrated by the ship''s extremely strong bulkheads.[5] First voyage to America Her first voyage to America began on 17 June 1860, with 35 paying passengers, 8 company "dead heads" (non-paying passengers), and 418 crew. Among the passengers were two journalists, Zerah Colburn and Alexander Lyman Holley, and three directors of the Great Ship Company. Preparations were initially made for the ship to sail on 16 June 1860 and the passengers boarded her on the 14th. After visitors had been sent ashore the Captain announced that he would not be sailing until the 17th, as the crew were drunk. Director Daniel Gooch, who was travelling aboard her, was not pleased. He was further displeased by the route taken by the ship which was the more southerly of the regular steamer routes as he had wanted the ship to complete the journey in nine days. In the event, the voyage took 10 days 19 hours. 1861 government charter Upon the Great Eastern''s return to England, the ship was chartered by the British Government to transport troops to Quebec. 2,144 officers and men, 473 women and children, and 200 horses were embarked at Liverpool along with 40 paying passengers. The ship sailed on 25 June 1861 and went at full speed throughout most of the trip arriving at her destination 8 days and 6 hours after leaving Liverpool. The Great Eastern stayed for a month and returned to Britain at the beginning of July with 357 paying passengers. Although the ship had made around £14,000 on its first Atlantic voyage, the Great Ship Company''s finances were in a poor state, with their shares dropping in price. They were also threatened with a lawsuit by the Grand Trunk Railway for not making Portland, Maine the ship''s port of call as agreed.[7] In addition, Scott Russell had been awarded the sum of £18,000 for repairs following the 1859 explosion. The Company managed to appeal against this but Scott Russell applied to the courts and the Chief Justice found in his favour. The company appealed again, and due to rumours that the ship was about to leave the country, Russell''s solicitors took possession of her. The Great Ship Company lost its appeal and had to pay the sum awarded; to cover this and the expenses of a second US voyage, they raised £35,000 using debentures. Second voyage to America Only 100 passengers booked for the second voyage, which was originally scheduled to depart Milford Haven on 1 May 1861. However, the boat taking the passengers to the ship ran aground and they and their luggage had to be rescued by small boats. The voyage took 9 days 13 hours. The Great Eastern''s arrival in New York was virtually unnoticed, due to the American Civil War and when it was opened to the public at 25 cents a time there was little interest. 194 passengers sailed on the return journey on 25 May and 5,000 tons of wheat was also carried. Third voyage to America The Great Eastern sailed from Liverpool on Tuesday 10 September 1861, commanded by Captain James Walker. On her second day out the wind increased to gale force, causing the ship to roll heavily. The port paddle wheel was completely lost, and the starboard paddle wheel smashed to pieces when one of the lifeboats broke loose. At the same time it was discovered that the cast iron rudder post, which was 11 inches (280 mm) in diameter, had sheared off 2 ft (0.61 m) above its collar and the rudder was swinging free and hitting the screw, which was slowly breaking it up. Captain Walker ordered his officers to say nothing to the passengers concerning the situation, then had a trysail hoisted which was immediately ripped apart by the wind. He then had a four ton spar thrown overboard secured with a hawser to try to bring some control to the ship, but it only worked for a short while before being torn away. By the end of the second day some of the passengers had an idea as to the predicament they were in and formed a committee chaired by Liverpool shipping merchant George Oakwood. The captain agreed to meet Oakwood and allowed him to inspect the ship. What he found was far worse than had been expected: none of the cargo had been stowed properly and it was all rolling loose in the holds. Hamilton E. Towle, an American civil engineer, who was returning to the states after completing his contract working as a supervising engineer on the Danube River dry-docks in Austria, visited the rudder room and after inspecting the damage came up with a plan to regain control of the rudder. Towle''s scheme was taken to the captain, who failed to act on it. In the evening of the third day the Magnet, a brig from Nova Scotia, appeared on the scene. Captain Walker asked her Captain if he would stand by. He agreed, but it turned out there was little he could do and after several hours the brig left, later succeeding in a claim for demurrage from the Great Ship Company for the delay. Towle now presented his plan to the passengers'' committee and in turn they pressured the captain into letting him try it. Towle had a 100 ft (30 m) chain composed of 60 lb (27 kg) links wound around the rudder post below the break, then secured the ends of the chain to the port and starboard frames of the ship using block and tackle. Two lighter chains were led down from the wheelhouse and attached to the heavy chain and also to the ship''s frames. This allowed some limited movement of the rudder and the ship became steerable again. On morning of Sunday 15 September the storm finally abated. Towle and the passengers committee insisted that the Captain try the repaired rudder and eventually the engines were started and at 5 pm that day after 75 hours of drifting out of control the ship answered the helm and was turned on to a course towards Ireland, 300 mi (480 km) away. On arrival at Queenstown the harbourmaster refused to let the ship enter because she was not under full control and the injured passengers were taken off by boats. The ship had to stand off for three days until she was towed in by HMS Advice. Arrangements for temporary repairs were begun and the passengers were offered free transport to the US aboard other ships. Once the repairs were completed the ship sailed to Milford Haven where permanent repairs were to be carried out. Smaller 50 ft (15 m) diameter paddlewheels were fitted, and improvements were made to the steering. Upon arriving in the US, Hamilton E. Towle filed a claim for $100,000 under the laws of salvage, claiming that his efforts had saved the ship. The case was taken to court, and Mr. Towle was awarded the sum of $15,000, which was quite a considerable sum for that period. The Scientific American published an account of the incident and a description of Mr. Towle''s device. It is uncertain if Mr. Towle ever actually received any of the money awarded to him by the court. 1862 voyages The Great Eastern sailed from Milford Haven on 7 May 1862 with 138 passengers, arriving in New York on 17 May. The ship was opened to visitors and around 3,000 a day took the opportunity. The return journey to Liverpool was profitable, with 389 passengers travelling along with 3,000 tons of freight. The west-to-east trip 9 days 12 hours, a reduction of 12 hours on her previous record. The second voyage of 1862 saw the ship arriving in New York on 11 July with 376 passengers including the President of Liberia J. J. Roberts. The return journey later that month carried 500 passengers and 8,000 tons of cargo, the ship arriving at Liverpool on 7 August. Great Eastern Rock incident After a quick turnround, the Great Eastern left on 17 August with 1,530 passengers on board and a substantial amount of freight which increased her draught to 30 ft (9.1 m). The ship encountered a gale but the captain maintained full speed and the ship arrived off Montauk Point, New York at midnight on 27 August. Not wishing to enter New York Bay over Sandy Hook bar with the ship''s deep draught, the captain decided to steam up Long Island Sound and moor at Flushing Bay. The pilot came on board at 1:30 am and the ship moved slowly ahead. At about 2:00 am a mile east of Montauk, Long Island a rumble was heard and the ship heeled slightly. The pilot said she had probably rubbed against the "North east Ripps" (later renamed "Great Eastern Rock"). The captain sent an officer down to check for damage and he reported no leaks. The ship however had a list to port, but she made her way into New York the next day under her own steam. Nobody was hurt, indeed the passengers never even knew what had happened. It was discovered that the rock had opened a gash in the ship''s outer hull over 9 feet (2.7 m) wide and 83 feet (25 m) long, perhaps 60 times the area of the RMS Titanic''s damage. The enormous size of the Great Eastern precluded the use of any drydock repair facility in the US, and the brothers Henry and Edward S. Renwick devised a daring plan to build a watertight caisson to cover the gash, held in place by chains around the ship''s hull. The brothers claimed that it would take two weeks to complete the repairs and said that they would only take payment if successful. However, the demands of the American Civil War caused delays in getting the iron plates required, and instead of two weeks the repairs took three months at a cost to the company of £70,000. The ship finally sailed from New York for Liverpool on 6 January 1863. Because of this accident, some have claimed that the Titanic disaster was caused by diminishing safety standards of the late 19th century, as competing shipping lines sought to outdo each other in making faster and faster crossings of the Atlantic. In October 2007, the recovery of a 6,500-pound (2.9 t) anchor in 70 feet (21 m) of water about four miles (6 km) from the rock has stirred speculation that it may have belonged to the Great Eastern. ;Sale In 1863 the Great Eastern made three voyages to New York, with 2,700 passengers being carried out and 970 back to Britain along with a large tonnage of cargo. One of her paddle wheels was damaged on the last outward trip and she completed it using her screw, while on the return journey she ran down and damaged the Jane, a small sailing ship. The company lost nearly £20,000 on the voyages due to a price war between the Cunard and Inman shipping lines, and ended up with debts of over £142,000, which forced them to lay up the Great Eastern. A plan was mooted to offer the ship in a lottery, which came to nothing, and the ship was finally offered for sale on 14 January 1864 at the Liverpool Exchange, the bidding opening at £50,000. No bids were offered and the ship was withdrawn from sale, the auctioneer declaring that it would be offered for sale with no reserve in three weeks time. Meanwhile, Daniel Gooch approached Thomas Brassey and John Pender to see if they would be willing to assist in the purchase of the Great Eastern. The opening bid at the auction was £20,000 and John Yates who was acting for Gooch secured the ship for a bid of £25,000, despite the ship being worth £100,000 in materials alone. The three men set up a new company, the Great Eastern Steamship Company, and the Great Eastern was chartered to the newly formed Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company for £50,000 of shares, and would be responsible for carrying out the necessary conversion work for the ship''s new role. Cable laying The conversion work for the Great Eastern''s new role consisted in the removal of funnel no. 4 and some boilers as well as great parts of the passenger rooms and saloons to give way for open top tanks for taking up the coiled cable. Under Sir James Anderson she laid 4,200 km (2,600 statute miles) of the 1865 transatlantic telegraph cable. Under Captains Anderson and then Robert Halpin, from 1866 to 1878 the ship laid over 48,000 km (26,000 nautical miles) of submarine telegraph cable including from Brest, France to Saint Pierre and Miquelon in 1869, and from Aden to Bombay in 1869 and 1870. Suez canal In 1857, during the planning of the Suez Canal, it was thought that the Great Eastern would not be able to traverse it, since she had a draft of 28 ft (8.5 m) and it was expected that the canal would be excavated to a depth of 26 ft (7.9 m).[14] In the event, when the canal was opened to shipping in 1869 the Great Eastern was no longer in passenger service. ;Break up At the end of her cable laying career she was refitted once again as a liner but once again efforts to make her a commercial success failed. She was used as a showboat, a floating palace/concert hall and gymnasium. By the time she was sold piecemeal at auction in 1888 she had become an embarrassment. She was broken up for scrap at Rock Ferry on the River Mersey by Henry Bath & Son Ltd in 1889–1890 —it took 18 months to take her apart. (Sectional plan of Great Eastern)   « Less