![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
'Among other characteristics which define a clipper is that they were usually ships in the strictest sense of the word'. This does not make sense. Please could someone more knowledgeable that I rewrite it or define 'ship' in this context.
I removed a fictional entity; it's pretty clear this list is appropriate for actual historical ships. -- Brianhe ( talk) 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In the current layout, the info seems to be very compact and makes reading a bit difficult. Wouldn't it be better to display this list in table format?
Regards,
DPdH (
talk) 05:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Joseph Conrad's career at sea mentions (besides Torrens) these additional clippers in which he served:
Duke of Sutherland, Loch Etive, Annie Frost, Riversdale, Narcissus, Tilkhurst
These aren't currently in the list. I don't have any idea of their notability (apart from Narcissus being used as the eponymous title of Conrad's novella, The Nigger of the 'Narcissus') or details of their histories. Cheers. Bahudhara ( talk) 01:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Note 1: I recommend adding another column to the table, such as "Remarks" or something similar... I digged a lot of info on those less notable clippers from all over the abyss of the Internet and will hate to see it go... Note 2: Agree with the last remark by Bahudhara that it is not a list and that how we can determine which clipper is worth being added...Don't have a solution. Advise to keep everything in and let in the remarks section acknowledge any worthiness of the particular clipper... Cheers mates --/k8 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Before going forward, a discussion should be had in regards to what organization the list should have. Namely...what types of clippers are there, and how should they be organized? Here are some types of clippers I came across:
Are some of these terms used by sources? There is confusion in the articles themselves regarding this issue as some label x clipper in up to 3 different ways. Some examples of this can be found at Challenger (clipper), and Lammermuir (1856 clipper). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted Ann McKim (clipper) from this list because she was a Baltimore clipper, not a true clipper in the generally accepted sense of the term. Her article describes several features, such as a rounded keel and the shape of her bow, that are different from those of true clippers. True clippers are ships sensu stricto, being square rigged on all masts. The model shows Ann McKim to have been fore-and-aft rigged, making her a topsail schooner. I quote from the Ann McKim article: "On the same note: the terms Baltimore clipper and clipper ship should not be confused. The former term is refereed to the clippers with a displacement between 50 and 200 tons built in Chesapeake Bay in the late 18th century and the latter is to the much larger clippers of the 1840s from New York with a displacement often ten times of what was the Baltimore clippers." And from schooner: "Square topsail schooner: includes square topsails.[12] A version with raked masts, called the Baltimore Clipper was popular in the early 1800s." Craigthebirder ( talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I question Lammermuir's status as an "extreme clipper". Neither MacGregor, nor Andrew Shewan (whose father was captain of Lammermuir) apply this term.
[1] From general descriptions, she was just a fast clipper (which is what all of them were designed to be).
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 08:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Should we include early ships that have been dubbed "Opium clippers"? I can see it being questionable seeing the ship I mentioned in the header was schooner rigged. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A note of caution about a source cited as a reference in the lead: Clark, Arthur H. (1910). The clipper ship era : an epitome of famous American and British clipper ships, their owners, builders, commanders, and crews 1843-1869. There are some errors and poorly written sections of this book that can be misleading.
For instance, pg 321, when (apparently) talking about tea clippers (in the sense of clippers built specifically for the tea trade) Clark says "only twenty-five or thirty of these vessels were built from first to last". He then goes on to list "the most celebrated of them" in Appendix III, where we find 27 listed - so this immediately exceeds the "only twenty-five". Looking at MacGregor, we see the numbers of clippers built, by year, 1859: 4; 1860: 7; 1861: 9; 1862: 5; 1863: 12. So, over this limited date range (I gave up counting!), we have 37 clippers built, with many more in later years (we have not even got to Ariel, Taitsing, etc.). I have tried hard to makes some sense of the 25 - 30 statement, but without success. An editor could easily read this passage and put something in Wikipedia that would be totally wrong.
Another example is the account of the tea race of 1866. Just to pick out a couple of errors - he has the identity of the first ship to finish loading wrong; the details of what happened when the premium was claimed by the winners is the exact opposite of what happened (in that the prize was not not disputed, whilst Clark says that it was), etc.
As with so many books that are freely available on the internet, the quality as a reference is poorer than in books that exist in print only. I mention this one because it appears authoritative (and probably is on some points) but contains confidently written blunders that have to be filtered out by checking with other sources.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 08:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I have tried to delete these three entries but Knowledgekid87 objects and reverts. The vessel's articles all describe them as barques. Knowledgekid87 says that the articles' references support the name clipper. However, the one image in an article, of Osaka, shows her to be a barque. The only entry for an "Osaka" in Lloyd's Register is spelled "Osaca" and lists her as a "Scw Sr" which probably means screw steamer. In the Miako article references, both Lloyd's Register and Sunderlandships.com ( http://sunderlandships.com/view.php?ref=157144) describe her as a barque. The Fusi Yama article doesn't use Lloyd's as a source and the other references in all three articles are books which I don't own. So, if those other references call them clippers, then the articles should be rewritten to specifically note that sources differ in the type of vessel, and only then should they (maybe) be included in the list with the short summary to include the fact that assignment to a type of vessel is unclear. Craigthebirder ( talk) 21:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Craigthebirder: I am all for the removal of ships that don't belong, but these need to be clarified first. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Knowledgekid87: Yes, the vessels' articles may need to be clarified as I said above. But note that your reference (2) says Osaka was a clipper barque, not clipper ship, and the other references call her and the other vessels clippers, not clipper ships. Being referred to as a clipper doesn't make the vessel a ship; many fast vessels were advertised as clippers. Yes, I'm being pedantic, but this is a list of clipper ships (i.e. square-rigged), not clipper barques. And as far as I can tell, every other entry in the list but these three is a true ship, or at least began life as one. Craigthebirder ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Craigthebirder states that Osaka does not appear in Lloyd's Register of Shipping. That is not correct. If you look in the 1870-71 issue (the first that you would expect a vessel launched on 12 July 1869 to definitely appear)
[7], you find her listed as a barque, with all the other details (builder, method of construction, etc.) as per MacGregor.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 17:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Through reading I pretty much found out that the clipper age is broken down into 3 main eras.
There is most likely other eras that can be defined, but this is what I saw while reading. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
What is your rationale for removing my images from list of clippers? Images that give a lot of information of these ships. Where is the policy? Broichmore ( talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems strange that after all the discussions above on what a "clipper ship" is and isn't, and the removal of those that were not full-rigged ships, the lead illustration is of a bark/barque. (Yes, I know that Great Republic later became a ship by removal of fore-and-aft-rigged mizzen, but not in this painting.) This illustration was introduced without explanation in this diff, replacing one that was a clipper ship. Davidships ( talk) 17:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
'Among other characteristics which define a clipper is that they were usually ships in the strictest sense of the word'. This does not make sense. Please could someone more knowledgeable that I rewrite it or define 'ship' in this context.
I removed a fictional entity; it's pretty clear this list is appropriate for actual historical ships. -- Brianhe ( talk) 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In the current layout, the info seems to be very compact and makes reading a bit difficult. Wouldn't it be better to display this list in table format?
Regards,
DPdH (
talk) 05:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The article Joseph Conrad's career at sea mentions (besides Torrens) these additional clippers in which he served:
Duke of Sutherland, Loch Etive, Annie Frost, Riversdale, Narcissus, Tilkhurst
These aren't currently in the list. I don't have any idea of their notability (apart from Narcissus being used as the eponymous title of Conrad's novella, The Nigger of the 'Narcissus') or details of their histories. Cheers. Bahudhara ( talk) 01:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Note 1: I recommend adding another column to the table, such as "Remarks" or something similar... I digged a lot of info on those less notable clippers from all over the abyss of the Internet and will hate to see it go... Note 2: Agree with the last remark by Bahudhara that it is not a list and that how we can determine which clipper is worth being added...Don't have a solution. Advise to keep everything in and let in the remarks section acknowledge any worthiness of the particular clipper... Cheers mates --/k8 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Before going forward, a discussion should be had in regards to what organization the list should have. Namely...what types of clippers are there, and how should they be organized? Here are some types of clippers I came across:
Are some of these terms used by sources? There is confusion in the articles themselves regarding this issue as some label x clipper in up to 3 different ways. Some examples of this can be found at Challenger (clipper), and Lammermuir (1856 clipper). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I deleted Ann McKim (clipper) from this list because she was a Baltimore clipper, not a true clipper in the generally accepted sense of the term. Her article describes several features, such as a rounded keel and the shape of her bow, that are different from those of true clippers. True clippers are ships sensu stricto, being square rigged on all masts. The model shows Ann McKim to have been fore-and-aft rigged, making her a topsail schooner. I quote from the Ann McKim article: "On the same note: the terms Baltimore clipper and clipper ship should not be confused. The former term is refereed to the clippers with a displacement between 50 and 200 tons built in Chesapeake Bay in the late 18th century and the latter is to the much larger clippers of the 1840s from New York with a displacement often ten times of what was the Baltimore clippers." And from schooner: "Square topsail schooner: includes square topsails.[12] A version with raked masts, called the Baltimore Clipper was popular in the early 1800s." Craigthebirder ( talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I question Lammermuir's status as an "extreme clipper". Neither MacGregor, nor Andrew Shewan (whose father was captain of Lammermuir) apply this term.
[1] From general descriptions, she was just a fast clipper (which is what all of them were designed to be).
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 08:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Should we include early ships that have been dubbed "Opium clippers"? I can see it being questionable seeing the ship I mentioned in the header was schooner rigged. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A note of caution about a source cited as a reference in the lead: Clark, Arthur H. (1910). The clipper ship era : an epitome of famous American and British clipper ships, their owners, builders, commanders, and crews 1843-1869. There are some errors and poorly written sections of this book that can be misleading.
For instance, pg 321, when (apparently) talking about tea clippers (in the sense of clippers built specifically for the tea trade) Clark says "only twenty-five or thirty of these vessels were built from first to last". He then goes on to list "the most celebrated of them" in Appendix III, where we find 27 listed - so this immediately exceeds the "only twenty-five". Looking at MacGregor, we see the numbers of clippers built, by year, 1859: 4; 1860: 7; 1861: 9; 1862: 5; 1863: 12. So, over this limited date range (I gave up counting!), we have 37 clippers built, with many more in later years (we have not even got to Ariel, Taitsing, etc.). I have tried hard to makes some sense of the 25 - 30 statement, but without success. An editor could easily read this passage and put something in Wikipedia that would be totally wrong.
Another example is the account of the tea race of 1866. Just to pick out a couple of errors - he has the identity of the first ship to finish loading wrong; the details of what happened when the premium was claimed by the winners is the exact opposite of what happened (in that the prize was not not disputed, whilst Clark says that it was), etc.
As with so many books that are freely available on the internet, the quality as a reference is poorer than in books that exist in print only. I mention this one because it appears authoritative (and probably is on some points) but contains confidently written blunders that have to be filtered out by checking with other sources.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 08:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I have tried to delete these three entries but Knowledgekid87 objects and reverts. The vessel's articles all describe them as barques. Knowledgekid87 says that the articles' references support the name clipper. However, the one image in an article, of Osaka, shows her to be a barque. The only entry for an "Osaka" in Lloyd's Register is spelled "Osaca" and lists her as a "Scw Sr" which probably means screw steamer. In the Miako article references, both Lloyd's Register and Sunderlandships.com ( http://sunderlandships.com/view.php?ref=157144) describe her as a barque. The Fusi Yama article doesn't use Lloyd's as a source and the other references in all three articles are books which I don't own. So, if those other references call them clippers, then the articles should be rewritten to specifically note that sources differ in the type of vessel, and only then should they (maybe) be included in the list with the short summary to include the fact that assignment to a type of vessel is unclear. Craigthebirder ( talk) 21:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Craigthebirder: I am all for the removal of ships that don't belong, but these need to be clarified first. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Knowledgekid87: Yes, the vessels' articles may need to be clarified as I said above. But note that your reference (2) says Osaka was a clipper barque, not clipper ship, and the other references call her and the other vessels clippers, not clipper ships. Being referred to as a clipper doesn't make the vessel a ship; many fast vessels were advertised as clippers. Yes, I'm being pedantic, but this is a list of clipper ships (i.e. square-rigged), not clipper barques. And as far as I can tell, every other entry in the list but these three is a true ship, or at least began life as one. Craigthebirder ( talk) 01:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Craigthebirder states that Osaka does not appear in Lloyd's Register of Shipping. That is not correct. If you look in the 1870-71 issue (the first that you would expect a vessel launched on 12 July 1869 to definitely appear)
[7], you find her listed as a barque, with all the other details (builder, method of construction, etc.) as per MacGregor.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 17:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Through reading I pretty much found out that the clipper age is broken down into 3 main eras.
There is most likely other eras that can be defined, but this is what I saw while reading. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
What is your rationale for removing my images from list of clippers? Images that give a lot of information of these ships. Where is the policy? Broichmore ( talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems strange that after all the discussions above on what a "clipper ship" is and isn't, and the removal of those that were not full-rigged ships, the lead illustration is of a bark/barque. (Yes, I know that Great Republic later became a ship by removal of fore-and-aft-rigged mizzen, but not in this painting.) This illustration was introduced without explanation in this diff, replacing one that was a clipper ship. Davidships ( talk) 17:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)