Messages

Congratulations on a superb calendar Jeremy, delivered this morning.N3535.

N1856 was built by Peter Collyer at Sandbank on the Holy Loch. This contributor does not know whether the boat was originally owned by Peter Adam of the Perth S.C. but he certainly owned it in 1968 when he won the Scottish National 12 Championship with her. Peter was a schoolmaster at Glenalmond College where he had been a pupil. He served in the Navy in WWII, with distinction, and returned to his old school in l949 as a master. In that year he formed the school sailing club and this contributor was a founder member of the club, as a pupil. Peter oversaw the construction of YW Cadets for the club and in the early years of the club be had two old N12s, this contributor recalling that they were Hengist and Horsa, presumably the two boats of those names in the N12  Handbook, N32l and N328. What happened in later years to those three boats in unknown.Peter Adam passed away in 2010.

N2228 was built by Peter Collyer at Sandbank, on the Holy Loch, for Lady Anne Coventry, a member of the Perth S.C. Lady Anne won the Scottish N12 Championship in 1967 with this boat. The designer, Richard Roscoe, had been a member of the Cowal Holy Loch S.C. for a few years in the early 1950s when a student of Naval Architecture in Glasgow and was a close colleague of Peter Collyer.

In the mid-1950s, TIKI was owned by Edward Baillie, a member of the Cowal Holy Loch S.C. on the Clyde.

N1417 was one of two Chippendale built Currey Mk.6 hulls supplied to members of the Cowal Holy Loch S.C. in l956, the other being N1393. Alastair Collyer was the owner of N1417 and Richard Roscoe of N1393. Alastair stretched his budget to acquire a suit of Ratsey terylene sails at a time when everyone still had cotton sails. It was reckoned that the terylene sails gave a l0% advantage. This contributor recalls that the Ratseys cost £40 and that a good suit of cotton sails could be had for about £25.

N1393 was one of two Currey Mk.6 hulls built by Chippendale in l956 for members of the Cowal Holy Loch S.C. N1393 was for Richard Roscoe (later to design "Squid") and Nl417 for Alastair Collyer (brother of Peter who was 4th in the Points Cup at Westcliff in l954). Chippendale had said to Richard who had approached them to build him one, that they would build two, and Richard persuaded Alastair, who had at that time an older N12 , to take the second one. Richard won the first Scottish N12 and Firefly Championship at Loch Earn in l956 with N1393. Richard went on to win the Points Cup at Torquay in l960 in "Squid" Nl664. This contributor recalls only too well the blistering offwind speed of the Currey boats at that time.

N1284 was originally supplied as a bare hull by Jack Holt to Bill Morgan, a member of the Cowal Holy Loch S.C. She was one of the first batch of glued clinker N12s to come to Scotland in the mid-l950s and arrived at the club around the same time as N1308. Sorry to say, her performance did not match her looks (such a beautiful clean interior after the ribs and nails of the boats until then) made even more disappointing by N1308's sparkling performance on the water. Bill Morgan was sorely disappointed with his purchase and purchased my Jack Holt built N1149 (ribs and nails) when I sold her after leaving the Clyde area. In those days it was said that some of Jack Holt's boats just did not go well in choppy water, even if from the same jig. Best wishes to whoever might yet restore her. From my recollections, she might be best suited to rivers and inland water.

N1308 and N1284 were ordered at the same time by two members of the Cowal Holy Loch S.C., Jack Carsewell and Bill Morgan. They were Jack Holt designed and built glued clinker hulls, among the first group of the glued boats to come into Scotland. Cotton sails were still the norm at that time and both boats were so equipped. Terylene had just come along but was about twice the price.

N974 was originally owned by Peter Collyer of the Cowal Holy Loch S.C., designed and built by Jack Holt. Peter was a meticulous craftsman and "Hi-Jack" was known as "the boat with the finish". Her varnished hull was cut down each winter with fine grade wet or dry and polished to perfection. Peter took her to Westcliff-on-Sea in l954 for Burton Week and came 4th overall. She was sold on in the mid-l950s when Peter became interested in the Flying Dutchman class and built one. Peter was an Olympic trialist for the Finn Class for the l956 Olympics, one of 36 skippers from the established classes chosen. He was a superb boat builder and built a few N12s to Richard Roscoe's "Squid 2" design.

By the way, the passing reference to "water" in Bryan Willis' book is on page 64, but the whole question is much wider than what he was commenting on at that point.
Nigelf

Sam293. You are quite right, basically, but for better or for worse, we all, competitors, race officers and members of protest committees are obliged to make interpretations of the Rules from time to time. My understanding (and interpretation) for what it is worth, is that the Rules provide an entitlement to the facility but do not say how that facility is to be obtained. In other words, if there were a few magic words which are required to claim your entitlement, the Rules might have provided them.I am not aware of any appeal decisions on this point to date but if anyone can enlighten me I shall be delighted to put their information in my bottom drawer for future use. Interpretations made at the highest level effectively become part of the Rules and the four-yearly review of the Rules have regard to appeal decisions made in the interim. I think we can all agree that racing is much better fun than poring over rules but unfortunately our Rules are complicated, otherwise we would not have so many books on the subject and for most I suspect that the books of explanation on the Rules are as useful as the Rules themselves.
Nigelf

Jeremy. You have opened something of a hornet's nest. A skipper might require either "room" or "mark room", which are quite different requirements and either might elicit a negative response. Since we may be wearing smart new 75th anniversary ties, we should expect suitably dulcet tones to accompany any request. Now that really would be pedantic! By the way in Bryan Willis' book " The Rules in Practice" there is at least one passing reference to a call for "water" so perhaps the recent rule revisions have not changed well-entrenched practice, even at the highest echelons of the sport.

John. Count me in for one. That is the easy bit. The harder task is to think when I might wear it!
Nigel F. N3535

Thanks both Chris and Tom. It is very easy to postulate from the armchair although my years as a Race Officer and being pressed into giving talks on the (pre-1980) rules to sailing colleagues makes me take, sometimes, a slightly jaundiced view of what I see or think I see on the water. Tom's mention of a major wind shift might well explain the apparent pile-up - I have been in that situation many times myself. They used to say that the camera never lies but as you say, Chris, long-focus and telephonto lenses can give a misleading impression. I was, I must confess, more concerned at the apparent touching of booms, boats and backsides among the boats behind the leading boats but the most essential element in all such instances is that the skippers concerned can put their hands on their hearts and say "I was not at fault"; as I read the rules it is not for those skippers to say who might have been at fault and if all concerned can deny any fault, there can be situations where there is multiple contact and no one accepting responsibility, all perfectly properly.I had a spell of radio sailing (Marbleheads, 6 Metres and l Metres) where the same penalty turn arrangements apply. The system works extremely well in radio racing because these boats (particularly the l Metres)can turn on a sixpence (old money!) and do even two turns extremely quickly. Two turns in a N12 in a stiff breeze with mandatory gybes included can quickly knock you so far out of contention  that it might be tempting to continue if no one has called "protest", particularly if you have any doubt as to whether you were in the wrong anyway. We are extremely fortunate that our sport is largely self-regulating and I am sure that all those who teach incomers to sail and race emphasise this priceless feature. Prior to the penalty turn system being introduced, there was, in the more competitive fleets, something approaching anarchy and I think I am right in saying that the penalty turn was introduced to encourage the self-regulating element of the sport and remove the somewhat drastic requirement of retiral for the slighest rule infringement. As a final shot, might I say that I hope to be at some of next year's N12 open meetings with my new Paradigm 2 and I know that I had better be on my best behaviour when racing among any who read these comments!

Thanks Chris for the information I was hoping not to receive! Having raced for many years under the old rule where you had to retire if you infringed a rule and having witnessed many examples of superb sportsmanship from some of the country's best skippers, I had hoped that the penalty turn system might have persuaded competitors that an infringement could be offset without the ultimate penalty of retirement. Presumably in this instance everyone involved took the view that they were not at fault so a multiboat pileup was perfectly acceptable. Congratulations again for the excellent pictures.