As you asked!
Noha307 wrote:
1. Wow, that was surprising - naval historian(s) arguing against preserving a ship! Especially one that significant and in such [relatively] good condition. I'm still sitting here stunned that it has as much original as it does. (I don't know much, or even really nearly anything, about the facts of the situation there, but based on what I've seen in the pictures in the Navy News article, as well as a few exterior shots, it seems to be in very good shape.)
I can't speak for Chris A-M, and I think I made my views clear - he has a point of view, I just simply don't agree with it. However it is true that ships are notoriously difficult and expensive to preserve, and can decay frighteningly fast while afloat.
Quote:
2. Maybe you can explain the details about preserving historical objects in Britain to me. Sitting over here in Ohio, USA doesn't give me much perspective on the situation. (I've never really been up on the way the preservation "infrastructure" works in other countries. i.e. The manner in which the money is doled out.) It seems like there is some sort of problem with too many objects and too few funds. To be clear, this is
always the case, but it seems like, from what I read/skimmed on the posts, it is a very acute problem in England right now. Essentially, the argument as I understand it from those against preservation is that, "Yeah it would be nice to preserve it, but we don't have a whole lot of money right now, so we can't." which is one of the strangest arguments I've heard in a while. It's not that people don't normally compete for funding, it's that it seems they are actively saying we should just scrap it, which is wierd.
I'd not agree with Chris' view here either. The heritage industry is called an industry in the UK because it's just that, and tourism income is a vital part of the UK's economy, though some Britons sometimes like to see it as people admiring their Empire (not having noticed that's over, folks) rather than seeing it as earning money from
remnants of it.
I think in the argument Chris was alone in the 'scrap it' view. His view that drawings and other secondary data was good enough in terms of information was also something I cannot agree with. Physical artifacts illustrate aspects secondary documentation simply can't, nevermind the emotional connection to objects people often have.
However, while I think Chris was perhaps being somewhat contrarian, it's a good argument to have to argue against! I usually respect his insights.
Quote:
3. I've been following the Cerberus saga and have subscribed to their e-newsletter. I've even e-mailed then twice. (It just occurred to me that you live in Australia. I noticed your location status a while ago, but I just now put two-and-two together.)
For those wondering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMVS_CerberusThe saga of HMVS
Cerberus is a tragic one, indeed. I've had a good look (as much as you can see from the pier and shore). Given it is one of the few Monitors surviving, though at risk, she should be preserved, but it is indicative of the issue that the sheer cost of even stabilising the wreck is eye-watering, and secondly funds that the campaign get hold of are frequently reallocated for more urgent, but short term, requirements.
While I'd love to see
Cerberus preserved properly, I just can't see where the money could come from.
Quote:
4. Presuming that you are interested in other warship related preservation projects, (You do seem to get around!
) have you heard about the CSS Georgia? (This is one of the two topics I e-mailed the Cerberus people about.) Basically; Savannah, Georgia is enlarging their port and the wreckage of the ironclad is in the way. So, before they can proceed, the Army Corps of Engineers is going to try to raise what remains of the warship. There is a very interesting report on the wreck here:
https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/llowery/ ... eorgia.pdfNo, I don't follow pre C20th US ships, but was pleased to visit those in San Francisco Harbour last year, when I visited. But an interesting case study, indeed, thanks!
Quote:
5. Finally, I assume you've heard about the HMS Bounty replica by now. Sad story. If any good can come of it, maybe we can study the ship on the bottom to see how it deteriorates for future reference to other sunken wooden ships. I don't think anyone's ever followed a sailing ship's condition since immediately after it sank, before.
Yes, it's a tragedy, indeed. Here, of course we had another
Bounty replica in Sydney harbour - not sure what it's up to now. Locally the replicas of
Enterprize (sic) the Jacht
Duyfken and HMB
Endeavour (google for details) are all important to Australia's history.
We have sadly lost other historic
original tall ships a few years back; to my knowledge the
Maria Asumpta in May 1995 and the barque
Marques lost off Bermuda in 1985, all, with varying losses of life. For their numbers in proportion, historic ships seem to fare as poorly with fatal losses as warbirds, but without the public perception of risk ('old aeroplanes') that warbirds suffer from.
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
It's amazing given the amount of time she's sat there. Guess she had some good ol' TLC.
With such an amazing time capsule, they better not screw this up. 
Or else. 
