Thread: Old Wooden Canoe

Good on you Steve. Looks like I've managed to drag you out of your "retirement". How come you didn't mention the hand woven cane seats - I'd like to join a discussion on THAT!!!!!

Thanks for the marvellous story Stephen.

(I have a beaut book by Roger MacGregor called "When the Chestnut was in flower". I think you'd like it. )

I am bursting with questions.

Is your form derived from an original Chestnut Prospector? Do you know if its the same as Ted Moores' Prospector? Ted gives the specs as: Length 16' 1", Beam 35", Depth 13 1/4"

What did you use for the stems and inwales/outwales? What sort of keel- (I can see screws through every 2nd ribs? )

What did you fill the canvas with? Any idea of the total weight? Any construction pics?

The hand caning looks great. Why buy prefab when you can spend days doing it that way!

Regards Bill P

Hi Bill,

The book by Roger MacGregor certainly does sound interesting. I will try to track down a copy on Amazon.

Yes, as far as I can tell the canoe I owned and subsequently built is the same as that described by Ted Moore. I have a copy of a reprint of the 1929 catalog of the Peterborough Canoe Company and the Prospector is listed there in five different sizes: 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 feet in length. The 16 footer has a beam of 36" and a depth of 14" and weighs 75 lbs. These dimensions closely match those of my canoe and mine weighs 32 kg My recollection is that the Chestnut Canoe Company took over making the Prospector canoes when the Peterborough company went out of business. I don't know exacly when this was but there is a Chestnut Canoe catalog put out in 1950 so it must have been sometime between 1929 and 1950.

Interestingly, the canoes that I and my friends ordered and took delivery of in 1962 (or was it 1963 - can't remember exactly) arrived with one having a keel and the other without. I suppose this was because we didn't specify which we wanted so we got one of each! The differences were soon apparent on the trip down the Churchill. The canoe with the keel was superior in tracking on the big lakes that were a feature of the Churchill but the one without the keel came into its own in the rapids where quick turning was an advantage. Also, in the rapids the keel had a tendency to catch on rocks and we had several potentially disastrous capsizes because of this.

A few details: I do have some construction photos. I would probably be easiest for me to post photocopies of these to you by snail mail if you can give me your address. Since they are all predigital this would save me from scanning them in. The stems and keel are made from alpine ash - reasonably hard wearing but not too heavy. The gunwales are oregon. I will try to get the recipe for the canvas filler from Peter Jones since I don't seem to have kept a copy when I gave it to him with the form and other miscellaneous materials and tools. The main ingredient is powdered silica.

How is your restoration progressing and what stage are you at.

Best wishes,
Stephen Clark

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for that.

You're probably better going straight to Roger for the book. (Google "Plumsweep Press" and you should find him.) You'll probably find that the Peterborough catalogue reprint was done by him. He is the custodian of the Chestnut trademarks etc, and he's also got info on the various canoe company interrelationships, takeovers etc.

I was after woodcanvas canoes, but ended up with a pair of older all wood canoes. Oh well. These are now both restored, and will be used for family paddling trips. In addition to the Wm English #4 the top of this post, I have a Peterborough #64, pictured during its relaunch last year.

I probably have enough large canoes at present, although I'd still like to have a wood canvas one.!

Regards Bill P

Originally Posted by Stephen Clark

Hi Bill,

A few details: I do have some construction photos. I would probably be easiest for me to post photocopies of these to you by snail mail if you can give me your address. Since they are all predigital this would save me from scanning them in.

Best wishes,
Stephen Clark

Hi Stephen,

I have had reasonable success photographing old photographs using a digital camera.

You have to get them flat, fiddle to get even light with no reflections. Found some zoom so I could get at least a metre or a bit more away from the photos. Maybe even put them on the ground.



That is the just completed or almost completed Harbour Bridge in the background. 1932 as far as we can guess.

Transparencies I also did using a cheap slide viewer with no internal light. Just held the camera directly on the viewing lens and allowed the autofocus to work with a desklamp about 500mm behind that. Oh - um, I set the white balance of the camera with no slide at all in first.



I kept some boaty ones. I think this is maybe Devon ... 1957

MIK