Hypothetical question for the purist.

[arfabuck]

Hypothetical based on fact, (unfortunately ) but lets keep it hypothetical.

I have an old, ( 80+ y.o. ) clinker fishing boat in for a quick spruce-up before going to a Heritage Meet. It belongs to a museum that stipulates that anything removed MUST be replaced with correspondingly same components and age.

The planking has been 'bogged' with a silastic compound sometime in the past and has blown out the paint coating and flaked off in parts. Where the silastic has held it has caused water retention and subsurface rot. I understand a film company used it for a movie and tidied it up before returning it to the museum.

The point is that the boat was constructed with 500 y.o. NZ Kauri, ( history etc. all documented ) which is now impossible to obtain due to the current Govmint ban on logging these trees. Fair enough, there are not many of them around anymore. What I 'DO' have is 45,000 y.o. NZ Kauri that will do the job.

My question is:- would it be ethical to use the ancient kauri to affect repairs to the planking and keep in the spirit of conservation, or bog it up again for appearances sake and be ready for yet another scrape and bog in a couple of years time knowing that further rot will occur?

Remember this is hypothetical! :confused:

Art

[oakman]

Not sure what a silastic compound is or the term bogged. However, I would think that perhaps the silastic compound was not around when the boat was built and the natural wood would be far better than a "re-bogging"

Oak

[kc8pql]

Having done a bit of museum conservation/restoration myself (furniture) this is what I'd do. Contact the museum, tell them what you've found and explain the options to them as well as difficulties obtaining the wood. I would also make it clear that if they want you to use material that is that rare and you will never be able to replace, they will have to pay an appropriate price for it. In other words, it's their boat. let them decide what to do.

[Thad]

Like the responses, both.

[StevenBauer]

Strip off all that silastic compound. Whatever that is. :confused: It doesn't belong.


Steven

[Lew Barrett]

I was embarrassed to admit I don't know what a silastic compound is either. It seems I'm in good company though so all I can say is it sounds.....boggy! How can you go wrong contacting the owners? In elaboration of KC's comments, on a boat covered in silastic compound it would, I assume, not be possible to determine what the planks are made of. Therefore, with the museum's permission, I'd consider suggesting a more abundant wood choice.
We have replaced a great deal of old growth fir on our boat with AYC since it is more reliable and makes good planking stock. I've never regretted doing that.

[Paul Pless]

Hypothetically speaking, you should send me some of that 'bog' kauri you got, its beautiful stuff.;):)

Realistically, I can't imagine using it on the boat, that stuff sells for what, $150.00 bd/ft and up.

[kc8pql]

Not being a Kiwi I may be wrong but I think silastic is silicone sealant and bogging would be caulking or filling.

[gavinpascoe]

"bog" is just goop. The stuff you use to fair the panels of a beat up automobile panel before you paint it.

Sell your timber to someone who has a Bailey or a Logan! That's just my prejudice though.

[arfabuck]

My apologies for using the Kiwi vernacular in the original post viz. "bog' etc but you all got the gist.

Thank you for all the responses, I was after a 'second opinion' and got it in spades. I have communicated with the museum and they are sticking to their guns - and as this is a 'freebie' for the community they will just have to put up with the ancient kauri going in and lump it.

FYI the cost of the timber is relative. It might be $150 per board foot where you are, here the offcuts go into the fire. Taking up too much space. As I said it is all relative.

Thanks again for the input. As it is all being painted over when finished to return the boat to its original 'visual' appearance, I am the only one to know what is what and my conscience is clear.

Art

[sandingblock]

My understanding is that swamp kauri doesn't have the properties that kauri is famous for.

You can still get kauri: demolition or, on occasion, freshly sawn.

I'd advise to either effect a repair with epoxy, or do it properly with kauri.

Save your swamp kauri for a tacky coffee table covered with polyurethane.

[arfabuck]

My understanding is that swamp kauri doesn't have the properties that kauri is famous for.

You can still get kauri: demolition or, on occasion, freshly sawn.

I'd advise to either effect a repair with epoxy, or do it properly with kauri.

Save your swamp kauri for a tacky coffee table covered with polyurethane.

Your point is taken re swamp kauri however the criteria the repair is measured by, by the owners right or wrong, is *age* of timber. The pieces being used are more cosmetic. Certainly not structural.

I do not have access to mature kauri of the age required. Heaps of demo timber but not any that can be identified as 500+ y.o.

Maybe pedantic, but that is the way it goes with conservation sometimes. After all options are put forward, it is still the owners prerogative to stipulate what happens. If you want the job - you concur. Period.

Your comment also noted about those 'tacky' coffee tables. Some people like them and are willing to pay good money to own a piece. I make no judgement on a persons taste, only on prompt payment or not. To date none of my kauri has gone into such a beast but I wouldn't say no if the price was right. What happens to a commission once paid for is entirely out of my hands.

Art

[sandingblock]

I would have thought that a nice bit of demo would fit his criteria fairly well, cut and sawn 50-100 years ago, mature kauri tree probably in the 300+ year old range. Some old beams must have come from trees at least 500+ years old.


Your comment also noted about those 'tacky' coffee tables. Some people like them and are willing to pay good money to own a piece

I agree, I've made a few, I just think that 'style' of product is where you want to use swamp kauri, it never looks right next to 'proper' kauri on a boat.

[Cullen T.M. McGough]

What?!?! Hell no.

The "ethical" thing to do is tell the museum to pound sand and continue to maintain the boat with some modern, sustainably grown, local product.

Bleh. If that's not apparent, I think you need to reframe your question. :)

[Wild Wassa]

The "hypothetical" doesn't fit with current thinking about sound conservation techniques.

When an object is conserved to museum standards, the conservator 'makes sure' that conservators in the future can see what was done today. The part of the object that was restored must be identifiable as not being part of the original object.

The thinking today about what is sound conservation might not be the thinking of tomorrow or in future. Nor might the conservation techniques be of a standard that conserves the object to perpetuity. So don't do something that can't be undone.

I've written a thesis on this kind of shipt but nowadays I just get on with it.

If conservators in the future keep going forward with their techniques, they will be able to undo anthing that we might do.

Silasticating things, suspect. The vapours will permiate almost anything and reject future bondings except for using more silastic. My biggest drama on boats is caused by people who have used that crap.

Warren.

[BFR]

This is a difficult one... 500year old kauri could be found... but y??? aslong as it's good heart not island kauri and done in a traditional way i.e. not laminated in with epoxy I shouldn't see whats wrong with it and only 2 maybe 3 ppl would know it's not 500years old.... how muh of the boat has already been replaced within the boat????

I guess it's kinda like grandmas axe... 3 new heads and 6 new handels but it's still grandmas axe!

if your after kauri of that age then the coromandel is the place to look.... old fallen trees and stumps are still being milld up that way but might take a bit of a search.... theres also the kauri timber warehouse on the north shore but personally I don't like his timber.

Good luck with it.

[Tom Robb]

Why would anyone but some anal retentive peck-sniff get all fussy about "conserving" an 80 y.o. fish boat?
Warren has it right. If the old dame must get tarted up, at least do it in a manner that can be un-done. Notions of what is proper evolve.
But if they really wanted to conserve the proper fabric of the thing, it'd be bond-do/goop, tacked on stolen highway signs, concrete and all. That's how fishermen kept them, not squeeky clean and bright.

[arfabuck]

Why would anyone but some anal retentive peck-sniff get all fussy about "conserving" an 80 y.o. fish boat?
Warren has it right. If the old dame must get tarted up, at least do it in a manner that can be un-done. Notions of what is proper evolve.
But if they really wanted to conserve the proper fabric of the thing, it'd be bond-do/goop, tacked on stolen highway signs, concrete and all. That's how fishermen kept them, not squeeky clean and bright.

LOL. Not too sure what the anal........means, presume American vernacular but again, can guess the implication.

Your suggestion of bond-do/goop etc did not exist or was not available to the particular builder at the time. What running repairs he did do where all done with original material and need no further work. It is what has been done by good intention 'helpers' later on that requires attention.

As for conserving an 80+ y.o. fishing boat? When your history is just 162 years old, then saving what amounts to half your heritage is relevant - as in this case. Especially when it is well documented and in living memory.

We desire to have this original piece still in existence in another 162 years when its significance will be even more relevant. Hence the move to affect 'decent' repairs so that somebody down the line does not have to 'repair the repair' once again.

Thank you to all that have responded to the original question. They have been most insightful and will be kept on file for future reference. The boat is now back in operation to everyones satisfaction. Mission accomplished.

Art

[Tom Robb]

Good luck with the project.
I find myself between friends & acquantences who on the one hand find old stuff (old dirty failing finishes even - Antiques Roadshow Syndrome) virtually sacred and those who say it's only a thing and don't cling to it.
Neither satisfys much.
BTW, Anal-Retentive is a Freudian notion. It's supposed to be (IIRC) a primitive stage of child development after Oral.
I expect neither has any basis in reality, but they make fine pop-psyche conversation gambits. Anal-retentive suggests an unfortunate neurotic tendency to fuss over cleanliness and generally be tight a$$ed.
I still think Warren's sugestion is a very good one.
Also it's an interesting question: when is a thing real - new out of the shop; as it was during some historic incident; when good old Pop owned it? We quite arbitrarily pick the realness stage that suits us, don't we?

[TimH]

What I 'DO' have is 45,000 y.o. NZ Kauri that will do the job.


did you carbon date it?