The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Telescope 103 How Now David Dows by LOUDEN G. WILSON Tho material which appeared in the DAVID DOWS article (Telescope Vol. 10, No, 3# March 1961) suggests that great caution should be exerted when estimating the reliability of translated, diluted, and resurrected data on any subject, especially ships. The DOWS article is the result of sincere efforts by some long term enthusiasts on matters pertaining to lake vessels, but it is misleading in some very important areas, as I hope to show. So, with apologies to my colieagues,here goes: Let's take a look at the picture we get of DAVID DOWS from the recent article, basing our judgment on known plans, on the say-so of men who sailed in her, and on the known characteristics of lake sailing vessels. The plan on pages f>0-5>l of the aforesaid article deserves little recommendation, as instance note the-detail, such as "fids," shown under the topmasts (a very minor detail) while very basic features, such as the bobstays, dolphin striker, and jibboom stays under the bowsprit are not even indicated. These, by the way, are the only gear which could pull all the masts forward into an almost reverse rake such as is shown here, which would be a severe strain on the entire rig. This plan, despite some superficial accuracy, includes many unpardonable errors. Its source--the comparatively recent Historical Marine Survey,a WPA project that produced much worth while material where competence was applied but which, because of such items as the above, must be followed with due caution. Fortunately, we have a better source. "Hall's Report for 1884, & Survey of American Shipbuilding and Commerce," shows a sail plan of the DAVID DOWS (Detroit Public Library) and, I believe, a list of her spar dimensions. This plan presumes only to be an outline of the rig and is also minus some detail. However, comparatively speaking, it is vastly superior to the WPA product in which the hull, bow and stern are particularly offensive and uncharacteristic of lake tradition. The painting on page 43 offends mostly in the ridiculous mis-proportion of the waves to a vessel of this size, also the cutaway of the bow and stern profile. Referring to the "Hall's Report" plan and the spar table, we see that the "jigger" mast (last) has a too-long boom, like the main in a two-mast schooner. Despite other errors, hard to attribute to a real schooner man, it shows an interesting feature--pendants from the gaff ends to the following mast doubling, a device often seen on lake craft but not standard. These pendants were hove in when a vessel was close-hauled and kept the gaff from falling to loo'ard and spilling the wind, a fault common to this rig. Now let us look solely from the traditional characteristic angle: The gaffs are hoisted too high