COMET 

SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES SITE REPORT 

CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK 

a product of the 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

SYSTEMWIDE ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY PROGRAM 

COMET 

SUBMERGED CULTURAL RESOURCES SITE REPORT 

CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK 

Matthew A. Russell 

Submerged Resources Center 

Professional Reports 

Number 17 

Submerged Resources Center 

Intermountain Region 

National Park Service 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 

2004 

... 

111 
Submerged Resources Center 

Cultural Resources Management 

Intermountain Region 

National Park Service 

US Department of the Interior 

iv 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES ...................... ...................................... vii 

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................ ix 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... xi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................... ........................................ Xlll 

... 

INTRODUCTION ............................... .......................................... 1 

Cornet Documentation Project Objectives ............................................................. 3 

Project Dates and Participants ............................................................. 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 5 

Pacific Coast Lumber Trade ......................................................................... Pacific Coast Lumber Schooners . ......................................................... 

Decline of the Pacific Coast Lu r Schooner ....................................... 

COMETBACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 15 

Vessel History ........ ..................................................... 15 

Description of Loss-the Wreck Event ................................................. 

Post-depositional Impact-Estorical Salvage ...................................... 

Previous Research ................. ...................................................................... 24 

Anchor Analysis ............................................. 

COMET SITE DISCUSSION ........................... ..................................................... 29 

Site Location ........................................................................................................ 29 

Research Methodology .... .......................................................... 29 

Site Description ............................. ...... ....................................... 31 

Site Analysis .... ................................................................................. ... 31 

I3ow Structure ...... ............................................... 31 

I3ow Rigging ............................ ............................................... 52 

Ground Tackle ............................................... 56 

............................................... 70 

.. 

Site Formation Processes . 

CONC1,USIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 75 

Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 75 

Recommendations ................................................................................................ 75 

V 
REFERENCES .....................,,,.,,.,,,..........It ...... I ......................................... I ....... .......77 

APPENDIX A: Comet Contract ................................................................................. 81 

APPENDIX B: Enrollment and Registration Data: Schooner Comet ..................... 89 

vi 
LIST OF FIGURES 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

3.8. 

3.9. 

3.10. 

3.11. 

3.12. 

3.13. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

4.6. 

4.7. 

4.8. 

4.9. 

4.10. 

4.11. 

4.12. 

4.13. 

4.14. 

4.15. 

4.16. 

4.17. 

4.18. 

4.19. 

4.20. 

Comet site exposed in Simonton Cove in 1984 ................................................................. 2 

Comet timbers and anchor exposed in 1984 ..... ........................................................... 2 

Comet’s capstan in 1984 ..................................................... ................................ 3 

Schooner J.M. Colman about 1900 .................................................................... . 8 

Schooner Watson A . West at an unknown port .................... ................................ 8 

Hulda and Otto Lembke aboard Comet at Santa Barbara, 1 .............................. 13 

Schooner Comet docked at San Pedro, California ........................................................... 17 

Comet at Santa Barbara, 1905 ......................................................................................... 18 

Comet aground at Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island .................................................... 20 

Comet aground in Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island, with unidentified woman ......... 22 

Comet’s stem, aground in Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island ....................................... 22 

Unidentified man on Comet’s forecastle deck ................................................................. 23 

Unidentified woman on Comet’s forecastle deck .................................... 

Anchor stock sticking out of the sand in Simonton Cove in the 1980s ... 

Volunteers working to expose Comet wreckage, October 1993 ...................................... 25 

Comet site magnetometer data .......... ......................................................................... 26 

Comet’s anchor ................................. ......................................................................... 27 

Comet’s anchor ring ............................................................................. 

Channel Islands National Park . 

Comet site in April 1999. looking down on the forecastle deck ................... 

................... 32 

Comet site in 1999, looking towards the windlass .......................................................... 33 

Comet site in April 1999, looking straight towards the bow 

Comet site plan ................................................................................................................ 35 

Bow framing, including stempost, knighthead, hawse timbers and cant frames .... 

Bow framing, including stempost, knighthead, hawse timbers and cant frames .... 

Bow framing. showing difference between cant frames and half frames ........................ 39 

Comet port elevation drawing .......................................................................................... 41 

Comet’s bow .................................................................................................................... 43 

Top view of Comet’s knighthead, bowsprit and jibboom heel chock ...................... 

Bow section of a wooden-hulled schooner ...................................................................... 45 

Planking details, showing deck and waterway hooks ...................................................... 47 

Top-view of the aft end of the forecastle deck ....................... ...................................... 48 

Perspective as if the viewer were standing on the main deck looking forward ............... 48 

49 

Schematic of a schooner bow-section ....................................................... 49 

Comet’s anchor after exposure in 1993 ..................................................... 

Comet site location on San Miguel Island .................................................... 

Comet site in Apiil 1999, looking at the port side 

................................................................................. 30 

Side view of Comet’s port knighthead and bowsprit where it exits the hull ................... 43 

Schooner bow section showing bowspiit stepped into forward face of pawl post 

vii 
4.21. 

4.22. 

4.23. 

4.24. 

4.25 

4.26. 

4.27. 

4.28. 

4.29. 

4.30. 

4.31. 

4.32 

4.33. 

4.34. 

4.35. 

4.36. 

4.37. 

4.38. 

4.39. 

4.40. 

4.41. 

4.42. 

4.43. 

4.44. 

4.45. 

4.46. 

Bow pointers in a wooden-hulled schooner ..................................................................... 50 

Schematic showing location of bow pointers in a wooden-hulled schooner ................... 51 

Vessel bow section showing location of the gammon iron and jibboom heel chock ....... 53 

Bull’s eye above and forward of the hawse pipe ............................................................. 54 

Bow rigging elements found on Comet site ..................................................................... 54 

Rigging element off Comet’s port bow ............................................................................ 55 

Rigging element from port cathead that secured the jibboom guys ................................. 55 

Rigging element supporting jibboom guys on forward side of C.A.Thuyer’s cathead .... 56 

This series of six drawings depicts details of a windlass very similar to Comet’s .......... 58 

Drawing two of the series ................................................................................................ 59 

Drawing three of the series 60 

Drawing four of the series ............................................................................................... 61 

Drawing five of the series ................................................................................................ 62 

Drawing six of the series ................................................................................................. 63 

Comet’s windlass. elevation view looking forward on main deck ................................... 64 

Pivoting rocker mechanism connected to a windlass purchase arm with chain .............. 65 

Comet’s port windlass hardware laying on the main deck ............................................... 66 

Comer’s windlass and the iron shaft sticking out of the sand .......................................... 66 

Windlass nearly identical to Comet’s windlass ................................................................ 67 

Messenger chain-driven windlass system ........................................................................ 68 

Comet’s port-side hawse pipe .......................................................................................... 69 

Comet’s capstan 71 

Area of Cornet’s preserved hull ....................................................................................... 72 

.............................................................................................. 

Comet’s windlass, mounted on the main deck ................................................................. 63 

Comet’s port windlass purchase arm and windlass hardware on main deck ................... 65 

Comet’s capstan. mounted in the center of the forecastle deck ....................................... 70 

............................................................................................................... 

viii 
FOREWORD 

In March 1999, San Miguel Island Ranger 

Ian Williams discovered winter storms had 

removed sand from Simonton Cove exposing 

the wooden structure of Comet. Vessel 

identification was certain and had long been 

known. Comet hull structure had been 

episodically exposed since its loss in 1911, the 

last time in 1984. Matt Russell, who had 

recently joined the National Park Service (NPS) 

Submerged Resources Center (SRC), formerly 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit or SCRU, 

briefly examined this site during a 1993 

documentation of several other Channel Island 

National Park (CHIS) beached shipwrecks. At 

the time of his visit, only the anchor was visible. 

Cornet, a Pacific Coast lumber schooner, 

regularly traversed the Santa Barbara Channel 

between 1886 and 1911, hauling lumber from 

the Pacific Northwest to southern California 

ports. These once numerous schooners with 

hulls and rigging adapted to the particular 

demands of the lumber trade and coastal Pacific 

navigation are now represented by two museum 

examples. Other historical documentation for 

these vessels is scant. As-built structural details 

reflecting West Coast shipbuilding practices, 

their development and refinement to 

accommodate the Pacific Coast lumber trade 

must therefore come from the archeological 

record. When the 1999 storm exposed Comet, 

CHIS Archeologist Don Morris, seizing the 

opportunity, was quick to request Matt, a 

specialist on coastal lumber schooners, to assist 

him in leading a team to document and record 

Comet’s remains. 

Matt Russell and Intermountain Region 

Archeologist Jim Bradford arrived April 1999 

with Systemwide Archeological Inventory 

Program funds for a weeklong project. Matt 

departed Santa Fe with instructions to push the 

project beyond just documenting visible remains 

to address larger research goals and long-term 

management objectives. Don and Matt quickly 

assembled a team drawing heavily from a 

network of CHIS Volunteer In Parks (VIPs) that 

had previously worked with Matt. The 

assembled team was surprised to find Comet’s 

bow section emerged nearly intact from 

Simonton Cove’s beach sands making it the 

best-preserved example of Pacific coastal 

lumber schooners found archeologically. 

Although beached shipwreck research 

extends at least to the early 1970s with the study 

of Amsterdam, a 1749 Dutch East India 

Company vessel in the surf zone in Hastings, 

England, there have been few professional 

investigations of such sites. It has been much 

more common to rely on “common-sense” 

assumptions about poor preservation in highenergy beach environments that obviously 

degrade materials and dismiss beached wreck 

remains as unimportant, uninteresting or 

impossible to understand archeologically. 

However, the NPS mission compels active 

management of all resources, natural and 

cultural, in its jurisdiction. Consequently, NPS 

has fostered several beached wreck studies 

beginning in the mid-1980s on Pomo in Point 

Reyes National Seashore. Other studies soon 

followed, including in Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area on King Philip and Neptune, 

Cape Cod National Seashore (NS) and in Cape 

Hatteras NS. More recently others, in particular 

the North Carolina Underwater Archaeology 

Unit, have begun systematic investigations of 

beached vessel remains. These investigations 

ix 
have convincingly demonstrated that beached 

maritime sites often display remarkable 

preservation and can produce significant 

information about the past when studied 

systematically within an archeological 

framework. The Comet study joins other NPS 

investigations as the most detailed and 

comprehensive example so far of what can be 

learned archeologically from beached shipwreck 

remains. 

This report presents hull structure 

documentation and interpretation in a wide 

economic and historical context to explicitly 

consider site formation processes, which are 

fundamental to understanding any archeological 

site. It also provides specific information and 

recommendations to aid long-term management 

decisions about site preservation. A significant 

contribution in this regard is constructing the 

research and report in such a manner that it 

provides a ready baseline against which future 

site condition assessments can be compared. 

Like many SRC publications, the Comet 

Submerged Culturul Resources Site Report 

means to inform management, serve as an NPS 

model for future investigations of this kind and 

contribute significantly to the discipline of 

maritime archeology. In this effort, Matt 

followed instructions admirably; he went well 

beyond site documentation to address larger 

research and management goals, as well as 

telling us something we would not have 

otherwise known about our maritime past. 

Larry E. Murphy, Chief 

Submerged Resources Center 

X 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Both Don Morris and I waited many years 

for Comet to become exposed in Simonton 

Cove, and I’m grateful to Don for thinking of 

me when it finally happened. I appreciate him 

giving me the ball to run with, and hope this 

report makes a contribution to the knowledge 

and preservation of a significant park resource. 

Many people contributed to this project’s 

success and this report’s completion. Fieldwork 

to record Comet in April 1999 was organized 

and planned by Don Morris, and was conducted 

by Don, Jim Bradford, Ian Williams, Hank 

Silka, Bob Schwemmer, Georgia Fox, Patrick 

Smith and myself. I especially appreciate Jim’s 

guidance and advice during the project and the 

high-quality illustrations he contributed to the 

report. Thanks also to the team who worked on 

the site in fall 1993: Bob Schwemmer, Tom 

Harris, Bill Harris, Jack Carraher and Mark 

Linder. The report was reviewed and improved 

by Larry Murphy, Dan Lenihan, Dave Conlin 

and Don Morris; Fran Day designed this 

publication and formatted it for printing. 

Special thanks to Rob Turner for his stunning 

final rendering of the Cornet site map. 

Matthew A. Russell, Archeologist 

Submerged Resources Center 

xi 
r 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In April 1999, Channel Islands National 

Park Archeologist Don Morris asked the 

National Park Service’s Submerged Resources 

Center (SRC) to lead documentation efforts on 

the remains of the schooner Comet, exposed on 

the beach in Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island. 

Comet had been exposed by winter storms, the 

first recorded exposure since 1984. SRC 

archeologists, park staff and volunteers, spent 

five days documenting Comet’s remains with 

scale drawings, photos and video. 

The team found one of the most wellpreserved wooden shipwreck sites on the West 

coast. The remaining bow section is 

substantially intact, with machinery still 

mounted on the main and forecastle decks. Even 

though only the vessel’s bow is present, because 

it is so intact it is a repository for construction 

practices from once common, now rare, coastal 

lumber schooners. 

This report discusses the Pacific Coast 

lumber trade and Comet’s career hauling lumber 

from the Pacific Northwest to California, and 

describes the schooner’s wreck on San Miguel 

Island. It describes the remaining hull structure, 

bow rigging, and ground tackle elements in 

detail, and analyzes them in terms of 

contemporary nineteenth century wooden 

shipbuilding practices. Finally, it discusses site 

formation processes and offers suggestions for 

future research and management of Comet. 

... 

Xlll 

Comet Chapter 1 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

In March 1999, Comet, a late-nineteenth 

century lumber schooner that wrecked in August 

1911, became exposed on the beach in 

Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island, Channel 

Islands National Park (CHIS). Winter storm 

activity in 1998 and 1999 removed nearly 6 ft. 

of sand that usually covers the site, and Don 

Morris, CHIS park archeologist, scheduled a 

week-long documentation project in April 1999 

to record Comet’s hull before its inevitable 

natural reburial. 

National Park Service (WS) personnel have 

known about the Comet site since at least 1977 

when the first documented site exposure 

occurred. The next recorded exposure was in 

1984, when CHIS Ranger Reed McCluskey 

took several photographs of Comet’s exposed 

remains (Figures 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3). Although 

an anchor and capstan are clearly visible in the 

photographs, insufficient hull structure was 

exposed then to allow identification of specific 

features. Between 1984 and 1999, the site 

remained deeply buiied by beach sand with only 

the tip of the anchor stock visible. In 1993, 

Matt Russell, from the NPS Submerged 

Resources Center (SRC, formerly Submerged 

Cultural Resources Unit) attempted 

unsuccessfully to uncover Comet’s remains 

during an investigation of several other coastal 

lumber schooners wrecked in the park. Due to 

extremely deep sand covering the site, he and 

his team were only able to expose and document 

the anchor (Russell 1996). At that time, it was 

apparent that complete site documentation 

would only be possible if the site uncovered 

naturally, as it had in 1977 and 1984; this finally 

happened in 1999. 

The Comet documentation project was 

organized by CHIS Archeologist Don Morris 

in response to the site’s natural uncovering. The 

project focused on gathering information for 

NF’S site protection and interpretation purposes. 

Documentation would also contribute to Pacific 

Coast maritime history, and it would answer 

general archeological and historical questions 

about the site. The present study expands on a 

general research and interpretive foundation laid 

by Moms and Lima (1996) in Channel Islands 

National Park and Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary Submerged Cultural 

Resources Assessment, 

1 
Chapter 1 Comet 

.. . 

Figure 1.1. The Comet site exposed in Simonton Cove in 1984. NPS 

photo by Reed McClusky. 

Figure 1.2. Comet timbers and anchor exposed in 1984. NPS photo by Reed 

McClusky. 
Comet Chapter 1 

PROJECT DATES AND PARTICIPANTS 

Figure 1.3. Comet’s capstan in 1984. NPS 

photo by Reed McClusky. 

COMET DOCUMENTATION PROJECT 

OBJECTIVES 

The project’s goal was to thoroughly 

document Comet’s remains to determine the 

wreck’s nature, extent and level of preservation. 

The immediate purpose of data gathering was 

for long-term management by the NPS. In the 

past, this site has been naturally exposed for 

only short periods, then buried for many years 

before its next exposure. Documentation of 

Comet’s remains provides baseline data that can 

be used for monitoring the vessel’s condition 

during future exposures to determine the rate 

of change and if significant site deterioration 

has occurred. 

After notification of the site’s exposure by 

San Miguel Island Ranger Ian Williams in 

March 1999, Don Morris planned several 

documentation phases. First, the day after 

Williams reported the site was exposed, 

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

Cultural Resources Coordinator Robert 

Schwemmer visited the Comet site and 

documented it with photographs and field 

sketches. Schwemmer’s initial work was done 

in case the wreck was quickly reburied before 

full documentation could be completed. Next, 

Morris planned a two-phase project for midApril 1999. During the first of these phases, 

Santa Barbara Maritime Museum Curator and 

Archeologist Georgia Fox, Ian Williams and 

Volunteer-in-Park (VIP) Patrick Smith from 

California Maritime Archaeological Resources 

(CMAR) conducted a preliminary site 

investigation April 15-17. CMAR is a 

nonprofit volunteer organization that assists 

researchers with fieldwork and focuses its 

attention on CHIS. Full documentation of 

exposed features took place April 18-23 during 

the second phase conducted by a team including 

Don Morris, Ian Williams, Intermountain 

Support Office Archeologist Jim Bradford, SRC 

Archeologist Matt Russell (principal 

investigator) and CMAR VIP Hank Silka. 

Although investigators presumed the 

exposed remains were from Comet’s bow (based 

on the anchor and capstan in the 1984 

photographs), they were unprepared for just how 

intact and well preserved the site is. The hull 

remains observed include Comet’s nearly intact 

bow from the break of the forecastle deck 

forward. The bow section is heeled to starboard; 

consequently, much of the port side has 

deteriorated, but the starboard side, including 

the starboard half of the forecastle and main 

3 
Chapter 1 Comet 

decks, is largely intact with machinery still 

mounted in its original location. Although only 

the bow section was observed during this 

project, this section of Comet’s hull is the most 

intact and most well-preserved Pacific Coast 

lumber schooner documented in the 

archeological record. Only one other intact 

section of lumber schooner hull has been 

recorded on the West Coast, which was a small 

section of the side of the schooner Neptune 

(Delgado 1986:95-108). Other than C.A. 

Thuyer and Wuwoiia preserved as museum ships 

at San Francisco Maritime National Historical 

Park and NW Seaport Maiitime Heritage Center 

and the only two lumber schooners still afloat, 

Comet provides the best opportunity yet 

discovered to learn about the design, 

construction, and modifications of these once 

common West Coast vessels. Given the highenergy nature of San Miguel Island’s beach 

environment, Comet’s preservation is another 

example of how the common sense notion of 

poor preservation of beached shipwreck remains 

is often wrong. Under certain initial conditions, 

a beached shipwreck can be quickly buried and 

remain very well preserved (Delgado 1985). 

Comet is a good example of a well-preserved 

beached shipwreck site. 

Comet is one of CHIS’S premiere historical 

archeological sites; the level of preservation 

observed on this site is rare in any wooden 

Pacific Coast shipwreck. This project and report 

provides baseline data on the site’s condition 

and significance against which future work can 

be compared. The report includes historical 

context, a description of 1993 archeological 

work, a complete site description and analysis, 

and recommendations for future research and 

monitoring. 

4 
Comet Chaoter 2 

CHAPTER 2 

Historical Context 

PACIFIC COAST LUMBER TRADE 

Most historians agree the Pacific Coast 

lumber trade began in the late 1840s. Lumber 

was certainly used and exported before this 

period, but in a quantity too small to be 

considered a sustained trade or industry. The 

gold rush sparked the American development 

of California: first in the gold rush cities of 

San Francisco, Sacramento and Stockton; later 

in southern California’s metropolitan areas. 

These burgeoning urban areas prompted 

development of Washington, Oregon and 

northern California’s lumber industries, all of 

which ultimately relied on the Pacific Coast 

lumber schooner. 

In 1850, with the Pacific Northwest lumber 

industry still in its infancy, it was cheaper to 

ship wood 10,000 miles from the East Coast 

than to obtain it from the closer Pacific 

Northwest (Hall 1884: 131). Increasing lumber 

demand fueled by the gold rush, however, 

insured a boom in the West Coast lumber 

industry by the 1860s. The lumber business 

received another boost during the 1880s with a 

sharp increase in southern California 

development and the demand for lumber it 

created. Further economic upswings occurred 

in the early twentieth century, especially after 

the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (Olmsted 

1972:4). Although railroads came to the west 

during the 1880s, demand for coastwise and 

export lumber remained high until after World 

War I (Vinnedge 1923:ll). 

In 1849, when the lumber industry was still 

young, the West Coast was a vast, untapped 

source of premium soft woods. Puget Sound, 

the only protected, natural ocean harbor between 

San Francisco and the Canadian border, became 

the main lumber source for the entire Pacific 

Basin. Washington Territory’s magnificent 

timber stands became legendary. John Hittel, 

commenting on Pacific Coast industries in 1882, 

wrote the “fir and cedar forests of Washington . 

. , as sources of lumber for exportation . . . are 

unequaled” (Hittel 1882:35). The 1872 

Business Directory and Guide to Washington 

Territory (Anonymous 1872:2) estimated more 

5 
Chapter 2 Comet 

than 20 million acres of marketable timber in 

Washington Territory, consisting mostly of 

Douglas fir, hemlock, cedar and spruce. 

Pacific Coast timber exploitation began in 

earnest with the huge demand for lumber created 

by the California gold rush. At the height of 

the gold rush, lumber, which could be obtained 

in the Pacific Northwest for $10 per thousand 

board feet (BF), was selling for $500 per 

thousand in San Francisco (McNairn and 

MacMullen 1945:12). [Note: The unit of 

measure used for lumber was, and still is, the 

board foot (BF). A BF is 144 in.3 of lumber-a 

12-in. square board, 1-in. thick, equals 1 BE] 

San Francisco remained the West Coast 

lumber industry’s commercial center throughout 

the nineteenth century. Most Northwest mill 

operators had San Francisco partners who 

marketed the final product and obtained capital 

for the mill (DeLong 198539). Initially, most 

mill operators relied on independent shippers 

to transit lumber to market. This changed 

quickly, however, as mills greatly reduced 

overhead costs by purchasing their own lumber 

schooner fleets. For example, in 1862, the Puget 

Mill Company owned at least ten vessels; two 

decades later it owned a fleet of sixteen sailing 

vessels and four tugs (Cox 1974: 116). The Port 

Blakely Mill Company acquired its first three 

vessels in 1866. Its fleet expanded rapidly, 

especially when the Hall Brothers, a well-known 

Puget Sound shipyard, moved to Port Blakely 

in 1880 and began adding to the supply of 

available sailing vessels (Cox 1974: 121). 

In the early 1880s, between 150 and 200 

million BF of lumber were shipped from Puget 

Soundannually (Hittel 1882:215; Johansen and 

Gates 1957:389). The increasing lumber output 

was fueled by California demand, which 

increased rapidly during the 1880s. The Santa 

Fe railroad’s completion into Los Angeles in 

1885 set off a major boom in southern California 

real estate development. Many companies 

anticipating this boom set up lumberyards in the 

area before 1885. For instance, in addition to 

its northern California lumberyards at Vallejo 

and Alemeda, the Port Blakely Mill Company 

acquired new yards at Santa Barbara, San 

Buenaventura, and San Pedro during the mid1880s (Cox 1974:122). Between 1883 and 

1889, total lumber shipments to California 

increased from 200 million BF to 323 million 

BF annually (Johansen and Gates 1957:390). 

The two main Los Angeles-area harbors at 

this time were Santa Monica and Wilmington 

(which later became San Pedro). These ports 

were not ideal, however. In 1882, John Hittel 

wrote in The Commerce and Industries of the 

Pacific Coust of North America: “Santa Monica 

has a wharf accessible for large vessels with 

abundant room and deep water; but the 

anchorage is not secure in stormy weather. All 

the steamers and nearly all the sailing vessels 

go to Wilmington . . .” (Hittel 1882:29). The 

problem with Wilmington was that it was too 

shallow for navigation at low tide. Therefore, 

all cargo had to be lightered ashore, which 

increased shipping costs into this port (Hittel 

1882:29). Wilmington harbor improvements 

began in 1871, but a universally accessible port 

was not finished until the 1890s, at which time 

San Pedro became Los Angeles’ chief port 

(Barsness 1965:293). The real estate boom 

ceased in the late 1880s, and lumber demand 

from southern California decreased significantly 

until another building boom occurred at the 

beginning of the twentieth century. During the 

second decade of the twentieth century, 

California received an average of 1 billion BF 

of lumber annually from the Pacific Northwest. 

California remained a steady market for lumber 

until the decline of coastwise shipping after 

World War I (Cox 1974:219; Vinnedge 

1923: 16). 

In addition to California, several other 

coastal markets opened for Pacific Northwest 

lumber in the 1880s. Chile’s victory over Peru 

and Bolivia in the War of the Pacific (1879-83) 

6 
Cornet Chapter 2 

encouraged them to embark on a program of 

railroad construction that lasted throughout the 

decade creating demand for lumber (Cox 1974: 

214-215). Limited development also occurred 

in Pem and Mexico during the 1880s and 1890s, 

which created further lumber markets requiring 

shipping for transportation. 

On Puget Sound, the Northern Pacific 

Railroad’s 1883 arrival into Tacoma created an 

economic tremor (Chasan 1981:15). This 

railroad was extended northward from the 

Columbia River, and Tacoma became its first 

seaport connection. The railroad’s arrival 

allowed a vast increase in the amount of lumber 

cut in the Pacific Northwest: in 1890, 

Washington cut more than one billion BF of 

timber; in 1895, two billion BF; and three billion 

in 1902 (Johansen and Gates 1957:389). In the 

early twentieth century, many smaller mills 

around Puget Sound closed due to high 

technological costs; railroads and modem, mass 

production mill machinery required a 

tremendous capital outlay (Newell and 

Williamson 1960: 142). Although railroad 

competition affected ocean-going trade, 

shipping lumber by sea still dominated the 

coastal and overseas markets into the twentieth 

century. Nonetheless, midway through the first 

decade of the century, total lumber shipped by 

rail surpassed its seabome competition, which 

signaled the inevitable decline of the Pacific 

Coast lumber schooners, both sail and steam 

(Newell and Williamson 1960:112). 

Although the lumber industry is still a 

mainstay of the Pacific Northwest economy, the 

historical period of lumbering that utilized 

sailing, and later steam, schooners as a means 

of transport ended after World War I. At this 

time, transportation needs not fulfilled by 

railroads were taken over by steel-hulled, steampowered vessels. From the 1870s to the 1920s, 

however, coastal lumber transportation relied 

heavily on ships specially designed for the 

lumber trade. These vessels, the two-, three-, 

and four-masted coastal lumber schooners, were 

designed to reflect the particular needs of the 

Pacific Coast lumber trade, and they came to 

dominate it during this period. 

PACIFIC COAST LUMBER 

SCHOONERS 

West Coast geography ensured that 

transporting milled lumber to California markets 

was carried out solely in ocean-going vessels into 

the 1880s. The Sierra and Rocky Mountains were 

natural barriers to overland trade, and there were 

no means of overland transportation before the 

mid-1880s completion of the transcontinental 

railroads (Mears 1935:48). 

A distinctive vessel-type emerged for 

lumber transportation: the Pacific Coast lumber 

schooner, whose design was influenced by 

Pacific Coast environmental conditions and the 

requirement to carry an all-lumber cargo 

(Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The lumber schooner 

carried the raw material of California 

development. It delivered the basic construction 

material, which laid the foundation for nearly 

all California’s metropolitan centers, making the 

vessel regionally significant as the primary cargo 

carrier. 

The focus of West Coast shipbuilding activities 

during the 1860s was on the small coastal trader, 

and a variety of different vessels were used in the 

lumber trade. Soon, however, shipyards were 

producing larger vessels that would bring higher 

profit margins with each voyage. 

Schooners built for the Pacific Coast lumber 

trade during the early 1870s generally ranged 

in size from 100 to 300 tons, with the majority 

in the 100 to 200-ton range. At Humboldt Bay, 

the second most important shipbuilding region 

on the Pacific Coast behind Puget Sound, in a 

three-year period, 1874-76, 31 schooners 

totaling 4,059 tons were built, an average of just 

over 130 tons per vessel (Hall 1884:132). The 

first three-masted schooner registering larger 
Chapter 2 Comet 

I I I 

Figure 2.1. The schooner J.M. Colmun about 1900, photographed off Cape Flattery or in 

the straits of Juan de Fuca. J.M. Colman was built by the Hall Brothers Shipyard, who also 

built Comet. Photo by Hiram Hudson Morrison, courtesy of San Francisco Maritime NRP. 

Figure 2.2. The schooner Watson A. West at an unknown port. Watson A. West was 

also built by the Hall Brothers. Photo courtesy of San Francisco Maritime NHP. 

8 
Comet Chapter 2 

than 300 tons, Sunshine, was built on the Pacific 

Coast in 1875 (MacGregor 1982:61). Larger 

hulls soon became common: most lumber 

schooners built in the late 1870s and early 1880s 

approached 300 tons in size. Henry Hall noted 

in his 1884 Report on the Shipbuildinglndustry 

of the United States that “latterly the vessels built 

at Humboldt have been schooners of 250 and 

300 tons register . . .” (Hall 1884:132). An 

important “first” was achieved in 1882 when 

the Hall Brothers of Port Blakely constructed 

William Renton, the first three-masted schooner 

on the Pacific Coast registering more than 400 

tons (MacGregor 1982:61). 

Four-masted schooners built for the lumber 

trade did not make an appearance until the late 

188Os, when they became an important addition 

to the industry. A total of 130 four-masted 

schooners were built on the Pacific Coast 

between 1864 and 1904, most registering 

between 550 and 750 tons. Five-masted 

schooners, huge vessels generally registering 

more than 1,000 tons, did not play a significant 

role in the coastal lumber trade, but were more 

heavily involved in overseas trade. The first 

“proper” Pacific Coast-built, five-masted 

schooner was Inca, built by the Hall Brothers 

in 1896, registering 1,014 tons. Only nine fivemasters were constructed between 1888 and 

1916 (MacGregor 1982:62,109). 

In addition to being convenient, Puget 

Sound’s abundant timber made shipbuilding 

material inexpensive (Hall 1884:131). A 

hypothetical cost comparison between building 

a three-masted ship in Bath, Maine versus Puget 

Sound, conducted by Hopkins in his 1874 

publication, Shipbuilding on the Pacific Coast 

(No. 2), showed the difference to be enormous. 

The price for materials in Bath, including masts 

and yards, would be $39,305, compared to 

$14,997 for the same materials in Puget Sound 

(Hopkins 1874:22). On the West Coast, milled 

lumber ready for shipbuilding could be 

purchased for $10 to $20 per thousand BF, while 

on the East Coast it cost between $40 and $65 

(Hopkins 1874:21). 

The region’s chief timber was Douglas fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), known as “yellow fir” 

in the nineteenth century. Douglas fir proved 

to be an ideal wood for shipbuilding, and the 

San Francisco Board of Marine Underwriters 

endorsed it in 1875 as an accepted shipbuilding 

material (DeLong 1985:14). Both Hall and 

Hopkins praised Douglas fir for shipbuilding. 

One of the greatest selling points was the length 

of timber that could be obtained. Hall noted 

that West Coast trees grew from 150 to 300 feet 

tall, so that “keel and keelson pieces and plank 

could be obtained of any length, and a vessel 

could be built with a far less number of butts 

and joints than in any other part of the United 

States”(Hall1884:131). To thisHopkins added: 

It is needless to remark that the great 

length of our lumber saves labor and 

fastening in scarphs and butts, gives 

greater elasticity to the ship’s hull, and 

diminishes the danger of springing a 

leak. Moreover, our firs are superior to 

oak in the tenacity with which they hold 

iron fastenings. Bolts and spikes will 

generally break before they can be drawn 

or backed out of fir, and iron never 

becomes “sick” when imbedded in it. . 

.[Hopkins 1874: 211. 

As noted by Hopkins, fir holds fasteners better 

than oak because, as a soft wood, it swells much 

more than oak when immersed in water. In 

addition, fir contains a balsam that reduces iron 

deterioration, an attribute lacking in oak (Hall 

1884:131). Because of these qualities and the 

growing acceptance of Douglas fir as a 

shipbuilding material, the Pacific Coast became 

a major shipbuilding center. 

In 1875, 14 shipyards were active on Puget 

Sound; by the end of the era of coastal sailing 

schooners, more than 50 major shipbuilders 

9 
Chapter 2 Comet 

operated on the West Coast (Williamson and 

Gibbs 1976:58; Newell and Williamson 

1960:21). There was a trade-off between 

building vessels at San Francisco (then still a 

major shipbuilding center) and building on 

Puget Sound. Shipyards at San Francisco had 

the disadvantage of increased lumber cost, while 

builders at Puget Sound had to obtain fasteners, 

sails, rigging, oakum and other materials not 

available in the Pacific Northwest from San 

Francisco (Hopkins 1874: 18). Regardless, 

shipbuilding in the Pacific Northwest became a 

major industry that complemented the nearby 

lumber mills. Both large mill companies and 

independent shippers accumulated fleets, so thc 

demand for vessels during this time remained 

steady (Newell and Williamson 1960:21). 

The schooner-rigged vessel proved best 

suited for the Pacific Coast lumber trade in the 

second half of the nineteenth century. This ship 

type, with fore-and-aft rigging and two or more 

masts, developed as a distinct American design 

in the early-eighteenth century (Edson 

1989:198). The first mention of the term 

“schooner” comes from American colonial 

records. During this period, schooners were 

fitted with at least one square topsail and were 

known as “topsail schooners” (Bauer 1988:32; 

Edson 1989: 198). By the turn-of-the-nineteenth 

century, however, this topsail was largely 

abandoned in the United States, and a pure foreand-aft rig became prominent (Edson 

1989:205). By 1800, most vessels involved in 

the American coastal trade were schooners 

because of the sailing advantages offered by this 

type of rig in prevailing and offshore winds 

(Chapelle 1935:258). The fore-and-aft-rigged 

vessel had three major advantages over the 

traditional ship rig: it could sail closer to the 

wind; it could more easily maneuver into 

harbors and rivers; and it required a smaller crew 

for an equivalent size ship (Hall 1884:93; Bauer 

1988:191). Theattributes that led toitsadoption 

gave schooners nearly two centuries of 

popularity, lasting until the final days of sail 

(Edson 1989:203). 

In the eighteenth century, East Coast 

schooners were small vessels, carrying two 

masts and ranging from 40 to 50 tons. During 

the mid-nineteenth century, however, they grew 

considerably: two-masters ranged from 100 to 

250 tons, and three-masters ranged from 300 to 

750 tons (Hall 1884:94). The shift to threemasted schooners on the East Coast began 

around 1850, and by the mid-I860s, they were 

the most common vessels in the coastal trade 

(Chapelle 1935:258-259). The increase in 

number of masts was an effort to reduce 

individual sail size so that smaller crews could 

handle them, while at the same time increasing 

the total canvas spreadnecessary for larger hulls 

andgreater speed. During the 1870s, East Coast 

three-masted schooners increased in size, 

growing from an average 500 tons to an average 

920 tons (Bauer 1988:271). 

West Coast schooners, especially lumber 

schooners, had a different configuration than 

those on the East Coast. West Coast schooners 

had full poops and raised topgallant forecastles. 

In addition, West Coast schooners often 

omitted separate topmasts, leaving tall, onepiecc masts. Employing a “leg-0-mutton” 

(triangular) sail on the aftermost mast was also 

a popular West Coast innovation (Greenhill 

1980:76). 

The sailing qualities of schooner-rigged 

vessels were appropriate to beat up the West 

Coast against the prevailing northwesterly 

winds. Early lumber schooners were small, twomasted vessels with a cargo capacity between 

75,000 and 150,000 BF of lumber. Larger, threemasted schooners became dominant during the 

1870s (Ryder 1948:28-29; Olmsted 1972:2). 

Three-masters had a maximum capacity of 

approximately 500,000 to 600,000 BF (Martin 

1983:166; Newell 1966530). Finally, in the late 

10 
Comet Chapter 2 

188Os, four-masted schooners, which could 

carry 650,000 to 1,200,000 BF, became 

common (Olmsted 1972:2; Newell 1966:68). 

Lumber schooner construction was tailored 

to the trade’s specific requirements and reflected 

a design that was, above all, economically 

viable. The Pacific Coast lumber schooner 

needed to be loaded quickly; carry this heavy, 

cumbersome cargo to its destination; discharge 

it quickly; and return empty, without ballast 

(DeLong 1985:l; Olmsted 1972:4). On these 

short trips, it was not economically feasible to 

load ballast for each return voyage and discharge 

it before loading lumber for the next trip. 

Rapidly increasing demand and expanding 

markets put a high value on speed and quick 

turnaround times in port. 

The West Coast lumber schooner design 

that eventually became standard was a singledecked vessel (giving it only one large hold) 

thdt had a broad beam, long bow, square or 

elliptical stem, and oversized hatches to allow 

quick and efficient lumber stowage (Hall 

1884:133). In addition, they were sometimes 

fitted with bow or stern ports that allowed 

easier access to the hold and quicker loading 

(Cox 1974:247). 

West Coast vessels had shallow drafts and 

flat bottoms for two main reasons. First, shallow 

draft resulted in a reduced distance between the 

keel and the deck, which assured satisfactory 

structural strength (Cox 1974:247). Most 

ocean-going ships had two decks to ensure 

adequate longitudinal strength. Second, shallow 

draft and flat bottoms allowed schooners to visit 

sawrmlls located in shallow coves and harbors, 

often obstructed by sand bars. These shallow 

hulls eliminated waiting time for high tide and 

the need for lightering. 

Flat-bottomed schooners were sometimes 

fitted with retractable centerboards to help 

counteract leeward drift typical of a shallowdraft hull (Cox 1974:250). The centerboard was 

retractable so it could be raised when the vessel 

crossed a sandbar or entered shallow water. 

Centerboards were common on Great Lakes 

schooners, but little has been written about West 

Coast centerboard construction. Historian 

Thomas Cox has suggested that the practice was 

limited mostly to small schooners servicing 

northern California dogholes (small ports) and 

Oregon’s bar harbors, where shallow draft was 

especially crucial (Cox 1981:68). Evidence 

based on Hall Brothers’ vessels supports this 

assumption. Of 108 vessels built by the Hall 

Brothers Shipyard during their 29 years as one 

of the leading shipyards on the Pacific Coast, 

only 20 vessels, most two- and three-masted 

schooners in the 200 to 300-ton range, were built 

with centerboards (Lyman 1951). The largest 

centerboard schooner constructed by the Hall 

Brothers was the 429-ton Comet, the subject of 

this report. 

Documents about Great Lakes centerboard 

use gives additional details about this device. 

By the mid-nineteenth century, all centerboards 

operated on a single pivot on the forward edge, 

as opposed to rising straight up into the 

centerboard trunk. There were two possibilities 

in the centerboard placement: through the keel 

or alongside the keel. During the midnineteenth century, Great Lakes builders 

preferred the offset centerboard, primarily 

because it offered convenience in stepping the 

mast (Barkhausen 1990:3). In 1866, the Board 

of Lake Underwriters, however, adopted a 

resolution that required through-keel 

centerboards in all vessels, which probably 

reflected a change that had already taken place, 

because it led to stronger, better quality vessels 

(Barkhausen 1990:4, 24). West Coast 

centerboard practice probably followed the same 

policy, although there is little documentation. 

West Coast schooner construction 

incorporated some features that provided 

additional longitudinal hull strength, such as 

large, built-up keelsons; bilge stringers added 

to the ceiling; and use of thickened ceiling 

11 
Chapter 2 Comet 

planking to the turn of the bilge (MacGregor 

1982:63; Haller and Kelly 1990:16). The 

keelson was bolted through the floors into the 

keel. Rider keelsons, of which there could be 

as many as four, were then bolted directly onto 

the main keelson. Sister keelsons were placed 

on both sides of the main keelson, butted up to 

it and bolted into the floors and horizontally 

edge-bolted into the main keelson. Finally, a 

number of assistant keelsons were placed on top 

of the sister keelsons, bolted to the sister and 

edge-bolted to the riders (Desmond 198455- 

56). 

The vessels were generally built entirely of 

Douglas fir, with the exception of the stem post 

and stern post, which were of more durable 

laurel and white oak (Hall 1884:131,133). 

Cabins were generally white cedar, pine, or 

redwood(Hal1 1884:131,133). Schooners were 

typically double framed, fastened with both iron 

spikes and wooden treenails. Treenails, made 

from durable and flexible eastern locust or oak, 

were brought from the East Coast (Olmsted 

1972:2; Weinstein 1978:45). 

Along with adistinct hull design, West Coast 

lumber schooners also had a unique schooner rig. 

Known as “baldheaded” schooners, they often 

carried only their gaff sails, preferring to run 

without topsails because “in the long beat to 

windward of the return trip there were no gafftopsails to shift when tacking” (Weinstein 

1978:20) (see Figure 2.1). Many lumber 

schooners were “terns,” or vessels wilh masts of 

equal height (Bauer 1988:271) (see Figure 2.2). 

Some schooners were also outfitted with a yard 

on the foremast to carry a square sail, known as a 

hermaphrodite rig. This sail, however, was furled 

into the mast, like a drapery, rather than up to the 

yard(0lmsted 1972:17). This allowed furling the 

sail from the deck, so the vessel did not need 

more sailors than a regular-rigged schooner, 

although it carried more sail. Some West Coast 

lumber schooners set a leg-of-mutton sail on the 

aftermost mast instead of a gaff sail, depending 

on the personal preference of the master 

(MacGregor 1982: 62). 

A typical West Coast lumber schooner 

carried a crew of eight or nine, including the 

captain. In the case of the lumber schooner 

C.A. Thayer, preserved at San Francisco 

Maritime National Historical Park, the crew 

consisted of four seamen, two mates, a cook 

and the captain (Olmsted 1972:4). Many 

lumber schooners, including C.A. Thayer and 

Comet, were equipped with steam-powered 

donkey engines to assist in raising the sails and 

working the deck machinery and pumps. If a 

vessel had no steam donkey, the crew would 

be slightly larger. Crew duties included 

handling lines, raising and lowering sails, and 

handling cargo (DeLong 1985:52). For his 

labor, the sailor received pay and provisions. 

The Shipping Articles for 1900 listed a mate’s 

pay at $55 per month, the second mate and 

cook’s pay at $50 per month, and seaman’s pay 

at $40 per month. The captain’s salary began 

at $100 per month, plus a share in the profits 

of each voyage if he owned an interest in the 

vessel (DeLong 1985352). The crew’s quarters 

aboard a lumber schooner were small and 

spartan, consisting of a 6-by-8-ft. cabin forward 

of the galley, containing bunks for six. The 

captain’s quarters, located near the stern, were 

considerably roomier and often richly 

furnished (DeLong 1985:52) (Figure 2.3). 

Lumber schooners were considered to be 

owned by a single company, although 16 or 

more individuals often jointly owned vessels; 

shares in these vessels might be divided into as 

little as 1/64s. It was also common for the yard 

that built the schooner to retain a share of the 

ownership (DeLong 1985:4). 

Loading and discharging lumber from a 

schooner was a time-consuming process. The 

larger mill ports employed stevedores, while at 

others, loading and unloading was the duty of 

the crew. If the crew was required to do the 

work, they were typically paid more while in 

12 
Comet Chapter 2 

Figure 2.3. Hulda and Otto Lembke aboard Comet at Santa Barbara, 1905. Photo courtesy 

of San Francisco Maritime NHP. 

port than at sea. For example, on a 1904 voyage 

to Honolulu, seamen aboard C. A. Thuyer were 

paid $35 per month while at sea and $40 per 

month while in port (Olmsted 1972:15). Even 

with professional stevedores loading the lumber, 

however, it was a long process-it took an 

average of 10 days to load a vessel, plank by 

plank. In the larger harbors, loading was 

accomplished using a series of ramps that sloped 

up from the wharf to the stem and then down 

into the hold. If the vessel was equipped with 

bow or stern loading ports, the ramps were 

sloped up to these. In all cases, after the hold 

was full and the cargo secure, the rest of the 

load was piled onto the deck and tightened 

down with chain and turnbuckles. Deckloads 

often represented more than half the cargo and 

often resulted in a 12 to 14-ft. stack of lumber 

(Weinstein 1978:39). With deckloads that 

high, little freeboard was left, and the decks 

were often awash. For a voyage to be 

profitable, however, such deckloads were 

required, and they were possible because of 

the cargo’s inherent buoyancy (Cox 1974:248). 

After introduction of steam donkey engines in 

the early 1880s, stevedores used a vessel’s 

donkey engine to assist in loading, or if the 

vessel did not have one, they used an engine 

on a floating barge brought to the vessel’s side 

(Cox 1974:248). 

13 
Chapter 2 Comet 

DECLINE OF THE PACIFIC COAST 

LUMBER SCHOONER 

Although sailing schooners were used in the 

lumber trade up to World War I, the last order 

for constructing a new sailing schooner was 

placed in 1905 (Olmsted 19725). Growing 

competition from steam schooners introduced 

in the 1880s caused the steady decline of its 

wind-driven predecessor. The result of this 

competition was that “sailing schooner 

construction was suddenly pinched off just when 

it hit its peak” in the early-twentieth century 

(Olmsted 19725). 

The first lumber schooners employing steam 

engines were traditional sail-driven schooners 

fitted with auxiliary steam machinery around 

1880 (Newell and Williamson 1960:61;McNairn 

and MacMullen 1945:14). Steam-powered 

schooners were well suited to working conditions 

in northern California dogholes, and they were 

used there first. The first documented vessel built 

from the keel up as a steam schooner was 

Newsboy, built in 1888 by Boole & Beaton of 

San Francisco. This vessel ran between Eureka 

and San Francisco (Newell and Williamson 

1960:67; McNairn and MacMullen 1945: 17). 

As noted before, the change from sail to 

steam was a slow process and never universal 

in the West Coast lumber trade. Many ship 

owners were slow to change, and some, like the 

well-known Pope and Talbot, never changed 

(Newell and Williamson 196067). Initially, 

many ship owners were reluctant to switch, For 

several reasons. There was concern over loss 

of cargo space both in the hold and on deck due 

to space needed for machinery and coal 

(McNairn and MacMullen 1945:15). Another 

concern was the false belief that steam 

schooners could never be economically viable 

in anything but the short northern California run. 

This was because early steam schooners had 

small carrying capacities, and the largest coastal 

steamers had freight rates prohibitively high to 

cauy lumber (Cox 1974:252). By the 1890s, 

however, steam schooners were profitably 

making the run from Puget Sound to southern 

California, proving critics wrong. 

Until the first part of the twentieth century, 

steam lumber schooners built on the West Coast 

were “single-ended” (Bauer 1988:278). This 

meant that steam machinery was near the vessel’s 

stem, aft of the cargo-handling gear. The first 

double-ended steam schooner, Daisy Mitchell, was 

built in 1905 by Hans Bendixsen (McNairn and 

MacMullen 1945: 19). This innovation placed 

steam machinery amidships, allowing cargo to be 

stowed fore and aft, which significantly increased 

carrying capacity (Bauer 1988:278). 

In the Great Lakes, the consorl system of 

towing lines of schooners with a steam vessel 

was a popular mode of transporting bulk cargos 

such as lumber in the late-nineteenth century. 

This system never made significant inroads on 

the West Coast, possibly due to different sailing 

conditions. Towing was not ignored altogether 

on the Pacific Coast, however. It was employed 

to a certain degree on the California redwood 

coast during the late 1880s and 1890s. 

Competition from large steam schooners on this 

run made towing small schooners up the coast, 

which saved both time and wages, attractive to 

many small vessel owners (Cox 1974252). The 

practice of towing did not become common on 

the longer run from Puget Sound. 

Wooden vessels involved in the West Coast 

lumber trade experienced a brief boom during 

World War I, but this generally marks the end 

of wooden-hulled vessel use in this trade. 

Steel-hulled ships soon dominated the market 

(McNairn and MacMullen 1945:19). 

The coastal sailing schooner’s longevity as 

the primary mode of Pacific Coast lumber 

transport from mill to market is testimony to 

this vessel-type’s historical significance. For 

more than half a century, the lumber schooner 

was an important part of the Pacific Coast’s 

lumber-based economy. 

14 
Comet Chapter 3 

CHAPTER 3 

Comet Background 

VESSEL HISTORY 

The Hall Brothers built the schooner Comet 

at their Port Blakely shipyard in 1886. The ship 

was built at a time when the southern California 

demand for lumber was rising, increasing the 

need for coastal lumber schooners. Increased 

demand was sparked by completion of the Santa 

Fe railroad into Los Angeles in 1885 and the 

resultant real estate boom. In addition to the 

need for lumber in the southern California 

metropolitan area, the newly completed railroad 

shipped lumber to markets in the southwestern 

United States. In 1883, the Los Angeles Daily 

Times noted that a "large number of lumber 

schooners are reported in the bay at San Pedro, 

loaded with lumber. The Arizona, New Mexico 

andTexas trade is constantly increasing, and all 

the facilities of the lumber companies are taxed 

to the utmost to keep pace with the demand" 

(Los Angeles Daily Times [LADTJ, 10 June 

1883:4). 

Comet was produced to meet increasing 

lumber demand, and the three-masted design 

reflected the current trend in lumber schooner 

construction. Three-masters began to replace 

the two-masted schooners during the 1870s, and 

by the 1880s, the three-masters, which could 

carry up to 600,000 board feet (BF) of lumber, 

were dominant in the trade. 

Comet was launched from the Hall Brother's 

Port Blakely yardin October 1886. The original 

contract for the vessel survives, giving a 

complete record of construction (see Appendix 

A). Comet had a length of 136.0 ft. on the keel, 

144.6 ft. overall, with a breadth of 35.2 ft., a 

depth of 11.4 ft., and registered 429.74 gross 

and 408.26 net tons (J. Porter Shaw Library, San 

Francisco [JPSL], Hall Brothers Shipyard 

Contract Number 49, 1886). It had one deck, 

three masts, a billet head, an elliptic stern 

(National Archives, Washington D.C. "A], 

Record Group 41 [RG 411, Records of the 

Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, 

Certiricate of Registry Number 18, 1886), and 

it was constructed entirely of Douglas fir, with 

the exception of the stem and stem posts, which 

were "hardwood" (JPSL 1886). Comet was 

entirely iron fastened, with the addition of 

l%-in. locust treenails on the outer hull 

planking. The vessel was also equipped with a 

centerboard, and had bow and stem ports for 

15 
Chapter 3 Cornet 

loading and unloading lumber. During 

construction, Comet was “salted from lower edge 

of wales to deck” to reduce dry rot (JPSL 1886). 

This was a common practice required by many 

classification societies (for example see American 

Shipmasters’ Association 1879:xx). The contract 

also notes information on caulking and painting, 

indicating the bottom was painted with two coats 

of “Tar and Wonson’s copper paint.’’ In addition, 

the vessel was fitted with “composition rudder 

braces, diamond-cut screw steering gear, 24” 

windlass purchase” and “#3 capstan.” The 

contract also specifies number and size of 

anchors, chain and line, as well as furniture, 

fixtures and ship’s boats. In total, the Hooper 

Brothers of San Francisco and C. F. S. Lass of 

Oakland agreed to pay $30,000 in US Gold Coin, 

in four installments for Comet’s construction 

(JPSL 1886). 

Cornet’s first registration records C. F. S. 

Lass as master and one-third owner, and J. A. 

Hooper and F. P. Hooper each owning one-third 

ofthe vessel (NA 1886:RG41:Registry 18). The 

Hooper Brothers owned interest in several 

lumber companies, as well as shares in a fleet 

of lumber schooners, and were well known in 

the West Coast lumber industry. 

One reason for owning partial shares in 

many vessels was to minimize financial risk 

from vessel loss. As a result, owners were often 

willing to forego insurance. It was noted of John 

A. Hooper that “because of his diversified 

partial interest in so many vessels, the insurance 

companies were losers, as far as he was 

concerned, in premium collections over a long 

period of years. He ‘carried his own insurance 

. . .”’ (Drury 1952:53). 

Cornet was originally registered at Port 

Townsend, Washington, on October 19, 1886. 

The Hooper Brothers and Lass remained the 

vessel’s owners for its entire life, with various 

masters occasionally gaining small interests in 

the schooner. Although the owners remained 

the same for Comet’s entire career, it was 

variously registered at Port Townsend, San 

Francisco, Eureka, San Diego, Port Angeles 

(Washington) and Los Angeles. Masters 

changed several times over the vessel’s career, 

the most notable being F. E. Rensch from June 

9 to July 16,1904 (NA 1895:RG41:Enrollment 

16). This is the same Frank E. Rensch that 

commanded Dora Bluhrn, another lumber 

schooner wrecked at CHIS, for a short time in 

1890-91 (Russell 1996:88). Nicolas Borgenson 

was captain of Cornet for two major mishaps 

that occurred during its career, including its loss 

in August 1911 (NA 1910:RG 41:Enrollment 

6; NA 1910:RG 41:Enrollment 261). 

Cornet was actively involved in the coastal 

lumber trade for its entire 25-year career. 

Newspaper accounts from December and 

January 1892-93, as well as San Pedro port 

records from 1895-96, show that Cornet 

frequently called on San Pedro from Puget 

Sound during this period (Sun Francisco 

Chronicle, 17 December 1892-25 January 

1893; Marquez 1975:127-128) (Figure 3.1). 

Comet was issued Certificates of Registration 

three times during its career, all before 1895. 

These certificates were issued for vessels 

involved in foreign trade and probably issued 

to Cornet for voyages to Mexico or Latin 

America. In addition to records from the mid189Os, the vesscl transit records of the San 

Francisco Marine Exchange record Comet’s 

voyages from 1902 to its loss in 1911 

(JPSLRecords of Vessel Transit, 1902-1911). 

These records show that San Pedro and Santa 

Barbara were the vessel’s most frequent 

destination (Figure 3.2), with occasional stops 

at San Francisco. Its most common port of 

origin was AberdeedGrays Harbor, but it also 

sailed from Port Blakely, Port Gamble, Port 

Townsend, and Port Hadlock. 

Tonnage changes were noted for Cornet on 

May 7, 1896, at Port Townsend, Washington. 

Enrollment Number 16 notes that the changes 

were made under a law passed the previous year, 

16 
Comet ChaDter 3 

Figure 3.1. Schooner Comet docked at San Pedro, California. Photo by William Phelps, 

courtesy of San Francisco Maritime NHP. 

which reducednet tonnage to 378 (NA 1895:RG 

41:Enrollment 16). Enrollment Number 151, 

on February 23, 1905, further reduced net 

tonnage to 368, deducting 60.91 tons from the 

gross tonnage of 429 for crew space (25.86), 

master’s cabin (14.89), boatswain’s stores 

(5.96), storage of sails (5.96), and donkey engine 

and boiler (8.24) (NA 1905:RG 41:Enrollment 

15 1). Although the construction contract 

specified that the forecastle be adapted for a 

donkey engine, this is the first time that one was 

mentioned on board Cornet. Because it was not 

noted on the original contract, the schooner was 

presumably not originally equipped with one. 

Four mishaps are recorded during Comet’s 

career before its loss in 1911. The first occurred 

in Puget Sound January 2, 1902 (National 

Archives, Washington D.C. “A], Record 

Group 36 [RG 361, Records of the US LifeSaving Service, Wreck Report Number 133, 

1902). Comet was sailing to Port Blakely from 

San Pedro with an empty hold when the steamer 

Rainierran it down. Although Comet’s damage 

was estimated at $5,000, the specifics were not 

noted. The damage was severe enough, 

however, that the schooner had to be towed to 

Port Townsend by Rainier. 

The second accident occurred February 5, 

1905, while anchored at Santa Barbara, 

California (NA 1905:RG 36:Wreck Report 

Number 169). The schooner’s anchor chain 

parted during a storm, and the vessel crashed 

into the Santa Barbara Wharf causing $1,000 

in damage to the vessel. 

Few details are known about the third 

mishap, which occurred March 3, 1907, when 

the schooner collided with the bark General 

Faidherbs at San Francisco (National Archives, 

17 
Chapter 3 Comet 

Figure 3.2. Comet at Santa Barbara, 1905. Photo courtesy of San Francisco Maritime 

NHP. 

18 
Comet Chapter 3 

Pacific Sierra Region, Record Group 36, 

Records of the US Life-Saving Service, Wreck 

Reports of the Point Reyes Lifesaving Station, 

1898-1915). Damage is unrecorded. 

Cornet’s fourth accident occurred in 

February 1911 at San Francisco. On February 

28,1911, the Sun Francisco Cull reported that 

the schooner Comet collided with the launch 

John A, sinlung the launch and drowning the 

two passengers (Sun Francisco Call [SFC], 28 

February 1911:30). Two days later, the Sun 

Francisco Call ran the headline “CAPTAIN OF 

COMET ERRATIC IN ORBIT,” and claimed 

Borgenson, the vessel’s master, had given a false 

position for the accident (SFC, 2 March 

1911:12). The article reported that the position 

given by Borgenson was more than a mile from 

water deep enough for Comet, and that the 

master “had either made a careless mistake or 

performed a miracle.” The report went on the 

say that: 

When the accident occurred Borgeson 

[sic] was on his way to sea under sail. 

A full gale was blowing at the time and 

in attempting the handling of a three 

masted schooner under canvas in a 

crowded harbor with weather conditions 

as they were on Saturday it is the general 

opinion that Captain Borgeson was 

taking liberties with the law of common 

sense [SFC, 2 March 1911:12]. 

Borgenson briefly stopped to report the accident 

to Comet’s managing owner, J. A. Hooper, and 

proceeded to sea without giving an accurate 

account of the accident. The newspaper noted 

that “this is the first time on record that the 

captain of the boat that did the running down 

went to sea without giving the owner of the 

sunken boat at least an approximate hearing 

which would aid him in recovering his property” 

(SFC, 2 March 1911:12). There was no further 

report of the incident. The next time Comet 

made headlines, it had wrecked on San Miguel 

Island. 

DESCRIPTION OF LOSS-THE 

WRECK EVENT 

Comet wrecked on San Miguel Island 

August 30, 1911 (Figure 3.3). The vessel left 

Aberdeen, Washington, August 23 loaded with 

approximately 500,000 BF of lumber bound for 

San Pedro, California. On Wednesday, August 

30 at 8:00P.M., while sailing in heavy seas with 

a thick fog, Comet struck what was reported as 

Richardson Rock, approximately 20 mi. south 

of Point Conception and 7 mi. north of San 

Miguel Island in the Santa Barbara Channel (NA 

1911:RG36:WreckReportNumber 221). It was 

later determined that the schooner actually hit 

Wilson Rock, which is 22 mi. northwest of the 

island and closer to Comet’s final resting place 

(Santa Barbara Independent [SBI], 14 

September 1911; LADT, 15 September 

1911:15). After the vessel struck the rock, it 

was pulled off by the current and began drifting 

south towards San Miguel Island. The Comet’s 

master, Captain Nicolas Borgenson, noted: 

I thought when the Comet was freed 

from her first perilous position, that I 

would be able to bring her to Santa 

Barbara, but she filled rapidly and I soon 

found that she was badly stoved in. She 

became WaterloggedandIkuew the best 

I could do was to beach her on San 

Miguel. She is lying in a favorable 

position and unless the seas become 

heavy, we may be able to get her off. 

Her hull must be in bad shape. There 

was a hard wind as well as a heavy fog 

when she struck. The ship’s 

chronometer must have been faulty for 

we were about ten miles off our course 

[Santa Barbara Morning Press [SBMP], 

2 September 1911:8]. 

19 
Chapter 3 Comet 

Figure 3.3. Comet aground at Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island. Photo courtesy of Santa 

Barbara Museum of Natural History. 

It was later reported that Comet’s chronometer 

was in San Francisco being repaired, and the 

vessel was using one on loan, which was not 

accurate and placed the schooner 8 to 10 mi. 

ollcourse (SBZ, 16 September 1911). 

Captain Borgenson “lowered the sails to 

ease the strain,” and then grounded the schooner 

in Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island (NA 

1911:RG 36:Wreck Report Number 221). He, 

his wife, several members of the crew, and the 

ship’s cat boarded a boat bound for shore (SBZ, 

1 September 1911;SBMP,2September 191153). 

They found the waves between them and the 

beach so great that thcy were forced to change 

course and head for Santa Rosa Island instead, 

where they remained all day Thursday, August 

31 (SBZ, 1 Septernbcr 1911). On the following 

morning, Frank Pepper of the Santa Rosa Island 

Company took Borgenson, his wife, and the cat 

to Santa Barbara, where the first report of the 

wreck was made (SBMP, 2 September 191123). 

The rest of the crew returned to Comet. 

POST-DEPOSITIONAL IMPACTHISTORICAL SALVAGE 

On Friday, September 1, Borgenson set out 

for San Miguel Island to inspect the wreck. At 

the time, if not optimistic about the chances of 

saving Cornet, he was at least hopeful about 

salvaging its cargo. Before leaving Santa 

Barbara he remarked he would examine the 

vessel to “decide whether she should be 

unloaded or whether she can be towed to port 

with the load on” (SBZ, 1 September 1911). He 

believed the schooner was “beyond repair” 

(SBMP, 2 September 1911:8). 

When Borgenson arrived at Comet that day, 

he was in for two unpleasant surpnses. First, 

the schooncr’s second mate, Hans Maihbom, a 

24-year-old German, had drowned when he 

attempted to swim to the wrecked vessel from 

the beach. Second, severe conditions at the 

wreck site precluded salvage. He reported the 

vessel was lying broadside to shore with heavy 

20 
Comet Chapter 3 

seas pounding over its deck, and its rigging had 

been entirely carried away. He thought the 

wreck would soon be dashed to pieces (SBMP, 

3 September 1911:l). 

On the morning of September 16, 1911, 

John A. Hooper, one of Comet’s owners, amved 

in Santa Barbara and reported the vessel was 

likely to prove a total loss to him and the other 

owners, as neither vessel nor cargo was insured 

(SBI, 16 September 1911). There is some 

discrepancy in the historical record over how 

much that loss would be. The Santa Barbara 

Morning Press reported the vessel was valued 

at $12,000 and the cargo at $13,000 (SBMP, 2 

September 1911:s). The official wreck report 

filed by Captain Borgenson, however, noted that 

the schooner’s value was $5,000 and the cargo 

$3,000 (NA 191 1:RG 36:Wreck Report Number 

221). The previous year another lumber 

schooner, Dora Bluhm, was lost on Santa Rosa 

Island, and its 350,000 BFof lumber was valued 

at $10,000. Therefore, it is more likely that 

Comet’s 500,000 board feet was worth $13,000 

than $3,000. 

Because of Comet’s exposed position and 

the high seas, breaking 200-300 yds. offshore 

the wreck, it was impossible to salvage the cargo 

from the ocean-side. Deckload lumber was 

reported scattered along the island’s shore for 

nearly a mile, but the cargo still within the 

vessel’s hold was virtually intact (LADT, 15 

September 1911:lS). This was no doubt a 

tempting prize for any salvager, considering the 

lumber cargo was worth more than the schooner 

even before it wrecked. The cargo’s value is 

probably what led Mr. Vickers, one of the 

owners of Santa Rosa Island, to buy the wreck 

from Hooper, considering the questionable 

worth of the hull. It was reported that Vickers 

intended to use the salvaged lumber for 

improvements to his Santa Rosa cattle 

operations, and he hoped to earn some of his 

money back through the sale of Comet’s donkey 

engine (SBMP, 22 September 1911:s). 

At this point, the historical record becomes 

confusing. After the September 22 report of 

Comet’s sale to Vickers, there is no further 

mention until October 16, 1911, when the Sun 

Francisco Cull stated that salvage rights went 

to G W. Waters, San Miguel Island’s owner. 

Waters permitted no one to transport lumber to 

the beach for salvage, and, because salvage by 

sea was impossible, Waters purchased the rights 

to the wreck for $1,000. According to the article, 

Waters and his partner expected to clear about 

$10,000 in the venture and had already made 

enough from the rigging alone to cover expenses 

(SFC, 16 October 1911:l). 

There are two likely explanations for what 

transpired. The first is that when Vickers heard 

that Waters would not allow salvage from land, 

he backed out of the deal, and Hooper was 

forced to sell to Waters. This is the most 

plausible explanation. The other interpretation 

is that the Cull article had its facts mistaken, 

and that the sale to Vickers went through; he 

was then forced to sell to Waters for $1,000. 

Either way, there is no doubt that Waters, 

through his perspicacity, was the ultimate 

winner in Comet’s salvage. 

A series of photographs were taken of Cornet 

sometime after the wreck and before the vessel 

broke up (Figures 3.4 and 3.5). These photos, 

from the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural 

History’s collection, show the schooner lying 

broadside to the surf, port side to sea. The vessel 

is firmly embedded in the sand, probably 

between the mean high- and low-tide lines. The 

foremast is still standing, but the main- and 

mizzenmasts are gone. Two photographs, taken 

from the forecastle deck looking forward, show 

a man and woman standing on Comet’s bow 

(Figures 3.6 and 3.7). These photographs are 

the key evidence in identifying the wreck in 

Simonton Cove as Comet. In the background 

of the photographs is an easily identifiable rock 

formation that is east of the wreck in Simonton 

Cove today (Figure 3.8). Analysis of the 

21 
Chapter 3 Comet 

Figure 3.4. Comet aground in Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island, with unidentified woman. 

Photo courtesy of Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 

I 

Figure 3.5. Comet's stern, aground in Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island. Photo courtesy 

of Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 

22 
Chapter 3 Comet 

Figure 3.6. Unidentified man on Comet’s forecastle deck. Note the capstan which is still 

mounted in the same location today. Also, note the rock ledge in the background which can 

be compared to Figure 3.8. Photo courtesy of Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 

Figure 3.7. Unidentified woman on Comet’s forecastle deck. Photo courtesy of Santa Barbara 

Museum of Natural History. 

23 
Chapter 3 Comet 

historical photographs provided positive 

identification of the Comet wreck site. 

PREVIOUS RESEARCH 

In October 1993, Submerged Resources 

Center Archeologist Matt Russell conducted 

Master’s thesis research on three Pacific Coast 

lumber schooners wrecked in Channel Islands 

National Park (CHIS) (Russell 1996). Research 

focused on wrecks located in Northwest Cove, 

San Miguel Island and at Cluster Point, Santa 

RosaIsland, possibly belonging to J.M. Colman 

and Dora Blukm, respectively; and Comet in 

Simonton Cove, San Miguel Island. Unlike the 

wreck scatters at Northwest Cove and Cluster 

Point, the wreck in Simonton Cove was 

posilively identified as Comet using historical 

photographs (see above). At the beginning of 

the 1993 project, the tip of the anchor stock was 

the only feature protruding above the beach 

surface. This was used as a starting point to 

attempt to uncover the wreckage visible in the 

1984 site photographs (see Chapter I). Because 

the wreck had been exposed in the past, sand 

overburden could be removed without 

destroying undisturbed stratigraphy. In addition 

to site documentation, a terrestrial 

magnetometer survey was conducted over the 

site to test the possibility of more extensive 

remains than appear in the 1984 photographs. 

Archeologists and volunteers spent several 

days digging (Figure 3.9), which uncovered the 

anchor and a fcw unidentified timbers. 

Although the timbers located are certainly from 

Cornet, no details could be recorded because the 

walls of the hole kept collapsing as the timbers 

were exposed. In total, about 16 m3 of sand 

were removed from a hole 6.4 m in diameter at 

the top and 2. I m deep. The exposed anchor 

Figure 3.8. Anchor stock sticking out of the sand in Simonton Cove in the 1980s. 

Compare the rock ledge in the background to Figure 3.6. NPS photo by Don Morris. 

24 
Comet Chanter 3 

Figure 3.9. Volunteers working to expose Comet wreckage in October 1993. Just the tip of 

the anchor stock was exposed before digging began. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

was recorded in detail, but it was apparent that 

full site documentation would have to wait until 

the site uncovered naturally. 

To test for further remains beyond those 

visible in the 1984 photographs, researchers 

conducted a terrestrial magnetometer survey 

over a 20 m x 40-m area centered on the anchor. 

An EG&G Geometrics model G-856 terrestrial 

magnetometer was used, with a 2-m sample 

interval. With the exception of two points where 

the test hole was located, areading was taken at 

each 2-m interval, resulting in a data set of 227 

points. A magnetic base station was not 

available, so these readings were not corrected 

for diurnal variations, which reduce solar and 

local magnetic noise fluctuations. However, this 

data set can be viewed as a generally accurate 

magnetic representation of the site. 

The magnetic survey showed a very active 

magnetic zone in the entire survey area. The 

region just east of the anchor is relatively quiet. 

The anchor itself shows up as a very large 

anomaly, greater than 2,000 gammas 

(nanoteslas). Adjacent to the anchor to the north 

is a distinct, several-hundred-gamma anomaly. 

The area northwest showed a series of large 

anomalies that extended throughout the rest of 

the survey area. Although it is impossible to 

determine exactly what caused the anomalies, the 

contour map represents a highly concentrated area 

of magnetic intensity around the anchor (Figure 

3.10). These anomalies surrounding the anchor 

indicate that structure appearing in the 1984 

photographs was still extant. 

ANCHOR ANALYSIS 

Although 1993 fieldwork exposed little of 

Comet’s remains, it was possible to completely 

expose and record the anchor. Comet’s anchor 

25 
Chapter 3 Comet 

ANCHOR 

\.., 

1.~~- ~.~ ~.~.. .I 

10 Meters NA 

20 Gamma Contour InteNal 

?igure 3.10. Comet site magnetometer 

lata. The survey block is 40 m by 20 m. 

is iron, with a collapsible iron stock (Figures 

3.11-3.13). The anchor is fitted with a ring, 

but no cable is present. The overall length is 7 

ft. 11 in.; stock length is 7 ft. 9% in. Anchor 

arms are 3 ft. long, with 5 ft. 6 in. between palm 

tips. The palms measure 1 ft. 3% in. wide by 1 

ft. 6 in. long, and 1% in. thick. 

Contemporary late-nineteenth century and 

early-twentieth century vessels carried a variety 

of anchors. Classification rules required most 

ocean-going vessels C~ITY at least three, usually 

four, anchors, including two bowers, a stream, 

and a kedge (Desmond 1984:156). The bower 

anchors were the largest and most important 

anchors aboard a vessel. They were “lowered 

from the bow, hence their name . . .” and were 

kept rigged and ready for deployment at all times 

(Paasch 1977:lSO). The stream and kedge 

anchors were smaller (stream about one-third 

the weight of the bower, and the kedge about 

one-half the weight of thestream) and often 

broken-down and stowed below-decks until 

needed. These smaller anchors were used for 

such things as moving the vessel around 

(kedging), temporary anchoring, and as a stern 

anchor to keep the vessel from swinging in a 

tide (Paasch 1977:151). 

Classification rules stipulated anchor-type’s 

size (weight) based on a vessel’s registered 

tonnage (Paasch 1977:lSl). Calculating an 

anchor’s weight can determine what role it 

played on a vessel. The Cyclopaedia of Usejul 

Arts (1854) provides a formula for estimating 

anchor weight (in hundredweights [cwt] = 110 

pounds): cwt = Overall length3 x ,0114 (Murphy 

1993:288). Using this formula, Comer’s anchor 

weighs approximately 5.6 cwt or 616 lbs. A 

table of minimum anchor weights for sailing 

vessels found in Desmond (1984) shows 8400- 

ton vessel (Comet registered 429 gross and 368 

net tons) was required to carry two 1,850-lb. 

bower anchors, a 600-lb. stream anchor and a 

300-Ib. kedge anchor. The anchor found on 

Comet most likely represents its stream anchor. 

Comet’s original contract states the vessel 

was equipped with one 1,800-lb. anchor, one 

1,550-lb. anchor, and one 400-lb. kedge (JPSL 

1886). No mention is made of a stream anchor. 

11 is quite likely, however, that the vessel 

changed or replaced anchors duiing its 24-year 

career. 

If this anchor represents Comet’s stream 

anchor, then a number of questions are raised. 

Murphy (1993:288) states that, because vessels 

carried at least four anchors, “multiple anchors 

are expected on wreck sites.” In addition, “if a 

ship were in distress, the bower and other 

26 
Comet Chapter 3 

Figure 3.11. Comet’s anchor. Drawing by Matt Russell. 

Figure 3.12. Comet’s anchor after 

exposure in 1993. NPS photo by Matt 

Russell. 

27 
Chapter 3 Comet 

Figure 3.13. Comet’s anchor ring. NPS photo by Malt Russell. 

anchors might be deployed and perhaps lost; 

smaller anchors would, consequently, be more 

likely to be found near the structure oC a 

shipwreck” (Murphy 1993:288). 

In Comet’s case, however, anchors were 

probably not deployed during the wreck event. 

After the schooner struck Wilson Rock, it was 

intentionally grounded in Simonton Cove, so 

unless anchors were deployed when the vessel 

initially struck, it is not likely they were dropped 

to keep the schooner from going ashore on San 

MiguelIsland. Also, Comet’s wreckreport notes 

that the only action taken to avoidcasualty was 

that the vessel “lowered the sails to ease the 

strain”(NA 191 1:RG 36:WreckReport Number 

221). No mention is made of deploying anchors. 

The most likely scenario, then, is that Comet’s 

other anchors were either removed during 

salvage operations in the months following the 

wreck event, or are still buried elsewhere in 

Simonton Cove. 

Besides documenting Comet’s anchor, 1993 

fieldwork confirmed that extensive remains 

were likely present beneath the sand and 

established that site documentation could only 

take place after winter storms removed 

overlying beach sand. This finally occurred in 

March 1999. 

28 
Comet Chapter 4 

CHAPTER 4 

Comet Site Discussion 

SITE LOCATION 

The Cornet site is located in Simonton Cove, 

on San Miguel Island’s northern shore, in 

Channel Islands National Park, California 

(Figure 4.1 and 4.2). The site’s exposed portion 

is highly compact andlies about 180 m northeast 

of a US Navy range pole. The site’s proximity 

to the high-tide line changes with the amount 

of sand on the beach: in 1993, when Comet 

was completely buried, the site was about 12 m 

above the high-tide line; in 1999, the site was 

located between the high- and low-tide lines. 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

Five days were spent during the full 

documentation phase of the Comet project. 

Researchers defined several goals for the 

project, including: 1) a detailed description of 

site nature, extent and preservation; 2) 

producing a site map for use in interpretation 

and monitoring future exposures; 3) detailed 

measured drawings of all vessel elements and 

features; 4) complete photographic and video 

documentation; and 5) collecting relevant 

samples for analysis, especially wood samples. 

Fieldwork was scheduled to take advantage 

of a series of negative tides from April 18-23, 

1999. Although Comet’s remains were more 

exposed than they were in 1984, each day during 

the recording process the remains were dug out 

to the water table. Researchers used shovels to 

remove sand from various areas around the bow 

so they could be drawn, photographed and 

videotaped. Because the site is relatively small, 

the most efficient methodology for site mapping 

was to establish a central datum and use a 

Brunton Pocket Transit mounted on a tripod to 

turn angles to each feature mapped and a tape 

to measure the distance. Nearly 100 points were 

mapped across the hull remains, and direct 

measurements and scale drawings were used to 

map the structure around these points. All site 

features, such as the capstan, windlass, outer 

hull planks, and forecastle-deck planking, were 

drawn to scale, and the entire site was 

documented with video and photographs. In 

addition, four wood samples, five fasteners, and 

one caulking sample were collected for analysis. 

29 
Chapter 4 Comet 

Figure 4.1. Channel Islands National Park. 

San Miguel Island 

POW E!um€u 

0 3 wlomna 

0 

- 

3 Wlrd 

! I 

Figure 4.2. Comet site location on San Miguel Island. 

30 
Comet Chapter 4 

SITE DESCRIPTION 

Comet’s hull remains consist of the vessel’s 

remarkably intact bow section, from just aft of 

the forecastle-deck-break forward. The site is 

compact, entirely encompassed within an area 

approximately 10 m x 8 m. The nearly intact 

bow section points out to sea on a heading of 

317’ magnetic, and the bow is heeled 55” to 

starboard and tilted forward 20”. Much of the 

bow’s port side has been worn away by natural 

deterioration (Figures 4.34.6). 

Nearly all Comet’s original bow structure 

and related features are represented on the site 

(Figure 4.7). Exposed structural elements 

include port-bow framing and outer-hull 

planking; the partially intact forecastle deck and 

forecastle-deck beams; the partially intact main 

deck and main-deck beams below the forecastle 

deck; the pawl post (sometimes called a pawl 

bitt or Samson post) extending through the main 

deck and broken off at the forecastle-deck level; 

the bowsprit, extending from where it is stepped 

into the pawl post’s forward face to about 19 ft. 

forward of the bow; the forecastle- and maindeck deck-hooks and waterway hooks; and 

several bow pointers. Other features present 

are bow rigging elements and ground tackle 

features including an anchor; the capstan 

mounted in its original location on the forecastle 

deck; the intact log windlass’ starboard half, still 

mounted in its original location on the main 

deck, along with the iron parts of the windlass’ 

port half; the port bow stopper or riding chock; 

and the port hawse pipe. Although more of the 

wreck is exposed than the 1984 photographs 

show, much of the starboard bow still lies deeply 

buried in the sand and was not documented. 

SITE ANALYSIS 

Analysis of Comet’s bow remains logically 

falls into three categories: wooden bow 

structure, bow rigging components and ground 

tackle elements. Each category is discussed 

separately. Comparisons are made to Comet’s 

original construction contract and the American 

Shipmasters’ Association Rules for the 

Construction of Wooden Vessels (1879) to see 

if actual construction varied from planned 

construction. Classification rules such as those 

published by the American Shipmasters’ 

Association were used by marine underwriters 

to determine insurance premiums and establish 

minimum standards for ship construction for 

insurance purposes. To meet classification 

standards for insurance purposes, many vessels 

built in the US were constructed according to 

standards published annually in the Record of 

American and Foreign Shipping by the 

American Shipmasters’ Association, beginning 

in 1870 (Luckenbach 1943:l). Comparing 

classification rules for wooden ship construction 

and the original construction contract to Comet’s 

remains can help to determine if actual 

construction followed published standards and 

written agreements, or if cost-cutting shortcuts 

were taken. In addition, both natural and 

cultural site-formation processes have 

significantly affected the site. With only 

Comet’s bow remaining, it is obvious that 

significant natural and cultural forces worked 

to remove the remainder of the vessel, and these 

processes are examined. 

BOW STRUCTURE 

Comet’s exposed bow structure includes 

most principal components used in wooden 

sailing vessel bow construction. Because the 

wreck is heeled over to starboard, the starboard 

side remained deeply buried in the sand and only 

the port side was accessible for documentation. 

Port-side hull remains includes six frame pairs, 

two hawse timbers, and the port knighthead, 

along with outer hull planking and interior 

ceiling planking. The stempost was not 

observed during documentation because it was 

31 
Chapter 4 Comet 

Figure 4.3. Cornet site in April 1999, looking down on the forecastle deck with the 

capstan mounted to it. The bow is to the right. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

Figure 4.4. Cornet site in April 1999, looking at the port side outer hull timbers. 

NPS photo by Don Morris. 
Comet Chapter 4 

,. 

.. 

., . I 

Figure 4.5. Comet site in 1999, looking towards the windlass (mounted on the main 

deck) in the center of the photo, with the capstan (mounted on the forecastle deck) to the 

right. NPS photo by Don Moms. 

Figure 4.6. Comet site in April 1999, looking 

straight towards the bow, which is canted to 

the left in this photo. The forecastle deck is 

to the left, port side outer hull planlung to the 

right, and the bowsprit is in the bottom of the 

photo. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

33 

Deck 

Figure 4.7. Cornet site plan. Field drawing by Matt Russell. Final drawing by Robert Turner. 

35 

Port Hull Side 
Comet Chapter 4 

buried in the sand beneath the bowsprit. Interior 

hull features such as pointers, hooks, clamps 

and decks are also present, as well as the 

bowsprit and pawl post. 

Bow framing in a wooden vessel includes 

cant frames, hawse timbers, knightheads and the 

stempost (Figures 4.8-4.10). Cant frames are 

frame pairs made up of futtocks and top timbers 

(futtock heels are notched into the bow 

deadwood, so there are no floors) that are rotated 

forward of perpendicular to the keel to create 

the vessel’s bow form. Forward of the cant 

frames are hawse timbers, which solidly fill the 

space between the cant frames and hightheads. 

A vessel’s hawse pipes pass through the hawse 

timbers, which provide a solid foundation for 

fastening the hawse pipe flanges (Desmond 

1984:55). The knightheads are timbers located 

on both sides of the stempost and extend above 

it to support the bowsprit, which rests atop the 

stempost and between the knighthead timbers 

(Desmond 1984:50). 

Although it was difficult to verify because 

of limited access and complex angles involved, 

the six frame pairs are most likely all cant frames 

as opposed to half frames (Figure 4.11; see 

Figure 4.10). At their greatest dimension, which 

was closest to the sand, each frame measured 

9% in. sided and 10 in. molded. Each frame’s 

molded dimension at the top, approximately 

main-deck level, was 8 in. Comet’s contract 

specifies frames as sided 10 in. and molded 13 

in. at the keel and 6% in. at the deck (J. Porter 

Shaw Library, San Francisco [JPSL], Hall 

Brothers Shipyard Contract No. 49, 1886). 

Rules for the Construction of Wooden Vessels 

stipulates a 400-ton vessel built of “yellow fir” 

should have top timbers (frames at deck-level) 

sided 8 in. and molded 7% in. (American 

Shipmasters’ Association 1879:xxviii). Taking 

into account timber erosion from natural 

weathering, Comet’s cant frames’ sided 

dimension matches that specified in the contract 

and exceeds that given in the rules; molded 

dimensions exceed both the contract and rules, 

but this is possibly only true for the cant fi’ames, 

as no square frames were present to be 

examined. Individual frames making up each 

frame pair were fastened together with treenails 

measuring between 1% and 1% in. in diameter. 

A combination of treenails and iron drift pins 

fasten the outer hull planking, frames and ceiling 

planking together. Forward of the forward-most 

frame pair is what appears to be a single frame, 

but it is likely its adjacent frame member is 

broken below the sand line and could not be 

observed. This makes a total of six frame pairs 

represented on site. 

Forward of the frame pairs are two hawse 

timbers, or hawse pieces (Figure 4.12; see 

Figure 4.11). These timbers “. . . close the 

openings between forwardcant frames from the 

knightheads aft as far as necessary to give good 

solid fastening for hawse-pipe flanges. The 

lower ends of hawse timbers are bolted to the 

apron and the several hawse timbers are edgebolted together. . .” (Desmond 1984:55). The 

hawse pieces are 6 in. molded and 2 ft. sided, 

though their sided dimension appears to narrow 

over their length, and the aft hawse piece is 

eroded on its aft face, making an accurate 

original sided dimension difficult to measure. 

The top edge of the hawse pipe is located 5 ft. 5 

in. below the upper surface of the hawse timbers. 

Forward of the hawse timbers is the port-side 

knighthead (Figures 4.13 and 4.14; see Figure 

4.11). The knightheads strengthen the bowsprit 

and support the hooding ends, which are the 

forward ends of the outer hull planks (Desmond 

198450). The knighthead is rhomboid in shape, 

with each side varying slightly between 1 ft. 2 

in. and 1 ft. 3 in., and its shape narrows and 

curves over its length. Neither hawse timbers 

nor knightheads are mentioned in Corner’s 

contract, but the Rules for the Construction of 

Wooden Vessels states that knightheads and 

hawse timbers should have double the sided 

dimension of the frames (American 

31 
Chapter 4 Comet 

~ 

Figure 4.8. Bow framing, including stempost (3), knighthead (5), hawse timbers (6) and cant 

frames (8) (from Paasch 1977:plate 5). 

38 
Comet Chapter 4 

Figure 4.9. Bow framing, including stempost (l), knighthead (8), hawse timbers (9) 

and cant frames (10). Additional features observed on Comet include the deck hook 

(5). deck beams (15) and outer hull planking (11) (from Paasch 1977:plate 15). 

_- 

Figure 4.10. Bow framing, showing difference between cant frames 

and half frames (from Curtis 191958). 

39 

Legend 

Treenails 

0123 

w 

0 

. Iron 

Cupreous 

Iron 

Fasteners. 

Fasteners. 

Fasteners. 

Round 

Square 

Square 

- 

Scale In Feet 

1Ggui-t 4.11. Cunzcf port elevation drawing. Drawing by Jim Bradford. 

31 
Comet Chanter 4 

Figure 4.12. Comet’s bow. The hawse timbers are in the center with the white 

float on them. The hawse pipe is visible at the sand-line, to the right of the hawse 

timbers. In the right foreground is an unattached rigging element. NPS photo by 

Matt Russell. 

Figure 4.13. Side view of Comet’s port knighthead (to the right) and bowsprit 

where it exits the hull. The jibboom heel chock is on top of the bowsprit. Also 

visible is the gammon iron and the hull’s eye for the fore-stay. NPS photo by 

Matt Russell. 

43 
Chapter 4 Comet 

Shipmasters’ Association 1879:xxi). Comet’s 

hawse timbers are sided more than double the 

frames’ sided dimensions, and the port 

knighthead, if measured on the diagonal, also 

follows this specification. The starboard 

knighthead and stempost were buried in the sand 

beneath the bowsprit and neither was observed. 

A total of 21 outer hull planks were 

recorded, varying in width from 5 in. to 1 ft. 2 

in. and from 1 to 2 in. thick (see Figure 4.11). 

Comet’s contract states planking should be 4 

in. thick, while Rules for the Con,wuction oJ 

Wooden Ve.wels specifies it should be 3% in. 

thick (JPSL 1886; American Shipmasters’ 

Association 1879:xxviii). Erosion likely 

accounts for the difference between Cornet’s 

outer hull planking thickness and the thickness 

recorded in historical documents. Outer hull 

planks were fastened to thc frames with a 

combination of treenails, round iron fasteners, 

and square iron and cupreous spikes, which 

conforms to outboard fastenings specified in the 

contract (JPSL 1886). Two strakes overlay the 

outer hull planking directly above the hawse 

pipe, creating a double layer of planking. This 

feature is undocumented in contemporary 

historical records, and how common a 

construction practice this was in Pacific Coast 

lumber schooner shipbuilding is unknown. The 

ends of eight ceiling planks were exposed on 

Comet’s interior, varying between 6 and 8 in. 

thick, and attached to the frames with both round 

iron fasteners and wooden treenails. Cornet’s 

contract states that the ceiling from the turn of 

the bilge to the clamps should be 8 in. thick 

(JPSL 1886), which matches on-site 

measurements, taking into account timber 

erosion. This far exceeds the 4% in. thick ceiling 

specified by Rules for the Construction oj 

Wooden Vessels (American Shipmasters’ 

Figure 4.14. Top view of Cornet’s knighthead (to the lower right of the white float), 

bowsprit and jibboom heel chock. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

44 
Comet Chapter 4 

Association 1879:xxviii), however, thickened 

ceiling planking was commonly used in lumber 

schooners to increase longitudinal strength, 

which was necessary in a single-decked vessel 

(MacGregor 1982:63). 

Both the main deck and forecastle deck are 

intact and in place from the centerline starboard, 

though almost the entire port half of each deck 

has deteriorated due to natural erosion (Figure 

4.15). Four main-deck beams are visible 

supporting remnants of the main deck. Exposed 

ends of each deck beam are eroded, but 

dimensions vary from 10 to 13 in. wide and 7 

to 9 in. thick, indicating the deck beams were 

originally at least 1 ft. 1 in. wide x 9 in. thick. 

Deck beams are specified in Comet’s contract 

as being sided 14 in. and molded 11 in. (JPSL 

1886), which matches reasonably, taking into 

account timber erosion. This again exceeds the 

10% in.-sided dimension specified in Rules for 

the Construction of Wooden Vessels (American 

Shipmasters’ Association 1879:xxviii). 

Although not noted in the literature, possibly 

larger deck beams were used because of the large 

deckloads lumber schooners were required to 

carry. Thickening deck beams would have 

increased ship construction costs minimally, but 

returns on this small investment would have 

accrued throughout the vessel’s operational life. 

Two deck beams are located directly fore and 

aft of the pawl post, a third is located 1 ft. 4% 

in. aft of the beam butting the pawl post’s aft 

face, and the fourth is located 2 ft. 10% in. 

forward of the beam hutting the pawl post’s 

45 

Figure 4.15. Bow section of a 

wooden-hulled schooner showing 

main deck, forecastle deck and 

location of windlass (from Greenhill 

and Manning 1995:90). 
Chapter 4 Comet 

forward face. It is unknown if the latter beam 

is the forward-most beam or if there are more 

between it and the bow. Deck clamps 

(supporting structure for beam-ends) are not 

present on the port side. Twenty main-deck 

planks are visible: 12 starboardof the bowsprit 

and 8 to port. Deck planks are 3% in. sided x 3 

in. molded with a %-in. caulk-line between each 

at the surface. Deck planking is specified in 

the contract as 4 in. x 4 in., and in Rules jbr the 

Construction of Wooden Vessels as 3% in. 

molded (JPSL 1886; American Shipmasters’ 

Association 1879:xxviii). These figures are all 

reasonably close, and erosion could account for 

observed on-site differences. Each plank is 

fastened to each deck beam with two iron spikes. 

Main-deck spikes are 6 1/8 in. long with 7/16- 

in. square shanks and 13/16-in., four-faceted 

heads, and are countersunk and plugged with 

I-in. diameter wooden plugs. Amain-deck hook 

and main-deck waterway hook are present in 

the bow. The forward ends of the main-deck 

planks rest on and are fastened to the main-deck 

hook and butt against the main-deck waterway 

hook, which follows the typical practice (Figure 

4.16) (Curtis 1919:134-135,144-145). As with 

the deck clamps, waterway strakes arc no longer 

present. 

The starboard side of the forecastle deck is 

intact from the bow to the deck’s aft end above 

the windlass (see Figures 4.3 and 4.6). 

Forecastle deck remains are supported by five 

deck beams; the three forward-most beams are 

5% in. sided, while the two aft beams, fore- and 

aft- the pawl post, are sided between 9% and 

10% in. Like on the main deck, port clamps are 

absent. Thirty forecastle-deck planks are 

exposed; all 3 in. sided x 2% in. molded. Each 

plank is fastened with a single boat spike at its 

forward end, a single boat spike at its aft end 

(for complete planks), and a single boat spike 

in each deck beam. Forecastle-deck spikes are 

5% in. long with 3/16-in. square shanks and 

11/16 in., four-faceted heads and are countersunk 

and plugged with I-in. diameter wooden plugs. 

Deck plank forward ends are resting on and 

fastened to the forecastle-deck hook and are 

butted against the forecastle-deck waterway 

hook (see Figure 4.14). Again, like the main 

deck, waterway strakes are gone. Complete 

deck plank aft ends are resting on and fastened 

to a recessed shelf notched into the forward edge 

of the aft-most forecastle-deck beam (Figure 

4.17). Forecastle deck beam and plank 

dimensions are not specified in either Comet’s 

contract or Rules for the Construction of Wooden 

Vessels. 

The pawl post, sometimes called the pawl 

bitt, Samson post or heel bitt when the bowsprit 

is stepped into it, is present from forecastle-deck 

level to the main-deck level, where it is buried 

in the sand (Figures 4.184.20). The pawl post 

is a solid timber, usually stepped into the keelson 

or bow deadwood, which extends upward and 

ends above forecastle-deck level (Chapelle 

1973:368-370; de Kerchove 1961:91; Underhill 

1958:88). In Comet, the pawl post served two 

purposes: I) the bowsprit’s inboard end, called 

the heel, is stepped into the pawl post’s forward 

face; so the pawl post serves as a major 

reinforcing member for the bow rigging; and 2) 

the windlass pawl was mounted on the pawl 

post’s aft face, though neither the windlass pawl 

nor pawl rim are present on site. The pawl post 

measures 1 ft. 6 in. fore and aft x 1 ft. 7 in. side 

to side at main-deck level, and 1 ft. 4 in. fore 

and aft x 1 ft. 6 in. side to side at forecastledeck level. Approximately 4 ft. of the pawl post 

was exposed. 

Comet’s bowsprit is present and appears to 

be completely intact, though its outboard end, 

called the head, could not be uncovered. The 

bowsprit heel is stepped into a 6-in. wide x 10- 

in. high x 7-in. deep notch in the pawl post’s 

forward face. At the heel, the bowsprit is 10 in. 

high x 1 ft. 7 in. wide (the width of thc pawl 

post). A filler piece is fitted below the bowsprit 

heel between the bowsprit and the main deck. 

46 
Comet Chapter 4 

Figure 4.16. Planking details, showing deck and waterway 

hooks (from Curtis 1919:146). 

41 
Chapter 4 Comet 

Figure 4.17. Top-view of the aft end of the forecastle deck. The aft-most 

forecastle deck beam is the vertical timber in the center of the photo. The 

windlass is to the left, mounted on the main deck below; the starboard 

cathead is the angled timber to the right. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

Figure 4.18. Photograph taken from the perspective as if the viewer were 

standing on the muin deck looking forward. The pawl post is to the left of 

the windlass. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

48 
Cornet Chapter 4 

Figure 4.19. Schooner bow section showing the bowsprit stepped into the 

forward face of the pawl post (after Underhill 1958:88). 

~~~ ~~~ 

i 

Figure 4.20. Schematic of a schooner bow-section, showing the 

bowsprit stepped into the pawl post, the jibboom, jibboom heel chock, 

gammon iron and fore-stay (after Greenhill and Manning 1995: 113). 

49 
Chapter 4 Comet 

This filler piece is 9 in. thick, with an exposed 

length of 6 ft. 9 in. (its forward end was buried 

beneath the sand). The forward-most section 

of the bow, between decks, IS buried in the sand, 

so the point where the bowsprit exits the hull 

could not be examined, however, the bowsprit 

presumably passes on top of the stempost and 

between the knightheads. Forward of the bow, 

the bowsprit transitions from a square crosssection to a rounded cross-section, and most 

likely begins to taper (see Figures 4.6 and 4.12- 

4.14). Just forward of the bow structure, the 

bowsprit is 2 ft. square. 

The final structural members discussed are 

two timbers in the site’s southwest corner, rising 

vertically out of the sand inside the ceiling 

planks (Figure 4.7). At the deepest exposure, 

about 2 ft. of these timbers were visible. The 

aft-most timber measures I ft. 2 in. x 9 in., and 

has two 7/8-in. diameter iron fasteners in it. Thc 

forward-most of these two timbers measures 11 

in. x 7 in. These structural timbers are likely 

pointers, placed in the bow and stern angled 

down diagonally in their normal upright position 

(Figures 4.21 and 4.22). According to Curtis 

(1919:101), pointers are used to I‘. . . furnish 

additional stiffening to the hull at the locality 

where the pointer is placed, to aid in resisting 

panting movements and stresses, and. . . to add 

additional strength against torsional strains such 

as are experienced at the ends of a ship when 

rolling heavily at sea.” Pointers are fastened at 

a 45” angle atop the ceiling planks and into the 

cant frames, and they extend from the lower part 

of the hull upwards to the first, or in Comet’s 

case, main deck (see Great Lakes Register 

1908:183; Curtis 1919:101-102). Comet’s 

contract only states: I‘. . . there shall be breast 

hooks and pointers forward and aft . . .” (JPSL 

1886). 

According to the original construction 

contract, Comet’s hull was constructed entirely 

of Douglas (yellow) fir, with the exception of 

the “outside of stem, rudder [stern] post, bitts, 

(with the exception of pawl bitt) . . . and 

windlass to be of hardwood (JPSL 1886). 

Visual examination of all exposed wooden 

structural members verified all were Douglas 

fir except the carrick bitt and windlass (see 

below). As noted above, Comet’s hull was 

Figure 4.21. Bow pointers in a wooden-hulled schooner (after Greenhill 

and Manning 1995:63). 

50 
Comet Chapter 4 

Main Deck. 

Figure 4.22. Schematic showing location of bow pointers in a wooden-hulled 

schooner (after Greenhill and Manning 1995:70). 

fastened with a combination of iron and 

cupreous spikes, iron drift pins and wooden 

treenails. The contract gives specifics for many 

fastening types and sizes, and it notes that outer 

hull plank fastenings would include “treenails 

from turn of bilge to planksheer Locust” (JPSL 

1886). Two treenails were sampled for wood 

identification (Field Samples #03 and 04), both 

from near the planksheer (main-deck line), hut 

it was impossible to determine if they were 

precisely from above or below the planksheer. 

Field Sample #03 is Douglas fir (Pseudotsugu 

rnenziesii), while Field Sample #04 is Osageorange (Muclurupomiferu) (Puseman and Scott 

Cummings 1999:Table 2). Osage-orange is 

noted to be “hard, heavy, strong and very 

durable” (Puseman and Scott Cummings 

1999:2). It is unknown why locust was not used 

as specified, though perhaps Osage-orange was 

a suitable substitute, although this could not be 

51 
Chapter 4 Comet 

verified through documentary sources. In 

addition to fastenings, Comet’s contract notes 

that caulking between the outer hull planks 

would be “six thread of oakum in garboards and 

hawsed, from thence to plank sheer four threads 

and hawsed . . .” (JPSL 1886). Oakum was a 

common caulkmg material, made from “strong, 

pliable tarred rope fibers obtained from scrap 

rope, which swell when wet . . . Before oakum 

is used ic is worked or spun into threads . . .” 

(de Kerchove 1961:543). A caulking sample 

(Field Sample #05) was collected from between 

outer hull planks, and it was identified as jute 

(Corcherus cupsuluris), a well-known fiber 

commonly used for rope (Puseman and Scott 

Cummings 1999:2). 

BOW RIGGING 

Several major bow rigging elements arc 

present on the Cornet site, including the 

bowsprit, the gammon iron, the jibboom heel 

chock, two bullseyes attached to the port bow, 

a single bullseye above the bowsprit where it 

exits the hull, and an unattached iron rigging 

element located off the port bow. Each of these 

elements was an integral part of Cornet’s bow 

rigging support. 

As noted above, Cornet’s bowsprit is intact 

and in its original position (see Figures 4.6,4.7 

and 4.124.14). On a wooden sailing vessel, 

the bowsprit, a spar that projects forward from 

the bow, serves two main purposes: 1) to extend 

the head sails forward, balancing the sail plan 

by counteracting the effect of the after sails; and 

2) to support the foremast, which is fastened to 

it with stays (see Figure 4.20) (de Kerchove 

1961:90). Cornet’s bowsprit is formed from a 

single, large timber, most likely Douglas fir. 

Just forward of the knighthead, set up 

around the bowsprit, is the gammoning or 

gammon iron (see Figures 4.13 and 4.14). The 

gammoning secures the bowsprit to the stempost 

and counters the upward lift of the foremast 

stays. Before the late nineteenth century, 

gammoning consisted of rope or chain lashed 

over the bowsprit; later it was replaced by an 

iron band, which could be tightened with nuts 

and screws (de Kerchove 1961:323). Chapelle 

(1973:479) depicts gammon iron consisting of 

iron straps for both the horizontal (across the 

bowsprit’s upper surface) and vertical (down the 

bowsprit’s sides and bolted to the stempost) 

components (Figure 4.23; see Figure 4.20). 

Cornet has 5-in. wide x 1-in. thick iron strap 

across the bowsprit’s upper face secured by 1%- 

in. diameter, round iron bar stock on either side 

of the bowsprit to the stempost. The top of the 

bar stock is threaded and tightened to the strap 

with 2%-in. hex nuts. The point where the bar 

stock attaches to the stempost was buried and 

could not be documented. 

Located on the bowsprit’s upper surface, just 

forwardof the gammon iron, is the jibboom heel 

chock or block, also called the jibboom saddle 

(seeFigures 4.13 and4.14) (Chapelle 1973:359, 

368, 503; de Kerchove 1961:408; Underhill 

1958:33). This is a small wood block that 

supported the jibboom heel. The jibboom is a 

spar located on top of and attached to the 

bowsprit that extends forward of it (see Figures 

4.20 and 4.23) (de Kerchove 1961:408). 

Attached to the outside face of the port 

knighthead, above and forward of the hawse 

pipe, are two bull’s eyes, which are similar to 

deadeyes used for mast shrouds but with a single 

large hole in the block instead of three smaller 

ones. The bull’s eye wooden blocks are round, 

7 in. in diameter with a 3-in. diameter hole, and 

3% in. thick. The iron strops around the blocks 

are 1%in. wide,%in. thickandareeachattached 

to the knighthead with an iron ring through an 

iron eyebolt (see Figure 4.13). C. A. Thuyer, a 

late-nineteenth century, three-masted lumber 

schooner preserved at San Francisco Maritime 

National Historical Park, has identical bull’s 

eyes in the same location that support the 

bowsprit guys (Figure 4.24) (see also Underhill 

52 
Comet Chapter 4 

Gammon iron Jibboom Heel Chock 

Figure 4.23. Vessel bow section showing location of the gammon iron and jibboom heel 

chock (after Chapelle 1973:359). 

1978: 103). Alternatively, these bull’s eyes could 

support bow rigging footropes, jumbo stays or 

the martingale guys (Chapelle 1973:603; 

Underhill 1958:250). 

Another single bull’s eye attached to a 1%- 

in. diameter iron rod is bent over on top of the 

bowsprit (see Figures 4.13 and 4.14). The 

bottom of the iron rod is buried in the sand 

below the bowsprit, so its attachment point 

could not be recorded. The bull’s eye itself has 

the same dimensions as the bull’s eyes described 

above. This is most likely one of the attachment 

points for the fore-stay, which supported 

Comet’s foremast. C. A. Thuyer has identical 

bull’s eyes supporting its foremast in the same 

location. Underhill (1958:64) also depicts a 

similar forestay configuration (Figure 4.25). 

Located off Comet’s port bow is an 

unattached iron rigging element (Figure 4.26 

and 4.27; see also Figure 4.12). It consists of a 

4 ft. 3 in.-long iron rod with a 5 in. long x 2% 

in. wide x %in. thick plate on one end, attached 

to an 11%-in. long x %in. diameter iron fastener 

that is attached to a 1 ft. 6%-in. long x 1-in. 

thick iron plate. The plate is pierced by two 1 

ft. 3-in. long x 1-in. diameter eyebolts, each of 

which has an iron ring attached to an iron strop 

from a bull’s eye or deadeye (the wooden block 

is no longer present), similar to those described 

above. In addition, the iron plate has two iron 

hooks cast as part of its upper surface. Although 

documentary research could not identify the 

element’s proper name, its function was 

identified. This object was originally fastened 

to the foreside of the port cathead and provided 

the attachment point for the inner- and outerjibboom guys, or shrouds (see Figure 4.25) 

(Underhill 1958:64). Chapelle (1973:398) notes 

that “as long as the schooners carried jibbooms, 

the jibboom shrouds were set up with hearts, or 

small deadeyes, and lanyards on the foresides 

of the catheads.” C.A. Thayer has similar, 

53 
Comet Chapter 4 

Figure 4.24. Bull’s eye 

above and forward of the 

hawse pipe (at the top-center 

of photo) support the 

bowsprit guys on C.A. 

Thayer in San Francisco 

Maritime National 

Historical Park. NPS photo 

by Matt Russell. 

\\ Msmingds Back-Slaya’ 

cad 

Figure 4.25. Bow rigging elements found on Comet site (after Underhill 

1958:64). 

54 
Comet Chapter 4 

Figure 4.27. Rigging element from port cathead 

that secured the jibboom guys. Drawing by Matt 

Russell and Don Moms. 

Figure 4.26. Rigging element off Comet’s p 

bow. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

Ort 

t N

0 - 1 

Feet 

55 
Chapter 4 Comet 

though not identical, rigging elements on the 

foresides of its catheads, which support the 

jibboom guys (Figure 4.28). In addition, 

historical photos of Comet wrecked in Simonton 

Cove give indirect evidence for this 

identification. Although the photos do not show 

the cathead or this particular element, they 

depict the jibboom guys coming to a point that 

can only be on the foresides of the catheads (see 

Figures 3.6 and 3.7). The iron hooks are called 

jib stay hooks (Greenhill and Manning 

1995: 103), and the iron rod was a brace between 

the cathead and the rail (Chapelle 1973:398). 

The rod’s angle identifies this object coming 

from the port, rather than the starboard, cathead. 

GROUND TACKLE 

Ground tackle is a collective term referring 

to gear associated with anchoring. In Comet’s 

case, this includes the windlass and 

disarticulated windlass parts, bow stopper, 

hawse pipe, starboard cathead and the anchor 

itself. Although not technically part of the 

ground tackle, the capstan is also discussed in 

this section. Comet’s contract only notes that 

the vessel was equipped with a “24” windlass 

purchase. , . [and] #3 capstan . . .” (JPSL 1886). 

Comet’s windlass is a type generically 

known as an “Armstrong Patent”, or pumpbrake, windlass, which was introduced during 

Figure 4.28. Rigging element supporting jibboom guys on forward side of C.A. Thayer’s 

cathead. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

56 
Comet Chapter 4 

the 184Os, quickly replacing older models 

employing handspikes. Pump-brake 

windlasses, which used purchase levers and 

pump handles, remained in use into the 

twentieth century (MacGregor 1984:88). 

Chapelle (1973:677) refers to this type of 

windlass as a “wooden, or log, windlass, with 

pump-brake ironwork” (Figures 4.294.34). 

Comet’s windlass is mounted on the 

schooner’s main deck, just aft of the pawl post 

(Figure4.35 and4.36). It has a wooden windlass 

barrel with iron whelps supported by hardwood 

carrick bitts, and it was worked with two iron 

purchase rims (with 1 ft. ll?h in., or 23% in., 

inside diameter) and purchase arms connected 

by iron purchase rods to a pivoting rocker, or 

crosshead, mechanism that was originally 

mounted above the windlass on the forecastle 

deck (Figure 4.37) (Chapelle 1973:669-680; 

Paasch 189O:Plate 70). Just forward of the pawl 

post at forecastle-deck level are two fasteners 

and the remains of a block that supported the 

crosshead on the forecastle deck. On either side 

of the pawl post are openings in the forecastle 

deck where the purchase rods connected the 

windlass purchase arms to the rocker on the 

forecastle above. 

In this type of windlass, a pawl mounted on 

the aft face of the pawl post engaged either teeth 

cut into the center of the windlass barrel or an 

iron pawl rim mounted on the windlass barrel, 

which prevented the barrel from reversing 

direction (see Figures 4.33 and4.34) (Chapelle 

1973:677; Paasch 1977:Plate 70). Neither the 

pawl nor a pawl rim is present on the Comet 

site, possibly indicating the pawl engaged teeth 

cut directly into the windlass barrel rather than 

a pawl rim. An auxiliary warping drum, or 

gypsy head, was present outside each carrick 

bitt (see Figure 4.36). Only the starboard half 

of the windlass barrel remains intact, including 

the starboard purchase rim and arm, the 

starboard carrick bitt supporting the windlass, 

and the starboard warping drum outside it. 

Much of the windlass’s port-side ironwork is 

present, however, laying loose on the main deck 

against the bowsprit’s port side, including the 

port purchase rim (Figure 4.38), arm, and rod; 

four iron whelps from the port-side windlass 

barrel; a single large iron fastener with a 

diamond-shaped rove that held the port-side 

carrick bitt, cheek, and knee together (an 

identical fastener is still in place on the starboard 

side); and the rocker base plate with two 

fasteners that held it to the forecastle deck 

(Figure 4.39). 

On the windlass’s starboard end, just inside 

the carrick bitt, is a 3 ft. 6%-in. diameter gear 

that is not integral to the primary workings of 

the windlass. In addition, an upright iron shaft 

with some heavily encrusted bands that may 

have been gearing is sticking out of the sand 

near the windlass’s starboard end (Figure 4.40; 

see Figure 4.36). Indications are that this is part 

of a messenger chain system for driving the 

windlass by an endless chain from a donkey 

engine. Figure 4.41 depicts a similar 

arrangement, with a geared shaft mountedabove 

the windlass articulated to a large gear on the 

windlasss outside end. A similar system is 

depicted in drawings of Bertha L. Downs, 

another late-nineteenth century schooner (Figure 

4.42) (Greenhill andManning 1995:79-81,90). 

Essentially, a messenger chain system was used 

to run several pieces of machinery off a single 

donkey engine. Using a system of shafts, gears, 

and chains, a donkey engine could power the 

windlass, pumps, auxiliary warping heads, and 

other hoisting equipment. As discussed in 

Chapter 3, Comet was probably not originally 

equipped with a donkey engine, but one was 

added in the 1890s. 

Included in the iron material located on the 

main deck are an eyebolt fastened into the 

bowsprit’s poaface with another eyebolt attached 

to it, some small link chain with 2-in. long x %- 

in. diameter links, 10 loose iron fasteners, and 

an iron bar measuring 3% to 4 in. square x 3 ft. 
Comet Chapter 4 

Noh: 

I - rawn in iromalric pro ocfion. 

2-F)rom rketchr and pho{oogrophr 

Edward S. @or1 y Scarrdale, N. f 

ruppllod by : 

Figure 4.29. This series of six drawings from the Smithsonian Institution 

depicts details of a windlass very similar to Comet's. 

58 
Comet Chapter 4 

1 Detail parts of barrel. before , assembly and furnlng operation 

5f8U/ pins for eftaching shaft to bmrral. 2plcs 

Upper hdf 7 

Std pin8 for 

square area 

Lower half of 

wood bnrrel.ahom 

Oversit. in thlcknera 

and width 

Figure 4.30. Drawing two of the series. 

59 
Chapter 4 Comet 

60 
Comet Chapter 4 

Sfructure which supports 

barrel assembly 

wood. 2 req. 

4 5 6. 

Shed 4916 

This end somdirn.s nibbed 

into w0hrrayyr. 

Figure 4.32. Drawing four of the series. 

61 
Chapter 4 Cornet 

.. 

i 

Detail parts of wrndlass assembly 

used for rotating and brakhq 

of the barrel 

I 

j 

Rocker beonng. 

cart iron. I r.0. 

Not.: 

I- hft hand purchase rim. link and two 

hahs of left hend purchase arm 

shown, right rid. osremblisd in 

the same manner. 

2-Racker 11 cut away in two areas to 

show shqpe of rocker and show slot 

into which brake is in4.rt.d. 

i 

1 .~. . . .~ ~~ ~~~~.~ ~. ~ .... . 

Figure 4.33. Drawing five of the series. 

62 
Comet Chapter 4 

Figure 4.34. Drawing six of the series 

Figure 4.35. 

Cornet's windlass, 

mounted on the 

main deck. NPS 

photo by Matt 

Russell. 

63 
Chapter 4 Cornet 

fl Carrick Bitt . 

Purchase Rim 

I //,Main Deck 

Main Deck Beam 

0 1 2 3 

t-:m :I.- 

FEET 

- 

Figure 4.36. Comet’s windlass, elevation view looking forward on main deck. Drawing 

by Jim Bradford and Matt Russell. 

64 
Comet Chapter 4 

Figure 4.37. Pivoting rocker, or crosshead, 

mechanism connected to a windlass purchase 

arm with chain. Comet was equipped with a 

smiliar windlass type. NPS photo by Matt 

Russell. 

Figure 4.38. Comet’s port windlass purchase arm and windlass hardware on 

the main deck laying against the port side of the pawl post and bowsprit. NPS 

photo by Don Moms. 

65 
Chapter 4 Cornet 

Figure 4.39. Comet’s port windlass hardware laying on the main 

deck. NPS photo by Don Morris. 

Figure 4.40. Comet’s windlass and the iron shaft sticking out of the sand 

on the right side of the photograph. NPS photo by Matt Russell. 

66 
Comet Chapter 4 

Pmnp Brake Windbu 

Figure 4.41. Windlass nearly identical to Comet’s windlass, including the gearing (in this case 

on the port side) for the messenger chain system. 

67 
Chapter 4 Come? 

M 

Figure 4.42. Messenger chain-driven windlass system (from Greenhill 

and Manning 1995:79 and 90). 

68 
Comet Chapter 4 

9% in. long. The fasteners are probably from the 

windlass’ port side, the link chain is possibly from 

the messenger chain or connected the purchase 

arm with the rocker (see Figure 4.37), and the 

iron bar is possibly part of one of the pump-brake 

hand levers. 

Wood samples were taken from the windlass 

barrel and carrick bitt for wood species analysis. 

Both windlass and carrick bitt are hardwood, as 

specified in the contract (JPSL 1886). Field 

Sample #01 is from the carrick bitt and identified 

as prima Vera wood (Cybistax donnell-smithii) 

(Puseman and Scott Cummings 1999:l). Prima 

Vera is a hardwood found only in Mexico, 

Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, and 

marketed as “white mahogany” (Puseman and 

Scott Cummings 1999:l). This is unusual 

because no historical documentation for 

importation of Central American timber to the 

Pacific Northwest for use in ship construction 

could be located. Exporting Pacific Northwest 

timber to Mexico and Central and South America 

has been documented, so it is plausible that local 

species were carried north as a return cargo. On 

the other hand, use of this native Central 

American timber for the carrick bitts could 

represent a repair carried out while delivering 

cargo to a Central American port. Field Sample 

#02 is from the windlass barrel and identified as 

California laurel (Umbellularia californica) 

(Puseman and Scott Cummings 1999:l). 

California laurel is a hardwood native to 

California and Oregon and was used “under the 

keel in launching ships; appears to resist crushing 

better and have more ‘slip’ than any other local 

species” (Panshin and Zeeuw 1980:587 quoted 

in Puseman and Scott Cummings 1999:2). These 

same qualities would he ideal for a windlass 

barrel hauling in an anchor with several wraps 

of chain around it. 

The port hawse pipe is in place, piercing 

the port hull at main-deck level (Figure 4.43). 

Figure 4.43. Comet’s port-side hawse pipe. NPS photo by Don Morris 

69 
Chapter 4 Comet 

The hawse pipe provided an opening for the 

anchor chain cable to pass through the bow to 

the windlass, and from the windlass into the 

chain locker. The hawse pipe is a flanged iron 

pipe with an outer face angled to fit the shape 

of the outer hull. The flanged opening is I ft. 5 

in. long x 1 ft. 6 in. wide, and the hawse pipe 

has an 11-in. interior diameter. 

Mounted on the main deck just inside the 

port hawse pipe is a wood-and-iron hawse 

block, also called a bow stopper or riding chock 

(see Figure 4.7) (Chapelle 1973:491). The 

hawse block routed the chain cable up and over 

the lower inboard rim of the hawse pipe 

(Chapelle 1973:491). Sometimes the hawse 

block was fitted with a chain stopper, which held 

the chain in addition to the windlass, but there 

is no evidence of a chain stopper on Comel. The 

hawse block is 2 ft. 6 in. long x 10% in. wide x 

8 in. high in the center. Its upper surface is 

rounded and has an iron pad in the center to 

resist chain abrasion. 

The aft end of the starboard cathead was 

visible attached to the forecastle deck (see 

Figure 4.17). A cathead is a wood beam that 

projects out over port and starboard bow to 

support the anchor before releasing or while 

retrieving or stowing (see Figure 4.25) (de 

Kerchove 1961:132)-when the anchorring has 

been hoisted up to the cathead, it has been 

“catted.” Comet’s catheadis a solid timber, 11% 

in, wide x 5 in. thick with an exposed length of 

2 ft. 7 in. A3%-in.diameter, 1-in.thick iron ring 

is fastened to its upper surface at the lowest 

exposure, 2 ft. 7 in. from the aft end. No other 

details about the cathead were observed because 

most of its length was buried. 

The most obvious ground tackle element 

remaining is the anchor. The iron, collapsiblestock anchor is resting on the remains of the main 

deck’s starboard side. It was uncovered and 

recorded in 1993, and a full analysis is found in 

Chapter 3. The anchor weighs approximately 

616 Ibs. and is most likely Comet’sstreamanchor. 

Figure 4.44. Comet’s capstan, mounted in the center of the forecastle deck. 

NPS photo by Don Momis. 

70 
Cornet Chapter 4 

Figure 4.45. Cornet’s capstan. Drawing by Jim Bradford 

A hand-powered capstan is mounted in the 

center of the forecastle deck (Figures 4.44 and 

4.45). It is not linked to the windlass, so is not 

technically part of the ground tackle. It was used 

for warping only, including such tasks as 

handling lines and assisting with raising sail 

(Campbell 1974:135). The capstan is 2 ft. 10 

in. tall, with a 2 ft. 8-in. diameter base and 1 ft. 

8-in. diameter head. This is presumably the “#3 

capstan” specified in Cornet’s contract. 

SITE FORMATION PROCESSES 

Based on observation and analysis of 

historical photographs and those made on the 

Comet site, a sequence of events can be 

developed to account for Comet’s present 

condition. No geomotphologic, sedimentologic, 

or oceanographic studies were conducted to 

determine the exact natural forces that have 

acted on Cornet’s remains over the past 88 years, 

so a rigorous examination of natural site 

formation processes is not possible at this time. 

Nor is a precise accounting of salvage activities 

on Cornet available, although contemporary 

salvage is historically indicated. There are no 

obvious archeological indicators of salvage, so 

a discussion of cultural site formation processes 

is also necessarily limited. What is offered is a 

brief description of contemporary salvage 

gleaned from the few available newspaper 

records, which can account for the absence of 

certain materials from the site and inforin 

speculation of the hull break-up sequence and 

deterioration that led to the site’s present 

condition. 

71 
Chapter 4 Comet 

Contemporary newspaper articles in thehs 

Angeles Duily Times, Sunta Burbaru Morning 

Press and Sun Francisco Cull offer the only 

information on salvage activities after the wreck. 

The lumber cargo was the most valuable part of 

Comet’s wreck, and it is mentioned as being 

salvaged in several articles (Suntu Barbara 

Morning Press [SBMP], 2 September 1911:s; 

Los Angeles Duily Times, 15 September 

1911:lS; SBMP, 22 September 1911:S). Thc 

only two other objects mentioned specifically 

were rigging, some of which had already been 

salvaged at the time an article in the Santu 

Barbara Morning Press was published (SBMP, 

22 September 19ll:S), and the donkey engine 

(Sun Fruncisco Cull, 16 October 1911:14). It 

is unknown if the donkey engine was ever 

salvaged, but it would have been one of the more 

valuable objects on board. Presumably the 

windlass, capstan and anchor would also have 

been high-cost, reusable items, but they 

obviously were not salvaged. In general, limited 

newspaper discussions of salvage can explain 

the absence of some rigging, possibly the 

donkey engine and the lumber cargo from the 

site. Additional salvage almost certainly took 

place, but it is not documented historically. 

Opportunistic salvage probably also occurred 

as the schooner broke apart and pieces were 

scavenged for various uses. Salvage alone 

cannot explain, however, why only the bow is 

present today. 

Observation of site layout suggests a series 

of events that led to the wreck’s present condition. 

The last known historical photographs of Comet 

(see Figures 3.3-3.5) show the vessel laying 

broadside to the shoreline, somewhere between 

high and low tide. Subsequently, Cornet’s bow 

broke away from the rest of the hull at a point 

just aft of the forecastle deck and forward of the 

forward deck house (Figure 4.46). It is possible 

the stempost/keel joint broke, but the pointers 

kept thc bow structure together to aft of the 

forecastle deck. The pointers crossed and were 

fastened into multiple frame pairs, including all 

the cant kames, and would have provided 

reinforcement to help bind them together (see 

Figures 4.21 and 4.22). 

After it broke free from the rest of the hull, 

the bow rotated 90” Lo face seaward, and 

possibly shifted closer to the embankment 

behind the beach. The bow must have detached 

from the hull before it rotated because there 

wouldnot have been enough room on the beach 

for the entire vessel to rotate. After it broke 

free and rotated, the bow section heeled over to 

starboard and filled with sand to the level 

reflected in preserved structure observed on site 

during this study. Much of the port bow was 

exposed to the elements, and was, in effect, 

i 

i i 

j j 

~ 

I ~ I 

I 

1 

i 1 ~ ~ .... 

I i 

Figure 4.46. Area of Cornet’s preserved hull. 

12 
Comet Chapter 4 

“sheared off by natural deterioration. Exposed 

wood portions of the wreck, such as the port 

sides of the outer hull, forecastle deck, main 

deck and windlass, deteriorated and were 

removed from the site, probably by natural 

processes. This natural “shearing” process must 

have taken place after the bow broke away, 

rotated and heeled to starboard because of the 

evident “line” of preservation and the position 

of the iron features within the wrecksite. Major 

iron features, including the anchor, port windlass 

hardware, and port cathead rigging element, 

appear to have essentially dropped to their 

current locations as their wooden support 

structures deteriorated. For example, the 

cathead rigging element dropped outside the hull 

when the cathead deteriorated, and the windlass’ 

port-side hardware fell to its current location 

on the main deck against the bowsprit when the 

port half of the wooden windlass barrel 

deteriorated. 

Based on its location in the wreck, one 

interpretation of the anchor’s location is that the 

anchor was catted and fished (when the anchor 

crown has been hoisted to the gunwale) on 

Cornet’s port side when the vessel wrecked. As 

the bow section heeled to starboard and 

deteriorated, the anchor simply dropped to its 

current location. If this sequence of events is 

accurate, then the question is: why did Comet 

have its stream anchor catted and fished on its 

port side, and not one of its bower anchors? 

Another problem with this interpretation is the 

lack of chain cable on site. An anchor would 

never have been catted without chain cable 

attached, and it seems unusual to remove the 

chain while leaving the anchor catted. It is 

possible the chain was disconnected from the 

anchor ring, threaded through the hawse pipe, 

and then either removed or dropped into the 

chain locker. But why would salvagers 

disconnect the chain unless they meant to 

salvage it, and if the chain was salvaged, why 

was the anchor left behind? A simpler 

explanation is that the stream anchor was not 

catted, but was stowed, unrigged, on the 

forecastle deck or on the main deck under the 

forecastle deck and lashed in place. Given the 

hold was completely full of lumber and the huge 

deckloads these schooners carried, on or under 

the forecastle deck would be nearly the only 

place a spare anchor could be stowed and be 

easily accessible. As Cornet’s port side 

deteriorated, the anchor could still have dropped 

to its current location. This would explain why 

chain cable was not rigged to the anchor. Further 

site investigation could provide more insight 

into these questions. Deeper excavation could 

determine whether chain remains in the chain 

locker, or even if the starboard anchor depicted 

in Figure 3.3 is present below the hull. With 

this information a better interpretation could be 

made of site formation processes and salvage 

activities. 

The majority of Comet’s hull cannot be 

accounted for in the archeological record. Only 

about 10% of the hull was observed during this 

project. Significant natural forces worked to 

break the hull and separate the bow, but the 

location of the remainder of the hull is unknown. 

It is possible it is still buried elsewhere on the 

beach in Simonton Cove or was transported 

offshore and settled into the sediment. 

Alternatively, it could have gradually broken up 

and the pieces floated off into the Santa Barbara 

Channel. Further research, especially terrestrial 

and marine magnetometer surveys, could 

determine if significant hull remains are present 

elsewhere in Simonton Cove. 

Overall, Comet is a remarkably wellpreserved piece of Pacific Coast maritime 

history and a significant archeological site. The 

nearly intact bow section provides much 

information about Pacific Coast shipbuilding 

and site formation processes. In general, taking 

into account timber erosion, Comet’s scantlings 

73 
Chapter 4 Comet 

and fastenings met or exceeded those specified 

in its contract and published classification rules 

indicating the schooner was built as part of a 

mature and well-established Pacific Coast 

shipbuilding industry. Several structural 

features, such as thickened ceiling planking and 

larger deck beams, are likely construction 

characteristics specific to Pacific Coast lumber 

schooners and reflect particular needs of these 

bulk lumber carriers and requircments of Pacific 

Coast environmental conditions. The site’s 

integrity directly contradicts the often repeated 

notion that shipwreck remains cannot be 

preserved in any significant way in high-energy 

environments. Like other West Coast examples, 

such as King Phillip on Ocean Beach in Golden 

Gate National Recreation Area (Delgado 1985), 

Cornet demonstrates that under certain 

environmcntal conditions, wooden shipwreck 

remains can be quickly buried by beach sands 

and preserved. 

14 
Comet Chapter 5 

CHAPTER 5 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

CONCLUSIONS 

Even though only about 10% of Comet’s 

hull was observed during this project, the 

schooner’s bow section is one of the most well 

preserved historical shipwreck sites in Channel 

Islands National Park (CHIS), as well as one of 

the best-preserved wooden shipwrecks recorded 

on the West Coast. It represents a regionally 

important vessel type linked to the economic 

development of major metropolitan areas on the 

Pacific Coast, and it offers insight into West 

Coast shipbuilding practices, especially those 

particular to lumber schooners. Pacific Coast 

environmental conditions dictated the design 

and construction of vessels engaged in the 

coastal lumber trade, and the lumber schooner, 

from its emergence in the 1870s until after 

World War I, was the most important vessel type 

involved in that trade. 

This project has collected important baseline 

data regarding site condition and significance 

that can be used for management, interpretation, 

site protection and future research. In addition, 

a historical context has been developed for the 

site, which is important for site interpretation. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Several recommendations are offered for 

future work on Comet. Perhaps the most 

important is to regularly monitor the site, 

especially during winter months, to note 

subsequent exposures and compare the site’s 

condition annually. Data collected in 1999 

should be used as a baseline for comparing 

future site condition and deterioration. If 

significant site erosion is noted in the future, 

additional steps should be taken, including more 

detailed and extensive site documentation and 

consideration of selected recovery of specific 

features. Additional magnetometer survey, both 

offshore and onshore in Simonton Cove, might 

reveal more sections of Comet that could lead 

to a more accurate model of site formation 

processes. 

Site jurisdiction appears to change with 

varying beach levels. The National Park Service 

75 
Chapter 5 Comet 

(NPS) owns all land above mean high tide, while 

the State of California owns lands below mean 

high tide. In 1993, when beach levels were high, 

Comet was clearly within NPS jurisdiction; in 

1999, however, with nearly 6 ft. of sand 

removed from the beach, the site was often 

below the high-tide line. It is recommended 

that NPS continue to actively manage Comet as 

one of its resources as it has in the past. If 

ownership issues are raised in the future, CHIS 

should enter into an agreement with the State 

of California ensuring the site’s future protection 

as a significant archeological resource. The NPS 

Archeology and Ethnography Program, under 

Dr. Frank McManamon, is currently developing 

a generic draft agreement for use between states 

and the NPS. 

Comet is eligible for the National Register 

of Historical Places and listing would increase 

site protection. The site is possibly eligible 

under criterion A, C, and/or D. Criterion A 

requires a vessel “be associated with events that 

have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history” (US Department of the 

Interior 1986:5). As an active lumber schooner 

for nearly 25 years, Comet participated in the 

economic development of the U.S. Pacific 

Coast, which is a contribution to the broad 

patterns of West Coast history. Comet is likely 

eligible under criterion C, which requires a 

vessel “embody the distinctive characteristics 

of a type, period or method of construction . . .” 

(US Department of the Interior 1986:5). As 

discussed above, lumber schooners were unique 

in many ways, and particularly suited to their 

trade. Comet represents many of the 

characteristics typical of Pacific Coast lumber 

schooners. Finally, the well-preserved Comet 

is likely eligible under criterion D, which 

requires a vessel to “have yielded, or may be 

likely to yield, information important in . . I 

history” (US Department of thelnterior 1986:6). 

The unexcavated portions of the Comet site will 

undoubtedly yield additional information 

important to a better understanding of West 

Coast shipbuilding practice, vessel modification 

and site formation processes. In addition to a 

National Register nomination, the Comet site 

should be included in the State of California 

archeological inventory. 
References Comet 

REFERENCES 

American Shipmasters’ Association 

1879 Record of American and Foreign 

Shipping. New York. 

1907 Record of American and Foreign 

Shipping. New York. 

Anonymous 

1872 Business Directory and Guide to 

Washington Territory. Murphy & 

Hamed, Olympia, Washington. 

Barkhausen, H. N. 

1990 Focusing on the Centerboard. 

Manitowoc Maritime Museum, 

Manitowoc. MI. 

Barsness, R. W. 

1965 Iron Horses and an Inner Harbor at San 

PedroBay, 1867-1890. PuczjkHistorical 

Review XXXIV August: 289-303. 

Bauer, K. J. 

1988 A Maritime History of the United 

States. University of South Carolina 

Press, Columbia. 

Campbell, G F. 

1974 China Tea Clippers. David McKay, 

New York. 

Chapelle, H. I. 

1935 The History of American Sailing 

Ships. Bonanza Books, New York. 

1913 The American Fishing Schooners: 

1825-1935. W. W. Norton and 

Company, New York. 

Chasan, D. J. 

1981 The Water Link: A History of Puget 

Sound as a Resource. Puget Sound 

Books, Seattle. 

Cox, T. R. 

1974 Mills and Markets: A History of the 

Pacijic Coast Lumber Industry to 

1900. University of Washington 

Press, Seattle. 

1981 Single Decks and Flat Bottoms: 

Building the West Coast’s Lumber 

Fleet, 1850-1929. Journal of the 

West XX, July:65-74. 

Curtis, W. H. 

1919 The Elements of Wood Ship 

Constmction. fill Publishing, London. 

Cyclopaedia of Useful Arts 

1854 Anchors. Typescript on file at San 

Francisco Maritime National 

Historical Park, San Francisco. 

de Kerchove, R. 

1961 International Maritime Dictionary. 

Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Delgado, J. P. 

1985 Skeleton in the Sand: Documentation 

of the Environmentally Exposed 

1856 Ship King Phillip, SanFrancisco. 

In Proceedings of the Sixteenth 

Conference on Underwater 

Archaeology, edited by Paul Forsythe 

Johnston, 30-36. Society forHistorica1 

Archaeology, Tucson. 
Comet References 

1986 Documentation and Identification of 

the Two-Masted Schooner Neptune. 

I-listoricul Archueology 20( 1):95-108. 

DeLong, H. T. 

1985 Pucific Schooner Wuwonu. 

Documentary Book, Bellevue, 

Washington. 

Desmond, C. 

1984 Wooden Shipbuilding. Reprinted. 

Vestal Press, New York. Originally 

published 1919, Rudder Publishing, 

New York. 

Drury, A. 

1952 John A. Hooper and California’s 

Robust Youth. San Francisco. 

1989 

Great 

1908 

Edson, M. A., Jr. 

The Schooner Rig, Its First 

Appearance and Development. The 

American Neptune XLIX, Summer: 

198-207. 

,akes Register 

Rules und Regulations for the 

Cluss~icution and Building of Metal 

und Wooden Vessels. R. R. 

Donnelley and Sons, Chicago. 

Greenhill, B. 

1980 Schooners. Naval Institute Press, 

Annapolis. 

Greenhill, R. and S. Manning 

1995 The Schooner Berthu L. Downs. 

Naval institute Press, Annapolis. 

Hall, H. 

1884 Report on the Shipbuilding industry 

of the United States. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Haller, S. A. and R. Kelly 

1990 Schooners, Seulers, und Steamers: 

Shipwrecks of San Miguel and Santu 

Rosa Island,s, Chunnel Islands 

Nutiondl‘ark, California. Ms. on file 

San Francisco Maritime Hational 

Historic Park, San Francisco. 

Hittel, J. S. 

1882 The Commerce and Industries of the 

Pucific Coast of North Americu. A. 

L. Bancrort, San Francisco. 

Hopkins, C. T. 

1874 Shipbuilding on the Pucific Coust 

(No. 2). San Francisco Board of 

Marine Underwriters, Alta 

California Printing House, San 

Francisco. 

Johansen, D. 0. and C. M. Gates 

1957 Empire of the Columbia: Atlistory of 

the Puc$c Northwest. Harper & 

Brothers, New York. 

Los Angeles Daily Times 

1883 The Lumber Trade. 10 .Tune:4. Los 

Angeles, California. 

1911 New Theory about “Comet.” 15 

September:15. Los Angeles, 

California. 

Luckenbach, J. J. 

1943 American Bureau of Shipping, 1862- 

1943. Paper read a1 The Society of 

Naval Architects and Marine 

Engineers, New York. 

Lyman, J. 

1951 Hall Brothers of Port Blakely. Log 

Chips of Recent Muritime History 

297-103. 

78 
References Comet 

MacGregor, D. R. 

1982 Schooners in Four Centuries. Naval 

Institute Press, Annapolis. 

1984 Merchant Sailing Ships: 1815-1850. 

Conway Maritime Press, London. 

Marquez, E. 

1915 Port Los Angeles - A Phenomenon of 

the Railroad Era. Golden West 

Books, San Marina. 

Martin, W. E. (editor) 

1983 Sail & Steam on the Northern 

California Coast, 1850-1900. 

National Maritime Museum 

Association, San Francisco. 

McNairn, J. and J. MacMullen 

1945 Ships of the Redwood Coast. Stanford 

University Press, Stanford. 

Mears, E. G. 

1935 Maritime Trade ofthe Western United 

States. Stanford University Press, 

Stanford. 

Morris, D. P. and J. Lima 

1996 Channel Islands National Park and 

Channel Islands Natioinal Marine 

Sanctuary Submerged Cultural 

Resources Assessment. Intermountain 

Cultural Resource Center Professional 

Papers No. 56. National Park 

Service. Santa Fe. 

Murphy, L. (editor) 

1993 Dry To~ugasNationulParkSubmerged 

Cultural Resources Assessment. 

Southwest Cultural Resources Center 

Professional Papers No. 45, National 

Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Newell, G. (editor) 

1966 The H. W. McCurdy Marine History of 

the Pacific Northwest. Superior 

Publishing, Seattle. 

Newell, G. and J. Williamson 

1960 Pacifc Lumber Ships. Bonanza 

Books, New York. 

Olmsted, R. 

1912 C.A. Thayer & the Pacific Lumber 

Schooners. Ward Ritchie Press, San 

Francisco. 

Paasch, H. 

1911 Illustrated Marine Encyclopedia. 

Reprinted. Argus Books, Wdtford, 

England. Originally published 1890, 

Model and Allied Publications, 

London. 

Panshin, A. J. and C. de Zeeuw 

1980 Textbook of Wood Technology. 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 

Puseman, K. and L. S. Cummings 

1999 Identification of Woodand Fiberfrom 

the Comet, alate-Nineteenth Century 

Lumber Schooner Wrecked on San 

Miguel, Channel Islands National 

Park, California. Paleo Research 

Labs Technical Report 99-24. 

Submitted to National Park Service 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit. 

Copies available from National Park 

Service, Santa Fe. 

Russell, M. A. 

1996 An Historical and Archaeological 

Investigation of Three Beached 

Shipwreck Scatters at Channel 

Islands National Park. Unpublished 

19 
Comet References 

Master’s thesis, Department of 

History, East Carolina University, 

Greenville. 

Ryder, D. W. 

1948 Memories of the Mendocino Coast. 

Privately Printed, San Francisco. 

Sun Francisco Call 

191 1 Launch Hit Schooner, Says Comet’s 

Captain. 28 February:30. San 

Francisco, CA. 

1911 Captain of Comet Erratic in Orbit. 2 

March: 12. SanFrancisco, California. 

1911 Salvage of Wrecked Boat Nets 

Purchasers Tidy Sum. 16 0ctober:l. 

San Francisco, California. 

Sun Francisco Chronicle 

1892 17 December. 

1892 30 December. 

1893 6 January. 

1893 12 January. 

1893 25 January. 

Santa Barbara Independent 

1911 

1911 

191 1 

Lumber Steamer Comet is Wrecked 

Near San Miguel. 1 September. 

Santa Barbara, California. 

Breakers Pounding Wreck into 

Kindling. 14 September. Santa 

Barbara, California. 

Wreck of Comet May Bring 

Lighthouse. 16 September. Santa 

Barbara, California. 

Santa Barbara Morning Press 

191 1 Congress Fails to Act; Another Wreck 

on Miguel. 2 September. Santa 

Barbara, California. 

1911 Comet’s Mate Drowned Trying to 

Board Wreck. 3 Septemberl. Santa 

Barbara, California. 

1911 Comet Wreck Sold to Owners of 

Santa Rosa. 22 September:8. Santa 

Barbara, California. 

Underhill, H. A. 

1958 Musting andRigging the Clipper Ship 

& Ocean Carrier. Brown, Son and 

Ferguson, Glasgow. 

1978 Sailing Ships Rigs and Rigging. 

Brown, Son and Ferguson, Glasgow. 

US Department of the Interior 

1986 National Register Bulletin 20: 

Nominating Historic Vessels und 

Shipwrecks to the National Register 

of Historic Places. National Park 

Service, Washington D.C. 

Vinnedge, R. W. 

1923 The Pacific Northwest Lumber 

Industry and Its Development. Yale 

University, School of Forestry, New 

Haven, Connecticut. 

Weinstein, R. A. 

1978 Tall Ships on Puget Sound: The 

Marine Photographs oj Wilhelm 

Ilester. University of Washington 

Press, Seattle. 

Williamson, J. and J. Gibbs 

1976 Maritime Memories of Puget Sound. 

Superior Publishing, Puget Sound, 

Seattle. 

80 
APPENDIX A 

Schooner Cornet 

81 
SCHOONER COMET 

CONTRACT NUMBER 49: 

Contract and specifications for building a three masted schooner at Port Blakely, W.T., 

between the following parties: 

F. P. Hooper, J. A. Hooper, C. Lass, parties of the first part and W. G. Hall of the second part. 

Said vessel to be of the following dimensions: 

DIMENSIONS: 

One hundred and thirty-six ft. keel, thirty-four ft. moulded beam and eleven ft. deep. 

TIMBER: 

Outside of stem, rudder post, bitts, (with the exception of pawl bitt) cleats, cavils, jaws to gaff 

and booms, trestle trees, cross-trees, pin rail in rigging and windlass to be of hardwood. The 

balance of wood, unless specified, to be of yellow fir 

KEEL: 

To be 16 x 17 inches, and 14 inches of keel and shoe below garboards. 

FRAME: 

Frame to be spaced 29 inches from centers and sided Len inches. Moulded 13 inches at keel 

and 6% inches at deck, with a stanchion on every frame. 

KEELSONS: 

Main keelson 16" x 20"; sister keelsons 14" x 18". Bed piece of sufficient depth to come to 

top of sister keelsons and sided 14". 

CENTER CASE: 

Center case to have an 8" opening, plank of case to be 8" thick. Case coppered to top of 

Keelson. 

82 
DECK FRAME: 

Deck beams to side 14" and mould 11 inches. To be secured to a clamp 11 inches in 

thickness, said clamp to be worked onto frame and bolted with 2-1" bolts in each and every 

frame, driven from outside and clinched. Beams to be let into said clamp 1". There shall be a 

piece of timber dovetailed between all the beams, within 1" of the top of the beam and flush with 

clamp, with the bolts in every piece driven from the outside and clinched. 

HANGING KNEES: 

Deck frame to have a hanging knee to each beam, where practicable. Knees to be fastened 

with 7/8" inch iron. Throat bolts one iron [sic]. 

CEILING 

Ceiling out of turn of bilge four inches, the lower strake of thick ceiling 10" and graduated in 

three strakes to 8", from thence to clamps 8", the two upper strakes scarphed. All thick ceiling 

edge bolted. 

PLANKING: 

Garboards 7" in thickness and graduated in 3 strakes to thickness of bottom plank, which 

shall be 4", wales 5", planksheer 5" in thickness; washboard flush with wales. Bulkwarks 2" 

thick, rail 5" , monkey chock and rail whole length of vessel. 

DECK: 

Deck 4 x 4"; quarter deck and housetop 3" x 3". 

FASTENING: 

Keel, keelsons, stem, stem post and deadwood to be fastened with 1%" and 1 1/8" iron. 

There shall be breast hooks and pointers forward and aft; also a breast hook above and below 

lumber port. Hooks and pointers fastened with 1" iron. Thick ceiling square fastened with 7/8" 

iron to bottom of hanging knees, from thence to clamps %" iron, enough driven from the inside to 

work the plank, the balance driven from the outside and clinched. 

83 
I 

OUTBOARD FASTENING: 

Garboards to be edge bolted to the keel. Planking to be worked with composition spikes to 

the wales, thence to plank sheer galvanzied iron. Planking to be square fastened wlth 1%" 

treenails, driven through to make square fastening and wedged on both ends. Treenails from turn 

of bilge to planksheer Locust. Fastenings for deck, housetop, bulwarks and stern to be 

galvanized, all other fastenings used in construction of said vessel, not specified as galvanized, to 

be of black iron. 

SALT: 

Vessel to be salted from lower edge of wales to deck. 

CAULKING: 

Six threads of oakum in garboards and hawsed, from thence to plank sheer four threads and 

hawsed, deck and housetop two threads. Center case six threads and hawsed. Seams on bottom 

cemented to water line, from thence to plank sheer white leaded. Deck pitched. Center case, two 

lower seams, cemented, the balance white leaded. 

PORTS: 

Vessel to have bow and stern ports. 

FORECASTLE & CABIN: 

Forecastle and cabin to be on deck, with water-closet and stationary wash-bowl complete 

Forward house to be adapted for donkey engine. 

PAINTING: 

Bottom two coats of Tar & Monsons copper paint, topsides and deck work two coats of paint. 

Spars oiled. 

STEERING GEAR, ETC: 

Vessel to have composition rudder braces, diamond cut screw steering gear, 24" windlass 

purchase. #3 capstan and patent traveler for spanker, spars to be in proportion to hull and all iron 

of the best quality and workmanship. 

84 
SAILS. RIGGING ETC: 

Standing rigging of wire, 4 shrouds each side for fore and mainmasts and 3 each side for 

mizzen mast 4" wire. Main jib stays double 4W wire. Topmast backstays 3%", middle and 

flying jib stays of wire. Halliards, throat and peak for foresail and mainsail to be 3%", the 

balance of running rigging to be in proportion to its use. 

BLOCKS: 

All blocks custom made. Throat, peak and jib halyards 15" steel rollers, the balance of the 

blocks in proportion. Boom tackle, reef tackle, watch tackle and cargo purchase complete. 

BOWSPRIT 

Outboard on bottom 19', diam and 16", outer bobstay 16W', inner bobstay 19%" and 18%", 

athwartships 9%" flat. 

JIBBOOM: 

Diam in cap 14". dim in hounds 13%", from cap to hounds 14%, from hounds to outer band 

15', diam hounds 8%" outside, diam of grommet 12" clear, diam. outer band 7%'' clear, outer 

jibstay hole 4, inside of outer band. Topmast stay hole 18" outside of hand. Pole 5', sliding iron 

9'. 

FOREMAST 

Diam 24", spider 20%", mast head ll', squares 16W and 13%", wythes 13 7/8" and 14%". 

MAIN MAST 

Length from top main rail to cap 78', diam 23", spider 19", mast head ll', squares 15%" and 

12%", wythes 12 7/8" and 13W'. 

MIZZEN MAST 

Diam 21%", spider 18", mast head ll', squares 15%" and 12W'. Wythes 12 7/8" and 13%". 

TOP MASTS: 

Fore topmast length 51', diam in cap 13", hounds 10 %" and 7", grommets 9" and 5 %", pole 8 

+ 5 = 13'. 

85 
Main and mizen topmasts length SI', diam in cap 12", hounds 10" and 6%", grommets 8%" 

and SW', pole 8+5=13'. 

BOOMS: 

Boom for jib 37', diam 8W', topping lift 7%" outside, clew 8", outer end 7%", sheet 8 1/8". 

Fore and main booms length 39' 6", diam lo%", topping lift 9%" outside, sheet lo%", clew 

10". 

Spanker boom length 50', sheet IIYz", clew 9%", topping lift 8" outside. 

GAFFS: 

Fore and main gaffs 37', diam 8%", bands 8 3/8", 8", 6 5/8" and 5". 

Spanker gaff 34', diam 8%", bands 8 3/8", 8", 6 5/8", and 5". 

HEEL HOOPS. ETC: 

Heel hoops 22Yz", 21%". 20". Fore sheet ring bolt 14%" W & W. 

Main sheet traveler 18" x 18" to key fore and aft. 

w: 

Fore and main masts rake W'. 

Misen masts rake 7/8". 

m: 

Sails to be of cotton duck, spanker, mainsail, foresail and jib to be No. 1, the balance of sails 

to be in proportion to their size and use. 

CHAINS, ANCHORS, ETC: 

One 1800 Ib. anchor, onc 1550 Ib. anchor, one 400 Ib. kedge, 60 fthms. of 1 3/8" chain; 60 

fthms. 1%" chain; 120 fthms. of 7" hawser, 120 fthms. 5"; 60 fthms. 6" wharf fast and one coil of 

3%" running line; chain cat stoppers and shank painters, tarpaulins and mast coats, galley 

fixtures, cabin furniture, carpet, table, chairs, clock and crockery. Lamps, cabin and state room 

lamps, side lights, mast head lights, galley and forecastle lamps. One spirit compass and one of 

86 
brass. Patent log, sounding lead and line. 1000 gallons of water casks. One 18' boat and oars, 

rigging screws marline spikes and ship's tools. 

Vessel to be fitted for sea for a coasting voyage, with the exception of provisions and 

bedding. Vessel to be launched on or before the 20th day of September 1886. 

In consideration of the fulfillment of the foregoing contract, the parties of the first part agree 

to pay to the party of the second part, the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) in U.S. Gold 

Coin, in the following payments, viz: 

$5000 

7500 

7500 

10000 

(Signed) 

On signing contract 

On July loth, 1886 

On Aug. loth, 1886 

When vessel is delivered at Port Blakely, W.T. 

(Signed) E P. & J. A. Hooper, 2/3rds 

C. E S. Lass, U3rd 

W. G Hall, 

Party of second part. 

87 

APPENDIX B 

Enrollment and Registration Data: 

Schooner Comet 

89 
ENROLLMENT AND REGISTRATION DATA: 

SCHOONER COMET 

Registry: 126379 

Built: Port Blakely, Washington, 1886 

Shipbuilder: Hall Brothers Shipyard 

Ownership: 1) Certificate of Rcgistry (no. 18) 

C.F.S. Lass (1/3) of Oakland; J.P. Hooper (1/3) and F.A. Hooper 

(1/3) of San Francisco 

C.F.S. Lass, Master 

First Registration 

Port Townsend, Washington 

19 Oct 1886 - 11 NOV 1886 

2) Certificate of Enrollment (no. 76) 

I1 Nov 1886 - 16 Sept 1889 

C.F.S. Lass, Master 

Change of home port 

Port of San Francisco 

Owners same 

3) Certificate of Registry (no. 2) 

Owners same 

16 Sept 1889 - 17 Feb 1890 

George G. Lovdall, Master (a1 time of registry) 

William Ternstrom, Master, 17 Feb 1890SD 

Change of trade 

Port of Eureka, CA 

4) Certificate of Enrollment (no. 6) 

Owners same 

17 Feb 1890 - 9 May 1895 

William Ternstrom, Master (at time of enrollment) 

H.P. Hallbeck, Master, 13 Dec 1893 SP 

William Ternstrom, Master, 16 Feb 1894SP 

Change of trade 

Port of San Diego 

90 
5) Certificate of Registry (no. 30) 

Owners same 

9 May 1895 - 11 June 1895 

William Temstrom, Master 

Change of trade 

Port Angeles, Washington 

6) Certificate of Enrollment (no. 16) 

Owners same 

11 June 1895 - 23 Feb 1905 

William Temstrom, Master (at time of enrollment) 

James McVicar, Master, 13 Feh 1896 SP 

L. Larsen, Master, 20 Dec 1896 PT 

WilliamTernstrom, Master, 6 Jan 1897 SP 

[information missing] 

F.E. Rensch, Master, 9 June 1904 LA 

John W. Manka, Master, 16 July 1904 

Change of trade 

Port of Los Angeles 

Certitificate of Enrollment (no. 151) 

John A. Hooper (1/3), F.A. Hooper (1/3), C.F.S. Lass (4/15), and John W. 

Manka (1115). 

23 Feb 1905 - 5 March 1907 

Otto Lembke, Master 

Change of owners in part and change of home port 

Port of San Francisco 

7) 

8) Certificate of Enrollment (no. 258) 

John A. Hooper (8/15), Isabel Nonvood (1/15), C.A. Hooper & Co. (1/15), 

C.F.S. Lass (4/15), Otto Lembke (1115) of Aberdeen, Wash. 

5 March 1907 - 1 March 1910 

Otto Lembke, Master (at time of enrollment) 

Nicolas Borgensen, Master, 28 Feb 1910SD 

Change of owners in part 

Port of San Francisco 

Liscence renewed: 

5 Feb 1908, Port Townsend 

5 Feb 1909, Port Townsend 

23 Feb 1910, San Diego 

91 
Certificate of Enrollment (no. 6) 

Nicolas Borgensen (1/15), others same. 

1 March 1910 - 27 May 1910 

Nicolas Borgensen, Master 

Change of owner in part 

Port of San Diego 

Certificate of Enrollment (no. 261) 

Owners same 

27 May 1910 - 30Aug 1911 

Nicolas Borgensen, Master 

Change of home port 

Port of San Francisco 

Documents Surrendered: San Francisco, 11 Sepl 1911 

Cause of Surrender: Vessel Lost, Stranded on San 

Miguel Island, CA, 30Aug 1911. 

92 
SUBMERGED RESOURCES CENTER REPORT AND 

PUBLICATION SERIES 

The Submerged Cultural Resources Unit was 

established in 1980 to conduct research on 

submerged cultural resources throughout the 

National Park System with an emphasis on 

historic shipwrecks. One of the unit’s primary 

responsibilities is to disseminate the results of 

research to National Park Service managers, as 

well as the professional community. A report 

series has been initiated in order to fulfill this 

responsibility. It has been incorporated into an 

umbrella series entitled Southwest Cultural 

Resources Center and Intermountain Cultural 

Resource Centers Professional Papers. The 

following are the categories: 

SUBMERGED CULTURAL 

RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 

First line document that consists of a brief 

literature search, an overview of the maritime 

history and the known or potential underwater 

sites in the park, and preliminary 

recommendations for long-term management. It 

is designed to have immediate application to 

protection and interpretation needs and to become 

a source document for a park’s Submerged 

Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

SUBMERGED CULTURAL 

RESOURCES SURVEY 

Comprehensive examination of blocks of park 

lands for the purpose of locating and identifying 

as much of the submerged cultural resources 

base as possible. A comprehensive literature 

search would most likely be a part of the Phase 

I report but, in some cases, may be postponed 

until Phase 11. 

Phase I - Reconnaissance of target areas 

with remote sensing and visual survey 

techniques to establish location of any 

archeological sites or anomalous features that 

may suggest the presence of archeological sites. 

Phase I1 - Evaluation of archeological 

sites or anomalous features derived from 

remote-sensing instruments to confirm their 

nature, and if possible, their significance. This 

may involve exploratory removal of overburden. 

SUBMERGED CULTURAL 

RESOURCES STUDY 

A document that discusses, in detail, all known 

underwater archeological sites in a given park. 

This may involve test excavations. The intended 

audience is managerial and professional, not the 

general public. 

SUBMERGED CULTURAL 

RESOURCES SITE REPORT 

Exhaustive documentation of one archeological 

site which may involve a partial or complete 

site excavation. The intended audience is 

primarily professional and incidentally 

managerial. Although the document may be 

useful to a park’s interpretive specialists because 

of its information content, it would probably not 

be suitable for general distribution to park 

visitors. 

93 
SUBMERGED CULTURAL 

RESOURCES SPECIAL REPORT 

These may be in published or photocopy 

format. Included are special commentaries, 

papers on methodological or technical issues 

pertinent to underwater archeology, or any 

miscellaneous report that does not appropriately 

fit into one of the other categories. 

SUBMERGED RESOURCES 

PROFESSIONAL REPORTS 

CENTER 

1. Daniel J. Lenihan, Toni L. Carrell, Stephen 

Fosberg, Larry Murphy, SandraL. Ray1 and John 

A. Ware. Final Report of the National reservoir 

Inundation Study. Two volumes. Submerged 

Cultural Resources Unit, 1981. 

2. Larry E. Murphy, Editor. Submerged 

Cultural Resources Survey: Portions of Point 

Reyes Nutionul Seushore and Point ReyesFarullon Islands National Marine Sanctuary. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1984. 

Originally published as Southwest Cultural 

Resources Center Professional Papers #1. 

3. Toni Carrell. Submerged Cultural Resources 

Inventory: Portions of Point Reyes National 

Seashore und Point Reyes-Furallon Islands 

National Murine Sanctuury. Submerged 

Cultural Resources Unit, 1984. Originally 

published as Southwest Cultural Resources 

Center Professional Papers #2. 

4. Toni Carrell. Submerged Cultural Resources 

Site Report: NOQUEBAY, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore. Submergcd Culturdl 

Resources Unit, 1985. Originally published as 

Southwest Cultural Resources Center 

Professional Papers #7. 

5. Daniel I. Lenihan, Editor. SubmergedCultural 

Resources Study: Isle Royale National Purk. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1987. 

Originally published as Southwest Cultural 

Resources Center Professional Papers #8. 

6. Toni Carrell, Editor. Submerged Cultural 

Resources Site Report: Charles H. Spencer 

Mining Operation and Paddle Wheel Steamboat, 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1987. 

Originally published as Southwest Cultural 

Resources Center Professional Papers #13. 

7. James P. Delgado and Stephen A. Haller. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Assessment: 

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Gulf of' 

the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and 

Point Reyes National Seashore. Submerged 

Cultural Resources Unit, 1989. Originally 

published as Southwest Cultural Resources 

Center Professional Papers #18. 

8. C. Patrick Labadie. Submerged Cultural 

Resources Study: Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore. Submerged Cultural Resources 

Unit, 1989. Originally published as Southwest 

Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers 

#22. 

9. Daniel J. Lenihan, Editor. Submerged 

Cultural Resources Study: USS Arizona 

Memorial and Pearl Harbor National Historic 

Landmark. Submerged Cultural Resources 

Unit, 1989. Originally published as Southwest 

Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers 

#23. 

10. Toni L. Carrell, Editor. Submerged Cultural 

Resources Assessment of Micronesia. 

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 1991. 

Originally published as Southwest Cultural 

Resources Center Professional Papers #36. 

94 
11. James P. Delgado, Daniel J. Lenihan and 

Larry Murphy. The Archeology of the Atomic 

Bomb: A Submerged Cultural Resources 

Assessment of the Sunken Fleet of Operation 

Crossroads at Bikini and Kwajalein 

Atoll Lagoons, Republic of the Marshall 

Islands. Submerged Cultural Resources Unit, 

1991, Originally published as Southwest 

Cultural Resources Center Professional 

Papers #37. 

12. Larry E. Murphy. 8SL17: Natural SiteFormation Processes of a Multiple- Component 

Underwater Site in Florida. Submerged 

Cultural Resources Unit, 1990. Originally 

published as Southwest Cultural Resources 

Center Professional Papers #39. 

13. Larry Murphy, Editor. Dry Tortugas 

National Park, Submerged Cultural Resources 

Assessment. Submerged Cultural Resources 

Unit, 1993. Originally published as Southwest 

Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers 

#45. 

14. Don Moms and James Lima. Channel 

Islands National Park and Channel Islands 

National Marine Sanctuary, Submerged 

Cultural Resources Assessment. Submerged 

Cultural Resources Unit, 1996. Originally 

published as Intermountain Cultural Resource 

Centers Professional Papers #56. 

15. Larry E. Murphy, Editor. H.L. Huidey 

Site Assessment. Submerged Cultural 

Resources Unit, 1998. Originally published as 

Cultural Resources Management Professional 

Papers #62. 

16. James E. Bradford, Matthew A. Russell, 

Larry E. Murphy and Timothy G. Smith. 

Yellowstone National Park Submerged 

Resources Survey. Submerged Resources 

Center, 2003. Cultural Resources Management 

Professional Papers #65. 

17. Matthew A. Russell. Comet Submerged 

Cultural Resources Site Report. Submerged 

Resources Center, 2003. 

95 
Mission: As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has 

responsibility for most of our nationally-owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. 

This includes fostering wise use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, 

preseving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and 

providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy 

and mineral reources and work to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our 

people. The Department also promotes the goals of the Take Pride in America campaign by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen responsibility for the public lands and promoting citizen 

participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under US Administration. 

96