15' Chestnut #C2542

[DWR]

Can anyone help here? I have a canoe with half a Chestnut decal remaining, #C2542. The dimensions don't seem to match any model listed. It's 15' long, 33" wide, 13" deep, and weighs 58 pounds.

According to the seller, the 15' Pleasure model was only 12" deep by 33' wide while the Prospector was 13.5" deep, 35" wide and weighs 70lbs -- close, but no cigar. Tx.

 

[DWR]

No response ... Any suggestions?

If no one knows about this canoe, can you tell me how to go about finding out? Or is it unknowable? Tx.

 

[Dan Lindberg]

Dwr,

I assume you already looked at Dan Miller's site, Dragonfly Canoe, or looked in Selway's Chestnut book or other listings of models?

Really can't help but folks do look at the postings.

Maybe one of the Canadian canoe guru's will chime in.

Dan

 

[DWR]

A Twoser, a Pal, a ...??

I did look at some of those references. I thought maybe it was a Prospector, which I read somewhere can be 15' but is beamier and deeper than the pleasure models. However the ribs are 1-1/2", which I gather is narrower than on a Prospector, and also spaced about 1-1/2 or 1-3/4.

I did see online copies of some Chestnut canoe catalogs (which I can't seem to find again) but none of the 15' canoes were as deep, 13-1/2", or were 33" wide or weighed about 58 pounds.

 

[Dan Lindberg]

Looks like a nice canoe.

I don't know much about C, but I suspect it's not a P, they are just wider and fuller.

As for the narrow ribs, if I understand correctly from reading the info posted here in the past, Chestnut often offered both the std wide ribs and the narrow ones on the same basic models, likely to use less then ideal wood stocks.

Check out this site, can't remember who's it is, Dick's or Jack's?
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=5725889&uid=2290695

Dan

 

[Kathryn Klos]

Went through the Chestnut catalogs on the "Canadian Wood Canoe and Boat Company Catalog Collection" CD and couldn't find anything with statistics that matched across the board... but I've heard the catalogs (in general, not specifically Chestnut) can be notoriously off, when compared to the actual boat.

Attached is one of the catalog pages with numbers that came close. As already discussed, models that seemed a logical match were beamier (in the catalog, at least).

I'll poke through the other Canadian companies and see if anything floats to the surface.

Kathy

 

[DWR]

Helpful, but ...

Dan, that site you listed is the one I looked at before but couldn't find a second time. Several are close, but not identical: 1957 Chum except it's 13" deep, not 12", and 58lbs not 65lbs; 1971 Doe except it's 33" not 34" wide and 13" not 12" deep; and 1976 Doe except 33" not 34" wide and 13" not 12-1/2" deep.

The rib width isn't necessarily definitive of the model? Is anything?

Kathy, the Twozer or Gooseberry seem about right, but this one is 13" deep not 11". Also, while it's been restored I'd also be surprised if it's that old, 1922. I have a phone number for a relative of the man who owned it. He supposedly doesn't know much about it, but he might be able to say more or less how old it is.

Doug

 

[Dick Persson]

Hi Doug,

Over time most canoes round-out a little in the bottom, sometimes as much as an inch. We know that the measurements and weights presented in the catalogs were not that accurate. The discrepancy in weight could in part, possibly, be accounted for by a light weight canvas and filler.

Several details on your canoe point to a late 1950’s or early 1960’s building date.

I would not be surprised if your canoe is a Chestnut Chum from ca 1958 to 1960.

Dick Persson
Headwater Wooden Boat Shop

 

[DWR]

This morning I spoke with the previous owner, who said he thought his grandfather brought the canoe down from New Brunswick around 1950. Given the way people remember things that could be 1958-60.

Thanks for the comments.

---
Doug

 

[davelanthier]

I have stacks of shortened Chestnut caned seats. It was a very common practice to shorten the thwarts and seats. This made the canoe faster by decreasing the width, increasing the depth and rounding out the bottom. The down side was that a lot of stability was lost. Quite possibly this was done to your canoe.

 

[DWR]

Thanks. That would explain how and why it would be deeper.

Meanwhile, I emailed someone who owned a 15' Chum. He said his, too, was deeper than the specs in the catalog indicated.