Thompson vs Lyman restoration

[PeterZ]

All

Don't mean to start a Thompson vs Lyman war here, ... but have a restoration question. I have been looking for a Thompson for a while and was set on an Offshore (1960-1965 ish) outboard and have been reading this forum for quite some time on how to restore one. What I like most about the Thompson is the ability to 'easily' take it apart, seal the wood, apply proper adhesives between the planks/strakes and re-assemble with screws, machine screws and nuts. Doing this properly will yield a water tight boat, ... I believe I read this from many of you.

Recently I have come across an interesting Lyman inboard for auction at the Clayton boat show in NY and was somewhat interested in it (no Thompson offshores for auction there ). I started reading forums on how to refurbish the Lyman's and I see that the boat uses screws to secure the strakes to the frames and clinch nails between frames (where Thompson uses machine screws and nuts). To me, the Lyman design seems like a design waiting to fail over time as the boat twists and moves, hence loosening the holding power of the clinch nail. The forum for Lyman on re-clinching seemed to have a different tone than the Thompson threads on refastening strakes. On the Lyman no one seems to talk about taking the strakes completely off, stripping, sealing and re-assembling with calk/adhesive between the strakes. They talk about 're-clinching' the nails (beating them with a hammer/nail set and a steel block on the inside) and tightening the screws, and if need be run a bead of calk at the lap of the strakes (not between the laps as you would if you took the strakes completely off and then re-assembled). This seems prone to failure to me and I would be back at it a few years later, ... then again, how many times can you 're-clinch' a nail. There seems to be a tone in the forum that leaking is kind of par for the course with the clinch system and you want to wet the boat so it will swell (not everyone says this, but some have - again, no wars please!!). One thing I have learned in Dockside forum is that the boat doesn't, or shouldn’t, need 'wetting/swelling' because its plywood built and should be dimensionally stable and you want to keep water out. So if it leaks, you need to dis-assemble, seal, apply calk/adhesive and re-fasten.

So what is the opinion of the Lyman construction and the ability to fix it versus the Thompson restoration. Seems to me that the Thompson is a better design in terms of wanting to perform a re-fasten, and have it stay water tight for a long time versus the Lyman. Am I off base here?

How do you even remove a clinched nail with out damaging the strake and frame if you wanted to re-fasten the Lyman? Probably not a question for you Thompson guys.

Thanks for any inputs. Again, I am not trying to pit one brand versus another, I like the styles of both, its the restoration and longevity I am wondering about.

Regards
Boatless Pete

p.s. I think I like the hunt but not the kill, ... look at a lot of boats but don't jump in!

[Phill Blank]

Boatless Pete,

I would think that the clinch nail system would be as you say hard to properly seal the strakes on a restoration.

Only way I could see removing the nails would be to use a smalll disc grinder or sharp nosed wire cutter. If they used nails with roves or burrs grinding off the burr or rove would be relatively easy, I would think. With out the rove or burr one would be grinding into the wood to get to unbent nail.

I like the Thompson system of bolting rather then nailing.
Nailing would have been a cheaper and faster way of building the boat. As the old saying goes "You get what you pay for".

That is my opinion.

Good Luck,

Phill

[LancerBoy]

You hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Yes, Lyman boats are more difficult to restore. The clinch nail system is a pain. From what I understand, they dig out the putty on the outside of the hull covering the nail. Then they grind off the head of the nail and use an awl or ice pick to shove the remainder of the nail thru the hull into the interior of the boat.

Don Danenberg describes this on his forum. Apparently some of the Chris-Craft Sea Skiff lapstrake boats were clinch nailed. Thompson Boat and Cruisers, Inc. did make some lapstrake hulls with clinch nails. I know Cruisers, Inc. had an order from Sears for hundreds of boats in the 1950s and they decided to clinch nail 'em lieu of bolts.

Bolted is better in my humble opinion.

Andreas

[Torchie]

Have owned and worked on Lyman's and am currently restoring a 1955 Thompson Off Shore. Clinch nails are a PITA(pain in the a**). Plus Lyman's tended to use more veneer woods. Transoms, Dash,Windshields and engine covers were not solid Mahagony. At least not on the ones that I have worked on. Don't get me wrong they are great boats but as much as I have loved the Inboards I am really loving working on my Thompson with the twin outboards.
Plus the Lyman's tend to be higher priced at resale which makes them less affordable to us "average" hobbiest/restorers.
As far as the legend of having to swell all wooden boats goes, well.... No Comment
Karl.

[john]

If I found a Lyman I liked, and I do like many of their boats, I would simply remove the nails and put it back together with nuts and screws as Cruiser's were built!

Would not be orginal, but most likely better!

[thegammas]

My two cents -
I prefer outboards simply for the ease of servicing/swapping the engine (ex: pick it off the back and wheel it to the shop for work or winter storage) and I don’t like fact that inboards take up so much interior space.

Also agree with John - if I were to refasten a cinch nailed boat, I'd most definitely refasten with screws or bolts unless I was going for a concourse boat (whicvh I never will be, LOL) .... I can imagine what a PITA it must be to remove 1000s of cinch nails. But if I were, I'd probably take the approach of flipping the boat, remove the hull paint, pop out the nail head filler, drill (not grind) out the nail head, push the nail in with a punch, grab it from the inside and extract, then refasten with a silicon bronze screw that is just one size bigger than the nail. When I say drill out the nail head, I mean drill the center of the head till you hit the shank, releasing the shank from the head, vs. using a bit size that removes the entire head. Sounds straight forward, no clue if it would work well.

Last piece of pontification. Plywood boats should not have to swell to be leak free. If they are, then water is likely getting into the interior plys of the plywood, setting up the environment for rot spore and delamination. But then again, my Cortland leaks plenty. Just not this year, since it’s not even been out of the garage.

[Torchie]

The idea of switching the nails for bolts and nuts sounds interesting but i am not sure that it would work. First off you would have to drill all of the nail holes to accept the bolts. Also not sure that there would be enough wood edge left on the strake to make it strong enough. (does that make sense?). Refastening any type of wood boat is a process no matter what the make. I can't even tell you how many hours I have spent picking out bungs to refasten Chris Crafts or Centurys. That's why I used to have a radio in the shop.
And as far as the swelling of wooden boats goes I agree with you Peter S. That is why I posted my original remark about the legend of swelling up wooden boats. Looked at a 62 Sea Lancer earlier this summer and as I was sliding my 300 lb- one legged self under the trailer to look at the bottom of the boat the owner says, "She only leaks until the bottom swells up. Just like all wooden boats"