When is a schooner not?

I've seen several different answers to this question; the terminology seems to vary from time to time and from country to country.  Generally, though, I think that, in American usage, a "brigantine" has square sails on the foremast, fore-and-aft sails on the mainmast, and no fore-and-aft-rigged foresail.  Whereas a "schooner" has fore-and-aft sails (with or without a boom, in the case of the foresail), and virtually any configuration of square sails on either or both masts.

I think the British say a "schooner" has square sails on the fore- and mainmasts (or just the foremast); they call a two-masted vessel with only fore-and-aft sails a "fore-and-aft schooner."

Something tells me we haven't heard the last on this topic.

And we have not.....

If the Ship has top gallants and royals on the formast and no other square sails and it has two masts it is known as a topsail schooner.  If it has 3 masts and only topgallant and royals on the formast it is a 3 masted topsail schooner.  A barquentine  has royal/topgallant down to the fore clew garnet(Main).

What's really weird is the five masted two topsail schooner.  Kinda a schooner and square rigger morph.

Not quite.  Plenty of eighteenth-century topsail schooners (as Americans would call them; the British would simply call them schooners) didn't set a topgallant or royal - or even a course - on the foremast.  Sometimes, as the term implies, just a topsail.  And an eighteenth-century (or early nineteenth-century) schooner might well carry topsails and topgallants on both masts.  For an example, see the famous Sultana (square sails on both masts) or the Prince de Neufchatel (full set of sails on the foremast, and one on the mainmast). 

I really think the big distinction - in most places and in most periods - is whether there are gaff-rigged sails on both masts.  If yes, it's a schooner (or, if there are square sails on the foremast, and if you're talking to an American, topsail schooner.  If no, it's a brig (if there are square sails on both masts), a snow (if the boom-rigged mainsail is set to a "snow mast," just aft of the mainmast itself) or a brigantine (if there are no square sails on the mainmast).

But, as I noted earlier, different contemporary sources contain different definitions - and British sources differ from American ones.  (The British, it seems, generally don't use the term "topsail schooner"; some American sources do and some don't.)  And when we get into non-English-speaking countries, the topic becomes pretty hopeless.

The good news is that usage of the word "schooner" isn't as complicated as that of the word "sloop."  The permutations of that one, and the distinction between "sloop" and "cutter," go all over the place.  (There's at least one case in which the British Navy reclassified a vessel from "cutter" to "sloop" because the commanding officer got promoted from lieutenant to commander.  And then there were the American revenue cutters, nearly all of which were rigged as topsail schooners.  Heaven help us.)

Then disregard what I said.

Some vessels are simply identified by the rake of the mast..and that alone is the qualification for its nomenclature. With everything else being equal.  Where did I hear that:  From my grandfather who was  coastal schooner seaman.

And it goes on.

I agree with Dr. Tilley in that the definition of "schooner" is based on fore and aft sails associated with all masts. They can be gaff rigged or "staysail" (popular in the early/mid 20th century) rigged. In a staysail rig, the "fore " is actually suspended from the main stay with a lower boom attached at the foremast.

A little clarification though - in a "snow" I believe that the mainsail is square rigged, bent from, what on a brig is known as the "crossjack" or "cro'jack" of the main mast, not the fore and aft gaff/boom.  A fore and aft sail is bent from a gaff attached to a "try mast" or "trysail mast", mounted just aft of the main mast, as Dr. Tilley describes - but the fore and aft sail is not considered the "main" on a snow as it is on a brig.

I would also ask Don, if by "razee" sail he actually means a "raffee".   I have never heard of the term "razee" used other than fore a cut down ship of the line - but, of course this may not be the first time in the past hour that I have learned something new.

We used to fly a quadrilateral - almost triangular - raffee with a very short boom, set flying, at the top of the foremast of the 1920's era staysail schooner "Talofa".  The  @#$% thing was as quirky as a spinnaker to set. The closest thing to a "diamond" shaped sail was flown between the main and foremast and was known as a "fisherman". Another odd shaped sail was known as a "watersail" and was rigged close to the waterline by an assortment of improvised contraptions.

schoonerbumm

I would also ask Don, if by "razee" sail he actually means a "raffee".   I have never heard of the term "razee" used other than fore a cut down ship of the line - but, of course this may not be the first time in the past hour that I have learned something new.

Yeah, I sometimes type too fast and what comes out is not what I mean :-)

Of course, I realize Great Lakes nautical terminology can be weird anyway.  Where else is a thousand foot vessel a "boat."

I think Schoonerbum's right in all respects.  I've also seen that little vertical spar aft of the mainmast called a "snow" mast ("snow" being pronounced to rhyme with "thou.")  I've seen the lowest square sails of a brig referred to as the "fore course" and "main course," with the big gaff-rigged sails called the "foresail" and "mainsail," respectively.

There's really no consistent "right" or "wrong" answer to such questions.  Look hard enough and you'll find plenty of examples in historical documents of terms used by different people to mean different things - at different times.

Then what I said was just as correctly ambiguous as every other response.......we're all correct.

So the original question leads to more disagreement then unification.......resulting in...............?

Underhill makes the distinction between barquentine and topsail schooner by observing the foremast.  If the fore mast is only mast and topmasts, then a schooner; it tripartite, mast, topmast, and t'gallant masts, then a barquentine.  

He also allows that there is (and was) a  great variety in terminology--something he brings up in the two-topsail schooner description.

CapnMac82

Underhill makes the distinction between barquentine and topsail schooner by observing the foremast.  If the fore mast is only mast and topmasts, then a schooner; it tripartite, mast, topmast, and t'gallant masts, then a barquentine.  

He also allows that there is (and was) a  great variety in terminology--something he brings up in the two-topsail schooner description.

Ah!  Had not looked at Underhill.  Then these vessels are indeed schooners by that definition- only two sections of the mast.

Underhill was one of the best experts around when it came to his particular field of expertise:  British merchant vessels of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  I hadn't heard that distinction based on the number of mast sections before, but I certainly believe him. 

And, of course, he's right in observing that there are huge variations in terminology.  What we're talking about here is really the way the terms were used by sailors, who, I venture to suspect, rarely if ever consulted dictionaries.

And in addition to all of the schooner definitions I have just learned, I now know the correct pronunciation of "snow" in the nautical sense. Thank you, gentlemen!

Lee

In some fairness, I had noticed my copy of Masting & Rigging out--the post-it note book mark striking quizzical--and thus had the test refreshed in my mind.  Serendipity brought this thread the very next day.

jtilley

  And, of course, he's right in observing that there are huge variations in terminology.  What we're talking about here is really the way the terms were used by sailors, who, I venture to suspect, rarely if ever consulted dictionaries.

We might have to include chandlers and insurance agents in the queue--persons sometimes over-possessed of their own self-value, and with access to "ink by the barrel" to leave their findings to posterity. 

I have a memory--vaguely held, as many memories of read material can be, decades' later--of reports that the scribes at Lloyd's of London would read the reports of nautical & maritime surveyors, and would strike out the surveyor's type name for a given ship, and substitute whatever term-of-art the transcriber was wont to use instead.

Which might explain why we have both Bark and Barque a la mode français.

Make a person consider that so many of the "rules" are only so because someone wrote them down so.  Which is why reading Underhill makes a good contrast to Chappell or the like.  (All of which--even that of my late, and oft lamentable, friend Milt Roth--far better than the scribnings of the International Code Council <sigh>.)

It's nice to know that at the end of all of this talk...I was still correct....chuuuuching.

If that even matters.

Rob