Talk:Bristol Channel pilot cutter

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bristol Channel pilot cutter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170625223409/http://alphaventures.nl/ to http://www.alphaventures.nl/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623122543/http://pilotcutter.ca/ to http://www.pilotcutter.ca/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718191853/http://realboat.co.uk/ to http://www.realboat.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Many errors

This article is full of errors. For instance, a pilot cutter never went alongside a ship at sea. The pilot was transferred using the punt. (No, that is not the type of boat you find on the river at Cambridge.) Some decent references are needed, not stuff you can simply find on the internet. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Some work done on the article. Need to discuss the masts. Also performance - note that slow to windward, but comfortable hove to. Description of the accommodation might be good. Need to correct the reason for the demise - mostly the removal of competition by the pilotage authority. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is alarming to see that some 75% or so of this article is written by a user who has been blocked for copyright violation (Trident13). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Source for Cornish pilot gig

I have put a {{cn}} on a claim in the article Cornish pilot gig that pilot gig racing had its origin in pilots competing for jobs, as this sounded to me an unlikely story. I have been pointed at this article, which appears to confirm it. It seems likely to me that source no 1 here (Stuckey 1999) would be a satisfactory source for the claim in that article; but I haven't got that book, so I cannot cite it. Is there somebody here who has access to the book, and could check that article, and add the citation appropriately? (I'll put a note on that article's talk page as well). ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Accounts of pilots racing to get a job are a major part of the whole of Stuckey's book. For instance, pg 85 During the 1914-18 war we were racing for a hospital ship just below Barry Roads..., with the story explaining how the other pilot cutter set a topsail in strong winds, even though the author's boat had an unassailable lead. Unwisely, the author's boat did the same, which broke their mast, so the other boat won the job. The same situation occurred around the coast of Britain – pilots raced to get their work until Trinity House started to regulate pilotage and provided pilot cutters on station. This started early in the 20th century (I'd have to do a bit of digging to get some accurate dates for each region.) Then the pilot who got the job was the next in turn. There are better references for the Cornish pilot gig, for instance March, Edgar J. (1970). Inshore Craft of Great Britain in the Days of Sail and Oar. Vol. 2 (2005 ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 1-86176-269-0.</ref> pg 221: ...rival companies raced to secure orders for repair work at their shipyards, boarded pilots, took out cargo samplers.... For other mention of this on Wikipedia, see, for instance Yawl#Norfolk and Suffolk Beach Yawls.

I will add March as a reference to the Cornish pilot gig article later, as I probably need to read that bit of the source more thoroughly and I have to get a bit of work done now. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @ThoughtIdRetired. ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Categorisation of Bristol Channel pilot cutter

@ThoughtIdRetired Thanks. I’ve reviewed the article text, and while it describes a typical operating envelope, it does not establish a design-defined type. The article explicitly notes that “the only common feature [was] high bows” and that “hull shapes varied greatly”, with few surviving plans and significant variation between builders and boats. The lack of standardised hull form or repeatable design logic is emphasised. Per WP:CATDEF and WP:DIFFUSE, categories should be based on clear, objective defining characteristics rather than loose occupational or regional groupings. As written, Bristol Channel pilot cutter functions as a regional working-boat tradition, rather than a canonical sailboat type defined by a specific hull/rig combination. That does not preclude inclusion in regional, functional, or rig-based categories, but the article itself does not support treatment as a design-defined sailboat type. Cornellier (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You are right that the article does not make this clear. There certainly were hull variations, but the "type", in the sense of the combination of rig and hull is pretty well accepted in sources. I think a failing by all writing on the subject is that they tend to devote disproportionate space to the deviations from the norm. What is without doubt is that some aspects, such as the positioning of the forehatch offset to one side (to allow the bowsprit to be run in), the self-draining cockpit (unusual for the 19th century), the arrangement of an equipment store immediately down the companionway, before you got to the saloon, etc. Two sources that I believe are key are Stuckey, Peter J. (2000). The sailing pilots of the Bristol Channel (Rev. and enlarged ed.). Bristol: Redcliffe. ISBN 1-900178-32-X. and Cunliffe, Tom (2013). Pilot Cutters Under Sail: Pilots and Pilotage in Britain and Northern Europe. Havertown: Pen & Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-84832-154-0. You would also form the view that this is a definite type of sailing vessel from mentions in Cunliffe, Tom (2016). Hand, reef, and steer: traditional sailing skills for classic boats (2nd ed.). London: Adlard Coles Nautical. ISBN 978-1-4729-2522-0..

Of course, what these sources say may not be sufficient for your purposes. All I would add is that the modern version of the Mirror dinghy is substantially different from the first ones, (even the rig type, but also hull material and deck layout), but they are still the same type. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and informative remarks. I don’t dispute that sources treat the Bristol Channel pilot cutter as a distinct vessel type. My concern is that the article itself doesn’t currently summarise those defining characteristics clearly or prominently enough to support inclusion in Category:Sailboat types on its own. That said, I’m happy to leave the category in place ... would you be willing to expand the article to reflect that consensus in the literature, e.g. by summarising the defining hull/rig features you mentioned? My aim here is consistency between article content and categorisation, rather than excluding recognised types. Cornellier (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I am unlikely to be able to do any significant editing on this article in the near future as I am deeply involved in some researching and writing activity away from Wikipedia, and there is only so much of that one can do in a day. I also already have a substantial "to do" list within Wikipedia. I wouldn't want to hold up what you're doing in the meantime. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)