Winn's Mill picture

[bertsboat]

Found on eBay.

[Greg Guimond]

Why is it plural? Wyn's? Also, that deck fairing looks a little different.

[Morgan's Cloud]

Looks like a much different bottom than the one pictured here .


http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?70388-Wyn-Mill-for-sale!-The-one-that-started-it-all

[HallJ]

Could be the first one. That's definitely Jim driving it.

jeff

[Greg Guimond]

Jeff, wouldn't Jim Wynne have sported his full beard by then after crossing the Atlantic in an Outboard powered boat?

[woobs]

I'll bet that boat is made of wood.

[Greg Guimond]

I may be wrong but weren't both I and II made of wood? The more I look at that photo I don't think it is the I.

Bert, do you have the link to the Ebay ad?

[bertsboat]

Looks like a baby Fino hull right Jeff?

[Lenny]

FOLKS , THATS THREE STRAKES THERE

Glass ones only had 2.

I agree tho, that's Jim Wynn without a beard.

Sorry for the pic quality but it's 11:30 pm, it's dark, and there's bears and cougars out there and unfortunately, ... they all have four legs :)

[Just Say N20]

Maybe it's just me, but the gentleman in the picture appears to have a full beard.

[bertsboat]

Looks like a baby Fino hull right Jeff?


Looks similar

[woobs]

I may be wrong but weren't both I and II made of wood? The more I look at that photo I don't think it is the I.

Yes, both WM I and II were made of wood and this is picture is definitely not WM I or a Fino. It may be WM II but, don't forget that several boats were made in England from those WM plans. Only one was a "sister" but, several boats were derived from those plans.

[Greg Guimond]

Well Jim Wynne grew his infamous beard in 1958 after he made it across the Atlantic and put in at the 79th Street boat basin NYC where I will be in about 1 hour. So whatever the hull actually is it would have to be built late 1958 or after.

[Greg Guimond]

The more I look at it I think it is a Haines Hunter. Wynne was probably doing some testing for them down under 1958 or later.

[woobs]

The more I look at it I think it is a Haines Hunter. Wynne was probably doing some testing for them down under 1958 or later.

Really? Look at the Wynn Mill drawings and compare them to "that" boat. Other than the deck fairing.... it's a definitely Wynn Mill II built from these plans.

[Greg Guimond]

Hmmm, so you are thinking that 'ol Jim W worked with one of the British builders to produce a boat from the Wynn Mil 2 plans that you posted above and then decided to use a different deck? Could be as I lay the boat over the plans but why is it sporting Florida tags? In fact, that can't be a Haines for the very same reason as I think of it. And it would also have to be later than 1958 and before 1963.

Can you get a wood hull to deliver that crisp a hull strake? Those things look razor sharp in Berts photo.

[woobs]

Hmmm, so you are thinking that 'ol Jim W worked with one of the British builders to produce a boat from the Wynn Mil 2 plans that you posted above and then decided to use a different deck? Could be as I lay the boat over the plans but why is it sporting Florida tags? In fact, that can't be a Haines for the very same reason as I think of it. And it would also have to be later than 1958 and before 1963.
Can you get a wood hull to deliver that crisp a hull strake? Those things look razor sharp in Berts photo.

Well, it is documented that the W-W team worked with Souters Marine in Cowes at the very least (possibly other European builders too). Further, it's documented that the WM I has a direct sister and at least two derivations. I find it hard to believe that if you have the plans to a winner that you stop building it.

I didn't say the boat above is a UK vessel. But it is certainly from the WM II plans. The deck could just be a modification after the fact (as race teams do) to improve the breed. Maybe that's when it got a new coat of paint and a name change (pure conjecture :) )

The tumblehome on the Haines does not match. Wood strakes can be very crisp... even more so than fg.

The boat below was built from WM plans as a recreational family boat. Check out the bow pic and specifically the strakes.

[bertsboat]

I didn't say it was a Fino, I said bottom similar to a Fino.


Yes, both WM I and II were made of wood and this is picture is definitely not WM I or a Fino. It may be WM II but, don't forget that several boats were made in England from those WM plans. Only one was a "sister" but, several boats were derived from those plans.

[HallJ]

Also......nobody said it was a Wynn-Mil.

[Greg Guimond]

It has Florida numbers painted on it so it can't be a Haines (Aus) and it can't be a UK Souter. Wynne has a beard (thx for the blown up pic) so it has to be early 1959 or later.

What the heck do we think it is?

[woobs]

What the heck do we think it is?

Well, I'll go out on a limb here and say it is the Wynn-Mill II... It matches the plans, the time frame, the racing number "15" and the driver. Maybe, it's after the Paris photo and she's had a repaint.

What is out of place is the fairing, and that could be an addition/update/development (oh, and what a great time for a "freshening up" repaint) :) Also, note in the Paris "hero" shot the plastic windscreen which is not on the "action" shot. ***note 3 pictures, 3 different liveries.


831978319883199

Do we actually know what happened to the original WM II?

[woobs]

Now as to another question... Because it's registered with FLA tags does not mean it was built in the U.S.A., or not built in England for that matter.

Look behind the fairing to the "canvas hatch" covering access in front of any windscreen. This feature is commonly found on the Cowes-Torquay racers.... and seen in this particular WMII photo in question.
8320183200

[bertsboat]

On both boats the lifting ring and the running light is different spots.

[woobs]

I dunno, the lifting ring looks the same to me as does the fuel fill. As for navigational lights... well if you're modifying a deck for a fairing (or removing one) what's a couple of wood screws?

Are we sure that's not a "vent" in the racing "action" picture?

[Greg Guimond]

Keeping in mind that this is 50 years ago, why would you register a boat in Florida if it were being run in Europe?

[woobs]

If you're from Florida... and flying "Old Glory" while you compete internationally, why wouldn't you have your boat registered at home?

Also, it's possible they brought the WMII home and ran it in the USA...

[Greg Guimond]

Hmmm ........... I could sign off on that.

Why the plural name? Wyn's? Perhaps some play on words to Win's (races)

Also, Bert's probably old enough as a home grown Floridian to put a date stamp on the year of the Florida tags given the number of digits post 1958.

[woobs]

Hmmm ........... I could sign off on that.

Why the plural name? Wyn's? Perhaps some play on words to Win's (races)

Also, Bert's probably old enough as a home grown Floridian to put a date stamp on the year of the Florida tags given the number of digits post 1958.

As all this is pure conjecture... maybe it is possessive (not plural), as it is THE "Wynn Mill" boat that brought home Jim's bacon as opposed to all the other Wynn Mill builds. Jim's boat?

Good call on the Reg # date!

[bertsboat]

Still looks the same?


I dunno, the lifting ring looks the same to me as does the fuel fill. As for navigational lights... well if you're modifying a deck for a fairing (or removing one) what's a couple of wood screws?

Are we sure that's not a "vent" in the racing "action" picture?

[bertsboat]

I am running the numbers. I will advise

[olredalert]

----Leave it to Bert, "The Donzi Detective".......Bill S

[woobs]

Here's another Cowes-Torquay competitor. Blue Moppie is a Bertram that also sported Florida tags
83206

[BUIZILLA]

I don't think the FL registrations are a big deal overseas at a later point

they would have had to register them to be able to use them legally for testing or whatever, on the waterways around here anyway

[woobs]

I don't think the FL registrations are a big deal overseas at a later point they would have had to register them to be able to use them legally for testing or whatever, on the waterways around here anyway

This is exactly my point. FL tags in Europe are not a big deal so, with respects to the WMII picture, they are a non-issue and cannot be used to assume location.

[Greg Guimond]

How about that life vest that Jim Wynne is wearing in the picture. Is that European issue with the neck surround? Would an EMEA issued life vest be different than a USCG issued?

[bertsboat]

The Orange bowl Regatta

[Greg Guimond]

So I was right, it was after 1958. Finding the race sign up and results list for the 1961 OB Regatta is easy but I really only care about 1964 timelines so I'm out on anything that occurred in 1961.

[bertsboat]

Here is it again in a Volvo ad

[jl1962]

Good work, Bert.

[woobs]

Yes, nice finds!

It is interesting to note that the Wynn Mill II plans at Mystic show a July 20, 1962 date and we know that the Wynn Mill II was in competition in 1961...

How do we square that circle?

83210

[bertsboat]

Odd information
Registered in 1966 to Barr Lomis 1160 NE 96ST Miami Shores FL
Manufacture: Abbey
What do you make of that?

[HallJ]

Jim's Wynne Mill was built by Howard Abbey.
Ask Brownie, he was there building it right beside him.

Jeff

[bertsboat]

Jeff, I will in the morning then I'll call you.

[woobs]

Jim's Wynne Mill was built by Howard Abbey.
Ask Brownie, he was there building it right beside him.Jeff

Okay Howard Abbey.... but, 1966?83224

[HallJ]

When boats are only used for racing they don't need a registration.
The second owner used it for recreation and therefore registered it and was the last person to do so. Jim May have registered it but was not the last person.

Jeff

[woobs]

That makes sense. So, the picture is much later than the boats racing "hey day" then.

Is there any way to find out what happened to this boat? Does it still survive?

[bertsboat]

That was a 1966 registration not the boat
I didn't catch the year or vin. Going to check that
QUOTE=woobs;660582]Okay Howard Abbey.... but, 1966?83224[/QUOTE]

[pipnit]

Why is it plural? Wyn's? Also, that deck fairing looks a little different.

It's possessive.

[woobs]

It's possessive.

see post #28

[pipnit]

see post #28


Yup, I read that. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. It's not really a subjective matter, it's rules of grammar. If it was Plural, it would be: Wyns. The 's shows possession. :)

[Ghost]

Agreed entirely, there's not much ambiguity in the grammar unless the apostrophe was intended to represent one or more missing letters, as in a contraction like: you're (meaning 'you are') where the apostrophe replaces the 'a' that is missing. (My speculation is that in #28, Woobs was pointing out the same thing but perhaps just treading a bit lightly.)

Given the context here, the substitution usage of the apostrophe doesn't appear to make any sense no matter how creative one gets with what it might be replacing. It all but certainly is possessive. Essentially, it meant it was Jim's boat. And absolutely nothing to do with plural at all. That's right out.

<aside: It's amazing how polluted apostrophe usage has become over the last 10-15 years. When the day comes that some clown lobs out the idea that because language evolves, now we can properly use apostrophes to represent plurals as well as possessives... ...can we all agree to beat him to death with a sock full of pennies?" :) >

[pipnit]

Agreed entirely, there's not much ambiguity in the grammar unless the apostrophe was intended to represent one or more missing letters, as in a contraction like: you're (meaning 'you are') where the apostrophe replaces the 'a' that is missing. (My speculation is that in #28, Woobs was pointing out the same thing but perhaps just treading a bit lightly.)

Given the context here, the substitution usage of the apostrophe doesn't appear to make any sense no matter how creative one gets with what it might be replacing. It all but certainly is possessive. Essentially, it meant it was Jim's boat. And absolutely nothing to do with plural at all. That's right out.

<aside: It's amazing how polluted apostrophe usage has become over the last 10-15 years. When the day comes that some clown lobs out the idea that because language evolves, now we can properly use apostrophes to represent plurals as well as possessives... ...can we all agree to beat him to death with a sock full of pennies?" :) >



Yes, the misuse of the language has sky rocketed since the internet and more recently texting.

Wynn's can't be a contraction of anything.

I simply saw it as this is "Wynn's Mill" I refer to a motor as a Mill sometimes.