[Closed] The Mary Rose ship - has it been worth the money ?

I just watched it too and thought the same, it wasn't designed to last all these years and I don't think we're any better off for having it around.

Build replica, put original in storage somewhere.

Put Archaeology funding back decades as sponsors expected a complete ship with sails and flags flying to emerge. Not a broken up bit of hull.

This on the other hand:
http://www.vasamuseet.se/en

Part of me thinks it is fantastic that they have been able to preserve even the bit they have. On the other hand, it would have been almost more impressive for them to have built a replica, and sailed it.

They did this with an old trading ship belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, and sailed it across the Atlantic before building a whole museum around it in my home town.

This is it (called the Nonsuch):

[img] [/img]

back decades as sponsors expected a complete ship with sails and flags flying to emerge. Not a broken up bit of hull.
This on the other hand:
http://www.vasamuseet.se/en

Wow, what a story, thanks for posting, not heard of this.

Now I haven't seen the programme (will search it out) but I am very pleased the project has been completed. History isn't all about replicas, yes they have a part but the "real thing" has huge value. TheMary Rose was a very important ship and the way it was lost is part of history too. As foe the money its spent on a variety of things including skilled craftsmen and relearning lost skills. This has huge value too. I have to admit I am a "boat nut" and love maritime museums and build projects, the museum at Mystic in New England is fabulous foe that, it all has a place.

This was a ship worth putting in a museum:

[img] [/img]

The Mary Rose, not so much

Yep should just torch it. Save the forensic historians of the future from learning new stuff and passing on that knowledge.

Thoughts? Singletrack user IQ had fallen sharply in the past few years.

It's about the same as the Cutty Sark restoration.

Which is an amazing boat with a history to match and easily worth it.

I think it looks amazing... And I love the bravado of the whole project, I remember seeing it on TV when they brought it up.

Vasa is a more impressive exhibit but it's over a hundred years younger and a totally different kettle of fish.

johnnystorm - Member

Put Archaeology funding back decades as sponsors expected a complete ship with sails and flags flying to emerge. Not a broken up bit of hull.

Was archaeology funding dependant on sponsors being gobsmackingly stupid and completely uninformed? What else upset them- "You said you were going to dig up Richard the 3rd of England but it turned out to be just some dead guy!"

What else upset them- "You said you were going to dig up Richard the 3rd of England but it turned out to be just some dead guy!"

He might be dead but at least he can still ****ing talk

That video is pretty amazing! I'm totally convinced!

It's not just the Mary Rose, it's the huge number of artefacts that were preserved along with her, and which have been undergoing parallel preservation, from which archaeologists and historians have learned an enormous amount about the lives of the ordinary people who crewed her, and who's lives are seldom ever recorded in any sort of detail.
That sort of knowledge is priceless, and adds the the sum total of human knowledge and preserved history.
Or we could just bin it and piss around playing Pokemon Go like a bunch of six year olds. 🙄

On the other hand, it would have been almost more impressive for them to have built a replica, and sailed it.

Nice idea, except that a replica wouldn't have sailed far. It was badly refitted, which is why it sank 🙂

It was badly refitted, which is why it sank

I thought all the lifeboats were still in place and the table was set for dinner?

Northwind said:

Was archaeology funding dependant on sponsors being gobsmackingly stupid and completely uninformed? What else upset them- "You said you were going to dig up Richard the 3rd of England but it turned out to be just some dead guy!"

In short yes, expectations were not very well managed. Allied to that the whole business of having to spend a lifetime continually spraying it with polyethylene glycol to preserve it. Wooden ships stored under mud in cold anaerobic conditions will last thousands of years. Pull them out of the mud and the rot literally sets in. If you really want to learn about a range of old ships it's better to study them and then put them back where you found them. The millions saved can then be used to find and study other shipwrecks.

We haven't learnt anything extra by putting the actual ship on display just spent a lot of money doing so. I appreciate it's more interesting seeing 'the real thing' but in pure terms of what's been discovered it adds little having it sat there once you've looked at it in detail.

Archaeology's problem is that "fact" is established on what you find. So "tudor ships were built like this" is based on what we learnt from the Mary Rose, rather than "this is what we discovered from looking at a number of vessels".

Worth event penny certainly far more than knocking up a replica, what's the point in that?

I remember if featuring in Blue Peter when they started to prepare to raise it until they finally did, that was almost 40 years ago. So it's cost just over a million per year to bring her back, not bad I'd say.

Worth event penny certainly far more than knocking up a replica, what's the point in that?

Because you can actually see an actual ship sail rather than look at half a hull and thereby really learn about what the vessel, life on board, etc was like.

I remember if featuring in Blue Peter when they started to prepare to raise it until they finally did, that was almost 40 years ago. So it's cost just over a million per year to bring her back, not bad I'd say.

So for £40,000,000 you have one fragment of a fairly well-documented vessel that will also cost a million a year for evermore to maintain. By excavating, documenting, then returning you could then spend the million per year on discovering other vessels and thereby truly expanding our knowledge on maritime history.

Because you can actually see an actual ship sail rather than look at half a hull and thereby really learn about what the vessel, life on board, etc was like.

Why would I want to do that when we can see the real thing,

Let's build a new Roman Wall instead of preserving the he one we've got.

So for £40,000,000 you have one fragment of a fairly well-documented vessel that will also cost a million a year for evermore to maintain. By excavating, documenting, then returning you could then spend the million per year on discovering other vessels and thereby truly expanding our knowledge on maritime history.

Why not just build replicas?

The vasa linked is awesome. It is like the black pearl...looking forward to my boy being old enough to take there

Well worth it. I'm sure someone here could work out how much it's cost per person per year.

Why would I want to do that when we can see the real thing,

Let's build a new Roman Wall instead of preserving the he one we've got.

I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. Do you want to look at a bit of an old boat or see a replica that actually shows you why the vessel was such a big deal in the first place?

Why not just build replicas?

You can't build a replica until you've discovered and studied a vessel. Our knowledge has improved on how the Mary Rose was constructed, but we aren't expanding our knowledge anymore but still having to pay for it.

For me the acquisition of knowledge is more important than the object. I wouldn't want the Mary Rose disposed of but similarly there's stuff out there that's being ignored while all the focus is on one wreck.

What a waste of money that could have kept several Nigel Farages in Brussels for years, There are literally hundreds of doctors we could deport with that money. I've read hornblower so I know all about this sort of shit. You couldn't make it up.

I think our history and the knowledge that being able to explore it brings is worth every penny.

It's amazing really,

Wonder how much it cost King Henry back in the day?
That man really knew how to spend to your taxes.

Would it compare to the cost of the new Trident subs?

Wonder how much it cost King Henry back in the day?
That man really knew how to spend to your taxes.

Would it compare to the cost of the new Trident subs?

I'd rather see the proper thing (in this case I did years ago) and that's even if that is just a bit of wood. I just don't trust models, how do I know they are accurate? I blame Time Team and their approach of find a flint and then somehow that means they can recreate an entire Roman Villa.

johnnystorm - Member

In short yes, expectations were not very well managed. Allied to that the whole business of having to spend a lifetime continually spraying it with polyethylene glycol to preserve it. Wooden ships stored under mud in cold anaerobic conditions will last thousands of years. Pull them out of the mud and the rot literally sets in. I

I knew all this as a small child, John Craven told me on Newsround. That was before he'd been preserved and put in a museum as the last surviving children's tv presenter that's not a sex beast.

Yeah **** history, what can we learn from that

Yeah * history, what can we learn from that

Yeah * history, what can we learn from that

EDIT doesn't work now duplicate post has been deleted. Damn you mods!

The Vasa is utterly amazing. I had a few hours off in Stockholm as my flight home wasn't until the evening so I thought I might just pop along and have a look at it. I'm not sure quite what I was expecting but I walked through the entrance and was quite literally stopped in my tracks. I had to spend a few minutes just looking and wondering if this thing in front of me was even real. If you ever happen to be in Stockholm then it's an absolute must, the single most impressive thing I've ever seen in a museum.

The cost hasn't just been for the ship, they've found weapons and other historical items which has taught them loads. I'm confused by johnnystorm he claims we'd be better spending more on just what we spent money on the Mary Rose for.

I have been to the Vasa and it is truly amazing. When you first walk in to the museum and see the ship it is completely overwhelming. The fact that they built the museum around the ship and have spent so much time creating the accompanying exhibits make it a place really worth visiting.

I remember watching it being raised as a kid and thought it was a complete waste of time and money.

However, I went to the museum last year and was blown away by it.

The weapons, the clothing and t everyday stuff they recovered and learnt so much from are spectacular.

How many of the haters on here have actually been to the museum?

The Vasa is indeed amazing to see. I was expecting a Mary Rose type structure so, like isto above I was stopped in my tracks when I entered..

It's a bit of a national embarrassment for the Swedes though, as it sank just a few minutes into it's maiden voyage... Oops!

[url= https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/511/17736692053_051b24e5fc_c.jp g" target="_blank">https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/511/17736692053_051b24e5fc_c.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/t2kbBp ]Vasa Museum (6)[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/beanum/ ]Beanum[/url], on Flickr

There is an interesting bit [url= http://www.pri.org/stories/2012-02-23/new-clues-emerge-centuries-old-swedish-shipwreck ]here[/url] on why the Vasa sunk.
It appears it was partly down to men not measuring their inches properly, who'd of thought it.

The cost hasn't just been for the ship, they've found weapons and other historical items which has taught them loads. I'm confused by johnnystorm he claims we'd be better spending more on just what we spent money on the Mary Rose for.

I'm all for discovering new artifacts and learning new things about the past. The money spent keeping a chunk of Hull from rotting could be spent on uncovering more wrecks, not just maintaining one from which we can learn no more.

As mentioned above the time team comment sums this up perfectly. If you just look at one site you have to generalise, look at a number of sites and you get a better picture of the past.

What are you going to do with them after you've recovered them?

Didn't the MOD pay a large chunk towards the cost?

The money spent keeping a chunk of Hull from rotting

TBF they have spent quite a lot of money regenerating Hull.

It's not just the Mary Rose, it's the huge number of artefacts that were preserved along with her, and which have been undergoing parallel preservation, from which archaeologists and historians have learned an enormous amount about the lives of the ordinary people who crewed her, and who's lives are seldom ever recorded in any sort of detail.
That sort of knowledge is priceless, and adds the the sum total of human knowledge and preserved history

I remember a friend doing his final year material science project, analysing one of the cannonballs, that was back in '88. It was exciting and interesting then, and that excitement and interest would have been replicated thousands of times across numerous projects. The part hull which seems unexciting to so many, is just one part of a much greater endeavour.

Thoughts? Singletrack user IQ had fallen sharply in the past few years

i think this coincided with the clear out of people who were seen as being argumentative. i.e. they thought

.

TBF they have spent quite a lot of money regenerating Hull.

And building an area to keep it so they don't have to keep preserving it so regeular, not to mention a museum.

TBF they have spent quite a lot of money regenerating Hull.

Another huge waste of money 😉

Does all this cost account for the income?

http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/tickets-and-offers/

At those prices it would presumably be a self funding project.

I used to travel passed the wreck as it was being raised. My dad was an immigration officer @ Portsmouth and I'd often go with him to France. One of our school teachers husband helped raise it too (Mrs Hudson?). We got to see the ship very early and all I can remember seeing is a load of water being sprayed on bits of wood! Not been back since, even though I live within 10miles lol!

I think its worth it. The UK is a tourist trap for its history, and this is a very well known piece of it. It is taking a damn long time though!

johnnystorm - Member

I'm all for discovering new artifacts and learning new things about the past. The money spent keeping a chunk of Hull from rotting could be spent on uncovering more wrecks, not just maintaining one from which we can learn no more.

And what would you do with the other wrecks once you'd finished learning from them?

So for £40,000,000 you have one fragment of a fairly well-documented vessel that will also cost a million a year for evermore to maintain. By excavating, documenting,[s] then returning [/s] [b]chopping it up for the woodburner[/b] you could then spend the million per year on discovering other vessels and thereby truly expanding our knowledge on maritime history.

FIFY, this is STW, standards are slipping.

I remember visiting the mary rose and victory as a kid. The victory was amazing, actually trying to see the mary rose how it used to be displyed was just like looking into a dark, misty, wardrobe, very disappointing. If this is materially better (and it looks to be) then its money well spent IMO.

In fairness the images of how it is now make it look a look better, especially as it's orientated properly. £30 a pop is hella pricey mind you......... and I think I'd still rather see the Vasa, Victory or even....... Constitution 😯 (yes I know they are all newer)

ferrals - Member

I remember visiting the mary rose and victory as a kid. The victory was amazing, actually trying to see the mary rose how it used to be displyed was just like looking into a dark, misty, wardrobe, very disappointing

Yeah, it used to be basically an exhibit of how you preserve a ship, rather than an exhibit of a ship- probably only interesting if you were into the project itself.

And what would you do with the other wrecks once you'd finished learning from them?

As I said above. You put it back where you found it. It's survived hundreds/thousands of years there without anyone lifting a finger.

I'm going to guess many of the naysayers haven't been round the Mary Rose museum as it is now/since reopened a couple of years back.

To one side you have representations of the decks and to the other the wreck. There's been a massive amount of archaeological stuff found too.

I find using some imagination to tie the bits together mentally is needed but that as to the experience for me in some ways.

When you add to that the tourist benefit the Mary Rose project has brought to the dockyard and the surrounding parts of Portsmouth i would say it was a worthy investment.

Since it's been rehoused we have visited it at least once a year as part of days out down there with annual multi attraction ticket that they do.

As I said above. You put it back where you found it. It's survived hundreds/thousands of years there without anyone lifting a finger.

garage-dweller - Member
I'm going to guess many of the naysayers haven't been round the Mary Rose museum as it is now/since reopened a couple of years back.

Haven't been to the Vasa either, it just holds more appeal

i saw The Mary Rose last year, it was ace.

there's loads to see at the dockyards, The Mary Rose is just one of the many ships on display.

Warrior, Victory, ...er, the submarine whatsamacallit, The Mary Rose, etc. etc.

i'm not really a museum person, and i liked it.

You put it back where you found it. It's survived hundreds/thousands of years there without anyone lifting a finger.

Pretty sure that where it came from has be dredged out of existence to deepen the harbour for the RN's new aircraft less carriers

Agree with ahwiles.

Vasa is mind blowing (I made sure I didn't view pictures before I went, which meant I got the full "utterly speechless" effect when I walked in.

However Portsmouth Historic Dockyard is massive and full of stuff, plus a ticket gets you a years access to most of it + a harbour tour.

Vasa will blow your mind for half a day. PHD will keep you interested and entertained for two solid days.

jambalaya - Member
Now I haven't seen the programme (will search it out) but I am very pleased the project has been completed. History isn't all about replicas, yes they have a part but the "real thing" has huge value. TheMary Rose was a very important ship and the way it was lost is part of history too. As foe the money its spent on a variety of things including skilled craftsmen and relearning lost skills. This has huge value too.

Well said.

£30 a pop is hella pricey mind you.

There's a yearly Dockyard ticket that gets you into everything on site, HMS Victory etc, plus the submarine museum and Explosion! as well I think. Plus you can use the water taxi boat on it too. We've had one 2 years running as it's such good value.

Yep here it is. £33 for the year and it includes more than I thought it did.

https://www.buyagift.co.uk/days-out/portsmouth-historic-dockyard-annual-pass-for-two-special-offer-br-11833202.aspx?cm_mmc=google-_-DYS+-+DSA-_--_-_inurl%3Adays-out&mkwid=s_dm&pcrid=103038712081&pkw=_inurl%3Adays-out&pmt=b&DD=&gclid=CI7Yhb-Bgs4CFcZAGwodmyYCLg

As for the 'replica' thing, well, I could google a pic of the Mona Lisa and we could toss the original in the trash I suppose.....

The simple answer to the OP's question is yes

PeterPoddy - Member
As for the 'replica' thing, well, I could google a pic of the Mona Lisa and we could toss the original in the trash I suppose.....
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST

What about if it was just a grubby portion of the original?

What about if it was just a grubby portion of the original?

And if that grubby portion also came with thousands of artefacts that told you about the life of the painter and renaissance Italy?

Its not just a single 'grubby portion'. 🙄

and it's a very moving reminder that 500 sailors/soldiers lost their lives.

for me at least, every bit as poignant as the trenches in northern france.

I've got an ace story! I'm an archaeologist and when I was doing my BSc back in the late 1990s I used to do underwater archaeology in the Solent (with the HWTMA). In '99 my buddy had a bouyancy aid failure in the shallow water behind Hurst Castle, so I grabbed him, fully inflated my bouyancy jobby, and called our boat over. Wind was getting up and the sea was choppy but I wasn't expecting our boat to.... RUN US OVER. I pushed my mate down and he must have bounced off the seabed 3m below and came straight back up. With my bouyancy jacket fully inflated I was just pinned against the bow, until I finally slipped under the keel. My mate got propped on the arm and me in the face (low-ish revs 15hp if I remember). My mask took the brunt of it but it broke my nose and went through my upper lip (could see my teeth with my lips closed :D). My friend had a series of deep diagonal bruises running up his arm (nice thick wetsuit).
The guy piloting our boat was an elderly chap with milk bottle bottom glasses (no names). He was one of the original divers on the Mary Rose. One person died during the Mary Rose excavation. Our pilot was her dive buddy. She died on 2nd July 1980. I was born on 2nd July 1980. Spooky....

When I was studying about maritime archaeology we were told that the Rose had swallowed up so much funding that very little else could be done for years, and we do have the most incredibly rich resource of maritime heritage around the British Isles. I have walked (underwater) on 'England's wooden walls'! I am fifteen years out of date on the topic but I still think it's been massively worthwhile. The Rose was repeatedly damaged over the centuries by salvage and dredging operations; it wasn't going to last forever down there. As mentioned above, there have been innumerable spin off studies apart from the hull. Because of the Mary Rose we know about the power of the English longbow and the deformation to the forearm its prolonged use can cause. We can learn about the spread of blast furnace technology in late mediaeval Europe. The list is not endless but it's very very very long. Haven't been to PHD in years but as soon as the kids are old enough I'll slap my money down no complaint.
I have also visited the Vasa and it is indeed incredible. Most interesting for me was the sheer quantity of elaborate mythological carving on the exterior, highlighting the massive divide between the 18th century of 'reason' and the superstition that reigned before. Great stuff!

Yep here it is. £33 for the year and it includes more than I thought it did.

I think it's a couple of quite cheaper if you go direct to the Historic Dockyard website.

It's an amazing day out. We went 3 times last year on our ticket. Includes a nice boat trip to the HMS Alliance Submarine and submarine museum as well.

Will be going back this year to see the Mary Rose, plus a few other new attractions they've added.

And if that grubby portion also came with thousands of artefacts that told you about the life of the painter and renaissance Italy?
Its not just a single 'grubby portion'.

Then it would more interesting of course.

Don't think anyone said it was

Don't think anyone said it was.

Apologies. I thought your comment had some relevance to this discussion. If we're talking hypotheticals maybe we could pose the question "What if the remains were found to be an old shopping trolley once they'd lifted it?"

nickjb - Member

Wonder how much it cost King Henry back in the day?
That man really knew how to spend to your taxes.

Would it compare to the cost of the new Trident subs?

Quite a bit cheaper... a figure of roughly £1,104 in Tudor money, or £6,580,000 in modern project labour costs today. http://www.maryrose.org/putting-a-price-on-the-mary-rose/ Less than half the cost of a single missile.

From the same article.

[i]If you add all these up, dividing them accordingly, you get a figure of roughly £1,104 in Tudor money, or £6,580,000 in modern project labour costs today. However, as we’ve said that leaves out some probably extreme expenditure, such as the guns, as well as possibly taking or missing expenditure from the Peter Pomegranate. Then, you have the issue of the Mary Rose being rebuilt/refitted between 1536-1539, adding further expenditure.
So, you COULD say the Mary Rose cost £6,580,000 to build, but it probably didn’t.[/i]

So as clear as the mud it was pulled from then 😉

I reckon it was worth it & I'd also reckon that the majority of people who didn't think it was worth it voted Remain in the EU referendum.

?

Yeah, bloody Remainers.............why do they hate Tudor warships so much ?

Let's spend the £350m we give the EU each week on the Mary Rose.