# Smack v Sloop



## eddyw

Single masted cargo carrying vessels are frequently described in late 19th century copies of the British "Mercantile Navy List" as 'Smack' and 'Sloop'. This certainly is not related to registered tonnage (many smacks larger than sloops). Does anyone know if there was a distinction in terms of rig which was applied and what the difference might be?


----------



## Barrie Youde

Sorry that I cannot help with an answer, Eddy, but I share your confusion and also wonder where, together with cutter-rig, any hard and fast distinction can be drawn? I've seen so many different descriptions of both sloop and cutter rig that I really do not know t'other from which. As to a smack, I've always thought that description would refer to a fishing boat.

I look forward to a lively debate!


----------



## eddyw

Thanks Barrie, I've seen several explanations re cutters based on rig (mast stepped further aft/smaller mainsail/extra jib). Smack is often used loosely in relation to fishing vessels but the ones I am looking at are definitely coastal trading craft of between 15 and 35 reg tons. It's not as if it depends on date of build either as there are smacks dating from the 1880's and sloops from the 1820's.


----------



## joebuckham

eddy there were indeed smacks of 200 tons and if you google or bing for* Leith smacks *there are quite a number of sites. 
to try and unravel this would take a lot of studying as the original cutter is similar to the smack (fixed as against permanent bowsprit) royal navy names for sloops dependent on the rank of the person in charge and on and on....


----------



## eddyw

Thanks, Joe. Yes RN 'sloops' confuse matters hopelessly, since they were generally brig or ship rigged!
The Mercantile Navy List was an 'official' publication and I am assuming there must have been some specific criterion/criteria applied in order to determine whether a vessel was described as a smack rather then a sloop (and v.v) Register entries were updated annually (mostly for change of ownership, port of registration etc) and I think the information must have been compiled from local ship registers kept by HM Customs. As mentioned size, date and local tradition appear not to have a systematic bearing and old photographs seem to show no apparent difference in appearance of ships described as smacks and sloops. Of course it could be that the description provided by the person registering a ship was just accepted, and if the terms are interchangeable the variation in description would have no practical significance - but it would be nice to know.


----------



## stein

According to Falconer, 1815, a smack is a solidly built small vessel commonly rigged as a cutter, and used in the coasting or fishing trade; or as a tender in the King’s service. 

A sloop is a one-masted vessel with gaff and boom, and differs from a cutter in having a fixed bowsprit and a jib-stay, and having in general less sail area. (A sloop-of-war though carries between 10 and 18 guns, is commanded by officers of middle rank, between lieutenant and post-captain, styled masters and commanders, and is variously rigged as ship, brig, schooner, and sometimes as a cutter.)

It’s a repeat of the above, but Falconer defines cutter as a small vessel with a straight running bowsprit that can be run in on deck occasionally, except for which, and the largeness of the sails, it is rigged like a sloop.

So the difference in rig is between cutter and sloop, and what other difference there are between a sloop and a smack must be in build and use. What smacks I’ve seen depicted were all markedly less sharp than anything I’ve seen designed as sloop or cutter.

(In Norway anything with a plumb stem and a horizontal running bowsprit would be termed a cutter, whether rigged with one or two masts.)


----------



## eddyw

Thanks Stein. Was in our local records office today and checked some of the old ship registers. The standard register forms had an entry for rig and ships were described as 'sloop' or 'smack' from first registration. These were vessels clearly not intended for or suitable for fishing. Some smacks I found were owned by the builders and operated on own account as cargo carriers. A further entry concerns whether bowsprits were 'standing' or 'running'. Surprise, surprise both smacks and sloops were registered with standing and running bowsprits so if the distinction is indeed rig related it's something else. Registered dimensions for smacks and sloops were very similar too. The same yards built both 'smacks' and 'sloops' and I doubt there were significant differences in construction as they were employed in the same trades, ie shortish coastal passages with bulk cargoes, discharging often on beaches at low water whilst taking the ground and thus requiring a fairly robust structure. Must admit at this stage coming to the tentative conclusion that terms 'sloop' and 'smack' were interchangeable.


----------



## Bill Morrison

Hi, To all on this thread. I have no first hand knowledge of sailing vessels, other than reading books written on the subject and viewing the Cutty Sark (pre fire) the Tall Ship races and visiting vessels to my local harbour.
There is a very informative book by Basil Greenhill and Ann Giffard that was published around 1970, The Merchant Sailing Ship a Photographic History. It lists eighteen forms of sail formations, the Smack is grouped with the Cutter and Sloop as general all purpose vessels, with various sail formations. There is nothing hard and fast, other than they had a single mast.
I hope this will add something to this debate.
Yours, 
Bill Morrison


----------

