Tolman's are dories
John Gardner, author of "The Dory Book" disagrees.
It is important that we address things in context. My post was in response to Pfithian's statement that no boats he has researched were built right-side up. The purpose of my response was to bring to attention the fact that traditional Dory's were in fact built right side up.
I too have read Gardner and here is a quote directly from pg. 54."All dories start with a flat bottom and grow
out of it, as it were. Regardless of whether the
dory is put together right-side up or up-side
down, the bottom comes first. Put sides on the
bottom, and the boat is built. It is almost as
simple as that.""The primary distinction of a Dory is its construction method."
Gardner, pg. 54
Note he does not say its shape, form or lines. Rather, it is the construction method that all of these things are derived from.
The purpose of the illustration you provided, Mo' Poxy from Gardner, is not to say that a round or v-shape bottom defines boats other than dories but to say that a dory is not built on a keel structure. A dory by definition lacks a structural keel and relies soley upon planking.
Yes, most Dory's also have a flat bottom but this is much less definitive than the lack of a keel structure and the construction method. For example, we could argue 'til the cows come home on where the bottom ends and the sides begin on round sided dory or at what point a wherry becomes a dory or a dory becomes a skiff. These are rather nebulous and undefined and open to interpretation and historical speculation as Gardner points out in his covering of the transition from battoe, to wherry and dory and skiff. Omission of the keel was the defining moment at which the dory was born, and it resulted in a relatively flat bottom compared to other boats of the time.
As for a Tolman being a Dory, go to page 1 of "A skiff for all Seasons and read Renn's words" if you don't believe me.
The first "Tolman Skiff" was a modified "Cook Inlet Dory". It had a flat bottom. Future Skiffs followed this model with the added V-bottom modification but still lacked a true structural keel which in my book puts them in the dory camp. Renn is clear on page 5 that the Tolman Skiff has dory ancestry and the only difference from a dory should be the V-bottom.
It looks like dory on the water, its construction is like that of a dory, and its origins are all from dory's so if it ain't a dory, it, it sure is a kissing cousin.
Paddler, as for Dory's not having a transom, that is just flat out incorrect. Look at the illustration on pg.2 of Gardners "The Dory Book" and read what part # 19 is called.
A transom is not required for a dory but it certainly not a disqualification to have one.
Please do not misconstrue this response to be mean spirited, or ugly, as it is not my intent and I certainly an not the definitive authority on dory's or any other boats for that matter. I can see where some might contest the Tolman being a dory by virtue of the fact that its bottom is a semi-V rather than flat.
It is hard to say what Simeon Lowell would have built had plywood been available in his day.
The St. Pierre Dory pictured on page 32 (Gardner), sure looks a lot like a Tolman with cabin, as does the boat illustrated on pg 31 (Gardner) book as a "Jumbo size modern power dory". The only difference is a slight bit of deadrise at the transom. Perhaps I am the only one who sees a striking resemblance and correlation between these and Renn's creation right down to the term Jumbo?
I suppose in the early 1900's there were those who said that a dory or skiff could not be built of plywood. It must be planked of solid sawn or riven timbers.
I'll stop rambling... short story long. The Tolman has deep Dory roots and they were often built rightside up. Is it still a Dory? That's debateable.