The basic information on the construction of the (1960) Bounty was posted earlier in this thread, more than once, IIRC.
It was built by Smith and Ruhland in Lunenberg, Nova Scotia. S&R had built over 200 largish wooden boats since 1900:
Since 1900 the yard has produced wooden fishing vessels of every description. During the heyday of the Banks fishery the yard often produced eight schooners a year employing 50 shipwrights per vessel."
Besides the Bounty, some other well-known S&R boats: the famous fishing/racing schooner Bluenose (1921),
and the schooner Sherman Zwicker (now in the Maine Maritime Museum) the replica of the HMS Rose (used as the HMS Surprise in "Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World"), and the schooner Bluenose II.
In short, they didn't build junk.
It has also been repeatedly speculated that the Bounty was built cheap, because it was going to be filmed being burned at the end of the production, as the original was. The posters making this wildly slandersous speculation ask "Why would they build it right, when they're going to burn it anyway?" We could talk about the likelihood of a world reknowned builder of large wooden boats building an ocean-going vessel on the cheap - and thereby putting lives at risk. We could talk about the FACT that ALL of the availble information about the Bounty's construction states that it was built from the plans of the original, which were still on file in the British Admiralty's archive, but scaled up for filming purposes. We could talk about the fact that she had made SEVERAL ocean crossings over the last 50 years.
You ask why would MGM (not exactly a fly-by-night outfit) build it right? ONE very simple and overriding reason: They only had ONE. They were making Mutiny on the Bounty, after all, and you can't make that movie without the boat. So, does anybody really think they would cut any corners on the construction of a boat that would have to be sailed halfway round the world before they could expose the first frame of the film? They spent three quarters of a million dollars building it, FIFTY years ago. That works out to just shy of $6 million in 2012 dollars. Still think they built it cheap?
Then there was this assertion:
Originally Posted by Sal Paradise
Do you really know that? I'm asking because I really would like to know. I read that it was built by a reputable ship building company.
It was. But the company had not built a sailing ship for 80 years!
Wow, Mark, NO idea where you got that. S&R wasn't even FOUNDED until 1900 (twenty years after you said they built their last sailing ship), and built almost nothing but Schooners (well over 100 of them) for the next 40 years, including the Sherman Zwicker in the '42, less than 20 years before the Bounty.
Can we please
stop saying "the Bounty was just a prop"?