Stern of the HMS Victory

[JPett]

Ahoy Mates

 

Upon doing some research on the stern on the HMS Victory as depicted by most model companies and even the current floating museum/restoration in England I have found it does not coincide with some of the artist renderings, or period models I am seeing.

 

Quotes I have found also indicate that she was "built with three elaborately decorated open  galleries at the stern"

 

Was there a change in a refit, enclosing the stern. Information pertaining to this on the Web has to date; been elusive.

 

Bibliography and credits

 

http://shipwreck.net/hmsvictoryhistoricaloverview.php

 

Image insert top right

http://www.rmg.co.uk/server/change/searchResults/search_word/hms%20victory/refine/collections/page/1

 

Additional notes

 

As I have just ordered the Corel version which seems to come with what could be the worst representation of this ships stern I am looking into my options. Suggestions on good books to research this model and or upgrades are welcome and appreciated

 

 

Thank you All

 

Edited September 21, 2013 by JPett

[Blue Ensign]

Hi JP The stern of Victory was enclosed in the great refit of 1803, and she looked at Trafalgar much as she looks today, with the exception of the absence of the Prince of Wales feathers. This  is confirmed by the drawing made by Livesay  on her return after Trafalgar in 1806.

 

 

 

 

The Pocock painting (your bottom right)  an extract from Nelsons Ships has a fair amount of artistic licence, but the earlier  painting by Swaine in 1793 shows her with the open galleries.

 

If you intend to model her as at Trafalgar then if your kit follows her current stern you will not be too far out.

 

B.E.

[JPett]

Ahoy Blue

 

Thank You,

 

I am not sure my abilities will ever be up to the level of this master (see pic), but I would love to be able to build her prior to the refit

 

If anyone has any other pictures showing models done during this period please feel free to post a pic or link here.

 

The Corel kit is 1:98 and I think something just a little less detailed might be in my range

 

Thank you

Edited September 21, 2013 by JPett

[druxey]

Although, note Livesay's 'compartments' seen below the rows of balusters, which are absent today.

[JPett]

Ahoy Mates

 

Just a heads up

 

It seems I may be able to cut apart the Amati Stern castings to accomplish this.

 

http://www.cornwallmodelboats.co.uk/acatalog/amati_decoration.html#aA5371_2f01

[johnegert]

JPett---- I have been griping about this for years. The stern of the Vic is a rather complex compound curve, which VERY few kits reproduce correctly. There is a substantial parabolic arc athwartships shown by the port-to-starboard curve of the taff rail. When I see a flat face to the stern gallery, as most kits have it, it looks goofy when compared to the actual ship, which is so gracefully curved. I haven't checked availability, but a good plan view of this curvature is shown in Basil Lavis' "HMS Victory as in 1805", a thin but meaty portfolio of plans in a paperback format. There is a 1/8" scale drawing of the deck showing all belaying points--- very valuable--- and a clear representation of this curve. These huge old weapon platforms were beautifully designed, and it's too bad so many of our models don't do that justice--- see also the bow basketry, which is another sore point with me. It's a little like trying to make an accurate model of the Parthenon with Legos....... 

 OK--- Back to my little room.

john

[JPett]

Ahoy Robin

 

Thank you for you post. As a bit of an artist myself I completely understand what you're saying and found your comment regarding the infamous sketch book very enlightening.

 

I would not however just throw the artist under the bus when it comes to taking liberties. Judging by what I have seen during my short stay here, it seems to be human nature and I would not be surprised to find it in many other places: Such as shipbuilding and record keeping.

 

I am sure I will find myself guilty too when it comes time for this build

 

PS: Your work is beautiful

Edited September 22, 2013 by JPett

[Stockholm tar]

J. Pett,

 

I don't think it has been mentioned, and I don't know if you are aware, but your first link to Odyssey marine and I believe your last pic of the larboard quarter gallery, are of the previous ship Victory, not the present one. She was/is known as Balchin's Victory, after the Admiral who sank with her in the English Channel in 1744.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Stockholm tar

[Blue Ensign]

Hi JP as a bit of inspiration, here's a couple of examples of Victory models depicting her in pre great repair days.

 

Firstly the stern of Victory in a model  by Wyllie in the Portsmouth Naval Museum.

 

 

 Secondly, detail from a conversion of the Heller Victory by an excellent modeller, Michael D whose log is on my home forum.

 

 

 

 

 

But remember it's not just the stern gallery that differed on the pre 1803 Victory, the Figurehead was also significantly more ornate.

 

 

 

Michael modelled the Figure detail in Fimo from the details of the model figurehead also in the Naval Museum Portsmouth.

 

Food for thought eh?

 

Cheers,

 

B.E.

 

 

 

[Stockholm tar]

Hello Robin,

 

You are of course right regarding the 'multipicture' in JP's first post, with a detail from Swane's painting top right, and Pocock's 'Nelson's ships' below.

 

I was actually referring to the picture in his second post, showing the larboard quarter gallery of a model from above (that of the 1737 Victory in the NMM?) So far as I am aware, Nelson's Victory never had more than three rows of windows in her stern, or quarter galleries and this is backed up by BE's timely last post, showing Whyllie's model of the later ship, pre her 1801/03 refit. I believe the 1737 Victory had four.

 

No big deal, but I thought it worth mentioning.

 

BE,

 

To confuse JP even further, I believe that Nelson's Victory also had her channels raised from below, to above, the upper gun deck ports, during one refit. I can't remember the date though.

[johnegert]

Robin----  No need to ever apologize around here!! Your comments are interesting and valuable. Hell, I misunderstood the whole question........nothing new there. Aren't those model photos beautiful!! I think that Wyllie waterline model is the best Victory depiction in the world---- better as a piece of art than Longridge's.

john

[Stockholm tar]

Hello again Robin,

 

Not to worry, just a misunderstanding perhaps! As for being 'dippy', well, I'm that way quite often myself!

 

No, I am not Swedish, but moved here in '93 when I married – a Swede! Was originally born in London, before we moved to the south coast, where I was living before coming over here.

 

Btw, I love your work, you have some splendid paintings. I know the pains you go to for accuracy, as I have your catalogue for the Trafalgar painting that you did.

[CWG]

Johnegert, you're right. There should be (on models) a definite curve to the stern:  http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=HMS+Victory+stern&id=934A47EBE71698B5D398D3D0ED856D1458655FC9&FORM=IQFRBA#a

Edited September 23, 2013 by CWG

[johnegert]

YES, Queequeg...... you UNDERSTAND. You're not like THE OTHERS........I don't know why this bugs me so intensely, except that it's such a beautiful feature of the Big Vic, and it demonstrates the remarkable level of design sense and skill these naval architects had. Very much like a violin, in fact....

john

[Blue Ensign]

What an amazing insight you must have to presume  knowledge of what we "OTHERS" have regarding understanding or otherwise the differences between 18th century shipbuilding practice and the offerings provided by kit manufacturers.

 

I think you will find that many of us fully appreciate the shortcomings in kit design, and not just relating to Victory.

 

B.E.

[johnegert]

It's a JOKE, B.E. Remember jokes??

john

[Stockholm tar]

Methinks that's a line from Moby Dick, right – or is it that film with Nicole Kidman?

 

I think though, it might take us 'OTHERS' a little while to realise it's a joke, when we're discussing a (supposedly) serious subject. 

Edited September 24, 2013 by Stockholm tar

[johnegert]

Actually, Tar, Queequeg came from CWG's name and my attempt to phoneticize it-- how obscure is THAT?? I would argue that "serious subjects" include sickness, human suffering, war, and quite some few others. Model ship sterns...... I don't think so.

john

[JPett]

Ahoy Mates

 

I am slightly confused as to the amount of glass on the rear end of something not only exposed to cannon fire but also the vibrations associated with producing it. As I look upon the stern of the ship I can not see how one piece would survive even the first volley from either side.

[Stockholm tar]

John,

 

Ok, I'm with you now. Perhaps 'serious' in this context was the wrong word to use – and I think we'd all agree that the other topics you mention are rather more so than a website discussion about ship's sterns.

 

I am slightly confused as to the amount of glass on the rear end of something not only exposed to cannon fire but also the vibrations associated with producing it. As I look upon the stern of the ship I can not see how one piece would survive even the first volley from either side.

 

JP,

 

Yes, I think we can all wonder why the concept remained for so long until Seppings, I believe, turned his mind to the problem just after Trafalgar, introducing a more rounded and protected stern.

 

However, the longevity of such elaborate and fragile sterns, probably says a lot for the conventions of the time in the social standing of society ashore, and which naturally was reflected in the navy. Perhaps there was also the fact that it let a lot of light into the stern of the ship, which otherwise would have been very dark.

 

Ships very often had shutters which fitted over the windows, which very likely wouldn't have protected them from a direct hit. A favourite tactic was to cross the stern of an enemy a rake the ship, by firing through the stern windows, usually at close range. The Victory did this at Trafalgar to the enemy flagship Bucentaure, and is said to have killed about three hundred in the process.

 

 

 

 

 

[johnegert]

Guys-- it is remarkable when you consider it. I imagine, just as a guess, that a couple of ideas apply: I'd bet that much of this "Cabinetry" acted as a sort of honorarium to captains and admirals in a time of constant manpower shortages--- to ask someone of noble birth and/or high ability to confine themselves to a ship full of seamen for years needed some decent perks. Also, this type of ceremonial design richness has been a symbol of national power for eons. The British have always excelled at this stuff---- they fired it up again during the Queen's Anniversary, though it all has been toned down somewhat. The US has never done it very well--- part of our rebellious trip, I guess---- and you'd really have to go back to JFK's funeral to see it at its max. Finally, the idea of pride in craftsmanship as a symbol of cultural greatness has drifted away from us, as well, toward a more utilitarian ideal.  

But when you consider the devastation of a broadside through the stern, you'd think they would have armored the damn things.....

john

[JPett]

Ahoy John

 

Do not sell America short here. Although she lacks in artistry she has always been able to massage her ego with technology.

 

I am still at a loss as to how that glass house could weather a gale or even her own broadside. All those cannons going off must have produced a small earthquake aboard the ship. I really wonder if we are missing something here in both our interpretation and the one docked across the pond.

[johnegert]

Petty Officer--- Yeah, we've always considered anything that could blow other people's gonads off at a high rate to be "beautiful"...I could never imagine us creating these rococo masterpieces on anything(except, of course, cars).

I think you're recalling that a broadside was really fired about one gun at a time, kind of a rolling thunder effect. Also, I always have to remember that the kind of construction involved here(as in land architecture of the period) was built to last. Hell JPett!! You're from Texas and I'm from New Mexico--- we just hope our single wide mobile homes last 'til next year!!!

john

[Stockholm tar]

 

But when you consider the devastation of a broadside through the stern, you'd think they would have armored the damn things.....

 

 

John,

 

Perhaps they would have done, had they had the technology then – and which of course was later developed, as demonstrated by the Warrior.

 

 

JP,

 

I imagine you might have to keep wondering!

 

Btw, the crews who sailed these ships knew all about vibration, and what it could do to a ship. That is why they introduced 'ripple' firing, which John alluded to, which reduced the strain on a ship's timbers. The broadside normally begun at the bow, then a second or so elapsed before the next gun went off, and so on until the last after gun fired. Have a look at the video of the Victory firing a broadside, albeit electronically, and you'll get the idea.

[JPett]

Ahoy Kester

 

It is the fact that they were so good at what they did that is the reason I question what we have done in our interpretation of this great ship.  

Edited September 25, 2013 by JPett