Mark P

Good Evening Mike; Thank you for suggesting this. I for one much prefer to see the book on the bookshelf; although I can also understand that a digital version of the book would be a great aid in the workshop, more so than a book, actually. I already have all four of the Swan series; any idea when you might be re-printing Vol II of Ed Tosti's Naiad books? All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Tony; I would definitely attempt to quarter saw your logs, rather than just through and throughing it. Boxwood is like all other woods, and if the grain in your planks, when viewed in section, is dish-shaped, it will try to straighten the curve. The only difference is that being by now well-seasoned, this movement will take a considerable time; unless exposed to damp conditions. I am surprised to see that your log does not appear to have radial cracking in it; perhaps because it is so long, or because the seasoning was very gradual. Were the cut ends of the log sealed to prevent rapid evaporation? If so, well done to whoever did this. The dark streaks in the timber are actually a fungal infection, in my experience, and can lead to a fuzzy mould growing out of the cut surfaces if the air is at all damp and unventilated. However, yours may well have died off by now. When this occurred with some of my stock, I cleaned it off with a mild antiseptic wipe and let the strips dry, and increased the ventilation in the storage area. There has been no recurrence so far! On a last point, boxwood is fine grained, however, I have some which if I did not know, I would almost swear it was a high quality pine wood, as it appears to have the usual banded grain of pine. However, I know that it is box (I cut it from the tree myself) and it is still very fine grained, hard and heavy. It just does not look it! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mark; I am very glad to see that you are posting again, and that you are at such an intricate, complicated stage of the work. Quarter galleries are a tremendously difficult area to do well, but they are one of the first parts to catch the eye when looking at a model; so it is vital to be absolutely happy with each stage, and to discard what does not meet your exacting standards. I don't doubt for a moment that yours will up to your usual extremely high level of excellence; a standard nearly all of us can only aspire to, and never equal. I wish you all success and good health in continuing what you have begun in such an exemplary tour-de-force. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Joachim; I cannot think that there is any difference between the two. I note two points from the list shown above: Firstly, the sheets pass through a shoulder block. This is the same as a quarter block, yet the inventory also lists shoulder blocks separately. However, as the quarter blocks are for the bowlines, they must be located on the bowsprit, near its outer end, with the running end coming inboard over the bowsprit. When the rope is hauled, this could cause the block to be pulled down against the bowsprit, with the rope being compressed between the two, and becoming jammed. For this reason a shoulder block is needed here, and has been listed using an alternative name for the same item. As evidence of this, I have checked my images of the rigging warrant for the cutter 'Kite', of 1762. This lists the blocks for both the bowlines and the sheets as 'shoulder blocks'. They are both the same size, as they are on the list you show above. Below is a picture of a shoulder block, from Steel's Elements of Rigging. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Joachim; Re your original query, a quarter block had a small projection worked on it, so that it would not be pulled flat against the yard-arm causing the rope inside to bind against the yard, preventing movement. Typically used for sheet blocks at the yard-arm. An iron-bound block has a strap of iron around it, rather than a rope strop. It also has an iron pin, which is set into holes in the strap each side of the block. A coak is a metal plate of iron or brass, set into the outside surface of the shell of the block, to form a bearing for the pin through the sheave. This prevents the pin bearing on the wood, which would wear out more quickly than the iron will. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Masa; In the Eighteenth century most ships of any size were built or repaired in a dry dock. An existing ship would be floated in on a high tide, and as the water receded, the hull would be propped up with a large number of shores, whilst her keel would settle on a line of timber blocks. The base of the dock sloped towards the river, both to allow the water to drain away thoroughly, and to facilitate launching on a slipway. Once the dock was empty, a pair of gates would be shut across the entrance to keep the water out. In earlier periods, the dock would be closed with a bank of clay and stones. The floor of the dock was made of stout timbers, called the 'ways' which were set in like railway sleepers. The blocks to support the keel, and the shores, would be nailed to these ways to prevent them moving. A new built ship could be launched by opening the gates and allowing the dock to fill with water; this was best done with extra high tides. On the other hand, if there was no high tide soon, the ship could be launched down the ways; this was done by setting down timbers like a railway track, called a slipway, running into the water. The ship was fitted with launching cradles at the bow and stern, which sat on the slipway, and the blocks under the keel were knocked away. The ways were well-greased. Sometimes the ship would slide down the ways easily, other times she needed a good pull to get her moving. The book 'Building the Wooden Fighting Ship', by James Dodds and James Moore, describes the build process in detail, with a large number of hand-drawn, good quality illustrations, and also covers the launch. There are several models of ship on the ways ready to launch, including the well-known model of the Bellona, and the Victory of 1765. All the best, Mark P

Congratulations on such a lovely model; well done indeed.

Thanks Allan; This is too wide-ranging a field for us to know all of it. Belaying pins were certainly used from the Tudor times, but in combination with many other belaying points. As ships developed, and rigs became more and more complicated, the number of ropes needing to be belayed multiplied, and it is easy to imagine that racks of pins in the bulwarks rationalised the forest of ropes coming down the rigging. In addition, pin racks on the inside of the shrouds were definitely in use by 1750. One day I hope to produce a typical English belaying plan for the early 17th century and late Tudor period. Just have to live long enough! All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Allan; Sorry to say this, but please check your memory, as Phil is actually correct; and this subject has been discussed at least twice before. Belaying pins were used in the early 17th century, and can be seen on early models (granted that the earliest surviving models date from the mid seventeenth century) Henry Mainwayring, a noted seafarer of the times of Elizabeth and James I, described belaying pins in his nautical dictionary, which he wrote around 1623. I am not sure, but I believe that they are also mentioned in a treatise on rigging which R C Anderson believed dated from around 1620 (must check that) So carry on Phil; all I would say is do not place racks of belaying pins inside the bulwarks everywhere, as this might well be not historically accurate. In this respect Allan is correct, and it is this configuration which did not appear until later in the era of sail. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Brunnells; I have a large selection of English boxwood (I know it is because I cut the branches from the trees myself, or got them from gardeners who had cut them down, with the leaves still on them) This has a good range of colour, and some of it is indeed very noticeably yellow. Some is very pale yellow, more of a cream colour, and there is a whole variety of inbetween shades. Some of it has no grain visible at all; some is prominently marked, with the end-grain looking like pine softwood; which of course it isn't, it is much too heavy, and must be the result of some growth rings being very close together, with others which are more dispersed. The main characteristics are that it is heavy, hard, and extremely fine-grained. Below is a picture of a model made with boxwood planking, which is very yellow; presumably sealed with something, but the colour looks lovely. All the best, Mark P

Thank you Morgan; That is a really interesting picture. My immediate reaction is that it is 17th century, for two reasons: Firstly, the underside of the floor timbers have notches in each timber for the limber passage. Secondly, the futtocks appear to stop short of the keel, which is strongly indicative also. However, more photos would make it clearer. I will see if I can contact the chap who took the pictures. The closeness of the timbers would also seem to indicate a warship, although I would not state that with any certainty. I don't think it is a particularly large vessel, as the outer planking appears to be quite thin: 2-3 inches. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Markus; Your question touches on several separate topics; not being knowledgeable concerning American ships I cannot perhaps answer with full authority, but I can tell you the equivalent English practice. Firstly, all timber used in ship-building was classified in various categories, according to its size and intended use. For planking, this comprised 'board', 'plank' & 'thick stuff'. Board was around 1" thick, and was used for bulkheads and partitions. Plank was up to 4 or 5" thick, and was used for most of the hull covering, in and out. Thick stuff was used where extra strength was needed, and was up to around 9" thick. Generally, anything over this thickness was only used (in larger ships) for the keel and related pieces, along with deck beams. Compass timber was anything curved, the main use of which was for forming the curves of the frames. The thicker strakes of deck planking, which are flush with the main deck coverings, but are let down into the top of the deck beams, are known as 'binding strakes', and their purpose was to stiffen the ship's structure. They were also often used to fix the ring-bolts for the train-tackles for the ordnance. Lord's survey is obviously a very thorough one, and much attention has been paid to detail. I would be very dubious that he shows anything that was not there when he carried out his work. In the 17th century, the central portion of the deck was normally raised above the planking outside this strip, and was delineated by timbers known as 'long carlings'. See photograph below from a model of the 'Boyne'. This practice continued in the 18th century; see photograph of a model in the National Maritime Museum, dating from the early 1760s. Thanks for posting an interesting drawing. All the best, Mark P

As a piece of interesting trivia, the earlier name for these items was 'dead men eyes'. This was especially apt when they were triangualar rather than round, making the resemblance to a skull face more obvious. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Linda; To help you understand what is happening in the rigging diagrams you show, a simple rule can be applied: The mast and sails on the left show the 'sheets'. All sails shown on the mast need a rope to keep their lower corners from flying up in the air, in which event the sail would hold no wind, and the ship would not move. The sheet performs this function, and is essentially the same on all the sails shown. The right hand mast and sails show the ropes which are designed to do the exact opposite to the sheet, and to raise the lower corner of the sails to the yard when it is time to furl the sail. These are known as 'clew-lines'. To haul on the sheet opens the sail; to haul on the clew-line furls the sail. When the sheet is hauled, the clew-line must be 'paid-out', or slackened so that it runs free. By far the best reference book I know of for ships of this era, which covers the rigging of such ships in great detail, is the 'Masting and Rigging of Clipper Ships and Ocean Carriers', by Harold A Underhill; first published in 1946. He was a very skilled modeller and draughtsman, and knew many of these ships personally. He also wrote several other books dealing with simiilar vessels, and produced a wide range of plans for such ships, which have very good masting and rigging details on them. If you are building your model without sails, then the ends of the clew-line and the sheet would be shackled or tied together, so as to be ready in position when time came to fit the sail back to the yard. (edit) I have just checked and the book is available online from £16, with many copies listed by different sellers, with different qualities and prices. Wishing you all success with your modellling! Mark P

To be fair to Mike he does say he is not sure if those two are in the Rogers Collection or not. Vol III covers fourth to sixth rates. Presumably the brig is unrated, and so is too small to fall into this category; and must wait for the next volume, along with any single masted vessels. However, as a frigate one would expect that the Shannon would be in vol III if it was part of the Collection; something I know not. Unless it is intended to produce a separate volume of American vessels? All the best, Mark P