Mark P

Good Morning Everyone; I can understand the reason for making the lower planking diagonal in a model for strength, if this layer is then covered by a more normally-oriented set of planking. Re full size practice, when Robert Seppings became Surveyor of the Navy in the early 1800s, one of the reforms which he introduced was diagonal deck planking, and diagonal riders. The riders were successful, but the deck planking was dropped after a few years, if I remember correctly. See below part of a plate from John Fincham's works, showing some ways in which this was done. Diagonal ledges seems to run counter to one of his guiding principles though, which were to reduce timber consumption, as well as to add strength. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Helli; If you need to know more about flags used at sea, there is an excellent book by Timothy Wilson 'Flags at Sea', which gives a good history of them and is illustrated with many plates and drawings, some in colour. The flag shown seems to have been in use from the later part of the 19th century All the best, Mark

On the subject of tarring the bolt-ropes, this was one of the concerns which arose during the 1618 inquiry into corruption in the Navy Royal during James I's reign. It was claimed (and judging by the number of witnesses to this it was certainly true) that Sir John Trevor, one of the navy board officers, was working in cahoots with a sailmaker named Prusen to ensure a monopoly of sail-making to this one person. High quality canvas would be supposedly delivered into the dockyard stores, and then taken straight out again by the sail-making contractor; at least according to the books this is what happened. In reality, the canvas was delivered straight to the sailmaker. Likewise with the bolt-ropes. The result was that the canvas was never inspected and its value and type confirmed by the dockyard officers. Attempts to deal with this ran into an effective stonewall, as Trevor was seen by the king as trustworthy, and complaints against him were pointless, or more likely to get the complainer into trouble. Similarly, an additional complaint was the sail-maker Prusen would not let any dockyard officers into his premises to inspect the quality of the tarring applied to the bolt-ropes; how effectively it was done, and what quality of tar, rope and canvas was used. The result was that the king was paying top dollar for an inferior product, which endangered sailors' lives. However, the story does prove that bolt-ropes were tarred at least as far back as the early 17th century. The protection of the rope was obviously much more important than the chance of some tar leaching into the canvas. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; In the ships of the Royal Navy, there is no set length as such for the stern post mentioned. It was made as long as possible in order to give the maximum support to the rudder, but in order to allow the tiller to enter the ship and swing to steer the ship, the sternpost had to stop short of the underside of the tiller. Its top coincided with the helm port transom, a specially shaped timber which had a downward cast in its centre, to allow the tiller to swing. The helm port transom could not be maintained in a straight line, or it would have meant that the tops of the stern chase ports would be too low. See attached an excerpt from the NMM's draught of the Dorsetshire's inboard works, which is one of the most beautifully detailed of its kind around. Next below is a picture of the stern of the framed model of the Bellona, also in the NMM. In between the gunports you can see the downward cast section of the helm port transom, with the higher sections of it running thwartships on either side. Above the hole for the tiller, you can see the deck transom, which had to pass over the tiller. This set the maximum height for the tiller; as you will see from this, the positioning of the timbers in this area is inter-dependent. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; To the best of my knowledge, the keel was laid straight, and the hog was laid on top with an equal height for its own full length. I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise. Which is not to say that it was not done, but I am not aware of it. The heavy timbers of the various wales, with their exaggeratedly curved 'sheer' were intended to counteract the tendency of the ship's ends to droop, and I doubt that building a small amount of curve along the keel would achieve much; bearing in mind that ships were also subject to the opposite stress, with the centre of the hull sagging downwards when passing over the trough between two large waves, so that there is good reason to avoid building in a pre-formed 'sag'. Incidentally, deadwood is not the same as rising wood; at least not as it is generally accepted/used. Rising wood (hog) is located under the straight floors, stretching fore and aft from midships. Deadwood starts where the rising wood ends, and is used at the extremities, bow and stern. The deadwood is built up in layers to form a base for the half-timbers and 'V' shaped, made floors (also called hooks) However, you will come across deadwood and rising wood used interchangeably in some modern works, and even some contemporary documents, so the definition is not completely clear-cut. Also, chock covers a multitude of uses, sizes and shapes. For example, there are chocks which are completely parallel-sided; polygonal chocks to join the futtocks; and triangle-based chocks in the floor timbers and transoms, amongst others. More to think about! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; I assume from your reference to Steel that you are looking at a ship from the Royal Navy in the later 18th century. Most tables of scantlings, or contracts, give a dimension for floor timbers 'on the keel', which is measuring upwards from the top of the keel. Depending upon the period in question, this will actually be measured upwards from the top of the hog, or rising wood, which is a length of timber laid on top of the keel to make it easier to form the 'deadrise'. This latter is the gently sloping part of the ship's bottom, starting immediately on each side of the keel, which is sometimes a straight line, but often a shallow curve, sometimes combined with a straight line. The amount of deadrise is normally specified in a contract, and is measured from the top of rabbet for the garboard plank in the keel, to the underside of the floor timber where it crosses the keel (or hog if fitted) Although models usually have floor timbers made in one horizontal piece, with the bottom tapering downwards towards the keel, in full-size practice it was normal for the floor timber to have its top and bottom parallel for most of its length, and to fit a triangular 'chock' under the floor timber on each side, which ran into the side of the rising wood. The whole subject of structure is rather complex, and has its own specific vocabulary. To make it more complicated, the method of building the structure changed regularly; for example what was applicable in 1700 will be radically different by 1750. There are a few books around which will help to understand this, but none of them really cover the subject in its fullest extent, unfortunately. There were a series of articles by David White in Model Shipwright, around issues 45 -60, which covered this subject in the fullest manner of which I am aware. Unfortunately, this was never completed in its entirety. If you really want to know the subject in depth, it will take some serious study, and require a fair bit of digging for sources. If you want to understand what is best from a modelling point of view, then the series of excellent 'Swan' practicums by David Antscherl will give a wonderful grounding in the subject. Unfortunately, their level of quality is not cheap to purchase, and this may be not possible at present for you. Volume I would do the job of understanding the hull structure for you, if you can stretch to it. They do occasionally show up here second hand. The structure shown in this is relevant to the larger part of the later 18th century. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; The literal meaning of the 'bearing of the ship' is as follows, and comes from the good old days when ships were careened regularly to have their bottoms 'breamed', which is burnt, scraped and re-sealed with whatever composition was needed/available. When ships were careened, they were tilted over sideways on a hard piece of the shore. The part of the ship's hull which was in contact with the ground, and 'bore' the weight of the ship was the turn of the bilge. This part of the hull was indeed, as Jaager says, where the floor timbers ended, with an upward curve. So the sided dimension at the bearing is the fore and aft thickness of the outer ends of the floor timbers. The 'bearing' of the ship ends where the floor timbers cease to have a flat component to their central geometry, and start to become more 'V' shaped, both fore and aft. All the best, Mark P

Very nice work indeed Karl; you are off to a great start, keep it up! I look forward to seeing the rest of the project. All the best, Mark P

Thanks for posting this Chris; I normally keep a close eye on Pen & Sword's upcoming books, but I had not seen this one yet. I have been trying to get hold of the 2nd edition of the Kriegstein collection for years, but they just don't come up (and I probably couldn't afford it if one did) However, this new book will fulfil that need. Great! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; The oscillation of the bobbin does improve the finish, as it avoids any chance of leaving visible parallel lines in your finished wood (this also depends upon the grit size of the abrasive you are using, of course) All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Bruce; To add to all the replies above, yes, thwarts in many ships' boats were removable. This was to allow flexibility in the cargo which could be ferried in them, for example water casks taken to shore to replenish the ship's supply at a stream. By removing some of the thwarts, 2 parallel rows of casks could be laid end to end in the midships. There is a model in the NMM depicting exactly this. Contracts for the building of boats normally specified the number of fixed and loose thwarts. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Steven; That's interesting: the word retained its meaning in the vernacular long after it ceased to be used in writing. I don't remember seeing any use of 'bend' meaning strake, in writing later than the early 18th century. The word is no longer used in contracts, and Falconer's 'Universal Dictionary' only defines bend in its non-shipbuilding meaning of fastening a rope to something. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Gentlemen; This is a good example of how words shifted in meaning over the years. The most recent meaning of 'bend' is actually the frame timbers, or 'ribs' of the ship. However, back in the 17th century, a 'bend' was also used to describe the wales, both main wales, and channel wales as Druxey says above. Presumably because of the great amount of curvature with which wales were at that time constructed. It was also used to describe the more prominent of the planks which form the internal planking of the hold, all of which was known collectively as the 'ceiling', or 'seeling', or 'footwailing'. Early contracts talk of 'bends' or 'strakes' of sleepers etc. Only the word strake has kept is meaning, while 'bend' has migrated. However, it would be interesting to know the date of the passage quoted above, which would give some indication of how long the meaning survived in the vernacular, even if it had dropped out of written usage long before. All the best, Mark P

Thank you both to Druxey and cotrecerf. That is a great help. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Henry; I would be very interested in knowing your source for the rigging data table. I have not seen this before. Can you me know, please, if it's not a secret. Re the handwriting styles, don't be too hard on the writer. Most old docs have various ways of spelling the same word, frequently in the same line or close to it, so it is not un-natural that the numerals will vary. The first clue to the hook numeral is in the date at the top right hand side, where the date has a hooked 1. Be glad that the handwriting is neat and legible. I have seen some real horrors. All the best, Mark P

A great tragedy of Sutton Hoo was that the painstaking work of the local archaeologist, Basil Brown, a self-taught but very talented amateur, who so carefully exposed the shape of the hull, and established the importance of the find, was all set at nought by the pompous academics of the time. Conscious of the chance for a healthy dose of glory, the big names muscled in on the project, trying to forbid further work until they had assembled a team of their own kind. Basil was relegated to pushing a wheelbarrow, and I am fairly certain that his name was not even mentioned in the first reports written by the claim-jumpers. The finds were donated to the British Museum by the landowner. As for how the shape of the ship was revealed without damaging it, that was obviously part of the under-appreciated skill of Basil Brown, and will be shown somewhere, as huge numbers of photographs were taken. A similar situation is unfolding today, with the wreck of the London, which blew up and sank in the Thames in 1665. Periodically uncovered then re-covered by drifting sand, the wreck was rediscovered some years ago, and contains many artefacts, some of which have been recovered by the finders, who formed a knowledgeable and motivated team of amateur marine archaeologists. Most regrettably, the continuance of excavation work has been banned by English Heritage while they argue for ever over who does what. In the meantime, valuable remains are being rapidly eroded: for example a complete gun carriage, which was visible, and then was washed away as officially nobody could touch it! All the best, Mark P

Good Morning gentlemen; Thank you to both to Lieste and Harvey for your contributions. The main point here is that we will never know for sure. Personal opinions, based on what we know ourselves, and shaped by knowledge of much more recent times (even two hundred years ago is much more recent than the period when sea-borne artillery tactics were being shaped: that extends back to the 1400s, over five hundred years ago) can have no real weight in any discussion. We can only rely on what can be learned from contemporary sources. These make it clear that early tactics, gunnery, and firing/loading cycles were very different to those of the 'classic' sea-battle period. Test-firing of reconstructed guns, whilst extremely interesting, and showing well the effect of the shot's impact, cannot in any way be indicative of whether or not guns were fired from a fixed position. What cannot be doubted is that there is enough evidence for this to make it worthy of serious consideration; although at present it cannot be proven either one way or the other. I will look into the possible sources which Harvey gives, so thanks again for posting these. Incidentally, a William Bourne (if my memory is not playing me false) was accused by Matthew Baker, the leading Elizabethan shipwright, of attempting to steal Baker's design work and pass it off as his own. So the possibility of Bourne (if this is the same person, of course) actually being more of a gunner is rather interesting. It is also possible that the meaning of the word 'regiment' in the modern reprint would actually be clearer if it was changed to 'regimen', which has a different meaning, but which may well be what Bourne was intending to impart to his potential readers of a work on navigation, not fighting. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Gentlemen; 'Fully square-rigged', whilst it may, or may not, have ever found a place in the seaman's lexicon, is what I would regard as a simple way of categorising a mast as carrying only square yards, at all levels, with near-rectangular sails routinely set on all of them. An example would be the main and fore masts of any 18th century three-masted warship. No gaffs or booms. This then makes a clear differentiation between these and the mizen mast, which was partially square-rigged. It goes by default that if one can legitimately speak of a 'partially square-rigged' mast, the term 'fully square-rigged' must also exist. These are both descriptive phrases which I have seen many times, in a variety of books on nautical subjects. Whether or not these are terms which point out the user's land-based origins and experience is not really relevant; what matters is that the reader can clearly understand the writer's/speaker's meaning and intent. Any other way of describing these types of mast will either be less clear, or longer, and I am not aware of any in current or former usage. Experience and knowledge of relatively modern practice, whilst invaluable and of the first order, is not the only guidance which can be applied here. I would imagine that, especially nowadays, most modellers are not sailors, nor have they been. For a sailor to make derogatory comments about non-sailors, however well-merited, on a forum which is not devoted to sailors, is conduct unbecoming, I would say. All the best, Mark P

Happy New Year to Everyone! Greetings to Bob especially; speaking from my room 😁, I have to query the truth of the brigantine ID for the second vessel. A brigantine has a fully square-rigged foremast, and the after, or main mast, is taller than the foremast, which this one is not. I agree that there does seem to be a foresail furled tight in the centre of the lower yard, which would make it not a topsail schooner; but only two square sails on a whole mast is rather too few to constitute a full set of square sails, I would say. This could be a cut-down version of a larger rig, forced on the captain by lack of money in the final years of sail, and not quite conforming to any set definition. It almost looks like a cutter-rig with a mizen mast added. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Thanasis; I am far from being an expert on small ships of this type, but I would say that no. 1 is a two-masted schooner, with a large main-topmast staysail; no. 2 is a two-masted topsail schooner (fond memories here: the second model I ever made, forty years ago now, was one of these) The third I am not sure about, although as she appears to be at anchor she is probably drying her sails, in which case it is just possible that the triangular mainsail is not actually triangular. It does appear to be some kind of triangular lug-sail, though. The fourth is also a two-masted schooner. If anyone knows a specific name for these rigs, I would love to hear it as well. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Matrim; I am glad to see that you are making progress; it all looks very good. I will pray that your fears are not realised! All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Gentlemen; Red lead paint was widely available from an early period: Mary Harrison's contract for painting ships, made with the officers of Portsmouth Yard in 1676, specifically states that she undertakes to paint the inside of the ports with one coat of red lead. Prussian blue was accidentally discovered (whilst attempting to make a red pigment!) around 1706. This was the first stable, chemically produced pigment, and became widely available. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Remco; I wish you all success in your hunt for work, and a speedy return to your workshop. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Helge; If you have a completed drawing on paper, I assume of a large size, the usual course would be to have the drawing scanned at a printer's works or by someone with a large-format scanner. The output will then be in a digital format, ideally png file, which can then be sent anywhere in the World by email, and loaded into a CAD drawing as an underlay. This underlay will have to be traced over using AutoCAD generated lines, arcs or curves, though, before it can be 'seen' by the CAD software. I am not aware of any software which will reliably convert a paper drawing, or a digital scan of a paper drawing, straight into a usable CAD drawing. There has been some discussion of this on this forum, and the outcome seems to be that there is, as yet, no reliable way of making a straightforward conversion, despite some programmes claiming to do this. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Mark/Gary; One thing which I think it is important to keep in mind is that the rule about lodging knees being fitted to the fore side of the beams in the aft half of the ship, and vice versa, was not based at all on structural considerations; it was due to the angle formed on the fore side of the aft beams being obtuse. Whereas by the alternative scenario, placing a lodging knee on the aft side of the aft beams, the angle would be acute, requiring timber which was more difficult and expensive to obtain. For this reason, I suspect that where a situation called for an incredibly curved 'cast' hanging knee, this may well have been a justification for fitting the lodging knee on the opposite side to the normal rule, thereby allowing the hanging knee to be straighter, with less of a cast. Where this resulted in two lodging knees pointing at each other, the arm of one was tucked down below the arm of the other, so that they overlapped in side view; which you probably already know. All the best, Mark