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

Good Evening Druxey; It would seem that suddenly half the World's population have been forced into taking early (and hopefully temporary) retirement. In that event, a fair number will, it must be hoped, turn to building model ships as a great way to fill the time that work no longer takes up. I just hope, though, that the bill for all the 'temporary pensions' does not land on my doormat with too much of a bang! All the best, Mark

Good Evening Siggi; Some very nice work on your Tiger, as always. I read through the discussion above concerning standards, and I can add a bit of info to help with some of the queries posted there. The contract for Warspite, 70 guns, dated 1665, specifies six pairs of standards on the gun-deck. The contract for re-building the Warspite, 66 guns, dated 1701, specifies seven pairs of standards on the gun-deck. The contract for Warspite, 74 guns, dated 1755, specifies eleven pairs of standards on the gun-deck. It would appear that as ships grew longer, the number of standards increased. One important point to note is that in all cases the standards are not laid directly onto the deck, but have separate boards under them, called 'shoals'. These are a few inches wider and longer than the standard itself. In 1665 the shoals are two inches thick; in 1701 they are three and a half inches thick; in 1755 they are three inches thick. The Dorsetshire draught standards have pins through them, as you surmised. Think of them as horizontal belaying pins. I have seen them on contemporary models, and they are parallel-sided bars, not classic belaying pin shapes; presumably because they were fixed in position permanently. The shoals stopped short of the waterways, to allow the water to run through, and the bottom corner of the standard was often cut away at forty-five degrees, to allow the same thing. Keep up the great work! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Matrim; That's looking like a good start; only another ten zillion scarph joints to go! All the best, Mark P

Nice work Rusty; I can see that your name does not give any indication of your skills! Keep up the progress, and keep us informed. She's looking really good. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Steven; A very nice model; the figures of the crew give so much atmosphere to the whole view. A highly worthwhile return on all those years of effort, research and thought! Congratulations and well done!! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jonathan; I would say that you have summed it all up nicely, and made the best decision in the circumstances. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jonathan; I would not take the presence of an eye bolt in the rear of a kit's gun carriages to be any evidence that the real Revenge would have had such a thing. Certainly the Navy did not issue train tackles as separate items until much later; and in the 17th century one of the gun-tackles was used as a train tackle when needed. If you are depicting your guns in the run-out position, then the train tackle would have already been detached anyway, as it was only used to retain the gun in its recoiled position for loading. However, the whole issue of train tackles is closely linked to the method of using a ship's cannon. There has been some considerable discussion of this recently on MSW (see topic 'the early use of cannon at sea') which discusses the evidence that in the time of Revenge, the guns were fired from a fixed position, with no recoil. In these circumstances, there would certainly be absolutely no need for train tackles at all. May advice would be don't fit them, and if possible, remove or don't fit the eyebolts in the rear of the carriages. All the best, Mark P