Mark P

Good Evening; Does anyone know how things are going. I ordered a couple of books and have had no confirmation email or anything. The payment has been processed, so someone is presumably still watching the orders come in. Just an order acknowledgement would be a tremendous comfort. If health problems are still an issue, then it would be considerate towards the purchasers if a notice was put on the website announcing that there is no cause for concern, orders are being processed, even if one does not hear anything. That cannot be too hard to organise, surely. Overall, it's a great shame, because they publish some wonderful books and I want to carry on buying when I can afford some more. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Dali; That's some very good quality work you have done for your project. Congratulations and well done indeed! All the best, Mark P

Thanks Gregory; I did not know that little trick, which will be useful for far more than posting here. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Allan; There is in the NMM collections a drawing ZAZ7846, which is described as showing the internal and external planking of the Berwick of 1775 (there is nothing on the draught to verify this; possibly there is something on the back) A bit later than your period, but still useful. This shows hook and butt (otherwise known as Flemish style) planking for the external wale, and a good proportion of the inboard planking, starting with the strakes below the orlop clamp. The other deck clamps are treated likewise, and, interestingly, the spirketting is tabled. See picture below. Note the arrangement below the forecastle and quarterdeck. Search NMM collections under planking, and narrow to the 18th century. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Jonny; No real surprise there. I have wanted this myself for a long time; but could never afford it. Have you seen the prices for it on the internet? Whoever bought this got a bargain. All the best, Mark P

Congratulations Vladimir; She's looking very good, you have made a lovely job of the deckhouse and trailboards. An impressive model; keep up the good work! All the best, Mark P

Good Morning; Yet no matter how good or otherwise the glues available to Longridge were, they would not have been any less effective than those used by the Georgian and earlier modellers, whose beautiful creations continue to entrance us over two centuries later. The surviving models are generally in much better condition than the much more recent model of the Victory. So the present condition of this model is probably due to either poor storage, poor choice of timber, or to the creation of stress in the timber by forcing it into position (or a combination of any or all of these) It is otherwise a beautiful and accomplished model, so carry on as you are, Mark, and no doubt in 250 years, your model will still be a source of wonder to all who see her. I remember a very effective wood glue called 'Cascamite', which was based, I believe, on pine resin, and had to be mixed with water. It was extremely strong. I believe is first appeared in the forties, a bit too late for Dr Longridge, unfortunately. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Everyone; I have seen the same as Greg, pictures with some significant movement in the planking of the Victory model. I can't remember where they were, but there is a video on youtube from 2008, before the Museum had an attack of political correctness. See a still below from it. This will encourage you, Mark! All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon; Thanks Jaager for posting more information. It has been suggested to me that the ship shown in the pen and wash drawing, in the first post, is a captured Dutch vessel, with the strange knuckle due to English shipwrights either altering or repairing her stern in their round tuck style, but finding this awkward, as all Dutch warships had square tuck sterns, and no wing transom. Hence the rather amateurish look to the planking, and probably the seeming clinker-built style of it also. Especially as other English ships had perfectly well formed round tuck sterns well before the Sovereign was built. This makes it unlikely that the knuckle shown in the Lely painting of the Sovereign is there for a similar reason, so why the picture shows this is still a subject for guesswork. However, that does mean that the painting is the only evidence of any kind for the Sovereign to have had a square tuck; which should be considered in balance against a number of depictions of pre-Sovereign ships with round tucks, and the draught of the actual vessel shown above. Below on the left is a Van de Velde picture of the Garland, built in 1620; shown in the Commonwealth period, but she had not been re-built, and still has her original round tuck stern. Likewise the Convertine, on the right; built in 1616 with a round tuck stern, although the drawing is later. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Druxey and Jaager for your thoughts. I posted this because the preponderance of evidence for the period is that the Sovereign had a round tuck, in my opinion. If Frank Fox holds the same view, I would regard this as very strong advocacy for the same. I also believe that the portrait shows a round tuck. If it were square, as Jaager mentions, the planking would not continue the lines of the main hull planking, as the fashion piece would be partly visible, and the stern planking would stop short of the knuckle. Jaager, have you read the review in question, which raises a number of points that are hard to set aside, and which give a good indication of the actual level of research carried out by John McKay while preparing the book. It is undeniable that McKay is a draughtsman of outstanding ability, but I do believe that he has given insufficient consideration to the information available for this subject. There is a contemporary draught of the Sovereign available. It was found in the early 20th century, in the London house where Samuel Pepys once lived. This is also mentioned by Pepys as being amongst his possessions. For about the last hundred years it has been in the collections of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (copies are available at an extortionate price) The provenance of this is accepted as genuine. It has been colour-washed, and shows the decoration of the side in great detail, at a scale of 1:48 This draught also shows the tuck, in side view, with gradually fading shading running away from the line of the stern. It is very difficult to disagree that this shows a rounded shape. The reflection on the surface of the water shows the same thing. Re the apparent width of the planks, although I think they are reasonable, two things might be of interest: the very different timber supply situation for the early 17th century must be borne in mind; I have seen floorboards in houses of that date, which are 2 feet wide (not that I am advocating that the planks here are that width) Secondly, the Sovereign had a notedly narrow stern, which was one reason for her unpopularity amongst admirals, and explains why she almost never served as a flagship. Given the choice, they preferred other first-rates with wider accommodation. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon; The recent publication of John McKay's book 'Sovereign of the Seas', which purports to give an accurate representation of the ship as built in 1637, has resulted in some fairly caustic reviews appearing on Amazon. This includes one from Frank Fox, probably the foremost expert in ships and Naval history of this period, who is deeply thanked by McKay for his help with the preparation of the book. Frank Fox starts his review with the comment that although McKay asked for his advice and comments, this was then largely ignored, so he wishes to counter the impression created that he has endorsed the book, when in fact he has no wish to be associated with it, as it contains too many inaccuracies. The largest of these centres around the shape of the stern: was she a round-tuck, or a square-tuck? Frank Fox is adamant that she was built with a round tuck, and cites ample examples to prove this. John Mckay's reconstruction shows her with a square tuck, with his reason for assuming this largely based on the well-known portrait of Peter Pett, the builder of the Sovereign, by Peter Lely. This can be interpreted as showing a square tuck (although the planking is quite clearly curved, and almost vertical, both as is normal for a round tuck stern; square tucks had straight, diagonal planking) However, it is undeniable that the outer portion of the stern does show a 'knuckle', or sharp angle. According to one's point of view, this can be taken as proof of a square tuck (despite the curved planking) or as an error on the part of the painter, who knew nothing of ships (Peter Lely was a portrait painter, and is very unlikely to have ever gone near Chatham where the Sovereign was generally laid up or moored) However, maybe an injustice has been done to Lely, and he has actually painted an accurate portrait of her (or whoever did paint it; there is no certainty that Lely actually painted the ship's stern at all, or even the portrait of Pett) Compare the three pictures below. These show part of the Sovereign/Pett painting (which is held by the National Maritime Museum) and adjacent is a drawing taken from the book 'Sailing Ships of War', by Dr Frank Howard (highly recommended if you do not have it) This shows a sketch of an English third rate in around 1634 (although this identification is not certain) She certainly has the English coat of arms, and a CR monogram. Most interesting, though, is the planking around the buttocks. This could be what is portrayed in the Sovereign painting. The final picture shows part of the stern of a model of Warrior, which shows the run of the planking in a round tuck very well. I have not yet seen McKay's book, although I do intend to purchase a copy, as the drawings of the decoration are, according to Frank Fox and other reviewers, very good. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Kurtis; No worries about whatever level of accuracy you stop at. This is your project, and only you know exactly when you will be at the result you need. Re quarter galleries, this is no reference to their proportion of the ship, as Mark says above. The quarter is the term used to describe that particular area of the ship; in this case, the area adjoining the sharp angle where the stern meets the ship's side. It also give a direction. For example, a lookout hailing down to the deck to report sighting something, would shout: 'sail ho! Off the starboard quarter!' Thereby giving those on deck the direction in which it lay. Don't take Wikipedia as gospel. They do have a lot of good information there; but the sailing Navy is too vast a subject for accurate detailed knowledge of it to be widespread, and I have seen more than a few errors in some articles. I corrected some, but not all of them. Quarter galleries were occasionally damaged by heavy seas, but the complete loss of one was rare, and more likely to occur during a battle. All the best, Mark

Good Evening John; David White's series of articles are well illustrated, and very informative. However, if your period of interest is the 17th century, most of what he wrote will be of no specific help to you, as he concentrated mostly on shipbuilding in the second half of the 18th century. Earlier periods are not much covered, and techniques then were very different. His articles will certainly help you to understand a draught, though, which is useful. Rather unfortunately, the series of articles was never completed, either. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning everyone; Further to the above, see below a Navy Board proposal dated 1742, relating to flag sizes. The height is given in 'brds', which is an abbreviation of 'breadths', being the width of a roll of the fabric used, when it was folded or cut in half. The fabric was called 'bewper', and was 22" wide. A breadth was 11", so an ensign of 34 breadths would be just over 31' high x 17 (half of the 34) yards (51') long. Note that the 'fly' of a flag is ambiguous, and can refer to both the free end of the flag, and its horizontal length. There is also a list drawn up by Samuel Pepys in 1687 which lists the different sizes for five different rates. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mark; Maybe you could taper the discharge chutes slightly, which would help. Only a couple of inches or so. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Kurtis; The cheeks are a lot better now, certainly. The overall impression is much improved. Still let down by the stern and the wale. Look at Malachy's and see if you can work out the difference. If you can improve the stern, you will have a passable impression of a ship, which, if it is all you are wishing to achieve, is a good first step on the long road to self-improvement. If you are seriously going to involve yourself in this, I recommend that you keep a copy of this drawing safe, and look at it in 10 years; and 20 years; and 30 years. You will think: 'OMG! Did I really do that?!!' All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mark; See photo below from a different perspective. It does look as though the foremost discharge chute (by the way, good pun Druxey!!) is set so that the lower rail is protruding somewhat across the exit, but only a couple of inches at most. Also, the cuts in the head timbers for the rails look much smaller than those on your section, which would weaken them quite a bit, I suspect. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mark; Look again at the second photo in my post, looking up from below. the inner face of the discharge chute is resting on the top of the lower rail, but the chute is not at all obstructed by the rail. Something must be still a bit amiss. Both seats of ease sit on the headrails, but without obstructing the holes. Certainly, the rails will get some splash, and the bosun's pet whipping boy probably got the happy job of swabbing it clean in harbour. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Druxey; Thank you for pointing this out, but I checked this first, and the Wikimedia Commons licensing statement says that no permission is required for use for any purpose, as this image has been in the public domain. Although the original text of the title of the drawing could be considered copyright. All the best, Mark

Hello Everyone; Just came across this interesting little illustration whilst searching through a bunch of draughts downloaded from Wikimedia Commons. This shows the main topsail yard-arm of Endymion, a 44-gun ship launched in 1797. This gives an idea of how big the yard-arm and studding sail boom irons actually were. all the best, Mark P

Good Evening Reg; I've just looked at the back of my volume IV, and Druxey is right. The rigging plans etc are indeed there. I had forgotten about them. One thing to keep in mind though: whilst the Swan volume IV is a very helpful and wonderful guide to the rigging of the period, it is all dimensioned for a 14-16 gun sloop. Winchelsea is a frigate with 32 guns, so her rigging will be on a different scale. Nonetheless, the book is an invaluable aid if you want to learn about rigging. All the best, Mark

Good Evening; I agree with Jaager, even if it is not seasoned it still sounds too good to miss. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Reg; If you are referring to the fourth volume in the 'Swan' series of practicums, I have this, and I can highly recommend it to you. It is very well illustrated and explains everything in great detail. However, there is also a supplemental, smaller volume which was issued later, which gives further details of some areas of the rigging, I believe. I don't have this, so I cannot comment on it. But I would advise you to purchase both volumes if you can, as I don't doubt that it is to the same high standard as all David Antscherl's books. I did not purchase the plans, only the framing templates, so I can't answer your other question about the masts. But there will be many other members here who can. All the best, Mark

Good Afternoon Mark; Here is another one, taken from directly abeam. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Mark; See below a few photographs of the model, taken while she has been on display at the NMM. Unfortunately this meant that I was not able to photograph the port side or the stern. These will be invaluable in working out the location of the seats of ease, though, and much of the other detail. The discharge chutes seem to be sitting on the headrails, which presumably gave them the support they needed. The final photo is from 'Endymion', a 44 gun ship, but shows the location of the chute clearly. All the best, Mark P