Mark P

Good Evening All; Regarding the post with zu Mondfeldt's drawings of fish davits, his English style is not correct. The English fish davit was similar to the continental one he shows, and was, as mentioned in the extract from Lees quoted above, less than the overall breadth of the ship. It was used by having one end set in the span-shackle near the centre line, with the other end protruding over the bulwark. Regarding belaying pins, I would err on the side of caution when using Lees as an authority on this subject. His book is largely based on his own experience, admittedly a long one, of models in the NMM's collection. Whether he ever read Manwayring's book with his early 17th century reference to belaying pins (which is seemingly applicable to all sizes of vessel) or knew that they are mentioned in mid-seventeenth century contracts for two decked warships, must be doubted. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Phil; Regarding the fish davit etc, it is possible that you are confusing the cat head and the fish davit (apologies if you are not!) In the Royal Navy, the cat heads were the outboard ends of a long beam (made in two pieces) which spanned the entire forecastle at the beakhead bulkhead, in each outboard end of which were sheaves used with a tackle (the cat-block and falls) to raise the anchor, once the men on the capstan had raised it as high as they could by hauling on the anchor cable. Hauling on the falls of the cat-block raised the anchor as close to the cat-head as possible/necessary, although it was still hanging vertically. The fish davit was then used, with another tackle, to haul up the crown (the point where the curved arms joined the vertical shank) of the anchor, from vertical, to horizontal, so that it could be lashed in the fore chains. The fish davit in Allan's picture had one end fitted into a square shackle, well fixed through the forecastle and upper-deck beams. In around the mid 1780s, the long fish davit was replaced by shorter ones which were set in a cast iron shoe in the fore channels. Regarding the date of the model, I believe that all of the models of sailing warships in the collection are contemporary, and so built at approximately the same time as the ships they portray. They were brought over from England in the early 20th century. Whilst this is a tragedy from the point of view of the English Museums' Collections, and the secretive way in which the models were sold and purchased aroused considerable controversy and condemnation at the time, I believe that it has had a good outcome. This is that the models are still on display (as so few now are in England, although that has improved slightly in recent years) that they are well-cared-for; and that being able to see them has undoubtedly made a considerable contribution towards the number of ship modellers in the US (and Canada) If the model has not been given a name, it is because it cannot be reliably identified with a particular vessel, only by period and type. Grant Walker and Seawatch books have produced 2 excellent books on the first and second rate, and the third rate, models in the collection, which are well worth looking at if you can purchase or find a copy. Regarding the introduction of belaying pins, see my first post in this thread, and several subsequent ones, which discuss the earliest known dates. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Allan; Don't take it too hard, please. We are all guilty of making assumptions without making a proper scrutiny. I just wish it was possible to be certain about the origin of those belaying pins. There are apparently some photographs taken by R C Anderson, before the collection was sold, and one of these might show the beakhead as it was then. I just need to track down the pictures. As some of them are shown in Grant Walker's book, the location may be given in there. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Allan; I fear you are doing Phil an injustice. Those are quite definitely belaying pins in the fife rail of the last photograph. Compare the two shots below, from your third photo (to the left), and the last picture (right) They are noticeably different. Thank you for posting them, as I have not seen a picture of a beakhead with all pins in it before, and this is definitely worth seeing. I have just looked at the second volume of Grant Walker's/Seawatch's series on the Rogers Collection, and on page 11 there is a larger, clearer picture of the last model. It is even clearer there that these are belaying pins. See the picture below. The only doubt about these must be the suspicion that they might just have been fitted by Henry Culver, although as he was presumably also familiar with the model in your second picture, which shows the headsail ropes just wrapped around the fife rail, he would presumably have done this in preference to drilling and inserting a row of belaying pins. The same article in the book reveals that the model was rigged already in 1912, but the rigging was 18th century style, along with a lot of poor quality work to the hull, which Culver justifiably removed. So the rigging is presumably all by Henry Culver. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Everyone; Druxey's comment seems fair enough, looking at the rather pristine state of the ropes, and the lack of dust anywhere. Henry Culver did a lot of restoration/reconstruction work to the Colonel's models, but surely even he would not have gone so far as to insert a line of belaying pins along the fife rail. So presumably the pins are genuine, even if the ropes belayed to them are not. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning All; Thanks for all the thoughts set out above. All very interesting and thought-provoking. I used an air brush with some model painting acrylic paints bought in a High Street bargain store. I thinned the paint with water, and after two coats the colour was deep and solid. However, this was on un-sealed lime wood, which is very porous. I wonder what the results would be on boxwood, which is much less open. I will have to try an experiment. All the best, Mark P

Thanks for those Alan; One of the reasons why shipwrights remained at the Royal dockyards, rather than seeking the more highly-paid and sooner-received wages for work in the merchant yards (dockyard wages could be four years in arrears) was that there was a chance of retirement and a pension, if one's service was thought worthy of it, once work became too hard. The same applied to the warrant officers serving on sailing ships. Greenwich Hospital also took in distressed sailors in old age, who had no other resources. This all dates back for at least three hundred years. In a time when life was precarious and hard for so many, any chance of some assistance in old age was greatly valued. The Navy was more paternalistic than popular modern legend, obsessed with flogging and sodomy (not necessarily at the same time) would have us believe. One reason for Nelson's success as a commanding officer was that he cared deeply for all his men's welfare, and tried hard to make some difference wherever he saw the need. He saw command as carrying an obligation towards those commanded, and not just as a means to personal glory or success. Not all saw things in this way, of course (and still don't!) All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Pat; I can help with some of your questions, but this is somewhat outside the period I know best. My answers are general, not specific to the particular vessel you are modelling. 3. The part of the bitts below deck was frequently tapered, and became noticeably thinner in a fore and aft direction by the time they reached the deck beams below. 4. The gallows was fitted to extended topsail sheet bitts, being around 5'6" - 6' high to the underside. The crossbeam on the top extended beyond the bitt pins. It was frequently used either to support a walkway projecting forward from the quarterdeck, or the spare spars for the ship. I have never seen a gallows referred to in any context but as an extended set of bitts with a high-level crossbeam. See below for an example of 'horned' bitts, from the framed model of Bellona, & an 18th century gallows from Royal William. The top surface follows the deck camber. All the best, Mark P

That's a bit of a pain; I purchased the first edition about a year ago. Now I will have to see if I can locate the second one! Thanks to all for the information in this very interesting and informative thread. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning All; The number of cannon-balls of each size was laid down in the Navy Board's standing orders, with quantities reduced for each smaller size of ship. When a ship was commissioned, the guns, powder and shot were all supplied by the Ordnance Board, and the ship's gunner had to check the quantity and was then responsible for all the stores issued. At the end of the commission, he had to account for, or return, everything which had been issued previously. As these stores were worth a lot of money, a strict inquiry was made for each ship. I have read of cases of powder being concealed behind piles of timber or under other stores in order to steal it (merchant ships or privateers were ready buyers) One ship, whose name I cannot remember, is believed to have been blown up when a stolen cache of powder was accidentally ignited. All the stores were listed and named on a printed sheet several pages long, with the quantities entered by hand. One document was created at issue, and then updated on return of the stores. See sample below, dating from 1682. Regarding the storage and movement of round-shot, the shot-lockers were located either side of the ship's well, directly under the successive layers of the main hatch and the after hatch on each deck. It would not have been difficult to rig a sling through either hatch and haul a net-full of shot up to whatever deck required it, which was the reverse of the method used when loading the round-shot from a delivery. Additionally, a quantity of shot was stored on each deck in racks, ready for use. The shot-lockers were divided internally to keep different sizes of shot separate. Each locker is approximately 9-10 feet tall, so they would have held a lot of shot. See below an excerpt from a draught of a 74, showing the hatchways (the solid red, horizontal rectangles) and shot-lockers in line. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Gentlemen; A model with stylised frames would indeed be a good way of building a framed model in an instance where the true framing pattern is unknown, and would follow on from a long tradition. I would like to make one comment on the Navy Board pattern of framing models, though. Which is that the most common method of construction depicted in such models does actually represent a technique used in full-size practice in the early 1600s, and perhaps earlier, and was not as stylised as many authors have stated. Construction using interlocking timbers is documented archaeologically, and is specifically demanded in some early ship-building contracts. Interlocking floors and first futtocks continued into the early 1700s in some instances. A frame produced using interlocking timbers is actually very strong structurally, but was discontinued, I believe, for three reasons: firstly, the need to use relatively thick futtocks to maintain contact between adjacent timbers, which became harder to satisfy as timber shortages began to bite (this is already being complained of in the mid 1600s) Secondly, the fact that the relatively large spaces between the timbers (outside the areas of interlocking, which were obviously very strong) provided no protection against cannon-shot penetrating the ships' hulls. Lastly, the close contact between timbers encouraged dampness, which led to the onset of rot. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Wayne; Your questions raise a good point. But if there are no records of how merchant vessels were built in this period and location, who can say what methods and sizes of timber were used. Archaeology may have some good indications, certainly, as Roger mentions. Where the local shipwrights were likely to have been trained would give some indication also. On Bermuda? If most were immigrants, they would bring their own traditions. I was looking at an original copy of the 'Shipbuilder's Repository' only a few days ago, and the unknown (but very knowledgeable) author included a section on the scantlings of merchant vessels. Unfortunately I did not photograph this part, as I concentrate on warships, but the author's opening remarks to this section indicated that merchant scantlings could be heavier than those of Navy vessels. This seems counter-intuitive, and as I only skimmed it briefly I may have not really taken it all in, but I am sure that this was the import of his remarks. If anyone reading this has a copy of the Repository (which is a very informative and information-packed volume) maybe they could check the beginning of the merchant vessel section and confirm/correct my impression, and expand on what is said there. The book was published in 1788, so will relate to ships somewhat earlier than this date. Yet whatever is said there is still not provably relevant to Bermuda, as you say. In the absence of any firm evidence, all that can be done is to choose one of a variety of options, and stick to it. In which case, it is probably best to choose one which is not only a possible method, but one which is fairly-well documented to avoid too much guesswork being needed. All the best, Mark P

To clarify Jaager's post above, see below a sketch I made to illustrate room and space. This is based on a distance of 2'8 3/8", the room & space for a 74 gun ship, Ganges, and shows the station lines at 10, 8 & 6, at each of which there would be a double frame, or 'bend' located. Between these station lines lie 2 filling frames, which, being single, are not bends. The exact spacing of the filling frames could vary relative to each other. Note that other patterns of framing were used, but this will help to understand how it works. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Gerard; As Mark says above, commercial plans may give you the answers you want. If this does not work for Lexington, then you will have to calculate or locate the dimensions. There is some confusion in your post, in that you mention you are looking for moulded dimensions, but then state that this is between the fore and aft faces. Then you seem to correctly describe the sided dimension. So it appears that you are correct in knowing that you are looking for the moulded dimension, but this is the distance between the inboard and outboard faces of the futtocks etc. In the Royal Navy, where the most plentiful records survive, everything was proportional to one of the principal dimensions of the ship. Originally this used the length of the keel, but by the 18th century, the length of the gun-deck, ie the length between perpendiculars, was used. Every dimension in the ship was then calculated as a proportion of this. As gun-deck length was fairly standard within each class, both these systems led to a high degree of standardisation. As large numbers of the shipwrights working in the original colonies or other parts of the Americas would have been trained in England, it would seem a reasonable assumption that the early American vessels were built using the same or a similar system. If there is no known record of the moulded dimensions used for Lexington, or similar ships at the time, then to use the RN's system will certainly give a viable method, even if Lexington was originally built as a privateer, which I think is the case here. If you can locate a copy of a builder's contract for a Royal Navy brig of similar size, this would be a good source for moulded dimensions. Alternatively, Allan Yedlinsky has compiled a book of scantlings used in the Royal Navy, available from Seawatch. I am not sure if this covers ships with two masts, but Allan is a member of this website, and he will be able to confirm this for you. I would suggest sending him a personal message (he is here under his own name) as he may not see this post otherwise. Note that moulded dimensions normally reduced at several points going forward and aft, so they were not constant. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Matrim; This might help you settle the sizes. See below an extract from a 1790 volume in the British Library. This gives mast & yard dimensions for a vessel of every class, including Iris, a 32 gun ship. The photograph is slightly out-of-focus as the reading rooms are not brightly lit, and the BL do not allow the use of camera stands, so everything is hand-held with an elongated exposure. The bowsprit is 52'8" (given as 17 yards & 20 inches) Note that the reference to 'flying jib-boom' is actually referring to the jib-boom. This was commonly called a flying jib-boom from its introduction in the early 18th century. If you need anything more, let me know. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Auger; They would certainly have been notched out, as the iron bands were proud of the mast's surface. I know that I have seen this described somewhere, but I cannot remember where. Failure to do this would have allowed the battens to distort and crack under the localised pressure from the shrouds and other objects looped over the mast head. The lower part of the mast had its core bound together with iron bands, and the fishes and paunches applied over the bands were notched out to sit flush on the core. Incidentally, I see that you are using James Lees's book. Do not rely on his statement that iron bands are seldom seen on models before 1800 as a guide to full-size practice. After the American colonies became independent, the supply of New England masts dried up, and the Navy could not obtain trees of the same size elsewhere. The trees they formerly purchased from the colonies were large enough to supply most masts as a single tree. After the loss of this supply, they came to rely much more upon 'made' masts, comprising smaller pieces all carefully interlocked. These needed iron bands to hold the component parts together. From the late 1770s onward, there are a large number of drawings of masts made at various dockyards, all of 'made' masts, listing the sizes of the component timbers and their costs. These all show iron bands around the core, and each seems to be the relevant Master Shipwright's suggestion for overcoming the shortage of large trees (this is my assumption, and is not stated as such on any of the drawings) For any vessel built or re-masted from 1780 onwards, I would use metal hoops on the mast. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Ferit; If you are talking of 18th century ships, or earlier, I have seen frequent mention in lists of bo'suns' stores to candles, and they are mentioned in other documents. Oil would be a volatile substance to have near a flame on a constantly-moving ship made of wood. I would exclude oil completely, and show candles. However, for 19th century merchant vessels, oil might have been used. I cannot say. If this is your area of interest, try looking under the National Maritime Museum's online collections site. They will certainly have some ships' lanterns there. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Gary; Thank you for the message. I will look into this cyclone idea, and see if anything like it is available over here. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gary; That looks like a very well set-up workshop you have made there for yourself. Your library looks really impressive too. I recognise the set of Model Shipwright, and quite a few of the books, but some of them I don't know. I am jealous (in a good way!) of your dust extraction set-up. I spent some time trying to get mine to work properly, but so far without much success. Thanks for the pictures. All the best, Mark P

Welcome to the forum Dean; My first ever project was a 'Keil-Kraft' balsa glider. Disappeared long ago. I once started on a 6ft B-17 flying fortress, but ran out of steam (ships took over) Whatever you choose to build, I wish you all the best. Mark P

Good Evening Jim; Whichever you choose, I wish you happy building! And happy reading of your book when it arrives. Good Evening Druxey; You are right, of course. Sole was more usual in the 18th century. I would just like to re-assure you that I am completely sober (hic!) Only drunk from reading quite a few 17th century contracts, wherein 'shoal' is more customary. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jim; Your coloured arrows are correct: green equals the floor rider; red is the first futtock rider and blue is the second futtock or breadth rider. The coloured-in pieces on the orlop deck drawing are indeed the tops of the riders. Another point which might be worth bringing to your attention is standard knees. These are knees which are 'upside-down', and are located on all the main gun-decks. They sit on the deck, and are fixed to the ship's side. On the left hand side of Falconer's midship section, you can just see two of them, one behind each of the guns. A 74 had something like 10 of these on each side on each deck. They were not fixed directly to the deck, but to a 'shoal', which was a 3 inch thick piece of plank laid over the deck, and it was on top of this that the standard was located. The shoal would often stop short of the ship's side so that any water on the deck could run along the waterways to the scuppers. Standards and shoals are rarely seen on contemporary models, nor are they shown on McKay's drawings of 'Leopard', but depending upon your desire for accuracy, you might wish to include some. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jim; With a midship section without any other details showing it could be looking forward or aft, it would look the same. As viewed, I meant starboard to be the right hand side. There are no knees shown on that side to confuse the issue. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Bluto; I agree with Druxey's comments, you should certainly read at least one of the books he mentions, and preferably at least the last two, if you need to understand riders somewhat better. However, one comment is that the midship section you posted is taken from the book 'The 50-gun Ship', by Rif Winfield. If you have not got this, I would advise you to do so, as there are some further drawings in it which show the decks in isometric views, all very clearly drawn by the very talented John McKay. Unfortunately, the hold is not included in this series, but the view of the orlop does show the ends of the riders poking through. See below an excerpt from a draught of the Stirling Castle, a 64 gun ship, but the principle is the same. Riders comprised floor riders, which straddle the keel; first futtock riders, which run alongside the previous ones, but started at the keel and stopped at the orlop deck beams; and second-futtock or breadth riders, which began at the end of the floor riders, and extended up to the gun-deck beams. In the draught, there is a pair behind/below each shot locker, although the forward one seems to have no floor rider, then again just aft of the midship station; just forward of station A and just forward of station E (the latter has no floor rider) Note that although the 'X' marking the floor riders appears to cut into the keelson, this is a draughting convention. In reality, the floor riders were bent up over the keelson. See also below a plate from Falconer's work, which shows the midship section and riders (starboard side is clearest) All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Vulcan; I would suspect that oars would be lashed to the thwarts (different boats would almost certainly have had different lengths of oars. The contracts for supplying these are very specific about lengths, of which there are a large variety) and the masts and yards would perhaps be also. These latter, though, could also have been lashed to the skid beams or the spare topmasts etc on which the longboat was stowed. The rigging and sails were probably removed and stowed in a sail room or the bo'sun's store room. As the boat might not be used for a long time, anything left in the bottom of the boat would be exposed to damp, and would only dry slowly, leaving them vulnerable to rot, especially the canvas sails. However, if you are depicting the boat being hoisted out, I would believe that all the masts and rigging would be brought out of store, and put on board before she was hoisted, ready to be stepped and set up once she was in the water. Some boats had lockers under the seats, and perhaps in the bow. Some of the rigging may have been stored in these, in which case it would be unseen during the hoisting. All the best, Mark P