Mark P

Good Morning All; The best method I ever used for making mast hoops was with an ordinary hand plane. This was to set the blade to a slightly coarse cut, and then carefully plane a long shaving off the edge of a plank of pine (no knots being present) The shaving will have a natural tendency to curl. Weight it down flat and coat the inner side with glue, then roll it around a suitable sized dowel, with a rubber band around the outside, and leave to dry. Once dry, this will give a perfect tube, from which hoops of the desired height can be cut with ease. This works for woldings and hoops for sails sliding up and down the masts. This was a tip I saw long ago in (I think it was) Underhill's 'Leon' book. But it works wonderfully well, and is quick. The plane needs to be sharp, of course. All the best, Mark

Hi Hamilton; I have seen models with the lines worked from the tops tied off to the topmast shrouds just above the dead-eyes, and to the rail at the aft side of the top. I have also seen illustrations of them belayed to shroud cleats, but I cannot remember where I saw such illustrations. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Everyone; It must be remembered that clipper ships were a special case: captains drove their crews and their ships hard, and nobody got to be captain of a clipper without thoroughly knowing the ways of a sailing ship, so they had a good idea of where the boundaries were. The main point was that the first ship back was guaranteed a large premium on the price of its cargo, and the captain stood to get a bonus. Risks were taken in pursuit of this which doubtless most captains and crews would have deemed foolhardy. The reference to the Americas Cup is a good one, for it was a race: first back to port scoops all the prizes. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Hamilton; Be very wary of using a kit as a precedent, for the reasons you give. The paintings of Royal Caroline shows pin racks on the shrouds, and fairleads lashed to the shrouds above them. See below two extracts from paintings, although one has no fairleads, and the other has no racks on the mizen shrouds. I think that this can be ignored as artistic licence. The painter of both pictures, John Cleveley the Elder, knew the ship very well, having worked on painted scenes in her State Apartments during her fitting out, and being previously a shipwright at Deptford Dockyard where she was built. One other interesting point: I have just finished transcribing the contract for 'Edgar', a 70 gun ship built by Francis Baylie in 1668-9. This specifically mentions fitting for rigging, being listed as 'Kevells, Ranges, Cleates, Turnpinns and whatever shalbe requisite for belaying the rigging'. Turnpinns I can only believe to refer to belaying pins. I have not seen this word before in all the other contracts I have transcribed, but I cannot think of it meaning anything else. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Jason; Regarding the AOTS volume, David White was/is a very knowledgeable person, and if he says that there were separate ringbolts, I would tend to take his word for it. My only qualification on this matter is that I do not remember ever seeing any such ring/eye bolts in either models or books. However, as has been said before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Concerning duality of function, it is very unlikely that train tackles would need to be rigged at the same time as the ship was anchored. This is only likely in a defensive posture in face of superior force, which was rare. So the same ring/eye bolt could perform different functions as required. Having said that, you are quite correct that Lever's stoppers do look pretty permanent. My best advice would be to do as you think best, but with the balance of probability being as per David White's volume if you are building a model from the late 18th century or after. All the best, Mark

Morning Druxey; I would have agreed with you on this until Michael asked the question. Before posting an answer, I did a bit of checking, and according to Marquardt the situation is as in my previous post. Perhaps he is wrong, or perhaps he is right, and it was done so on three-deckers because the deck beams on the middle deck were more substantial than those on the upper deck. Some further research is perhaps indicated. All the best, Mark

Good Morning Mark; With regard to port stops, Druxey & I, and others, have had some lengthy discussions on the subject, which I feel fairly confident in saying settled the matter to the satisfaction of most, which was that no additional timbers were added to the sides/tops/bottoms of ports, and that the stops were formed by ending the planking short of the sides of the openings. Perhaps Druxey can point you to these posts should you wish. It is beyond my skill level, unfortunately. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Hamilton; Druxey is quite correct in what he says, and a good example of pin racks is shown in John Cleveley's paintings of Royal Caroline. The earliest I know of, dated to 1750, shows pin racks on all the shrouds. A model of the 74 gun Ajax, an early example of the type (1767) has single belaying pins in the rails in several places. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning All; I can understand Mac's thinking, but there is no need to get slack in the cable. The procedure was to make the inboard end of the cable fast to the bitts before the anchor was let go. The anchor would then hit the bottom, and the ship would be allowed to fall off until brought up by the cable becoming taut. Standard practice was for the cable used to be be three times the depth of water in length. That the cable was given a half-turn around the top of the bitt pin and then a similar turn, in the opposite direction, around the end of the cross-piece is shown in various contemporary illustrations. The cross piece for a third-rate 74 was around 18" square. The anchor cable for a third-rate was around 7" in diameter. For a first-rate it was between 7" & 8" in diameter, and in 1745 a ship of this rate would have carried 9 different cables of varying lengths for its largest anchors. A third-rate, along with most other rates, carried 7 cables, most of them about 100 fathoms (600 feet) long. They could be joined to allow anchoring in water over 200 feet deep. Mac is right to mention the expense. The Royal Navy, and presumably other Navies, placed a high value on anchors and cables, which were very expensive. There are regular mentions in the archives of dockyard personnel, or crew members, selling the cut-off ends of cables. When caught, they would be severely punished. It is hard not to feel sympathy for some of them, though, a common (and very true) defence being that they had not been paid for two or three years, and their wife and children were starving. A consequence of this high value was that anyone who salvaged an anchor, or anchor and cable, was well-rewarded. The Navy would sometimes commission a non-Navy vessel to go and sweep an area where a ship or ships were known to have left anchors and cables. Below is a page from Darcy Lever's 'Young Sea-Officer's Sheet Anchor' (from Dover Books) showing the bitts, cable and stoppers (the cable is shown much thinner than in reality, and the knees to the bitts are much too short in both length and height) Note that the stoppers are used on the aft side of the bitts. All the best, Mark P

Hi Michael; On an English 2 decker, the widest diameter of the masts was at the upper deck. On a 3 decker, this was on the middle deck. In all cases, partners were fitted on each deck, although presumably the masts were set up using the partners at the widest diameter for the initial wedging. All the best, Mark

Good Morning Mark; One thing to keep in mind with planking is that where a continuation of the plank above a gun port would leave only a thin sliver of the next-below strake running over the gun-port, the plank above would often be widened in the vicinity of the port, so that it extended downwards and occupied the position of the below strake. The technical term for this was 'to give wood to the ports', which is frequently mentioned in building contracts. Whilst I have seen planking expansions showing this, I cannot at present remember where I saw one to include here for you. It was done by drawing a line at 45 degrees upward and outward from the top corners of the port, until this line intersected the lower side of the strake above the port. The area thus delineated was included as part of that strake. Also, as Druxey mentions, butts above or below gun-ports were specifically avoided. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening all; Ring bolts were provided behind each gun in the deck, usually set into either a deck beam (the structure of English warships was that a gun-deck beam was always sited directly below the centre of each port) although 17th century ships had a longitudinal carling close to the centre line each side, and the ring-bolt was set into this, at its junction with the deck beam, presumably passing through both. The train tackle was not used to run in the gun during battle (although it presumably was during some types of gun exercises) as the recoil of the gun would bring the gun back inboard as far as the breeching would allow. The train tackle was used to prevent the gun running back out during re-loading. In the earlier periods, guns were only issued with two tackles, and it was presumably necessary to un-hitch one of the two gun-tackles to use behind the gun for a train-tackle. Concerning stoppers, I believe that there might be some confusion with 'nippers'. The ship's anchor cable, being very large diameter and stiff as a result, was not passed around the capstan. Instead an endless loop of rope was passed around the capstan, similar to the way of connecting the ship's wheel, but with the other end passing through a large block in the bows (17th century practice was a little different, but followed the same principle) and this moving rope was temporarily tied or 'nipped' to the main anchor cable with short lengths of rope to enable the movement of the rope to be transmitted to the cable. As the rope came close to the capstan, the nippers were untied, and taken back to the bows to repeat the operation. This was normally an operation carried out by the ship's boys, hence a common term for boys being 'nipper'. Stoppers were used once the anchor had been 'let go', and was on the sea bed. The main strain of the anchor cable was taken by passing it once around the end of the riding bitts. However, as it was not unknown for bitts to break under the repeated straining of a ship riding at anchor in rough weather, stoppers were used as a back-up and to take some of the strain. In the sailing navy these were short lengths of rope made fast to ring-bolts in the deck, and lashed to the anchor cable. Normally three or four were used for each cable. These were left in place until it was time to raise the anchor. I have not seen additional ring-bolts fitted for stoppers, and the train tackles were only rigged when the guns were in use, so there would seem to be no problem with a ring-bolt serving a dual purpose. All the best, Mark P

Evening Bob; Speaking of 'Rabbets' vs 'Rabbits', and other terminology, the keel you show is actually the main keel, not the false keel. The false keel is a thinner strip fixed to the underside of the keel, designed to break away in the event of the ship grounding accidentally, thereby avoiding excessive stresses being transferred to the main structure, and giving the vessel more chance of sailing free. This false keel is shown in Alan's post above (no 4) showing a ship's keel. I am not aware of longboats ever being fitted with a false keel. It is fair to say though, re 'rabbits', that the word is frequently spelt this way in contemporary contracts describing ship-building. The only version I have never seen amongst the many spellings, is the modern word 'rebate'. All the best, Mark P

Hi Tom; I would be very careful before giving too much credence to anybody who talks of Navy ships from the early 1600s being 'HMS'. This was a term which came into use much later. In the 17th century ships were always known as 'The' whatever. So Mayflower was called 'The Mayflower'. Prestige ships, or 'Ships Royall', were certainly painted beautifully, and gilded. Check out the painting of the 'Arrival of the Elector Palatine at Flushing' and other similar ones, which will give a good idea of what was normal for some ships in those times (the Elector had just married King James I's daughter, sister of Charles I, and returned to Europe in the King's best ships) It is probable that any captain with any self-respect would try to do his best for his vessel, but Louie's comments in post no 4 above are certainly worth keeping in mind also. At the end of the day, nobody knows, so do as you wish! All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Gregory; If your model is 17th century (the name was used over many decades in the 17th & 18th centuries) and you want to know about 17th century yachts, search the internet under 'Van de Velde yachts'. The most prolific marine artists of the time, they were a father and son, appointed official sea artists to Charles II. Alternatively, search under the yacht Mary. Either way, you will see a wealth of illustrations in colour, which will almost certainly answer your question. On the above version of the Mary, the vangs seem to be single each side, and rigged with a tackle. All the best, Mark P

Hi RPaul; Record tools, based in Sheffield, was (I don't know what they are now) one of the premier English tool companies, who made a range of woodworking tools regarded as the finest by many craftsmen, who paid significant amounts of money to purchase a Record plane or vice. Who owns the company now, or where their products are made, I don't know either. A search on the internet will show something, I would think. I believe that they have links with Irwin Tools, which is also marketed as a reputable brand (they are expensive, certainly) I once had a Record Power bandsaw, which certainly did all I wanted it to do, and performed well for several years. I sold it when I had to downsize, so I no longer have it; a matter of not infrequent regret. All the best, Mark P

It's amazing what skill and patience can do, starting with what is obviously a well-designed and made pile of sheets of cardboard. Very well done indeed. An inspiring example. Taken together with Doris's wonderful card ship models, it is a continuing amazement what 3D masterpieces can be produced with a raw material which is, essentially, only two-dimensional. Great work Dan!

Good Evening James; On the 9th September 1772, the Navy Board issued a warrant to all dockyards, instructing them to paint the names of ships on the second counter. The letters to be as high as can be fitted. No colour is specified. The only other comment is that the name is not to be in a 'compartment', meaning not in a painted frame. I do not know if this applied to cutters, but they are not excluded. Then, on the 25th June 1787, the Board ordered that the name was to be painted on a board in 12 ins letters, the board to be hooked (presumably fastened) to the second counter. However, the painting of names was cancelled after a relatively short period, not much more than 20 years at the most, I think. It was then stopped, as it was considered that it was information which might be useful to enemies. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening gentlemen; Depending upon how far you want to go, there is one further thing to consider about hammock nettings: once the hammocks had been stowed they were actually covered with painted canvas to keep the sea-water off them (damp hammocks would not be much fun to lie in) I don't know if there was any particular colour used for this, but from memory paintings normally show a light-colour. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Bob; That sounds like a valuable resource for anyone with an interest in 19th century ships. As you say, we are perhaps a bit 'wonkish', but to judge by the number of members on this website, we are all together a good-sized community. Thank you for the mention of the book on lofting. I have modern versions of several old volumes on this subject, but I will get hold of a copy of Alan Vaitses' book, as it might help to fill in some gaps. This is a new one to me, as I have never heard of it before, despite numerous searches on the Internet. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Greg; This is an interesting debate. I am afraid that I would not agree with you that the method as described by Simon Stevens echos Bob's comments. Bob mentions that not bending the timbers, and cutting them from straight timber would produce timbers with end grain in them, which is not desirable. If I understand Bob's posts correctly, we are both, as far as models go, attempting to describe a process where the desired result is a curved timber with no end grain. If Simon is correct, and he has undoubtedly seen far more ship models than almost anyone else, then there will be a lot of end grain visible in the frames of the models. I assume that Simon is describing the frames correctly, and that end-grain exists, and is merely difficult to see in the many published close-up photographs. My main point, however, is not the construction methods of the models themselves, but the extent to which the finished appearance of the models resembles full-size practice. Simon's description as quoted above does not discuss this, as he is describing only the method by which this appearance was achieved in the models. See below an extract from a contract from 1649, which was for 'Foresight', built by Jonas Shish at Deptford: This describes the floor timbers, and then specifies that the Navill timbers (lower futtocks) are to fill the room, that is to fit between the floor timbers. Then the next tier of futtocks is described, again with the proviso that they must also fill the room. This is a description of a ship built with a succession of interlocking, overlapping timbers, exactly as the Navy Board models appear. The six foot scarph describes the minimum extent of the overlap of the adjacent, side-by-side timbers. It is not referring to the later method of joining timbers. Auger Bolt fastening the same together, The space of Tymber and Roome, to be Two foote & Two ynches at ye most, The floor tymbers of the Shipp to bee Fourteene ynches up & downe, upon the Keele, and Eleven ynches in & out at the Wrong heads Att ye Bearynge & ten Afore & abaft, The Navill tymbers to fill the Roome, and to have Six foote Skarfe, The Tymbers upwards at the Gunndeck to bee Eight ynches in & out, & to have the like Skarfe, and the Roomes to bee filled with Tymber, To have a Substansiall Kelson, Fourteene ynches up & downe, and Sixteene The actual construction of the models is secondary to the main theme I am writing about. Which is that the appearance of the models is much closer to real, early to mid 1600s construction techniques than most people, more accustomed to later, much better documented, methods of ship-building, are aware. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Bob; Your point that you were referring to models when talking of battens is fair enough, and I am happy to stand corrected on that. Thank you for posting the pictures, which are always so lovely to see. As to whether or not the timbers of the frames for these models are bent to shape or cut from naturally curved timber, it is impossible to say, as the end results are visually identical. However one wishes to make a model's frames, naturally curved timber would be best, but is obviously not easy to get. The Boston model is, I believe, although I am not certain, the Royal William. The damaged model is either late 17th or very early 18th century. The Bonaventure is dated on its stern 1682 (not 83, if that is what the NMM has listed) and the Mordaunt, originally built as a privateer, I think, is of similar age. All of which leads on to the following: What is perhaps not realised by those more familiar with later building techniques is just how close to full-size 17th century practice the framing of such models is. Although it is generally stylised, especially as regards to the deadwood, and the length of the lower futtocks. Nonetheless, the use of interlocking floors, futtocks, navel timbers, and toptimbers was similar to that shown on the models. In the early and mid 17th century, few ships had more than 2 futtocks, and all contracts state quite specifically that the lower futtocks should fill the room, that is, they should fit tightly between the floor timbers. Although the use of paired frames and filling frames came into use well within the period in which such models were made, the models continued to be made representative of earlier practice for many years. The Peregrine galley, built at the turn of the century, was constructed with lower futtocks which stopped 2 to 3 feet short of the keel (this was reported when she was repaired in 1750) If the futtocks only overlap, and are attached to, one floor, as is sometimes shown in reconstructions in books on this subject, this is a much weaker form of construction than if the overlaps of the floors and futtocks form a continuous solid band of timber, such as the models show, and as full sized practice was. So to conclude, the models are a fair approximation to full-size methods during a large part of the 17th century. This has been discussed very well by John Franklin in his excellent book on Navy Board ship models, and by others since then. The sided thickness of the timbers used was also a reflection of full-sized dimensions, and was rarely, if ever, arbitrary. All the best, Mark

Evening Roger; Thank you for your thoughts. I agree that it is important to be clear, when talking of ship-building in general, which Navy one is referring to. I would normally add 'Royal' to the word Navy, certainly, and have done in other posts. However, in this case the subject under discussion is Admiralty Board models, which are by definition already associated with the Royal Navy, without any need for further clarification. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning All; The original query was about, and only about, Admiralty Board Models. As these ceased to be made around 1750, the only points to consider are either the construction of the models themselves, or full-size practice during the period when the models were prevalent. To make reference to much later (and much different) practice, or 19th century merchant vessels, is of no relevance to the subject of the original post, however accurately and thoroughly such practices may be discussed. Ships for the Navy were built from draughts from at least the reign of James I, originally using a system of 'whole-moulding'. This was used to develop frame templates at all stations where required. Deane's doctrine of Naval Architecture, and The Keltridge draughts, both from the 1670-80s show either most or all stations. A treatise on ship-building dating from the 1620s gives detailed and complex instructions on how to construct frames at every station, using a combination of geometry and mathematics. To advocate that Naval ship construction was carried out in any way otherwise, without use of a properly-drawn body plan or frame templates, can only be based on an (admitted) lack of knowledge. Whilst battens can be stretched between a few principal points to provide a hull shape, the degree of flexibility and lack of certainty which can be introduced by this method, especially in areas where a hollow is required, meant that it was both unsuitable and unused in Naval construction, except perhaps for very small vessels. Recent works by authors who have made a close study of Admiralty/Navy Board models shows that the construction of the frames closely replicates full-size practice of room and space. Grant Walker's excellent volume on third rates in the Annapolis Naval Academy collection is a good example of this. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning All; I don't know if iMack, who started this thread will see this, but to go back to his original query: The number of frames/ribs in an Admiralty Board Model is equal to the number of station lines used to set out the ship's body. Each station line represents the fore face of the frames heading aft, and the aft face of the frames heading forwards. Note, however, that draughts normally show only every third station line. The number of station lines was dependent upon the size of the floor timbers to be used to build the ship, as it was this dimension which produced the 'room and space' measurement, which was the distance from face to face of successive frames. An important point to understand here is that in Georgian times the room and space was calculated slightly differently to that of the 17th century, when Admiralty (also commonly called Navy Board Models) started to appear. For models built in the Admiralty/Navy Board style, the distance between the ribs/frames of the model was normally equal to 17th century full-size practice. In those times, the space between the floor timbers was completely filled by the bottom of the first futtock, with the futtock stopping short of the keel. So to decide the number of station lines, it is necessary to know the room and space. See below an extract from a builder's contract from 1652, giving the room and space as 28". As the floor timbers are 14", the lower ends of the futtocks would also have been 14" to fill the space between the floor timbers. the keele with an ynch and quarter Bolt, the Flowre Tymbers to bee in length two and twenty foote, upp and Downe one foote, fore and aft fourteen inches, roome and Space to bee two foot four ynches, The Dead Rysing to bee four ynches at least; the lower Futtocks to fill the roome, and to have Six or seaven foote Scarffe in the Midshipps, the other Teere of Futtocks to have six Therefore, a model built to this room and space would have a frame every 28". Room and space varied according to the ship size. From early in the 18th century framing methods changed. Amongst other changes, the first futtock now reached the keel. A small gap, around 2", was left between the face of the futtock and the face of the floor timber of the next station. However, to construct a Navy Board style framed model, the futtock would need to be increased slightly in its sided dimension, to completely fill the space between the floor timbers. Again it is necessary to know the room and space. See below an extract from a builder's contract for 'Warspite' dated 1755. Room and space is 29" (very similar to that of 100 years earlier!) As the floor timbers are 15", the lower ends of the futtocks would be 14" to fill the space between the floor timbers (to build a Navy Board style model, the timbers could all be 14 1/2") Room & Space of Timbers. To be Two feet five inches. Floor Timbers. The Floor Timbers between Timber three, & Timber C, in the bearing of the Ship, to be Sided one foot three inches, and from 3 to 15 Aft, and from C to H forward to be sided one foot two ins; from 15 Aft, & from H forward, to be Sided one foot one inch; to be in length in Midships twenty five feet, eight inches, and afore and abaft as the draught directs. If you have a draught which shows station lines, the room and space is easy to find: the draught will normally show every third station line, so to find the room and space, and the number of frames you will need, divide the distance between the station lines into 3 equal portions. To find the shape of the intervening station lines, it will be necessary, as discussed in previous answers to this post, to loft them from the draught. All the best, Mark P