Mark P

Congratulations Albert; I am very glad that you have taken on such a vessel. I have always felt that it is such a matter of regret that the original, beautiful decoration of the Victory was removed just before the battle of Trafalgar. Such a shame that the battle was not fought a few years earlier, because then all the visitors to Victory in Portsmouth would see and realise just how attractive these old-time ships were. I presume that you are aware of the scale carving of her figurehead at the NMM, and the model of her at launching, showing her (incorrectly) on the ways. (She was floated out from dry dock) Anyway, I wish you the best of progress in all of the build, which I will follow with great interest. All the best, Mark P

Having also purchased a copy as soon after publication as funds permitted, I can also vouch for the excellence of this book, and the value of the wealth of photographs which it contains. Very much worth the cost, even with postage to England added. Happy reading! Mark P

Evening Antonio; The boom referred to is, as Frankie says above, the studding sail boom. I assume you know what these are. Whether they were in use, or run in on the yard for storage, the inner end was lashed to the yard to prevent it moving. There was normally a hole drilled through the boom near its heel to allow the lashing to pass through the boom for better security of the lashing. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Dave; Depends on the size of ship and the date. Can you give us a bit more information. All the best, Mark

Morning Mark; You are correct about the ring on the cascabel for the breeching rope. It appeared around 1790, I believe. Prior to this, on some ships, a thimble was seized in a short strop around the cascabel to provide an eye for the breeching rope. The thimble was placed above the cascabel. All the best, Mark P

Evening Mark; Yes, this is an awkward little spot. You are right about the little triangle, which abuts the rear face of the wale planks on the outside; the side of the final curved end of the bottom planking on the inside; and sits under the counter planking at the top. This latter seam is then covered with the tuck moulding. The end of wale is rounded on its bottom corner to fair in with the curve of those last few inches of bottom planking. ie the bottom end of the wale is a curve when viewed from abeam. The amount of curvature required is controlled by the vertical difference between the height of the bottom of the wale, and the underside of the tuck mould. This distance seems to vary from ship to ship. In Endymion, below, it is perhaps greater than in some others, producing a larger radius curve than you will need to use for Bellona. It might be the angle of your picture, but it seems that you might not have left the counter planking with an edge for the bottom planking to butt against. The last little curved part of the bottom plank which is against the triangle was often sawn from the solid. The pictures of Endymion below show it quite well. All the best, Mark P

Evening Mark; I am not sure where the drawing came from, but just in case you are not aware of this, it is not accurate. My apologies if you already know, but the bottom of the spirketting is wrong on both decks. The waterway has a hollow curve, but the spirketting is flat. It would waste an awful lot of wood and be a lot of work to produce it as drawn. All the best, and keep up the inspirational work! Mark P

Hi Phil; Further to the replies above, in the mid 1600s the gun-ports in the waist did have port lids. However, slightly later in that century they were done away with, largely to save money. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; Thank you John, for such an informative post about the 'Teredo Navalis' worms. In the days before copper plating became standard (it appears to have been used by Liverpool-based merchant ships before the Navy adopted it, as I have seen references to a letter recommending it to the Admiralty 'as has been done in Liverpool merchant vessels these last eight years') most ships were 'Sheathed', ie their bottom was covered with a sacrificial layer of timber planking, fastened with sheathing nails. These were presumably of copper, and could well have been closely spaced. As the timber was sacrificial, it had to be removed and replaced at regular intervals, which would account for the meaning in Druxey's post above, that it would 'last extremely well until Spring', that is until the timber needed to be replaced. A layer of felt and hair was placed between the sheathing and the actual ship's bottom planking. The nails in the waterline area would be seen as the ship rolled, and would look like green peas, as per comments above. Those lower down would only be seen in the dockyard, so their different colour would not be what the sailors generally saw. I bet somewhere out there a worm is morphing into one which will munch its way through fibreglass! Eighteen footers beware! All the best, Mark P

Evening Fidlock; Iron cannon were painted black. As were anchors, deadeye straps, and all other exposed ironwork. These last items were normally listed in painters' contracts. Cannon were the property of the Ordnance Board, who were independent from the Navy, and organised the painting themselves. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; There are some interesting ideas put forward here. Frankie's diagram is quite correct. In order for the mast heel to travel 100 feet, the block in the end of the pendant must travel 200 feet. However, there is one point to keep in mind here, which is why was the top-rope not unrove once the topmast was hoisted. This could be for safety reasons, in case the fid broke (in later times a preventer fid was fitted to counter just this event) But in the Restoration Navy, and later, it was customary during stormy weather to lower the topmasts, but perhaps they did not remove them and stow them away. This was done to lessen the weight at high level, and reduce the roll of the ship. There are some famous paintings showing ships in stormy weather with lowered topmasts. I will have to dig one out and see if the masts were removed or not in these circumstances. Perhaps they were lowered enough for the topmast trestle-trees to be above the lower mast cap, and the heel of the mast was lashed to the lower mast to prevent movement. All the best, Mark P

Hi Louie; The pumps were connected to the ship's side by removable timber tubes, square in section, which were known as 'dales'. These were taken to a scupper, which, if my memory is not playing me false, was sometimes larger than the other scuppers. The dales were presumably stored near the pump. The pumps were sited near the main mast, as this was in what was called the 'well', and area kept clear right through the hold, down to the bottom of the ship, so that the amount of water coming in could be easily assessed. This was also the lowest point in the ship, and the timbers were sometimes cut away to allow the lowest part of the pump to scoop up water from below the tops of the floor timbers. Some systems of framing left a gap between the opposite end of the first futtocks (navel timbers as they were called at that time) which allowed the end of the pump to be sited at the end of the navel timbers, against the keelson. All the best, Mark P

Good evening all modellers! I am not sure if this has been mentioned here before, but if so please forgive me, as I did not see it. I think that many of you will be interested in a project to build a full-size replica of the Lenox, a 70 gun warship, which was one of the 30 ships programme from 1677. Richard Endsor, whose books on Restoration warships are a wealth of beautifully illustrated detail, is one of, or the, founding member(s) The project aims to build the ship in one of the original dry-docks at the former Deptford Royal Dockyard on the River Thames in London. The project is now well under way, although it will probably be some years before the keel is laid. Search for 'The Lenox project' for more information. I sincerely hope that the project continues to move forward, and is successful. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; I have just finished reading 'Kings of the Sea', by J D Davis, and I have to say that it is a real revelation. This is very well written, and every page makes it clear that the book is the outcome of many years of patient and very thorough research. The subject is the influence of Charles II, and his younger brother, James, on the history and development of ships and the Royal Navy. A great deal of new material is included, and the reader discovers just how deeply Charles was involved in even the day-to-day running of the Navy, how important it was to him (and his brother) and how little of all this has been discussed in biographies of this king. Charles shaped both the ships of the Navy, and the ethos of the men who crewed and directed them, far more than he has ever been given credit for. The King's (and his brother's) role in the appointment of officers, including many warrant officers, is shown in detail, as is his interest in, and control over, where they should be deployed, and the orders given to the captains. Davis also brings a new consideration to the sources for the development of the Navy at this time, mostly Samuel Pepys, whose diary and journal have been mined many times for information. The author gives an example of a meeting which Pepys described briefly, giving an impression that things happened only because of his influence. Nearly all the time, Pepys is the only available source for such information, leaving little choice except to take him at his word. However, in this case, Pepys' own brother was also present, and kept his own minutes, which show that more people were present, that there was a prolonged and lively debate, and that Pepys played almost no part in the proceedings. The brother's record is included amongst the great archive of material which Pepys left to Magdalene College, Oxford, where it still resides. Davis seems to have read nearly all of it, over the years, and demonstrates that future authors should perhaps be more critical of Pepys' memoirs than has hitherto been the case. Which is still not to deny that Pepys also played an important part for many years. This book brings something new and important to the knowledge of the Restoration period's Naval history, and I cannot but predict that even the most widely-read and knowledgeable reader will know and understand a great deal more by the time they reach the end of this most deserving work. All the best, and happy reading! Mark P

Thanks Roger; I guess that blows my theory out of the water then! Good to hear the facts from someone who knows through experience. All the best, Mark

Hi Dowmer; Thanks for letting me know. I think that when I clicked on this topic, I was taken to an earlier point in the discussions, and missed some of the latest posts. Has a sailor commented on the practicality of this, rather than only landlubbers. The boat's momentum would keep it moving ahead, and the wind on the headsails turns the bows in the direction that they need to go. For a brief while, the rudder does nothing. All the best, Mark P

Hi Everyone; Just a few thoughts to throw into this bubbling mixture! I am not a sailor, and I cannot be sure if what I am about to suggest is realistic or not, so other people's opinions will be needed here. However, one point which is being not mentioned here is that the tiller on all such boats was removable. with the boat on either tack, or with a following wind, the sail would be out over one or other quarter, or broad over the beam. In all cases here, the sheet block would be at one end of the horse, closest to the sail, and away from the central point where the tiller pivots. It is only when going about that the sheet block needs to traverse the horse, thereby crossing the centre zone. I believe that the prime mover in going about is the headsails, once the rudder has started the initial turn. What is the likelihood that while the ship was turning through the eye of the wind the rudder is, for a very short period, in a dead zone, and the tiller can be un-shipped, allowing the sheet block to run past, before the tiller is re-shipped. Would this be a true possibility? Over to those more nautical than me. All the best, Mark

Don't think I would like to be the one who had to tension the euphroe tackle! All the best, Mark P

Evening everyone; It's not the USN I know, but in the Royal Navy for many years Gunners were only issued with two tackles per gun. If they needed a train tackle, they would unhitch one of the two gun tackles, and make do with that. They did eventually get issued with three, though. All the best, Mark P

Hi rtwpsom2; All masts and yards were measured parallel to their centreline. They were made on land, and the craftsmen making them needed to know how long to make them. All the best, Mark P

Evening gentlemen; Some interesting things posted here. Backer, the archaeology report is very interesting. Please note, though, that what are referred to here as filling pieces are not the same as filling frames. The keel is missing, and would have been somewhere below the bottom of the drawing. Filling pieces were a common practice, and were inserted between the main frames to fill any gaps between the main timbers. This was done in the bottom of the hold to prevent water build-up and rot. The joints at the ends of the floors are interesting. And the construction appears to be repeating single futtocks (navel or naval timbers they are called in early contracts) which are then sandwiched by a sequence of second futtocks whose ends completely fill the spaces between the ends of the first futtocks. This is similar to the construction shown in many Navy Board ship models, which is generally believed to be un-representative of full-size practice. I would be very cautious of accepting the blue shaded areas as part of the third futtock; they do not seem right for this location EDIT: (I have just noticed that they are listed as firring pieces in the index, which would mean they were added to increase the vessel's breadth) This is food for thought indeed; thank you for the post. All the best, Mark P

Morning Dave; In the AOTS series, the book on 'Blandford', a 20 gun ship from 1720, has some excellent details of her fire-hearth. All the best, Mark P

Evening Dave; My reply is in two parts: The diameter of the head of the bolt would be at least 2x the diameter of the bolt, judging from illustrations I have seen of typical bolts. It needed to be wider to prevent the head pulling through. The largest size bolt I have seen referred to for the period you mention is 1 3/8". The smallest is 3/4" (although I stand to be corrected if necessary) The exact size depends upon the size of vessel concerned, and the bolt's location. Assume a bolt head diameter of around 2" and you are unlikely to be far out. At scale sizes, the difference is unlikely to be noticeable. By the way: before you accept Goodwin's reconstruction as the only one, I would read the beginning of Franklin's 'Navy Board Ship Models, 1650-1750', where he discusses some interesting alternative framing possibilities (in the picture you have posted at the beginning here, there is no means of attaching the second filling frame to the keel, nor is it attached to the floor/futtocks on either side. Effectively, it is floating in air, which cannot be correct) Richard Endsor in his two books on Restoration period vessels shows a lot of detail of framing (his work is greatly superior to Goodwin's in many respects) which I recommend you also get a look at if possible. All the best, Mark P

Hi Lou; Following on from Druxey's comment regarding double rabbets, I have seen old contracts for vessels with round tuck sterns stipulating that the side and stern planking which meets the stern timbers (that is the vertical ones, rising from the ends of the wing transom) should be rebated into the timbers, which can only be for exactly the same reason, to prevent water ingress in the end grain. An alternative, which happened on some vessels, was to cover the end grain with mouldings or carvings. All the best, Mark P

Hi Vinnie; Your picture doesn't show it, so unless it is shown elsewhere, there was a rounded piece of timber, the bolster, set on top of the trestle-trees. This was to ensure that the shrouds did not sit against a sharp edge, and become weakened by it. Also, on many ships, the shrouds were not the first ropes to go over the masthead. If you are making a warship, take a look at James Lees' 'Masting and rigging of English Ships of War'. If it is a merchant vessel, try Underhill's 'Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier', which is very well illustrated and informative, written by a man who loved sailing ships, when there were still enough of them around for him to have personal experience of them. All the best, Mark P