Mark P

Good evening Mark; Concerning your query for the siting of the wing transom knee, I think that the important word is in the contract reference where it says that the knee is scarphed 'upon the spirketting'. I would interpret this to mean that the spirketting is fixed first, and the knee afterwards, on the spirketting. As you mention above, the spirketting adds to the strength of the ship, and I cannot believe that it would be terminated at the beginning of the knee. Especially as the knee is 16' long, much shorter than a strake of planking would be. It cannot mean upon as in the sense of 'on top of', as the wing transom is not higher than the spirketting. Ed: I have some information from the NMM on the contracts that they hold, and for 74s they have the following: (there may be others I was not told of, though) Saturn, January 1782 (contract dates given here) ADT0102 Elephant, February 1782. ADT0030 Bellerophon, January 1782. ADT0011 Bombay Castle, September 1779. ADT0009 Berwick & Ganges, May 1778. ADT0012 Culloden, Thunderer Class, May 1770. ADT0166 (note that this Culloden is an earlier vessel than her namesake listed below) The contract for Ganges, ADT0012, I have recently suggest to the NMM was actually Fortitude (1778) which has now been agreed by the Museum, and will be re-catalogued as set out in their email below: Dear Mark, I have taken a look at the above contract and my conclusions are as follows: The black dimensions (i.e. the ones the contract was originally written for) – Fortitude (1780), as the only one from the Albion class to be built by Randall in that period. The red ink dimensions (written above the black ink) – This matches the Ganges class of 1779. If we were to assume the Randall builder was relevant to this amendment then the two ships they built from this class are Ganges (1780) and Culloden (1782). The green in dimensions (written below the black ink) – This matches the revived Elizabeth class of 1760. Again, if we assume the builder is relevant to this amendment then the ship here is Defiance (1783). The old catalogue mentions Berwick of the same class, but she was built at Portsmouth. I will make the amendments to the catalogue. I hope that this is of interest. Yours sincerely,

Hi Mark; The following is taken from the contract for 'Culloden', 1770: The wing Transom knee to be sided 12 1/2" the fore and aft arm to be 16' in length or to give shift to the after part. the thwartship arm to be 6' 0" to be Bolted with 5 Bolts of 1 1/4" diam in the thwartship arm, and with 7 no in the fore and aft arm, and with two small bolts of 7/8" Diam in the lips of the scarph. The contract for 'Bombay Castle' of 1782 is very similar, except that it adds that the knee is to scarph with hook and butt upon the upper strake of spirketting. All the best, Mark P

Hi Mark; Speaking of the wing transom knee, I have copies of several contracts for the building of 74s, and all of them describe the knees to be fixed between the wing transom an the ship's side. If you want some dimensions I will send them over. Keep the project rolling: it's great to follow, inspirational everywhere. All the best, Mark P

Hi Tim; There was an official 'establishment' for the issue of tables to Royal Navy vessels. They were issued by the dockyard. I cannot remember where I saw it, though. Don't recall anything about chairs. Sea chests probably filled the duty much of the time, especially in the gun-room, and for at least some of the ward-rooms' inhabitants. I remember also seeing pictures of part of a table recovered from a ship-wreck, but again, I am afraid I cannot remember much else about it. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; Thank you to Alcedo for such an informative post, and especial thanks if you are the same person who compiled the spreadsheet linked to it. A lot of work went into this, and it is very kind and generous of you to make it available online. The National Archives at Kew have an original copy of one of these sheets, which I have photographed previously in sections. However, the very bottom has been cut off, removing the date and place of publication and publisher's details. From the detailed information given in the site linked to Alcedo's post, it is clear that it is one of the middle publication series, as it refers to the data as 'according to the last establishment'. It can be dated also by the fact that it describes two items relating to armament of vessels: that the Victory has 32 pdrs on her lower deck (according to Winfield this occurred only between mid 1778-mid 1779 [and after 1805 but this can be ignored here] )and that the Valiant & Triumph only have 24pdrs on their upper decks. As both Valiant and Triumph had been refitted with 18pdrs by 1787 (Winfield) it would seem reasonable to assume that this sheet is a complete re-print of the earlier version with the title altered. EDIT - just noticed that this is stated in the info given in Alcedo's post. Thank you Alcedo for giving me the means to know what it is that my photographs are of. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Amalio; I have just discovered your log: absolutely beautiful work! The neatness of your joints and finish is exemplary, something to aspire to at any stage of the craft of model shipbuilding. The differences between Spanish practice and English techniques are very interesting, and looking for them is both absorbing and educational. Thank you for posting so many pictures of your work. All the best, Mark P

Hi Michael; One thing which may be of help to you with masts, depending upon what ship you are making: The NMM have some quite detailed drawings in their plans archive, showing how masts were made, all drawn to scale with many sections. These start to appear in the early 1780s, when the supply of 'New England' masts made from single trees was disrupted by American independence. These cover a range of ship types, though all Royal Navy. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jim; If I was at an exhibition of local artists' work, and saw your paintings, I would have to buy at least one to take home with me, and preferably more. The only limit would be budget! Lovely atmosphere in your work. Keep on picking up that brush! All the best, Mark P

Hi Heinrich; Jaager is completely right in all he says. To answer your question, cut it as soon as possible; it dries more quickly and the smaller thickness is able to release the stresses much more easily. Left as a round section of trunk it will quickly split up at least one side. Cut the planks thicker than the finish size you want. There is always some degree of twisting etc. Season it somewhere with a roof to keep the rain off, but which allows the wind to blow through. All the best, Mark P

Hi Lou & Pete; Reading 'The Cruel Sea' made me very glad that I was not around at the time. Hats off and all praise to those who served, including the merchant ships' crews. I have seen some pretty detailed drawings and sections through galley stoves, and the only thing that was normally found inside the chimney was a horizontal fan, which was turned by the rising heat. The rotation of this fan was then used to power the rotating spit. If my memory is not betraying me, this was a feature of the Brodie Stove, which came into use around 1780 (I think) Prior to that, the chimney was just a tube. All the best, Mark P

Hi Pete; That seems logical enough. Many of the inboard works draughts, or sheer draughts which show inboard works, also show the stove in some detail. All the best, Mark P

Evening Allan; I have more photos of Captain. See the album in the contemporary models in Museums section here. If you would like any of them let me know, and I can pop them on a disk for you and send it off across the pond. I am not sure what photos the Science Museum have. I have seen some of their plans, and Captain was not among them. They do have good contemporary plans, showing the figurehead, inboard works and decoration, of the Deptford 1719, Exeter (Date?) Strafford 1714, & Winchester 1717 which I think were 50 gun ships, although not certain on this. I imagine that these were built to the 1706 establishment. All the best, Mark P

Hi Pete; In the Royal Navy, the chimney flue was normally finished with a section which curved over, so that the discharge was horizontal. This final section could be rotated to point downwind, whatever the ship's point of sailing. The attached picture, of a model of HMS Captain, 1708, in the Science Museum's collection, shows one type, with handles. I am not sure if this one could rotate, or if it was simply lifted off, and turned in 90 degree increments before being put back in place. Second picture is of the well-known model of HMS Bellona, 1760, in the NMM. Her chimney is rounded at the end, so the final bent section could be rotated to any degree desired. I have seen the round type depicted with handles also. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Allan; Looks like a useful book. I shall have to get a copy. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Wayne; They might be. I don't have this book, as I have (or thought I had) a complete list of scantlings for both the vessels I am currently working on. Only realised there's a bit of a gap when I reached the stern timbers. I have found everything I need in Steel's 'Vade Mecum', of which I have a pdf copy I downloaded from the Bodleian Library in Oxford (which incidentally, is a much better copy than Google's own one) Although he is a bit later, I think that his lists are based on earlier practices, and I can use his scantlings for a 74's stern without worry. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; Can anyone point me to a good source for the scantlings of the stern timbers in a 74 gun ship, built in the first half of the 1780s. I can find an entry in a contract I have which specifies that the counter timbers should be 10" sided, but no other dimensions are given. Goodwin, rather frustratingly, gives a range of fractions to multiply parts of the stern by to obtain other parts, but he does not give a starting dimension to which I can apply these factors to begin the process. The establishment lists do not mention them either, as far as I can determine. I could guess at them being the same as a toptimber, or fourth futtock perhaps, but that has no basis in fact. All the best, Mark P

Hi Todd; Your drawing is correct, in my experience, although that doesn't cover everything. The sided dimension remained constant for the length of each futtock. the taper was between the inner and outer faces: the moulded dimension. One other point of interest: your drawing shows frame bends, the name for a frame made up of a two sets of futtocks fixed together. As to whether model makers repeat this, it depends upon their patience and how faithfully they wish to replicate full-size practice. As you say, it is a lot of work! All the best, Mark P

Good evening Todd; I can't be sure of the Dunbrody in particular, but it was normal for futtocks and toptimbers to taper across their moulded dimensions (L/H side of your picture) and for them to reduce in thickness across the sided dimensions with each successive futtock. This was done to save weight and to enable a wider selection of timber to be used (most long sections of a tree taper naturally) All the best, Mark P

Good evening Steven; Thank you for the correct information about the murals. Hampton Court is one of the places which I mean to visit, but have never yet done so. All the best, Mark P

Evening Druxey (or morning!) Thanks for the reminder. I'll see if I can write a note on the record. All the best, Mark P

Hi Steven; Thank you for the post. I thought this was too good to be true. Shame, because it looks like a lovely picture, except that she seems to be riding a bit high. So she is probably a fanciful depiction of no particular real vessel. I have seen the Anthony roll illustrations before. I remember reading somewhere quite recently (perhaps here on MSW) some new evidence which showed that his depictions were much more accurate than many had thought previously. I think your other picture comes from a painting of a now-destroyed mural in Cowdray House, which showed Henry embarking on a voyage to France for the 'Field of the cloth of gold' meeting with Francis I, king of France. Hope you get back to your model one day, and finish it off. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; Whilst browsing on the NMM website, I came across this picture. It shows the 'Great Harry', one of Henry VIII's favourite ships, and it looks quite impressive. The painting is listed as by Hans Holbein, who was court painter to Henry, so he should have known what he was painting. I have never seen this before, and I can't imagine that it would not have been shown in all the books I have read that cover this period. My question is: could this/is this really by Holbein? And if so, why has it been so overlooked? Or is it much later? If the latter, why would the NMM list it as by Holbein? Maybe this is a different Hans Holbein. There are no bonnets on the sails, for one thing. It is PY9170 on the NMM's inventory. Any thoughts very welcome. All the best, Mark P

Hi Mike; Thanks for the picture and the discussion. I am sure you're right about it being someone's job to keep an eye on these coils. One other point that might be relevant is that in the Royal Navy, the sailors stationed in the tops were normally some of the most experienced members of the crew. They would undoubtedly make a good job of coiling a rope. The same was probably true in the US Navy. Happy modelling!! Mark P

Greetings gentlemen; The term 'belays to itself' is only used here in connection with ropes which would not be needed urgently if the sails needed handling suddenly: specifically in this instance the halyards, which are only needed to raise or lower the yards, and the staysails. Concerning the coils of rope on the deck, the longer ropes were coiled on deck during use. For instance, the sheet or tack from opposite clews of the sail, when close-hauled, would mostly be inboard. I have a copy of the rigging warrant from HMS Monarch from 1765, which lists the lengths of rope and the blocks and fittings issued for all the rigging. For the main sheet, this is 100 fathoms, giving 50 fathoms (300 feet) per side. Some of this may have been spare, but the rigged sheet needed to be twice the width of the mainsail, and then some, which is still a lot of rope. So much rope would make big coils, whether on deck, or perhaps hanging from cleats or kevels or some other fitting. The picture below shows a view of the forecastle of the 'Royal Caroline'. It is not easy to see, but next to the sailors you should be able to make out a large, darker patch. This is a coil of rope laid out on the deck. There is another, smaller one just abaft the galley chimney. This would seem to show beyond any reasonable doubt that large coils of rope were laid out on deck during sailing. All the best, Mark P

Hi Mike; I would follow your instinct with regard to the halyard in the top, and go with frapping turns around the tackle itself. I have always interpreted 'belays to itself', as meaning just this. Incidentally, it is the same method used to keep the gun-tackles tight when the guns were stowed. Concerning the halyard falls belayed to the sheer-pole, I would do exactly that, and wrap them around the sheer-pole. This was, after all, a very strong anchorage point, and halyards were normally carrying a lot of weight. Before the use of sheer-poles, halyards for upper yards were often belayed around the lanyards between the shroud deadeyes. Shroud cleats were more used for ropes with lighter duties, for example furling the sails. All the best, Mark P