Mark P

Hi there; Could it be a fixed length rope to prevent the jib being hauled out beyond a certain point when it was being set? All the best, Mark P

Hi Bluto; In your rigging drawing the topmast trestletrees appear to be about half the length of the lower ones. It would therefore seem reasonable that the trestletrees should be likewise. Lees states that from 1769 the lower tops were 1/3 of the topmast length in their athwartships dimension, and 3/4 of that for their fore and aft dimension. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Bluto; In Lees' Masting & Rigging, he gives the length of the topmast trestletrees as 3 3/4" to every foot of the topmast's length; the depth as 1" to every foot of the trestletree's length; and its breadth as 2/3 of the depth. For the crosstrees, these are 1 2/3 of the length of the trestletrees; the depth is 7/8 of the trestletree; and the breadth is as the trestletrees. My only caveat is that in his illustration of the topmast top, the crosstrees don't look as though they are as deep as 7/8 of the trestletree, more like about 3/4. All the best, Mark P

Hi Pete; Thanks for adding to the information already here. An interesting article, but I am a bit dubious about one of Kenchington's conclusions: that the horizontal joint was used to prevent the spreading of the frames. The keelson was one of the best placed timbers in a ship to resist hogging, and this had horizontal joints. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Druxey; I too believe that the wale timbers tapered in thickness towards the stem, so that by the time they reached the rabbet, they were the same thickness as the planking above and below the wales. I agree with you also that any cross-grained timber would have been avoided at all costs. However, I cannot think of a different reason why the planks of the wale at the bows should be called 'harpins', unless they bear some resemblance to the temporary harpins, which all sources I have ever read agree were sawn to the necessary curve. The use of compass timber (ie timber which had grown in a curve, and so avoided cross-grain) was presumably necessary for the temporary harpins, and so may well have been available for the wale planking also, although obviously in thicker pieces. One counter to this is that compass timber was not available in long lengths, so there would be a necessity for a joint reasonably close to the stem. This would then introduce a weakness, and so I imagine would have been avoided. Another interesting point is that the excerpt from Falconer, quoted above, actually states that the wale timbers, or 'harpins' in this area are thicker than the rest. I wonder if he is referring, rather anachronistically, to the practice of building the wales as two large planks, with a space between them filled with thinner planking, which was largely obsolete from around 1715 onwards. I can imagine that the ends of these wale timbers would be thickened to form a small knee (as indeed the temporary harpins were formed) which rested against the stem. The only other explanation I can think of is that the planking in this area, being harder to fit/make, was distinguished from the other planking by giving it a name; and that the name adopted was derived from the timbers, the temporary harpins, which the wale planking replaced. All the best, Mark P

Hi Pete; I was thinking more of the temporary harpins being replaced by solid planking. The temporary ones are described and shown too often on models for there to be any doubt that they were much smaller than the wale timbers. All the best, Mark

Hi Pete; Thank you for raising an interesting point. This may relate to the difference between ribbands and harpins as temporary supports. This is that the ribbands were bent, but the harpins were sawn to the correct curvature. Due to the curvature required at the bows, it is possible that the planking of the wales was sawn out (from compass timber) rather than steamed and bent. I am not aware of what the limits of steaming were in practical usage, but as the wales were often of a considerable thickness, it is possible that steaming would not make them pliable enough, and sawing became the best option. However, this is only speculation on my part. It would, though, make sense of William Falconer's paragraph quoted above. All the best, Mark P

Greetings gentlemen; There are obviously two opposing points of view in this debate, which have been laid out in the preceding posts quite thoroughly, and with some sound-seeming justification behind both. I would think that either method can be taken to an extreme if applied too dogmatically, and the result would then perhaps be pleasing to few who see it. My own view is that the skill and experience of anyone restoring old artefacts would need to be combined with a sympathy for the subject which would temper their enthusiasm and avoid either extreme. My experience of restoring historic buildings has led me to the conclusion that extreme points of view on the 'conserve at all costs' side of the debate tend to come from people with a secure remuneration package. Those who make their living in a less guaranteed manner tend to be more moderate as they are less willing to risk the damage to their reputation which could arise from their work being perceived as controversial. Maturin makes the point that he has walked away from potential work as the brief was not to his liking. In reality, this is a choice that can only be taken by someone in the fortunate position of having something else to turn to (or a private income!) Having walked away, though, the job would then, I imagine, be offered to someone more likely to comply with the commissioner's wishes, who may well carry out the work with less skill or feeling for the artefact's origins and long-term survival. I guess the main conclusion is that there is no way to please everybody; no absolutely right or wrong way of doing it, only a variety of opinions. And this variety will continue to exist, even if the actual opinions become, in the future, different to those expressed above. All the best, Mark P

Greetings gentlemen; Some very interesting points have been raised above. I have the NMM draught of 'Tremendous', a 74 launched in 1785. She has exactly the same arrangement of scarphs in the keelson as Wayne has drawn above: 1,2 - 4,5,6, with 3 obviously fitted last. Splitting this into work for two gangs makes sense. Shipwrights were paid in instalments for the work, with each payment related to the completion of a recognised stage in the building. I am not sure of all the stages, but I believe that the laying of the keelson was the final part of one of these. In which case, quite possibly the final part of the keelson was known as 'the money piece' (or the 'let's all go down to the tavern' piece!) All the best, Mark P

Hi Alex; Thank you for your reply. I just like to broaden my knowledge whenever possible, and I have not seen a margin plank joined like this, although that most certainly does not mean anything much, as there are a great deal of things I have not yet seen! Thank you for compiling your log, and sharing so much with us. I wish you a rapid and enjoyable completion of your project, which is a joy to look at, and which I will look at many more times yet to come. Druxey, I appreciate your thoughts, and I agree with you about the waterway, but I am assuming that the waterway is the darker strip of wood which will be partly covered by the spirketting. All the best to you both. Mark P

Hi Alex; A very nice job you have made of her indeed. The quality of the work is very high. Tapering deck planks look so good. I am intrigued to know if the scarph joints in the margin planks on the quarterdeck and forecastle are your own thought, or is this based on an example you have seen. All the best, and happy modelling. Mark P

Hi Andrew; Thank you for the additional information. I hope that your spans are done in a short time-span! In the 19th century there are quite a few manuals designed to teach junior officers about the ships on which they found themselves. They are interesting to read, and the differences as things change over time are quite noticeable. I don't know how many are available as online copies, so any mention of something you find is probably helpful. All the best, Mark

Hi Andrew; The illegible word is 'span', which was a length of rope with a block or thimble spliced into each end. It was normally fitted by simply wrapping it vertically around the cap (over the top and bottom) and, in the Royal Navy, was used for the yard lifts. However, in your case, the span seems to be fitted to bolts or shackles in the sides of the caps. The cap seems to be very weak all round, not made of much material. If it was wooden, I would expect to see the rectangular hole much smaller, as the top of the mast was normally cut with a tenon, to reduce the amount of material removed from the cap, rather than putting the whole thickness of the mast through the cap. Is the cap bound with iron? In which case maybe the span was fixed to lugs; but then of course you wouldn't need the span, as the lugs could be placed where required. Perhaps a fellow modeller who knows more about US Revenue cutters can tell us more of this. Thank you for a thought provoking post. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Druxey; Thank you for the additional tip. I will keep this in mind. All the best, Mark P

Hi Bob; Thank you for the long and informative post. I wasn't aware that proportional dividers could be had with such a fine adjustment. I'll keep an eye out for a set. It is also kind of you to let us know what to avoid. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jingyang; The gammoning slot looks fine to me. I would round off the upper edge a bit, though, where the rope will otherwise lie against a sharp corner; and the same for the hole for the mainstay collar. I wish you all the best progress in your project. If you ever need a second opinion on any part, please feel free to ask. I cannot say that I will know the answer, of course! One other source of information, which you may have already tried, is Navy Board contracts. When pressures of wartime needed a large number of vessels to be built, some of them were built at the yards of merchant ship builders. Normally there would be a contract drawn up, very detailed, specifying the scantlings of nearly all the timbers, and the number and size of bolts, to ensure that the builder would adhere to Navy standards of construction. With best wishes, Mark P

Hi Jingyang; Research in contemporary sources is certainly the best way to find results, and is wonderfully interesting at the same time. Your draughting shows that you already have a deep understanding of Pandora's construction, and if you have read such good authors' works then you have a good breadth of knowledge also, and I can add little. From what I have seen, the construction of the knee of the head was largely the same for all vessels, it just varied in scale and the number of chocks used. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Gentlemen; Druxey: thank you for the thought; but don't worry, I went off the idea of an all single framing pattern quite a while ago. All my more recent work has been on the basis of an all double construction. Jaager: thank you for listing the various room and space and timber combinations. 10 x 10 is obviously the size of choice for most shipwrights working on these. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jingyang; Thank you for your reply. The level of your draughting skill continues to amaze me. I am competent with 2D CAD, but I could never achieve what you make look so straightforward. To answer your queries: The taper of the standard as compared to the knee of the head below it is now shown correctly above. However, the shape of the standard needs to be revised. It actually curves upward at its forward end, and is scarphed into a thin, curving extension piece, which extends up behind the figurehead. The upper edges of both the standard and the extension are given a small chamfer. The rounding over I was referring to is to the timber right at the front of the knee of the head, below the figurehead. This should be virtually semi-circular. The cambered cladding piece which you show attached to the forward edge would not have been made so. Such thin wear pieces are attached lower down, where the leading edge is a hollow curve. One last point is that the gammoning slot is cut in the head of the gammoning piece, which extends well down, and is the principal timber of the knee of the head. There would not be a horizontal joint below the gammoning slot, curving up as it goes forward. If you can, take a look at one of the excellent practicums by Ed Tosti or David Antscherl; or study a build log here looking for a part of the framing plan showing the knee of the head. They know far more about this than I do, and have illustrated it very well. Again, if you are already aware of this, and it is just because I am looking at a work still in progress, please accept my apologies. All the best, Mark P

Thank you Druxey, that is a good comment! Rob, thank you also. Do you have any other instances of this number of filling frames, this would be interesting to know more about. For Royal Caroline I don't think this would have been the case, though, as the filling frames, whilst similar in midships to the main bends, and so perhaps not requiring to be numbered, would certainly be different at the bow and stern. This would seem to indicate that they would have to be individually numbered, and the numbering system on the draught only allows two stations between each main station. Also, I have the scantlings of her timbers (10 1/2" & 9 1/2") and her room and space (5' 5 1/4") and at six times filler frames and a floor and futtock from the main frames, this will not fit into the available space. It does fit with four filler frames, but only with a very small gap between them (1", just over) So four is a possibility, but I think the numbering system works against this, as set out above. Nonetheless, thank you for your suggestion, and I would certainly like to know of more examples of this number of filling frames. Everything I have seen previously has had a maximum of three filling frames (I have no knowledge of merchant practices, though, where it may have been more common) All the best, Mark P

Greetings Gentlemen; Thank you Jaager for searching so many plans to try and find out more. If the long/short alternating arm does not seem to exist, then I will return to my earlier hypothesis, that all the frames are double. Thank you Druxey for your thoughts; I checked out framing plans for some sloops and a brig, and these mostly showed the double frame with two filling frames. However, as you say, Royal Caroline was a non-fighting vessel, and may well have been framed differently. As a Royal yacht, she was certainly a special case, and would undoubtedly have been of a high specification. All double frames is presumably a much stronger construction than one with filler frames (if similar spaces between them are maintained) I think that I will accept this as the method used (which would be just as well, because I have drawn most of the disposition of frame plan already, with double frames throughout) Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jaager; Thanks for your reply. I have the Bellabarba/Osculati book, it was this which inspired me to build the model. But from a very early point in my own research I have discovered that the book is absolutely riddled with errors, some of them very basic, and cannot be used as a basis for any historically accurate model of the yacht. I think I have not made the frame disposition clear: there are normally 2 filling frames for every double (known as a bend) If this is assumed for Royal Caroline, then every pair of filling frames has a floor timber in both frames. I cannot see how this would be done, except if the floors are made with long and short arms, alternating to Port & Starboard. It is this method of construction, if it does exist, which I am trying to find out more about. From what you say, this may be shown in Marquardt's Beagle book, but unfortunately I don't have a copy of this. I will keep an eye out for a copy if it is not too expensive. Does he show floors projecting alternately to Port and Starboard, or are they both centred on the keel, but made at different lengths. Can anyone post a picture from this if it might help answer my query, please? All the best, Mark P

Hi Maurys; Interesting query you have posted. With regard to the rigging of the shrouds, I cannot add anything, except to speculate as follows: The hoy was presumably only used in sheltered anchorages, to lay out permanent mooring bouys for ships in ordinary, or something similar. This might mean that a limited swing of the boom was acceptable, as speed was presumably not critical to her performing her duties, as long as she could move fast enough to give effective steering. This would limit her points of sailing, though. This idea is purely based on my limited understanding of an anchor hoy's duties, and may well be so far wrong that it is off the scale of probabilities. However, as it might be relevant, here it is! All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; Here's one for the technical experts amongst us. I am constructing a framing plan of the yacht 'Royal Caroline' of 1749. The original draught has station lines drawn at every third frame: 3,6,9,12 etc. The double frames (bends) will be on these lines. Between these would normally be the filling frames, one with a floor, and one with first futtocks. However, I have a letter relating to her construction, written by the master shipwright, which says that they are having difficulty obtaining suitable timber for the floors at stations 8, 10, 11, 13 & 14. These are all filling frame stations, yet they are adjacent, with the exception of 8. It would seem impossible that there would be floors at both stations under a standard arrangement. My interpretation of this so far has been that it means all frames are double, but I have never been truly comfortable with this hypothesis. My doubts have now increased, as I seem to remember a framing pattern in which the floor timbers were made with one arm long, and one arm short. These were fixed to alternate from side to side with each other. This would then also provide floor timbers at each filling frame station. I have been unable to find any proper description or illustration of this method. Goodwin mentions it, and says that it is shown in one of his illustrations, but I cannot interpret his drawing in this way (it just shows a standard arrangement of symmetrical floors and first futtocks) Can anyone out there point me to a clear description of how this might have been done, or better yet, a decent illustration, applicable to this period. Many thanks! All the best, Mark P

Hi Brett; That probably depends upon the era of the ship in question. If you are making a 19th century ocean-going grain carrier or similar, they would have been very much the same. Although the after-most mast (the jigger, I think it is called) was normally rigged the same as the mizen mast on a three-masted vessel, with the other three square rigged (there were, of course, many alternative rigs, but I am thinking of ships which were mostly square riggers) In the late Medieval and Tudor period, the aftermost mast, called the Bonaventure mizen, was rigged with a lateen sail, similar to the mizen mast, but normally smaller. These two aftermost masts were different to the forward two, which were square-rigged. All the best, Mark P