Mark P

Hi Frankie; Thanks for posting this. I too have the others, and they are excellent. The frigate and ship of the line books were published by Seaforth, a wide ranging military/naval specialist. This book is available for pre-order on Amazon uk, but I notice it is published by the US Naval Institute Press. Presumably the author got a better offer! All the best, Mark P

Greetings Dafi; The top ropes were used to raise and lower the topmasts. Prior to 1800 (according to Lees) the top ropes were not unrove once the topmast was in position, but were a permanent feature of the rigging. This was probably because in stormy weather it was a not uncommon procedure to lower the topmasts to reduce top-hamper, as shown in several paintings I have seen. I would imagine that your thought that this is to allow for a lead to the capstan to be quite correct. I have only seen the scuttles before on third rates. So as Druxey says above, they probably only appeared aft of other masts on first rates, although perhaps on second rates also. Thanks for passing on your observations. All the best, Mark P PS: I always think it is such a shame that the beautiful carved work to the stern and the bows was ripped off just before Trafalgar. If only they had done it afterwards. She was a much more attractive ship prior to the alterations.

Hi Macgoodwin; If the sails were removed for a shortish period of time, normal practice was to join together the lines which would have been attached to the clew of the sail, and pull them up to the yard. Buntlines would be made fast to the strop of their block on the yard (or perhaps to the jack-line, if these were fitted to the Cutty Sark) The idea was to save time when bending the sails to the yard. Re-reeving ropes took much longer than simply re-attaching them. The attached picture (contemporary rigged model, in the Science Museum Archive since 1881) shows this in a much earlier, Naval, not merchant vessel; but if the Navy, with high manning levels, did this, then it would seem very reasonable to expect the merchant ships, with a smaller crew and time/profit considerations driving them, to be even more likely to take the route that saved time/money. The picture shows the sheet, tack and clew blocks all pulled up to the yard. Buntlines are visible coming from the lead blocks under the top. All the best, Mark P

I have to agree. A real quality piece of craftsmanship!

Hi Karl; Congratulations on a beautifully constructed model. Does the construction method of the frames mirror full-size contemporary French practice? If so, it is interesting to note the differences from English techniques at the time. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Gerard; Many thanks for the explanation. That's completely logical once it is made clear, as with so many things. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; With regard to this object being a counterweight, I do not think this is very likely, as it is on the longer part of the yard. A counterweight would need to be on the shorter part to balance the additional length of the longer arm. At least, if it was countering the weight of the yard this would be so. If it was somehow intended to counter a force exerted by the wind this could be different, but a rope would seem the easiest way of countering the wind. Would a weight at this point be advantageous or disadvantageous when changing tack? How is a lateen sail handled when manoeuvring? Could it be intended to act as a damper, taking some of the spring out of the yard that could arise due to its length, especially during a change of tack? There is no sign of any rope reeving through it on any of the illustrations shown (although that could, of course, be artistic licence) so a truck for flag halliards seems unlikely. Especially as one vessel is shown with a flag at the masthead. Although, certainly, the absence of flags from the yard-arm does not prove anything in this case. More food for thought, I hope. All the best, Mark P

Greetings dallen; gentlemen; I am glad to know that several people found my post useful. Mike: the reason for the gradual reduction in the sheer of a ship seems to be that the higher the bow and stern are built, the more they catch the wind, with the result that the ship will heel over more easily, and make more leeway. In earlier centuries, it was considered an advantage to have one's decks higher than those of an enemy, for the purpose of shooting down at them with bows or spears etc, whilst it was much harder for the enemy to respond. Shipwrights therefore curved the hull upwards as much as they could. As cannon became more important in warfare, this height became less important, and performance considerations drove a gradual flattening. Improved construction techniques developed under Robert Seppings, chief surveyor to the Navy, led to the ability to build longer ships that were less likely to hog due to the greater strength of their hull structure, thus removing the last reason to build with an upward curve. Ships could then be made with little or no sheer. All the best, Mark P

Hi dallen; To answer your question in general terms, relating to British/American warships: The wales were lengths of planking which were considerably thicker than the general exterior planking of a ship, and so projected beyond the face of the other planks, which makes them obvious features on both drafts and models. The main wale normally followed the line of the widest part of the ship's body, known as the line of maximum breadth. On the majority of British and American vessels, this was mostly vertical amidships, and changed profile towards the bow and stern. As Jaager remarks above, the wale was intended to counter-act 'hogging' or the tendency of the bow and stern to curve downwards over time, leading to curvature of the keel and affecting the ship's performance. This was caused by a combination of over-loading the ship at these points, normally with too many/too heavy cannon, and by the fact that when at sea, the movement of the waves often means that the ends of the vessel are not as deep in the water as the midships, leaving the ends less well supported. As a way of increasing the effectiveness of the wales in resisting this hogging tendency, the wales were curved upwards at each end more sharply than the decks curved upwards. Ships normally had one wale per deck, with the main wale the lowest, and those above diminishing in size. The method of constructing the wales varied considerably over time, and is one of the diagnostic features used to help date models in Museums and other collections. The upward curvature of the ship at each end is known as the 'sheer', and was much greater in earlier centuries than in more modern times, decreasing gradually, until by the first quarter of the Victorian era, most vessels were almost straight from end to end. All the best, Mark P

Greetings gentlemen; I have a feeling that the red paint used was actually red lead, which has some anti-bacterial, or anti-fungal properties, and is still often used as a primer for wooden boats. This paint is, I believe, more hard-wearing than one based on red-ochre. However, this is based on a feeling that I read this somewhere. I will check up on this and see if I can find something more concrete than a feeling. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jray; The classic modern reference is James Lees' 'Masting & rigging of English ships of War 1625 - 1860' published by Conway Maritime, and available on Amazon and others. Karl-Heinz Marquardt wrote '18th Century rigs & rigging', which covers all major nations, and the merchant fleets also. Both of these are informative, although Lees' work is probably better illustrated, and is specific to English warships. There are several contemporary works from around the late 18th/early 19th centuries, available as facsimiles, or on the internet as pdfs. A search under 'Steel's mast-making and rigging' should bring up the best-known of these. There are a few typos in the Steel's tables, though, from what I have seen discussed on MSW. Depending upon what type of vessel you are considering, there are some very good books out there which illustrate the building of beautiful models step-by-step. Most of these include a volume on masting & rigging. David Antscherl, Allan Yedlinsky & Ed Tosti have produced some very good books in this field. Check out Seawatch books, or again, Amazon. Some of the establishment lists from the 18th century also include complete listings of mast and spar dimensions. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jon; The TFFM books are a very good source of detailed descriptions of building techniques, and give information which is clearly explained and illustrated. This is valuable, because contemporary sources contain few illustrations, and are generally written in a hard-to-understand-now fashion. I would certainly recommend obtaining what you can of these, depending upon the type of vessel you are interested in. Another source of information, again depending upon the type of vessel, is the number of original contracts which survive for vessels built for the Royal Navy by merchant shipbuilders. These exist from the later 17th century onwards, and can be obtained from the NMM. Detailed information concerning the size of scarph joints, and all scantlings, is normally contained within these. The down-side of these is the sometimes difficult to interpret phrasing, and the lack of illustrations. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Druxey; Having seen your post, I had a look, and there are some interesting news articles about it on line. All the best, Mark P

Hi Gordon; Belaying pins seem unlikely. Most likely the running ends of hauling ropes that led down the mast were belayed around the shrouds, and the mainsail sheet made fast to a cleat in the stern. In full-size vessels at this period many of the running rigging ropes from the higher levels were belayed to the topmast shrouds, and were worked by men standing in the tops, not those on the upper deck. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Merchen; Thank you for posting the pictures of your model. She is a fantastic-looking vessel. Is she your own design, or is she based on an illustration somewhere? The carvings are beautifully executed, and the overall impression is really eye-catching. I could spend a long time looking at your model, and admiring the quality of the work. I am also greatly impressed by the size of the knife you use, and the idea of using cherry stones as raw material. Could you tell me where I might be able to find the picture you posted last year, the engraved views of a vessel which seems to have been part of the basis for your design. This is in post number 3, the one with all the pictures of box trees and planks, etc. All the best, Mark P

Hi Bill; Sorry, I can't be of any real help to your friend there. I have quite a bit of info on English men-o'-war, but nothing on the French. However, I am sure that I have seen references here to works that would be relevant. Maybe Jean Boudriot publications have something, although I suspect he covers a period that was slightly later in history. All the best, Mark P

Hi Bill; Is you friend making a model from a particular period? All the best, Mark P

Hi Roger; Thank you for the comment, that is interesting. I will remember what you say. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Druxey; Thank you for your response. I agree with you that I would feel happier with another model displaying the same type of thing. I shall have a good look through the archives to see what I can unearth. Additionally, I think I will contact the various auction houses, asking for photographs of models sold. This might turn up some results of interest. I certainly concur that this is a fascinating thread, and has developed in a direction I did not foresee. I would still like to know if the grey deck on Royal Caroline is a temporary cover over a chequer-board deck. More research still required there, I think. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Druxey; I have to disagree with some of your comments. If you follow the link, and look at the photo which shows the best view of the deck, the one included in Frankie's post, it is quite clear that the paintwork to the rails and stanchions around the hancing abreast the quarterdeck rail is marked and chipped, to both Port and Starboard. This kind of thing can be seen in some of the other pictures, but not so clearly. There are certainly areas where it looks undamaged, though. Concerning the chequer-board pattern, if you look at the areas each side of the main mast as it crosses the deck, the lines are not straight at all, there are misalignments and bends in the patterning. This can also be seen in a couple of other areas, and many of the 'tiles' do not have straight edges or sharp corners. There are also lines which could be tears from expansion/contraction of the wood below, near the top of the steps to the quarterdeck, and in front of the quarterdeck breastwork. The edge of the chequerboard at the top of the quarterdeck steps also appears to be scuffed, although this could be the wood of the underlying step. Concerning the stern carvings, these are somewhat difficult to assess too accurately, as the paint obscures some of the detail. To my mind, the quality of the quarter badge carving is no less crudely executed than the stern carvings and counter ends. Most tellingly the 'scallop-shell' top finial to the badge is merely incised lines, with no hollow curves or three-dimensional definition attempted. The last point is why would anyone want to go to the trouble of making and pasting a chequer-board pattern onto a model, which has obviously been carefully fitted, at a date later than the model's construction. I think the most telling point here is that the auction house expert, who has presumably handled many models of differing age, as there are quite a few in the auction catalogues, has made no comment on the deck or railings. He would have handled and inspected this at a much closer level than any of us can manage through the photographs available here. I feel that the balance of probability is heavily on the side that the deck-covering is genuine and contemporary with the model's manufacture. I hope that this has laid some of your doubts to rest. If not, I will try and trace the buyer, and see if it is possible to inspect/photograph the model (I might well do this anyway) All the best, Mark P

Greetings Doreltomin; Thank you for your thoughts. I agree with you that the model is genuinely old, and I have done so since I first saw it. And I think that is the opinion of the others here, as no-one has stated otherwise. It was also identified as contemporary by the staff at the auctioneers who deal regularly with models of many different ages, and having handled the model, would have been in a good position to spot any anomalies. I have also seen other contemporary models (Warrior, 74; and Endymion, 44, both in the Science Museum) with painted figures, using a very similar set of colours, and other members will surely know of others. I think Druxey's comment on the quality of the carving was merely a comment, and not an argument against the model being contemporary (put me right here, Druxey, if I'm wrong) I have no doubt that the model depicts a contemporary practice, although one normally limited in scope to vessels of a certain type. I will now keep an eye out for any other further evidence of this, especially related to Royal Caroline or her contemporaries. Again, many thanks to all contributors, for all the ideas posted. I have certainly added to my knowledge from reading the responses to this topic, and if anyone has any further thoughts, or pictures, please add them for all to read/see. All the best, Mark P

Frankie; Can you let me know how you managed to download the pictures, because I couldn't get this as an option at all. I could only get them to print. Druxey, I had assumed the breastwork railing was simply decorative, but you may well be correct. Thank you both for the continued interest and posts. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Doreltomin; Thank you for the link; that is much better. And thank you Frankie for posting the picture. I have my doubts about the mast, I think that this is a modern addition (the bowsprit is the same) but everything else seems genuinely old. I wonder if what we are seeing in the painting of the Royal Caroline is a temporary covering to protect a chequer board pattern, or similar design, from wear, whilst there are no important passengers aboard. Certainly the Royal Standard is not flying from the masthead, which means that no royalty is aboard, presumably just the crew. More research required, I think! All the best, Mark P

Hi Walt; This refers to the proportions to be used when creating an octagonal section from a square section. You measure 7 units in from the corner, along 2 adjacent faces, then a further 10 units, then a further 7. This is then repeated on the remaining 2 sides. Joining all the points at 7 units with lines to make triangles will result in an octagon. Put another way, any square timber should be divided along its faces into 24 units, and then those units split as above. When working with inches, 24 units is relatively easy to find. All the best, Mark P

Hi; Thank you for posting this. It is certainly interesting. All the best, Mark P