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

Greetings everyone; Unfortunately it appears that the link above does not work properly. The photos of the model can also be found on Charles Miller's website, auction catalogue for sale number 12, 30th October 2013. After a couple of clicks it is possible to get to a page-turning online catalogue. The model in question is on page 106 & 107. Incidentally, it appears that Charles Miller's catalogues are well worth looking at for Naval and maritime items. They hold twice-yearly auctions of fine art, models, and memorabilia. With prices that are well beyond the pockets of most people, unfortunately. All the best, Mark P

Hi Frankie; thank you for posting the picture of Victory's cabin. I must go there again, not been for many years! I have seen the chequer-board pattern on the decks of cabins in models, as well. So painted canvas was used internally, without doubt. I think, though, that we must at all times remember that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. Doreltomin has sent me a link to a contemporary model of the Naval Yacht 'Old Portsmouth' from an auction catalogue. This model is attributed to the yacht in the year 1752. The entirety of the upper decks is covered in the same pattern of painted chequerboard, presumably on paper in the model's case, but it must represent canvas on the real vessel. There cannot have been any alternative material to use in those times. I have also seen a contemporary model of an admiral's barge with painted canvas on the deck planking, at the NMM's model store. I will try to put a link here: http://www.charlesmillerltd.com/catalogues/ms301013/lot0347.html Doreltomin has also carried out research at the National Archive at Kew, into the building of the Royal Yacht 'Henrietta' in 1679. A letter from her master shipwright is there, in which he writes complaining about the late arrival of the copper for the kitchen funnel, and for coppering the mast. I think that these two items of evidence must give rise to an acceptance that perhaps Royal Yachts and Naval Yachts at least, and maybe some other small vessels sometimes had painted canvas deck coverings, and/or (Speedwelll, as above, post #27, thanks Druxey) copper mast funnels at deck level. Regarding the mast funnels, it is also beyond doubt that in every painting of the Royal Caroline I have seen (four of them) in which it is possible to make out the lower masts, these are a pinky-red colour for the first 5 feet or so. I am happy to accept Doreltomin's written letter as evidence that this represents a copper funnel. I will also carry out further research into Royal Caroline myself, and will see if there is any more mention of such things. All the best, Mark

Greetings gentlemen; thank you for the suggestion. I have tried re-booting, with no success. However, I have now created a new drawing, copied into it all the lines I have drawn in the original CAD drawing, and then imported a fresh copy of the original underlay draught to work on top of. This has been successful, so far, and the arcs and other shapes appear during construction, as 'ghost' lines, as they always did previously. Per: I have tried to check the nodes, but they are many. Additionally, there is no hidden layer or object that I know of in this drawing. However, I will keep your comment in mind, and try to find out more about this kind of problem. All the best, Mark P

Hi Jud, and thanks for the explanation. The thing is, I am using three points (as mentioned in the first post) which is AutoCAD's default to draw arcs. Normally, after you define the beginning and the end, a ghost image of the arc appears, and changes radius according to where you move the cursor. The advantage of this is that it is possible to position the arc over those on the original draught and get a close fit, then click to lock the third point, after which the arc becomes a firm object. The problem now is that the 'ghost' arc is no longer visible, and without seeing it, I have no idea of where to click for the third point. All the best, Mark

Hi Per; Thank you for the comment. I will look into this, and see what I can do. I think you mean 'nodes' by the way? Thank you for your help. Mark: thank you for the thought. I don't think I have done this, but I will check. I think what you are referring to is what is called 'model space' and 'paper space' now. Thank you again. All the best, Mark P

I have opened a new drawing and inserted a fresh background draught. If I then attempt to draw an arc or circle, this is fully visible during construction. It would appear that somehow the attributes or properties of the inserted underlay in the first drawing have been altered in some way. I hope that someone out there can suggest a possible reason, or I will have to start again; not a pleasant thought. All the best, Mark P

Hi Don; Thank you for what is an eminently sensible suggestion. I have changed the layer of the underlay to a completely new, dedicated layer. Unfortunately, nothing else has changed. The biggest puzzle for me here is that it was working fine, with any arc visible during construction, and then for some reason they stopped being so. Thanks again, Mark P

Hi Chuck; Thank you for the advice. 'Something strange is happening' has been removed, and a more apt title created. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; I hope that someone might be able to help me correct something which has started happening, and I don't know why! I am creating a draught of Royal Caroline, working with a digital image of an original draught loaded into a CAD drawing as an underlay. Everything has been proceeding well, until a moment when arcs (and circles) that I am trying to draw no longer appear on top of the underlay during selection of the points (up until this moment part-drawn arcs had shown just fine) The arc now only appears when I select the third point (using the default 3-point arc method) This means that I have no idea what the arc will look like until I lock it in place by clicking the third point. I have tried selecting the underlay, and using draw order to send it to the back, but still new arcs and circles are invisible until the size is locked. I am using AutoCAD LT 2009, and the underlay was inserted as a raster image reference. Does any fellow modeller have any suggestions as to how I can get my arcs back? Many thanks in advance for any replies. Mark P

Hi FatFingers; Thank you for your reply, and for the time and trouble you have gone to to search these out. I have a larger copy of the Bonhams image, but even at quite close quarters it is difficult to make out the deck, as only a small area of the fo'c's'le is visible. The deck here could be grey, or it could be planking in the shadow. Not really possible to be sure, as the viewpoint is low, and the deck is nearly end-on. This painting actually shows her later in her career, as Royal Charlotte. The painting in the Victoria Gallery in Bath is a panoramic view of the arrival of Princess Charlotte, and Royal Caroline is not greatly detailed (she had been re-named Royal Charlotte for this event) Your information about oilcloth is welcome. I have seen the name many times, but was never sure how it was made; only that it was meant to be water resistant/proof. Thank you for that. All the best, Mark

Hi Druxey; I did not know that other models had the bottom of their mast a red-colour. There is a painting of Royal Caroline, in 1760 when she became the Royal Charlotte, which shows her with a pinky-red base to the foremast, which also appears to be octagonal. But as to whether or not this is copper, I would be very pleased if Doreltomin could point me to a source for any of the information in his post. All the best, Mark P

Gentlemen, thank you for the further comments; Greg: the frieze was definitely carved, in quite high relief, and to a much higher standard and finish than was usual for other vessels. The finished carvings, and much of the rest of the decoration, was gilded. All this came at a rather high cost. Frankie: I think that if the artist wished to differentiate between surfaces in contrasting planes, he would have achieved this result by painting the deck planks as light-coloured planking, if that is what was visible. This would then have stood out very well against the red bulwarks. Just to be sure, from your comment about only a narrow strip of deck being visible, perhaps you have missed the quite noticeable expanse of fo'c's'le deck shown, also in grey, all over. The artist, John Cleveley, has a reputation for painting accurate portraits of ships, and worked at Deptford Dockyard, where Royal Caroline was built. I have written evidence that he worked on her during her building, so it cannot be doubted that he knew her well. It would seem highly unlikely that he would paint the deck of such an important vessel in a different colour to reality. His patrons, who were senior naval officers, many of whom sailed in Royal Caroline or in convoy with her, would have known immediately if he moved very far from a true likeness. Again, though, thank you for taking the time to set out your thoughts. All the best, Mark P