Mark P

Hi Mark; I think you slightly mis-read my note, as it says she was months on from being launched, ie after launching. I will try and avoid such potentially misleading sentences in the future, and make it clearer. All the best, Mark P

Hi Gentlemen, and thank you for your interest. Druxey: the carved and gilded frieze of figures is well-detailed on the painting, and is a very close match for the draught of Royal Caroline which was made by Af Chapman, who was in the Deptford area close to the time of her building. I have also found an itemised bill for decorating the Royal Caroline, which lists Mr Cleveley as responsible for painted panels, of shipping and other themes, in the King's rooms, and for re-furbishing the panel on the buffet, presumably removed from Caroline's predecessor. It can therefore be a safe assumption that the picture of Royal Caroline painted by John Cleveley, from which the photos above are taken, was painted by him (in 1750) based on a great degree of close personal knowledge of her appearance. You may also remember some earlier posts about a seat of ease at the beakhead, which is also drawn on Chapman's draught. It is just possible to make this out on the painting, although not clear; however, there is another painting of her by John Cleveley, in which the seat of ease is quite clearly shown. Fatfingers: thank you for the idea; teak does go silvery over time, as do many other woods left to weather. I am not sure if timber from the Far East was being used at this time, though, in English shipyards, but it is something to consider, and a possible explanation. A point against this is that the decks were almost certainly scrubbed (swabbed) every day, and at the time of the painting, Royal Caroline was still only months on from being launched, so the decks would not have been very old. All the best, Mark P

Hi Frankie; Thanks for your thoughts, and herewith the requested photos. Apologies for the somewhat poor image quality, but these had to be taken without flash, so with a 1/4 second exposure. My first thought on seeing this was that it was the shadow of the sails, but some areas of the deck appear in darker and lighter shades of the grey colour. I fully agree with you that the decks of a Royal Yacht are likely to have been holy-stoned (comes from the men being on their knees, as in praying) even more assiduously than on a normal Navy vessel, which was normally every day. This kept the deck planking pale, not allowing dirt to stay there. I also concur with your observations about the likelihood of canvas trapping moisture, and not lasting long, but I cannot think of anything else it could be. I don't think that it is a fading of the oil paint, either, as the topside timbers are quite clearly the correct colour, and deck planking would normally be lighter than this. Incidentally, the darker smudges near the crewmen on the fo'c's'le are coils of ropes laid out on the deck (no belaying pins here!) And another incidentally: the black rail on the fo'c's'le is, I believe, not the final finished colour. I think it is the first stage in painting and then gilding (although red is normally the colour of the coat directly under the gilding) However, Royal Caroline went for her sea-trials, and even for her first trip with the King aboard, with quite a lot of her gilding and painting un-finished. As this painting is dated 1750, it seems quite reasonable to assume that it shows her in this state. She was launched 2 months before the end of 1749, but then had to be fitted out before going to sea. All other paintings show her with gilded rails. Anyway, any suggestions as to what this grey-coloured deck might be would be most happily received! All the best, Mark P

Hello everyone; I thought that my fellow modellers might be interested in the following document, which I found at the National Archive in England, whilst searching for a somewhat different subject. This lists the prices, sizes and quantities of a delivery of glass made to Deptford Dockyard in November 1750. The biggest pieces are quite large: 31" x 21 1/2", 3no. Their rarity and value is reflected in their price, £7.0.0 each, which is many times higher than the smaller, more numerous pieces. Lower down in the list are some pieces of mirrored (silvered) glass, some of which are again quite large and expensive. Clicking on the image should make it larger. If not, right-clicking on the image should bring up a menu with an option to 'open image in new window' option which makes it larger and easier to read. All the best, Mark P

Hi Keith; I think you will find that in the days of sailing vessels a clove hitch was used where the ratlines crossed the inner shrouds, but an eye-splice was formed in each end and this was seized to the outermost shrouds. All the best, Mark P

Greetings everyone; I am researching the Royal Caroline of 1749, and as part of this I have viewed the original of the painting which is used as a frontispiece in Sergio Bellabarba's AOS book about her. As his illustration is in black and white what I will be describing is not obvious, but it is possible to view colour images of this painting for anyone really interested. Anyway, in this painting, although parts of some of the decks are visible, no deck planking is shown. instead, the deck appears to be covered with a uniform grey-coloured something. My first, and so far only, realistic guess is that it is painted canvas. This grey covering is visible on the quarterdeck, where the Royal passengers would mostly appear, so it may be related to them, but it also appears on the forecastle, where they certainly would not normally go. The upper deck in the waist cannot be seen, but it would seem a fair assumption that it was similarly treated. Could it be purely decorative, or could it be as a means of aiding important feet to avoid slipping and sliding as the vessel heeled and pitched. Before I go and pass many hours wading through her log-books in an effort to see if anything about this is mentioned, I wondered if any other members here might know anything about it. All the best, Mark P

Dear Wayne; Such a resource as you describe would be invaluable to many modellers. I would certainly be a visitor. The thought of constructing a model that subsequently turns out to contain errors which could have been eliminated by deeper research is not pleasant. The availability of additional resources would be most welcome. Listing in the way you outline seems to be best to me. I could also perhaps help in some small way, if you need anything from England. Please feel free to ask if you think of anything that may require some on-the-spot research. All the best, Mark P

Hi John; That sounds to me like a very reasonable theory. I have read about the method of protecting the ship's bottom by hammering in thousands of copper nails so close together that the heads overlapped, They would indeed have looked like peas once they turned green. In the Royal Navy, pea soup was a popular meal, so there may well have been only a short distance between seeing the effect on the ship's bottom and naming it after a common food. All the best, Mark P

Hi Druxey; I'm with everyone else on this. A fine inspiration to all, and a very informative, instructive and pleasure-to-read build log, with a lovely model at the end of the trail! All the best, and many thanks for taking the trouble to share this. Mark P

Hi Druxey; I have never heard of that one. I will keep an eye out for any references in the future. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Robin; All the best, Mark P

Hi Grant; 'White stuff' was used to cover the ship's hull below the waterline. It was intended for use in the tropics, where the shipworms were more active. It was more expensive than the 'black stuff' which was used for ships in European waters. However, most models depict the ships with a white bottom, as it is much more attractive. In the case of the Royal Caroline, she is shown in several paintings by John Cleveley the Elder, and where her underwater hull is visible, it is white. As Cleveley was renowned for the accuracy of his paintings (also, he was a former shipwright at Deptford Dockyard, and was there at the time that Royal Caroline was built there) I would take that as sufficient authority to paint her bottom white. As for coppering, this was only introduced widely in the early 1780s, so would not have been used at the time of Royal Caroline's launch or for much of her career (not until after she was re-named the Royal Charlotte in 1761) All the best, Mark P

Hi Bear; Those are some very realistic-looking timbers you've made there. Congratulations! Balsa wood is a very good idea for them, so that the soft grain can be brushed away. That's one to file away in the old memory for use if I ever build a dock of any sort. All the best, Mark P

Hi Keith; I don't know much about launching or docks in the early years of the 16th Century, but if Mary Rose was built in a dry dock, then if later practice is a guide to that of earlier periods, she would not have been in cradles. A ship in dry dock was supported with a line of blocks below the keel, and rows of props against the side of the dock to keep her upright. For launching, the dock was filled on a rising tide, and the ship was floated out. Cradles were used on a slipway, which had a bottom that sloped down to the river, and ships were launched by sliding them into the water, with the ship in two cradles which slid on timber rails. All the best, Mark P

Hi Pat; Over here in England, that is what we call a mortice guage. As Rick says above, it is missing a block. This block could be moved independently of the pins, so that either one pin is just tucked into the face of the block, in which case only one pin scribes a line, or it can be set away from both pins, so that a double line can be scribed. Without the pins and the block, it is probably only good for a small vice, as you say. All the best, Mark

Hi Siggi; Thanks for posting that excerpt about the washing etc. Very interesting. There were some very cruel captains. Piggott, of the 'Hermione,' who was so bad that his crew murdered him, was an extreme example. On the other hand, even the Admiralty could be amenable at times. When the crews of the ships at Spithead mutinied, without violence, in 1797 (although they made it clear that if the enemy came around they would return to duty) their quite reasonable demands were agreed to. It was only later, when crews in other bases tried to extract more concessions that things turned nasty (although this seems in great part due to the character of the ringleaders) As with so many things, I think it all comes down to the fact that there are many different types of people, and each behaves differently. All the best, Mark P

Greetings Albert; I have just found your log, which I will now follow with great interest. Your work is of a very high standard, beautiful to look at, and shows again what can be achieved by those who take care and pride in their models. I am in agreement with so many others' posts on another thing: I too am envious of your so tidy workshop! Every time I look at such great craftsmanship I just can't wait to get started on my own project (still finishing off the workshop, seems to be taking forever!) All the best, Mark P

Dear Wayne; You have put a serious amount of time and effort into researching all this, with many interesting contributions from others added in, and it is fascinating stuff. I had no idea that Matthew Baker was calculating such things as described in this thread. As has been said earlier in this thread, it would appear that Deane's role in all this has been somewhat aggrandised by Pepys. And with regard to your last post, it would be a rather unfortunate merchant who had his customs dues calculated by Mr Humphrey's method. He appears to be considerably off the mark. Would you mind if I printed off this thread to read in more leisurely circumstances? All the best, Mark P

Hi JB; Yes, it would need three blocks or sheaves per side to work. The use of blocks in a replica vessel does not point to their use in the vessel being copied, unless based on good evidence. From what I have seen in the writings and illustrations about steering ropes, the use of sheaves was common to guide them. This can be seen in surviving vessels: both Victory and Foudroyant are fitted with sheaves. We obviously cannot know for certain either way, unless there is some description or mention in the logs or journals. All the best, Mark P

Thank wefalck for posting this. An ingenious little device, with its construction clearly described. All the best, Mark p

A beautifully constructed model, Druxey. You certainly set a high standard to aim for, which is only for the good. Incidentally, I should be at the NMM on 7th April. I will take some pictures of the underside area of the rowing benches of Prince Frederick's barge, and try to show the balusters supporting them. There may be some additional details there that will be of interest. Incidentally, the cabin on this barge, which is much earlier, has large panes of glazing. I believe that it was made by blowing a large cylinder, and then cutting it along its length and flattening it out. I know this was a technique used, but I am not sure of if it was still current in the period being discussed. All the best, and keep the exemplars coming please! Mark P

Greetings everyone; A few thoughts strike me on studying the draughts. Firstly, the tiller and sweep are above deck, else they would be drawn in red. Secondly, by virtue of its being located only two-thirds of the length of the tiller, the sweep does not extend the full width of the quarter-deck, allowing free passage past it on the outer part of the deck. With the helm hard over, the tiller would reach the end of the sweep, and the gooseneck would be tight to the bulwarks. It would seem to me, therefore, that the function of the sweep was to support the tiller from below, with the tiller riding along the top of its curve for the full length of its travel. There was probably a lug fitted to the underside of the tiller, and passing below the sweep to aid in keeping it in place against any force from the steering ropes, or the effect of waves on the rudder. The curvature of the sweep would need to be steeper than the camber of the deck, with the outer ends of the sweep probably very close to the level of the deck planking, whilst being higher above it in the mid-ships position. The camber of the deck would allow the tiller to extend beyond the sweep, even if the end of the sweep was quite close to the deck. As Druxey says above, it was curved in two planes. The steering ropes must have passed along the deck planking, probably through fixed sheaves at deck level, both below the wheel and at the ship's sides. Any location at a higher level would have caused an intolerable nuisance to anyone attempting to pass. I am afraid I cannot think of any reason why the iron gooseneck should need to be cranked; not from any feature shown on the draught, anyway. My only thought on this is that if its end is higher than the end of the tiller, it would serve to keep the tensioning blocks, located at the end of the tiller ropes, a little aloft, thereby keeping them from bouncing along the deck and chafing both the ropes and the deck as they swung. All the best, Mark P

Dear John; Thank you for the kind words. They make life feel better! All the best, Mark P

Nice work and a great model, Toni. I like the idea of the lids on the stove being in brass; think I'll do this myself, even if they will hardly be visible. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Phill; I've learnt a lot from the resources and people on this site; it seems only fair to do my bit to keep up the tradition. Happy modelling! Mark P