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

Hi Thistle; The gun-port cills and lintels (also called cills, actually: upper cills) were aligned with the curvature (sheer) of the deck, maintaining a constant distance from the deck at the side of the vessel. The sides of the ports are at right-angles to the keel, parallel to the station lines (there are some exceptions, but this is by far the general rule) This means that the gun-ports are not square, except for a few right amidships, but are actually a parallelogram shape, with the angles increasing towards the stern and bow. To answer your question about guns moving: when they were not being used the guns were stowed by raising the muzzle to its maximum and hauling the gun tight to the ship's side. The muzzle then fitted into a curving recess cut into the back of the upper cill. The gun-tackles were lashed up taut, and an additional rope lashed around the muzzle and made fast to an eye-bolt in the side above the port. Hope this helps. All the best, Mark P

Hi John; There are at least two books, '18th century rigs & rigging' by Karl Heinz Marquardt, and 'The masting and rigging of English ships of war' by James Lees (which I can see that you have borrowed from the library [must be a good one, to hold such titles] but perhaps not yet read) which deal with the matter stage by stage. They start with the masts and associated rigging, then the yards and associated rigging, and then the sails and associated rigging. They finish with sections on different types of blocks, and belaying. Neither of them has a glossary, unfortunately, which would be helpful for you; but you will read about shrouds and stays in association with the masts, and braces, lifts and halliards in association with the yards; then sheets, tacks and buntlines in association with the sails. By the time you have read Lees' book, you should have a thorough knowledge of the basics. Deeper knowledge can only come from re-reading, drawing rigging diagrams, and from rigging models. Lennarth Peterson's book, by the way, despite its title, only deals with the rigging of one particular ship at one particular period. So whilst it is very good for a model of this type, for earlier or larger vessels, it is a somewhat limited source. All the best, Mark P

Hi Toni; Thank you for sharing the pictures of the cannon, and all the rest of your log. I made the cannon for my current project at a scale of 1:64. I then decided that I just had to build it at 1:48. So my cannon were consigned to the 'might use one day on something' box. But having seen the cannons you have made, and some of the others' work on here making them, I think that I would have re-made them anyway, as they just are not up to the standard that can be achieved. Keep up the good work. Mark P

Hi everyone; Another nice touch here is the name of the author! I thought he'd been dead for about 300 years! All the best, Mark P

Hi everyone; I can see the thought behind Rob's posts, and that his posts are correct, but I agree with Druxey that the crucial part of Alan's initial query is the phrase 'in each scarph' I have read quite a few of these contracts, and the specification detailing the scarph joints normally lists immediately after it the number and size of bolts to be used to fasten the scarph together. All the best, Mark P

JB is right, this is a range cleat. Other versions, also horizontal, had a timber-head, with a sheave just before it, worked on each end. These are then sometimes called kevels. The two pictures attached (excuse the poor focus, flash not allowed) are of a model of HMS Endymion, a 44 gun ship of 1779. The almost upright one is a Kevel, the almost horizontal one is a range cleat. Both types could have sheaves, but I am not sure if the date for those with sheaves is any different from those without. All the best, Mark P I have added a third picture, from the coppered model of 'Bellona' in the NMM (one of the few models still on display) This shows stagshorns and kevels. The kevels have brass sheaves in them.

Hi Everyone; The larger ships of the Royal Navy (not sure if the numbers for the smaller rates matched) carried 4 main anchors, which although in earlier times they were somewhat different in size, became very similar. All of these were much too heavy for ship's boat to handle. So in addition, they carried a much smaller anchor, the Kedge anchor. This was the anchor taken out by the launch or longboat, then dropped, and the ship would haul in the anchor cable to move itself. This operation was called kedging. Falconer's dictionary is available on the internet as a free pdf download. Type in the title of the book. I seem to remember that it is from the National Library of Australia. There are also many fairly recent publications, too numerous to list, aimed at the modeller/naval historian which contain chapters on anchors and anchor work. All the best, Mark P