Mark P

Hi Bob; Contemporary evidence for masthead details are pretty much non-existent, and most people will probably rely upon extapolating back from the last known true details from later in the century. Cornelisz Vroom painted English ships arriving at Flushing in the early 17th century, and some masthead details can be seen in this; I include a small excerpt below. However, although he supposedly depicts English vessels, he probably shows contemporary Dutch practice. The main point to note, though, is that the mast head is shown round. Whilst this is not definitive proof of English practice, it does seem logical that ships whose mast was made of a single tree would not have a square mast-head. Since at lease Elizabethan times trees for masts had been imported into England from Eastern Europe, so there was no problem finding large enough trees. All the best, Mark P

That is a beautiful and painstaking model; I congratulate you on the successful completion of it. Well done indeed! All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Amateur; Jules has included significant extracts from the museum report at the beginning of this post, and they are well worth a read. Whilst I cannot give any opinion on Dutch draughts of the 17th century, I can inform you that English draughts of the period consisted largely of the midship section and a series of curves shown in sheer or plan, called the rising and narrowing lines. These delineated the points on each station at which the curves used for the midship frame were shortened/lengthened and re-combined, in a process known as hauling up or down. The curve radii used remained constant, and for this reason there was no cause to draught anything beyond the rising and narrowing lines. This system appears to have been developed by Mathew Baker in the 1580s, and remained the basis of draughting until at least the reign of Charles II. The relevant points to use on each station could be calculated mathematically with great accuracy, so there was no need to rely upon scaling up or down from a smaller draught, provided that the shipwright possessed the relevant knowledge of mathematics. There is therefore no expectation, amongst anyone with knowledge of this period, of the existence of anything beyond a comparatively simple draught, which would be the technical equivalent of the much later and more complicated draughts which survive in far greater numbers. Early 17th century draughts are few in number, regrettably, although contemporary writings make it clear that they were a routine part of the design and building process, and must once have existed in quantity. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gentlemen; Discussion of the merits of a stated position is to be expected, and provided that it is done without open rudeness, is all part of the process of justifying one's argument. If an author were to hypothesise that 'It is probable that 17th century Dutch shipwrights did not use draughts', and then for the resulting discussion to demonstrate that they did, the author's credibility, whilst somewhat lessened, is not undermined or damaged beyond repair. However, if an author, accepted as being an authority in his subject, makes a definitive series of statements that "17th century Dutch shipwrights did not use draughts"; and that "17th century Dutch draughts do not exist", and then publicly denounces a collection of 17th century Dutch draughts in a national museum as forgeries, then I would say that that author's credibility, on that subject at least, is effectively destroyed when the museum in question undertakes a series of careful (and presumbly expensive) tests and establishes beyond doubt that the draughts are genuine. The lesson to be drawn here is that one should not make categorical statements unless one is either absolutely certain of their correctness, or unless the writer/speaker is prepared to see their credibility damaged when such statements are reliably exposed as false. If a person is viewed as an expert in their field this carries the privilege that their opinions are listened to and generally regarded as correct. The follow-on from this is that the expert has a responsibility to his/her listeners to exercise great care and ensure that any statements made are well-founded and carefully considered, or qualified. Regrettably it would seem that this is not always the case. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Jules; Thank you for the post no. 53. Some very clear points are made here, ones to keep in mind when Dutch shipbuilding methods are being discussed. It would seem to be rather a shame (to say the least) that available 17th century sources have been, and will presumably continue to be, misinterpreted through what seems to be a combination of both wilful and negligent misinterpretation. English records have also been considerably reduced by fires: at least two at the Navy Office, and the disastrous fire at the Cotton Library, where many Medieval, Tudor and early Stuart documents had been collected. Keep up the good work! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Siggi; In addition to the tackle shown in Druxey's post no. 983 above, the fish davit would probably have been moved around using the fore burton tackles and/or the yard-arm tackles. The burton tackles were suspended from the mast below the lower mast cross-trees; and the yard-arm tackles were hung from the end of the yards, and could be pulled inwards by means of the tricing line. Rotating the yard using the braces would have moved any object suspended from the yard-arm tackles. Burton tackles are not often shown rigged on models, and yard-arm tackles, if shown, are normally triced up tight to the underside of the yard. All the best, Mark

Good Evening to all; Many thanks to Jules for continuing with this interesting thread. I would like to add a few thoughts to the comments on the differences/similarities between English and Dutch shipwrights' use of draughts. Firstly, the use of draughts for the design of ships in England can be traced back as far as Mathew Baker, whose beautifully illustrated notebook contains various examples of theoretical drawings, dating from the 1580s onwards. Although these might seem very sparse compared to later draughts, it must be remembered that the method used then was dependent upon the construction of a midship section, and of the various rising and narrowing lines, drawn as curves on plan and sheer. Armed with this information, a shipwright could either set out manually (to scale or full-size) or calculate mathematically, the shape of the hull at all stations fore and aft of the midship frame. There is a very good explanation of this method, well illustrated, in a thesis by Taras Pevny, titled 'Capturing the Curve'; which can be downloaded from the internet. Secondly, one of the illustrations in Baker's work shows a master shipwright at work, drawing a detailed ship's draught using a pair of compasses. Thirdly, the Scott MS, a detailed treatise on the construction of all the curves to be used in the setting out of a ship's draught, along with various rules governing proportions, and which mentions the use of a bow to draw curves, was written by George Waymouth, who died circa 1612. The foregoing make it very difficult not to believe that ship design, in England at least, was based on the construction of a draught made prior to building, and that the proportions of the ship were decided beforehand, based on well-practiced rules governing the relationship of length, breadth and depth, as well as the radii of various curves, well before the end of the 16th century. The Scott MS was originally accompanied by a number of draughts of different types of vessel, both ships & galleys, which, even if they still survive, are in a location which is not recorded anywhere that I have found. There are also methods given to calculate the area within a frame, which is presumably linked to displacement calculations, and understanding the level of the waterline. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening All; A big thank you to Jules for posting this, and especially for the news of the tests that were carried out on the draughts. I never really believed that they were fakes, as claimed by a well-known author some years back in an article in the Nautical Research Journal. This was done, I believe, solely to avoid said author's claim that 17th century Dutch shipbuilders did not use draughts until the very end of the century being discredited by the existence of such draughts. I also came across Jules' rebuttal of the fakery arguments very soon afterwards, and I know that another expert in this field was also highly sceptical of the claims of fakery. Regarding the rowing layout above, an interesting layout of the rowers is shown in a contemporary model in the NMM at Greenwich. See below. I am not suggesting that this is what was done here, as the thole pin layout is symmetrical, but it does offer the possibility of a wider choice in the rowers' positions. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gentlemen; I am going to put a cat among the pigeons here, as I do not believe for one moment that the ports were separately lined with timber to form a rebate. For modelling purposes, this may be the easiest method to construct such a rebate, but in full-size practice this would entail a great deal of work, for no practical return. It is much easier simply to stop the outer planking short of the gunport, with the resulting exposed part of the main timbers of the hull frame, and of the inserted cills at the bottom of the port, forming the surface against which the closed port-lid would rest. (Allan, thank you for your pictures above; but they only show that a rebate was present, and do not in any way provide an illustration of how it was actually formed physically in the ship) The framing plan of Vengeance, a 74 of 1774 (available on Wikimedia Commons at high resolution) shows the timbers forming the gunports quite clearly, and on the lower deck the gun-port opening between the timbers scales at 3'4"; and for the upper deck ports it is 2'10". Furthermore, in places the timbers forming the side of the port are shown actually reduced slightly in width, as compared to the width of the same timber below the port cill, in order to increase the width of the port to the desired size. It is, in my opinion, very unlikely that the timber would be trimmed back, only to be later replaced with a separate piece of plank nailed to the side of it in order to replace that which had already been taken away. Just about every contract ever written at this period specifies a minimum for how much timber is to be left to the sides of the ports when the timbers are cut back to obtain the desired width of opening; so obviously trimming back the main timbers to give a desired opening width was common practice. The 1745 establishment gives the gun deck ports of 70 & 80 gun ships a width of 3'5" & those of the upper deck either 2'9"or 2'10". At a later date, for a 74 gun ship, Steel gives a width of 3'5" and the shipbuilder's repository 3'6". For the upper deck they give widths of 2'11" & 2'10" respectively. In other words, the distance shown between the timbers on the framing plan of the Vengeance matches the given dimensions for the width of the gunports. So there is no room for any additional planking to be fitted to the side of the gunport openings. The Shipbuilder's Repository also gives a dimension for the port stops of 3 1/2" for the gun deck ports of a 74. This is the distance by which the outer planking stops short of the side of the timber forming the side of the port opening. The author also gives a size for a 'lining' of 1 1/4"; this is given under the heading of 'Port Lids', NOT gunports, and refers to the thickness of the vertical planks which were fitted to the inside face of the horizontal outer planking of the gunport lids, this inner lining being sized to fit between the timbers at the sides of the ports. The cover illustration by Ross Watton, for Peter Goodwin's book, 'Sailing Man of War', which is based on a model of Bellona in frame, shows this concept very well. Below is a sketch I made some time ago to illustrate the point made above. Gun port details001.pdf All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Grandpa Phil; As a further reason to have faith in Mathew Baker's picture, I can add that during my researches into ships of late Elizabethan and early Stuart period, I have come across frequent references to the sides of the ship being 'layed' [painted] 'into colours', that is, plural; more than one colour. A popular colour for the rails (which ones is never specified) seems to have been brown. All the best, Mark

Good Evening All; Re the cow hooves on the shoes to disguise shoe-prints, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote on of his Sherlock Holmes stories based on a murder which was carried out by men wearing the same sort of thing, to leave cow-prints in the ground. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening gentlemen; Further to Bob's quite correct comment above, I seem to recall that an additional clue to the ship's shape was either the survival of the rivets (very rusted) holding the clinker planks together, or a patch of rust-coloured sand where the rivets had been. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Dave; That is a really useful post; the videos are straightforward, clear, and inspiring; and the technique is made very clear, and is so simple throughout. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening All; The NRG has two spiral bound books of 'Ship Modeler's Shop Notes', which can be purchased. Vol II contains, on page 50, a section describing how to make one's own miniature carving chisels. I have done this, and not only is the process a fascinating learning curve, well worth it just for the understanding of basic blacksmithing which ensues; the results are very good also. I have some very sharp chisels in a range of sizes, although I must admit that I have not yet made any gouges, only flat chisels. Gouges will follow though, and their making is also described. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening All; I absolutely agree with all the comments above about the quality of Chuck's craftsmanship, and the level of skill required to develop a kit. To add to the debate about the model of the Endymion, which is indeed a very beautiful model, this is the 44 gun ship of 1779. She was photographed in the archive store of the Science Museum, and was formerly on display in the Museum, where the model was correctly labelled as the Endymion. When the Museum display was dismantled, there was some mixing of models, I think, because at the time the photographs were taken, the model was actually catalogued/identified as a 74 gun ship, I believe it was the Ajax. I am not certain of her whereabouts now, as the model of the Ajax was returned to the former Royal palace at Kew, from whence she had apparently originally come; but unfortunately, it appeared that the model of the Endymion had been returned in place of the Ajax. Whether this has been corrected in the intervening years or not, I am not aware. I will have to visit Kew one day and try to see what I can discover there. For those who are interested, the photographs of the model are in the gallery of completed models on this website. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Marvic; I am not an expert in this particular period, but I would say that the illustrations are much later than the early 1300s. The vessel shown on the right has multiple masts, and her superstructures would appear to place her in the mid 1400s at the earliest. The left-hand vessel has two masts. Multiple masts were something which happened over a relatively short period, with the transition from single masted vessels to two or more masts occurring within about 50 years, if my memory serves me at all reliably. If your interest is serious, and it seems to be, I would suggest the following two courses of action: 1: contact another member of this website, Stephen, from Australia, who has a deep knowledge of this period, and posts on here under the name of 'Louie da Fly'. 2: try to obtain a copy of the book 'The Good Ship', by Ian Friel. This covers the development of ships in this period in much detail, with in-depth discussion of the various stages of mast numbers, and fore and after castles. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Steven; An interesting question; I see no problem with accepting that your second picture corroborates the first. Re the loop of rope used to attach to the yardarm, if one accepts that two anchorage points is better than one, because the load on each leg is much reduced if there are two, then one must conisder how this would work as the yard rises, and the angle of the two legs relative to the yard changes. When the yard is fully lowered, the legs will be at their closest point to being equal, although the inboard one will always be shorter. As the yard is raised, the angle of the lift becomes much closer to the horizontal, and the difference between the leg lengths changes significantly. If the main lift block was simply seized to a bight in the rope at the yard-arm, then, as the yard rises, the inner leg would slacken, and all the stress would be on the outer leg only. By allowing the bight of the rope to move through the sheave of the lower end of a sister block, the stress remains equally distributed through both legs, regardless of how much their lengths change relative to each other. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mark; Further to Hubac's Historian's comment above, as David does, whenever I have to carve a human face, I start with the silhouette of the forehead, nose, chin and throat, cut with a chisel around 2-3 times wider than the nose, and create the outline in a plane at right angles to the face's line of sight (imagine cutting the face's silhouette with a bandsaw) Then I check this carefully in the side view. Once happy with this outline, mark on the centre line carefully, and use this as a reference for all remaining features. This is especially helpful when the head is looking to one side, or downwards/upwards. But it's never easy! Wishing you every success. One further thought: if you were to put her left hand behind the shield, it would look much more as though she meant business, and also have the happy result of one less hand to carve! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jeff; That is some lovely work you have done. Using sandpaper for a felt roof is a great idea; I would not have thought of that one in years! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Guy; Sea Watch Books are indeed intending to do a reprint of volume 2; Mike, the 'Sea'-eo told me himself. You are not the only one wanting a copy! Hang on to your loot, and send Sea Watch an email telling them that you want to purchase Vol II, and ask when will they reprint it. The more people who write to them, the sooner it might happen. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Ron; One of the chief and most noticeable characteristics of gun carriages of this period is that they had a solid bed of timber forming the carriage base, with the cheeks on top, and the axles below. There was also a type of cannon called a 'drake', which had a partly tapered bore. These had a solid timber skid instead of a rear axle. Their recoil was vicious, though, as a result of which they fell out of favour. As Waldemar says above, Richard Endsor's works do indeed have much information about guns, which are very carefully illustrated in colour, although the guns & carriages generally relate to the second half of the 17th century (although the barrels may well have been cast in the first half) Another point to perhaps consider is that during the first half of the century, many ships carried a real mixture of gun types and calibres, with some cast in bronze, and some of cast iron. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mike; Your work shows a very high degree of care and craftsmanship. The joints between the various pieces are so equal and consistent that it is hard to believe that this is hand worked. You are a master at this art, and I salute you. All the best, Mark

1500 blocks in a day; no wonder the blockmakers at Portsmouth Dockyard got so upset over the introduction of Brunel's blockmaking machines. I would consider making 50 miniature blocks a day a success if making them by hand. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening All; This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration. I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed. An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening All; As Murphy says above, the contract is for the Hampshire, and stipulates that the ship is to carry fifty guns. There were at least half a dozen of these 50-gun fourth rate contracts awarded to merchant builders around 1695-6, a time when the demands of what was often called 'King William's war' made it imperative to increase the forces available to the Navy. I suspect, subject to confirmation on closer reading, that the collection comprises a variety of documents gathered over a period of time, and may well have been taken to Russia following Peter the Great's tour of European, including English, dockyards, wherein he spent many months learning the shipwright's trade in some detail (and indulging in some hard drinking after working up a thirst) It seems to include at least one of the formal 'Establishments', possibly that of 1706, the first really formal one; although it may be the more informal establishment of the 1690s (the exact date of which I cannot recall) If not taken by Peter the Great himself, they may well have gone with an English shipwright who went to Russia to help set up Peter's nascent Russian Navy. I will have to check these dimensions against some of the multitudes of various scantlings which exist from the latter part of the 17th century for an idea of the exact source of the Russian archive's documents. The information about the ships of 1677 may well appear because in the 1690s there were at least two acts of Parliament authorising a large programme of ship-building. Lacking a Navy Board member of sufficient stature to force Parliament to pay more than the bare minimum it wanted to, and advise them fully of the reasons why they should pay more for better results (a role ably fulfilled by Samuel Pepys in the 1670s) Parliament relied upon a resurrection of the scantlings and dimensions for the 1670s programme, the ships of which had been regarded as successful designs. What they did not realise was that King Charles II (died 1685) had insisted that the earlier ships were built to increased dimensions and tonnages, rather than those which had been authorised by the act of Parliament. Hence the later ships were of inferior performance. The section on the construction of a drawing of a ship is of great interest, certainly. Many thanks to you Eugen for posting this. All the best, Mark P