Mark P

Good Evening All; Well, I must say full marks to the people at SeaWatch. I ordered 3 books on Monday 5th December, and they arrived at my home in England today, the 9th December. That's damned good service, and deserves a mention in dispatches. Thank you one and all involved; whoever does the shipping is obviously well-organised, and worth the cost. I shared Druxey's pessimism, I have to admit, and did not expect to receive anything for at least another week. All the best, Mark P

Good News for all nautical book addicts: I have just ordered the three volumes of Ed Tosti's Young America work (more for techniques, tips and jigs, as I am unlikely to ever build the model) and not only is there a discount for purchasing the three together, the postage for all three to England was only $35 total. Shipping costs have indeed been reduced dramatically. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Allan; I would not be guided too much by the colours displayed in the model of Granado. Whilst she is a beautiful model, I am pretty sure that it was actually constructed by Bob Lightley? in the 20th century, and purchased by the NMM at around the same time as they also bought the excellent model of the Egmont, built by (Oh God! I can't remember his name! Mind is going!) Which is not to say that the colours shown are not in accordance with contemporary sources, of course. All the best, Mark P

Definitely 90 in the original, not 93. Phineas Pett, in his autobiography, spells Baker's first name with one 't', as Wayne mentions above. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Waldemar; You may find the following description of the construction of a mid-ship mould, by Matthew Baker, to be of use. This is from a contemporary document in the British Library, which I transcribed several years ago. All the best, Mark P Matthew Baker How to draw Mid section MSW.pdf

Good Morning All; I am not sure if this was mentioned before in another thread on this painting, but there is some indication that Lely (if indeed it was him who painted the ship) did not work from life, but from draughts or sketches of the ship: this is that the perspective of the quarter galleries is completely wrong. He depicts them as parallel to the waterline, whereas in life the forward ends are considerably lower than the stern ends. The quarter galleries follow the sheer of the ship, which those depicted quite obviously do not, being shown parallel with the deck line (look at the line of slightly open gunports on the lower deck) To my mind, this throws into doubt that anyone of Lely's stature, who quite clearly understood perspective, would have depicted the ship thus if painting it from life. Even if it was not Lely, the artist is clearly highly talented, and the same should apply. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Ollie; To judge from the few mentions of such things in early written works, the same belaying points were used from early in the 17th century as are shown on models of a later period. Whilst it is not possible to be certain, it is likely that these also extended backwards to the 16th century. See below photos of belaying points on a model in the NMM's collection, all of which are fixed to the bulwarks. These comprise two forms of cleat, a staghorn and kevel. Cleats and kevels often had sheaves within them. When no specific belaying point was provided, the rope's end was made fast around the fife rail. There is a rigging treatise written around 1625, a transcript of which was published by the Society for Nautical Research. This describes the standing and running rigging of a ship in some detail, and includes details of where the majority of the ropes were belayed: 'belayed to the Gunwale'; 'fastened to the aftermost tymber'; 'belayed to the gunwale under the shrouds'; 'belayed to bit-pins on the fore castell'; 'belayed to 2 cleates set to ether side of the mayne mast'...etc. This is very helpful. I am not sure what you believe to be the date for the start of using belaying pins, but it is most likely that these were in use in the 16th century, as they certainly existed in the early 17th. Sir Henry Manwayring, in his nautical dictionary written around 1623, describes pin racks on the gammoning and on the forecastle head. All the best, Mark P

Greetings to anyone interested in this topic: I have recently photographed a document among the State Papers surviving from Charles I's reign, dated 1630. This is a specification for the repair of the Vanguard in dry dock. One item of great interest is this: 'To Birth upp the Sterne on both sides alike, with Buttock planckes wrought out of Rounde Tymber (which I take to mean that the sharply curved planks forming the round tuck were to be sawn out of timber with a suitable curved grain) to bringe on a Transome uppon the Heades of the Buttocke plancke without Boarde to finish the same' (presumably the later tuck moulding, not the wing transom) As the specification was drawn up by Phineas Pett and William Burrell, the two foremost Master Shipwrights in the kingdom, this would make it very likely that this was considered, by this date at the latest, to be normal. If Phineas Pett was involved in specifying a round tuck stern for a rebuild/repair in 1630 it can reasonably be considered unlikely that he would design the later Sovereign of the Seas with a square tuck. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Waldemar; Thank you for the new post. Interesting to follow! To return to the subject of the dead-rise, mentioned earlier in this thread: the deadrise is specified in some early contracts as 4". More interestingly, though, the Salisbury MS of around 1620 describes the deadrise as being necessary to avoid the floors being weakened by cutting the limber holes in their underside; the limber holes instead being cut out of the chocks which were set each side of the keel to form the deadrise. Perfectly sensible when you think about it. Presumably someone soon realised that the bonus was that ships built with a deadrise were more weatherly. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Waldemar; Nice to see someone taking a fresh interest in this fascinating work. The original is in the Pepys Library, at Magdalen College, Cambridge. It was written firstly by Baker, and then later, after his death, further pages were added by a second hand, believed to be Wells, the storekeeper at Deptford, although he was much more than this in fact. The second part uses logarithms, which only appeared around 1618, some years after Baker's death in 1613. I have been lucky enough to be able to study this work in the original, although not for as long as I would have liked. It is a fascinating, beautifully illustrated book, which is actually much larger than one might expect, with over a hundred pages. There was an attempt started many years ago to produce a proper commentary on it, something which should have been done long ago. The Pepys Library allowed photographs of the work to be taken to aid in this project (normally almost impossible to do) which was to be a combined effort by two well known specialists. Unfortunately, this has never been completed, with work stalled long ago, and is unlikely to ever be re-started. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Michael; My previous answer referred only to the eye-bolts; the plates serve a different function. Without denying their support function, and without being certain of what I am about to say, it is likely that these solid plates were made with an eye in their upper end, to which the lower block of the tackle which ended the shifting backstays could be hooked. These backstays were rigged as additional support for the upper masts when under sail, and would be shifted as the yards were braced further away from the central position. They would only be hauled taut/rigged on the windward side of the mast at any one time. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Michael; These are for use in emergencies, when the chain plates or channels have been carried away by battle or storm damage, and were to enable the attachment of jury rigging for the shrouds. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Wayne; Many thanks for this. I will see if I can find out anything about it from the Library. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Wayne; Thank you for your comment re Browns University; I was not aware of this one. Would you mind sending me a copy of their collection listing for this. The Keltridge draughts are available as prints from the RMG. They are not as large as 18th century draughts, and are therefore not as expensive to purchase. They do indeed show a lot of detail, but most are not identified with any particular vessel, and may be an exercise in drawing rather than an actual vessel. I stand to be corrected in this, of course. The RMG Keltridge book has some unfinished pages, and whilst greatly detailed, does have some gaps, regrettably. Perhaps the Browns version has these pages completed. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Wayne; Thanks for this. Battine was, if I remember correctly, clerk of the cheque at Portsmouth dockyard. He produced one of these books every year, and dedicated each of them to potential/actual patrons who could help with advancing or safeguarding his position. I am sure that at least a dozen different copies survive in various archives and collections. William Keltridge, a shipwright/ship's carpenter produced a similar book, in a similar size, which is more detailed, but of which I know of only one copy, and possibly one other. Keltridge knew his stuff, certainly, as he ended his career as the carpenter of the Royal Sovereign in the 1690s, the highest possible position for a ship's carpenter. I presume that he either died or was pensioned off shortly before the Sovereign burned, as he was not her carpenter by that date, and I have not seen any record of his appointment as an assistant master shipwright in a dockyard, which was the next step in a ship's carpenter's career. His work is not available as a pdf. The various copies of Battine's book seem to be written in different hands, interestingly, with some very neat, and others noticeably less so. Such books came into existence due to the need to educate ships' commanders who had not grown up at sea, and consequently were lacking in all but the most basic knowledge of ships. The competition for an appointment to the command of a warship was eagerly sought by many who considered it their birthright due to their rank in society; and their appointments were hotly contested by those who held themselves more suitable due to their hard-won experience of extensive sea-service. The debate and competition over which source provided the better commanders occupied a large part of the 17th century. All the best, Mark P

Oops! Apologies to Allan; I seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the question. It relates to the timber structure, not the metalwork on it. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Allan; I think that you will find that the longer of the metal fittings shown close together is a crutch for the main lower studding sail boom to rest in when it is not rigged out for use. Similarly, at the fore end of the channel, the longer metal fitting is an eye for the hook on on inboard end of the studding sail boom to swivel in. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Toni; As a backup check, I have looked at the height of the swivel-gun stocks on the Admiralty draught of Fly, a sloop of 14 guns. This very detailed draught, dated 1778, shows the swivel stocks ending at a height of 2'9" above the highest point of the quarterdeck planking. One must then add to this for the rounding of the deck beams, and for the metal fork in which the swivel-gun was mounted. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning BM; Following on from replies above, I have looked through my pictures of models from the NMM and the Science Museum, all of which I have photographed out of their cases, and with few exceptions they have inside bulwarks and bitts etc painted with red ochre. A series of contemporary paintings in the Kriegstein Collection, showing models of many different types of ship, all show the same thing. One of the ships depicted is the 74 gun Valiant of 1759. The exceptions in my models photographed, which number only three in total, are either unpainted, or have the fittings painted black, and the bulwarks red. There are two painted views of the 'Valiant' of 1790 in the NMM collection, but I have been unable to find images of them (the new website is simply awful to try and use) They are undoubtedly there somewhere, though, so you may be able to find them. They are shown, in black and white, in Brian Lavery's book 'Building the Wooden Walls', which describes the building of the 'Valiant'. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Allan; A 32 gun contract from 1778 states that the pillars under the upper deck are to be 6 5/8" at the base, and 6 3/8" at the top, turned; but it does not state if these are to be single or double rows. However, the lack of this detail does seem to suggest that it was a standard arrangement, meaning that if you can find information on a different sized ship, it probably applied to yours also. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Alan; The archives at Kew also contain extensive records which came via the War Office, and are prefixed WO. These are all accessible via the search engine at Kew. WO 55/1830, 31 & 32 all contain lists of ships with particulars of ordnance, dating from 1793-1799. How thorough they are I do not know, but by this date normally quite a lot of info was recorded. All the best, Mark

Good Afternoon Allan; The 1788 document gives the dockyards discretion to issue carronades as best suits the ship's qualities. So after this date (and presumably sometimes before) the arrangement could have been non-standard, as your sources indicate. I have a further letter on the matter, dated 1782, which instructs the Navy Board to see that ships capable of bearing the weight of them are to have 68 pdr carronades on the forecastle, with lesser vessels having either 42 or 32 pdrs on the forecastle. The same letter states that the intention is for these to annoy the enemies' rigging, so they would probably be mounted in a position to bear more on the broadside than as a bow-chaser, where the longer barrelled cannon were used. If you would like the pages as images you can see better let me know, and I'll send them over. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Allan; When carronades were first introduced, they were (if I recall correctly; might be wrong!) only issued to a ship at the captain's request. It was also his decision (and presumably the gunner's) as to where they were to be sited. See below pictures of contemporary letters on the subject, from 1779 & 1788 All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Phil; The answer to your question is probably best explained by photographs; basically, a square tuck stern has a large flat area, approximately vertical, with planking, which is separate from the hull planking, laid diagonally. A round tuck stern has the hull planking continued through a rising, curving line until it reaches the lower counter, or 'tuck' line. Note that in both designs, the tuck line is in the same place, roughly in line with the bottom of the main wale. The first picture below is of a round tuck stern, the second of a square tuck. A round tuck gives more effect to the rudder by allowing the water a smoother run to it; at least, that was the reasoning for it, I seem to recall. A square tuck was introduced to give stronger support for guns placed in the stern when such things first came into vogue. In English ships this was changed back to a round tuck in the 16th century, whereas Dutch (for example) retained the square tuck for much longer. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Gentlemen; Not being any kind of expert in Dutch ship design and building, I do not feel qualified to comment on the various points of view put forward above. I can say, though, for those who have not seen it, that Ab's claim that the drawings in question are forgeries was published in an article in the NRJ for Spring 2020, p.33. I will also add that, to my personal knowledge, several very notable persons in the world of research were extremely sceptical of the reasoning used in the said article, and remain so. The matter should certainly not be regarded as closed. An important point to consider is that as Ab has nailed his colours to the mast, so to speak, by stating categorically that technical drawings were not used in 17th century Dutch shipbuilding, it then becomes an absolute necessity that any and all evidence which might indicate the contrary should be discredited. All the best, Mark P