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

Good Morning Gary; I have heard back from the NMM; they only have one drawing of the Queen, and it is not the same as the one which you show. The plan curator believes that It must be part of the Kriegstein Collection. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Sam; I wish you the best of success with your extended project, and hope to see the results when they are ready. The book by Simon Stephens & Nick Ball, 'Navy Board Ship Models', has a directory near its end which lists the locations of most known models which are constructed in what is known as the 'Navy Board' style, ie with open framing visible, and not fully planked hulls. These models tend to be 17th & early 18th century in date, and the directory lists approximately 30 different collections, large to small; a few are now in an unknown location, following sale at auction, but most are still accessible. The collections listed frequently also comprise other models of later date in the 'Georgian' style, where the hulls are planked. Some of the collections have been mentioned above, but some are quite obscure; with a range of others in between. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gary; The NMM's website now is a bit of a joke, to say the least. Their own staff are in despair at the fact that the new version was ever switched on so long before it was ready. Search results now are very limited. One drawing of 'Queen' of 1769 does appear, but it is not the same one as shown in the book. I have sent a message to some contacts in the plans archive to ask for reference numbers for any other draughts of her which might exist, and I will let you know what they might tell me. All the best, Mark P

Thanks for your reply Mike; No self-serving assumed, don't worry. If you can find a solution, that would be very encouraging. I understand that multiple items become cheaper for shipping, but quality books like these can't be low-priced, and my wish list always has far more books in it than my monthly budget will cover. All the best, Mark P

I was looking forward to purchasing something, until I saw the shipping cost to England; it was more than the book itself! Mike: is there any way to reduce shipping? I can get books sent from Europe for about £15, and I have had books sent from the States before at reasonable rates. The postage rates I have seen will have an impact on sales; they certainly did on me. Highest was $90, although that was fast. I don't care if it takes a month to get here, and I don't expect it to be cheap, necessarily. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Mark; Druxey is quite correct; however, one thing which is perhaps surprising is that many contracts contain large amounts of very similar wording, even as far back as the mid seventeenth century. It would appear that it was quite customary that every time a new build needed a contract to be drawn up, the first thing to do was to reach for the previous contract and copy it; perhaps adding a few extra words or paragraphs here and there. Contracts grew gradually in length. The oldest one I have found is from the 1580s, and is three pages long. The ones dating from the decades before the French Revolutionary Wars began frequently run to thirty or more pages; and those pages are quite large, A3 size. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Mark; I believe that the Marlborough specification is missing a couple of words; the writer is near to the bottom of the page and may well have been trying to condense what he said as much as possible, leaving out a word or two in his haste. The sentence does not really read very smoothly at all as it stands. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Mark; I interpret this phrase to mean that the sheer strake is to be parallel to the waist rail (or concentric to it; virtually the same thing) Once this is applied, there is no trouble with definitions of what rail is what in the contract. Falconer is still in opposition, but I believe that he is in error; firstly because he is outnumbered by other contemporary sources; but secondly because of the following: William Keltridge, in his book giving many dimensions for ships of the latter part of the 17th century, lists the 'plansheer' rail. Since the 'plansheer' is what we know as the planksheer, which is the moulded capping plank laid over the tops of the timbers in the waist, it would seem a fair deduction that the 'sheer' rail was once called the 'plansheer' or 'planksheer' rail, and is fixed directly below the plansheer/planksheer. The waist rail is, as most sources indicate, and as you first described, the moulding which is interrupted by the gunports. It may also be important that Keltridge was quite prolific in his output and was a renowned ship's carpenter, ending his career as carpenter of the first Royal Sovereign in the 1690s, which would make him the Navy's most senior ship's carpenter (he was not in this post by the time she burnt at her moorings) and lived much longer than Falconer, who was lost at sea on a voyage to India, whilst still only 37 years of age. Falconer served as a seaman, and a purser; and briefly as a midshipman. He was also well fairly well-known as a poet. On balance, Keltridge's experience-derived knowledge will have been much more fitted to enable him to correctly name the parts of a ship. All the best, Mark P

Lovely work Siggi; A pleasure to watch her taking shape. Concerning the mast wedges, there is an interesting passage in a book about the Dutch Wars in the 17th century: The Navy Records Society published a book about the Wars, and it includes the following memoir of a sailor. He was part of a group of men who had recaptured a former English ship, which had been taken by the Dutch some time previously. As they sailed the ship out of harbour, they came across a Dutch ship, which realising that they were English, turned to escape, and gradually got further and further away. The English commander asked if any of the crew had served on the English ship before she was captured, and when one man said that he had, the commander asked him what was the ship's best point of sailing. The sailor's answer was that they should alter the rake of the masts by slackening the backstays and having done this, they gradually overhauled and captured the Dutch ship. So small differences in mast rake could make a difference in the sailing qualities of a ship. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Everyone; The Barbary States, consisting of the cities of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli and Sale (Sallee to the English) were active pirates for centuries. James I, England's king in the first decades of the 17th century, was forever troubled with raids on English shipping, even in the Channel; and the coastal towns were attacked for plunder and slaves. Naval campaigns to deal with these predators were one of the first long-distance and sustained efforts mounted by the Navy. The pirates targeted other countries along the Atlantic coast as well. The rulers of the North-African city-states were not overly keen on making treaties not to attack a nation's shipping, because frequently the unhappy citizens, faced with the loss of their livelihoods, simply murdered the ruler in question, and substituted a more amenable one who knew on which side his bread was buttered. The State Papers and other sources of the time are full of appeals for help with raising ransom, either for individuals or for whole groups of people; or merchants appealing for some kind of compensation for lost ships. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Dennis; Thank you for posting this interesting document. Either the Lucy Ann was carrying important dispatches/persons, or just possibly this was a standard form of what is known as a 'safe-conduct'. If it is dated 1804 that is rather interesting, as the US was still fighting a war with the Barbary States of North Africa, which did not end until 1805. A further war broke out in 1815. Perhaps her voyage was related to the negotiations surrounding the peace treaty. The wavy top of the document makes it what is known as an 'indenture', which were normally used for legal contracts. To make these, the clerk would draw up the agreement in two copies, with each page mirrored head to head on a single sheet of vellum/parchment. Both parties to the agreement would then sign and seal one set of the pages in front of witnesses. After this, the pile of pages would be cut through the middle in a wavy (or 'indented') line, and each party would keep one part. Authenticity was proved by matching the pages together again, should any dispute arise. The way the original document was drawn up would mean that each party could stand on the opposite side of a table, facing each other, and read and sign their own half at the same time; but I have no idea if things were done in this way. All the best, Mark P

The fasces, pronounced 'fass-kays', was a symbol of authority in Imperial Rome. It is normally/frequently depicted with an axe head protruding from the side. As this was a well-known symbol, it was possibly allowed to stay. The Phrygian cap is again actually an old motif, and appears in mid-eighteenth century carvings. It is not unreasonable, though, to presume that its linkage with the 'sans-culottes' and the Terror would have tarnished it beyond acceptability. So perhaps the cap was removed, but the fasces retained. All the best, Mark P

Thanks Stephen; I have read about this previously, but not seen this picture. The remains were apparently destroyed during the War, most regrettably. It was huge! Could tell a few tales, if only wood could talk! All the best, Mark

Good Evening All; To add to the correct information in all those previous posts: In the early 17th century, quite a number of the carved parts of ships were covered with genuine gold. This is clear from the specific phrase used in the accounts: 'gilding with fine gold', and was applied to, for example, 'sundry garnishings and embossing on the galleries and head'; as well as more specifically 'the beast' (ie the figurehead) and the king's arms and badges. Gilding is specified in contracts, for finishing the king's arms in the stern, right up until the early 18th century, and probably continued to be used for prestige first rate ships for some time afterwards. After this, the cost meant that it was normal practice to paint features with yellow ochre; at least on Navy ships. Royal yachts, however, were definitely gilded. Bills for such works survive from Charles II's reign, with references to gold size as part of the process. The number of books of gold leaf used on the Royal Caroline of 1749 is mentioned in letters from the dockyard; and the cost of gilding is mentioned as a separate item in various accounts for the same vessel, and others; normally a substantial sum, far in excess of what paint would have cost. In addition, references occur to making surfaces ready for gilding, and the difficulties of gilding in inclement weather. With regard to the Sphinx, it is by far most likely that, as agreed above, yellow ochre paint would have been used. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Siggi; Well done Alexander for finding this. I have several contemporary copies of the 1719 establishment, but I looked more at the 1745 versions, on the assumption that Blaise Ollivier was telling the truth, and they were not official policy before 1737. I should have checked the earlier one just to be sure! Goodwin is quite correct, and has transcribed the establishment word for word. The presence of binding strakes here is interesting: if Blaise Ollivier states that the master shipwright he spoke to in 1637 did not use them, yet they were required by the establishment, the shipwright was presumably not doing as he should have done. This demonstrates very well that Ollivier's comments can only be taken as applicable to the particular yard or yards which he visited, and not as general remarks upon all English shipbuilding. The flat of the deck is a general term, and refers to the main area of deck planking. This seems to have excluded the end planks at the bow, and possibly the stern also. Often, the first planks in the bows were of oak, if available, to withstand wear better. The remainder of the deck was often planked in deals, except for the two strakes closest to the sides, which were also of oak, to better resist the force of the gun carriages. Thanks Siggi for some more inspiring researches! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Siggi; I think that on a model, it is not important to sink the binding strakes into the top of the deck beams. However, the binding strake could be made wider than the other deck planks, as shown in Falconer's deck plan. Thanks for your thoughts on the Establishments. I did check the various copies of I have of these when I was looking through the contracts, and like you, I found no mention of binding strakes. It may have been Thomas Slade who introduced this, but without any evidence we can only say this is possible. He may have learnt this from his brother (or uncle?) Benjamin Slade, who was a shipwright in both Deptford and Woolwich yards, before being appointed as master shipwright at Plymouth. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Siggi; This does not change anything for you, but I have been looking further into the origin of binding strakes. The contract for Edgar, dated 1666, specifies that 'the gun deck shall be laid with good three inch plank, and one strake of four inch next to the carlings [hatchways] to run fore and aft'. It is not stated that the thicker strake will be let into the beams, but it would be an awful trip hazard if this is not done. So binding strakes were in use long before Blaise Ollivier states that they were not. Presumably, at least in the royal dockyards, this was left to the master shipwright. All the best, Mark P