Mark P

Good Evening Gentlemen; Just to add a bit of further information on studding sails, when these were set, the windward ones were set aft of the 'main' square sail; and the leeward studding sails were set forward of it. This was to prevent the wind escaping between the sails. Changing tack must have been a really time-consuming business! Presumably, the studding sails were only set when there would not be a need for regular changes of course. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gentlemen; It was usual to walk along the bowsprit. I have seen an example (can't remember if it was a model or a draught) with cleats along the top to provide a more secure foothold. That's a nice model, Druxey. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Tommy; Masting ships is quite a wide topic, and the exact reply depends upon the period in which you are interested. If you are prepared to purchase some good books to learn from, then I strongly recommend the following: For merchants ships, look for 'Masting and Rigging the Clipper ship and Ocean Carrier', by Harold Underhill. For English warships, look for 'The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War', by James Lees. There are other books for ships of other nations. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Everyone; There has been quite a lot of discussion here about the colour of lanyards, and I am surprised that nobody has suggested referring to the works of the various marine artists who flourished for at least four centuries and recorded the actual things which they saw. Below is an extract from Henrik Vroom's painting of the Prince Royal, with nice dark deadeyes and lanyards. Back then, interestingly, they were called 'deadman eyes'. A look through a book showing work by an artist working in the period in which one is interested would surely be a good first port of call for anyone seeking further information. On a slightly different topic, the deadeyes of royal yachts were sometimes gilded. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Dafi; I have not read any contemporary references, but C. S. Forester, in his 'Hornblower' books, made references to the marines helping with tasks where minimal sailor skills were needed. He knew his stuff where the Navy was concerned, it seems; so when this is confirmed by a contemporary print, I would take it as a definite. Note that the outermost person on each bar is a sailor. An interesting print, thanks for posting it. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening everyone; Thanks Marcus, I will see if I can get a copy of this. I believe that you will find that the two volume set is known as the Robinson volumes, as they were in large part put together by Michael Robinson (d. 1999) who worked at the Maritime Museum as keeper of the pictures, and was an expert in the works of the Van de Veldes. There is a set in the British LIbrary, and probably others in many other places; the second hand value of these is rather too high, unfortunately. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Michel; The usual practice when sails were taken down from the yards was as follows: On lower yards the sheet, tack and clew/clew garnet line, which are all attached to the clew of the sail, were shackled or lashed together in the raised position where they would have been when the sail was furled, or hauled up tight to the clew blocks on the yard. On the upper yards the sheet and the clew lines were similarly fastened together in the 'sail furled' position. Buntlines, leech lines and slab lines were made fast to the jackstay, if fitted, or to their lead blocks on the yard if no jackstay was present. For headsails, the halliard and downhaul were made fast to the traveller, or hitched to the lower end of the say. I do not remember where I read all this, it was a long time ago, so I cannot give the name of the book it was in, unfortunately. I attach below a photograph of a model of the Yarmouth, an 18th century model in the NMM. If you look carefully at the mainyard, you will see the position of the ropes normally attached to the mainsail. Ignore the yardarm tackle which is stowed horizontally and made fast to the futtock shrouds or stave. All the best, Mark P

Reply for Phil in post 15 above: No capstan model appears in the book. All the best, Mark

Good Morning Pat; I think that you will find that the single refers to the possibility that some large ships in the 19th century had inner and outer lifts, to cope with very long yards. All the best, Mark

Good Evening All; As Druxey says above, the Navy Board ordered that the ships of the Royal Navy should display names on their upper counters. This practice was discontinued not long after, as it was felt that letting an enemy know what ships he was facing might be disadvantageous. Below is a photo of the stern of the Ajax, a 74 launched in 1767 and sold out of the service in 1785. She took part in several notable battles, and the model could commemorate her building, or one of these. The well-known model of the Bellona, also in the NMM's collections, has its name in similar manner on the upper counter. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Toni; I have the first Sea Watch volume (the second was similar size, with a couple more models, I believe) and the differences are notable. The new book is larger and with at least double the number of pages. As there are pictures on every page, there must be a lot more pictures than the earlier volumes have, although I have no intention of counting them. I don't think that the number of large 'Admiralty' and 'Georgian' models covered is much greater, although there are certainly some new ones; but rather that the artwork and additional items are much greater, as also is the section on small boats and prisoner-of-war models. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Druxey and Jorge; As BE says above, it is well worth the wait. It's big and heavy, the postman/mailman would not want to carry many of them. All the best, Mark P

Back in February, I made an advance order for a forthcoming volume about the Kriegstein Collection of 17th & 18th century ship models, to be published by Seaforth Books. After several postponements this was finally published at the end of September. There have been two previous books published by Seawatch Books on this subject, both of which were highly informative and desirable works. Owners of these books will have some idea of the quality of both the Collection, and the photographs of it; but this latest offering is larger, has many more pages, and gives greater details of other areas of the collection than has been the case with either of the preceding volumes. The Kriegstein Collection is the largest collection of contemporary 17-18th century models in private hands, and consists almost entirely of museum-quality examples, superbly made and decorated. Each model is photographed many times, and is well-described, with a history of the model, its acquisition by them, and reasons for its stated identification, where known. The two brothers Kriegstein, who along with their supportive father, are the owners of this beautiful collection, take their role as guardians of such valuable heritage very seriously. Their admiration for the models, and for the craftsmen who made them so long ago, is clear to any reader; as is their mission to preserve them, and to make as much information as possible about them available to interested parties. The collection also contains many valuable and beautiful artworks by top-drawer maritime artists, such as the Van de Veldes, as well as some very interesting ancillary items; and a good number of prisoner-of-war models from the Napoleonic era. The photgraphs throughout are in full colour, and are of a good size, with many close-up details of each model. The book's overall size is 293 x 285 x 30mm (11 1/2 x 11 1/4 x 1 3/16 inches. It has 288 pages, including notes and an index. The recommended price is £50. The first 14 chapters are about models of English warships; there follow two on French models, and then a model of the American ship 'Franklin' of ca 1800. Three sectional models of bomb vessels follow, then six models of various ships' boats, including several with detailed figures of the crew on board. One of these is a troop transport, for landing soldiers from ships, and has no less than 16 oarsmen, a naval officer, 38 redcoats, a sergeant and two musicians, all with their uniforms painted in detail. There follows a Dutch state yacht of ca 1690, a model carving of the figurehead for Royal Caroline, and another for the Queen Charlotte of ca 1784. A model of the Victory's foremast with battle damage as received in 1805 is next, then two chapters on the various artworks in the Collection. Prisoner of war models follow these, and the book finishes by covering 'Care and Conservation', and 'Fakes and Forgeries'. Their latest acquisition, a previously unknown late 17th century model of an English ship, is covered in an appendix. This model is still in France, and is awaiting an export licence. It is very interesting in that it shows how much some models have been altered by owners during their long lives, acquiring extensive additions which are completely anachronistic, and obscure the original model to a remarkable degree. If previous models are any indication, this model, once safely in the brothers' hands, will be lovingly and carefully restored to as close to its original appearance as can be achieved; as its new owners have both the drive and the resources to see this accomplished. This is a beautiful book, and I thoroughly recommend it to any member with more than a passing interest in models of this period. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Dave; Strictly speaking, the bolts would not be visible, except perhaps at the extreme ends of the channels. This is because a 'cover-strip', a separate, long thin piece of timber with a simple moulding on it, was nailed over the outer edge of the channels. The chains themselves were rebated into the outer edge of the channel, and the cover-strip was then fitted over the top. Also, if you want true verisimilitude, the channels are actually tapered, with the outer edge around 1" to 3/4 " thinner than the long edge against the hull. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening WE; That does seem a likely thing, now that you mention it! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Ian; One thing which may be worth knowing if you have not yet started making all the hammock rolls, is that once the hammocks were stowed in the netting, they were covered with tarred or painted canvas, usually black or very dark grey, to keep them dry. This was certainly done in the Royal Navy, maybe not for French ships. Sailors did not want to sleep in soaking hammocks. Most likely, the nettings were lined with lengths of canvas, like a long trough, so that the hammocks were stowed inside it. Once the netting was full, one edge of the lining could be turned over the top and tucked down behind the other side, to create a seal. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jacek; I have no information on the lashing of the pendants; it seem logical that they would not be allowed to flap around, and if Druxey confirms that they were lashed, I would take this a certainty, and lash them as you think best. James Lees, in his book on rigging, states that until 1780 a single block was spliced into the end of the pendants; after that date a metal thimble was used instead. As your model is from 1775 (launch date, presumably) she would have had the pre 1780 version with a single block in each end. According to Lees, in ships with 2 pendants per side (which was those with over 50 guns) the after pendant was 1 foot longer than the fore pendant. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gregory; The speculation was ill-founded generally. There has been some debate around the possibility that in the Elizabethan period guns were fired from a fixed position, and not allowed to recoil; but apart from that not-widely-accepted theory, the recoil of cannon is normally taken as a fact There have been at least two posts linking to a video of the Swedish Bofors company firing a replica of one of the Wasa's cannon; the recoil is substantial. This can be found on YouTube also, and is well worth a watch if you have not seen it. Especially the amount of splinters that fly when the ball pierces the replica ship's side, which it does with ease. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gregory; 'In-haul' would indeed describe one possible function; although when fired in action the gun's recoil acted as the inhaul force, and the train tackle was only necessary to prevent the gun rolling freely down a heeling deck; ie for restraining it. Training/aiming was indeed carried out by the gun-tackles, which in the same logic would be called 'out-haul' tackles. However, the use of these 'haul'-derived phrases is limited, and contemporary inventories of gunners' stores always refer to train tackles, and gun tackles. The description 'train-tackle' was in use long before the appearance of carronades in the late 18th century. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Jacek; Those do indeed look like mast tackle pendants, which were the first item over the masthead when dressing the mast with the standing rigging. The wooden thimbles in the end are unusual, though. From what I have seen and read, most of them were fitted with a metal thimble seized in an eye-splice. The pendants were permanent, whereas the tackles were un-rigged when not in use. I would strongly suspect that when not in use, they were fastened to the shrouds with a temporary seizing, to stop them flailing around in any kind of wind or rolling of the ship, when they would chafe against other items, causing wear. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening John; To back up Allan's comment, train tackles were not normally left fitted to the guns in English ships when they were stowed. They were only brought out for exercise and action. My theory, for what it is worth, is that the train tackle, which was not used at all for training the gun, ie aiming it, was originally called the 'restrain tackle', as in restraining, or holding back. All the best, Mark P

Not being afraid to call a spade a spade, I once attempted to write here about the splice around the cascabel/button/knob using the proper word for it, and the site's software would not accept it. Regrettably, it is not therefore possible to be down-to-earth in this matter. The history of the word is very interesting, and apparently until quite recent times it was much more used and acceptable than present-day sensitivities would seem to indicate. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Tony; To follow up on Druxey's answer, it is possible that the words are 'au hazard', which has an English equivalent, 'at hazard', meaning 'as chance may make it', approximately. Depends upon the context, really, as to whether or not this is a likelihood. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening George; With the latest picture which you have posted, one thing becomes very clear: the structure represented aft of the hatch is not associated with a sliding hatch mechanism. This is because the deck in the way of this structure is shown with multiple shading lines, which indicate an opening in the deck. Furthermore, in the centre of this, there is quite clearly a dashed rectangle on top of the deck beam between the two compartments of this mysterious structure. Due to the proximity of the ship's stove, I would say that this is a two-grating structure, forming a chimney hole, and additional steam vent for the galley, as mentioned in earlier posts. All the best, Mark P Edit: Jason posted his reply while I was writing mine; it would seem that we both have the same thought.

Good Evening Gentlemen; There are archaeologists, who are only happy when they have a trowel in their hands and are down on their knees finding real artefacts; then there are 'archaeologists' who are part of English Heritage, who believe that any decision made in less than a year cannot have been properly considered; any project organised in less than two years cannot possibly have been properly sanctioned; and anything which means that they might have to actually do something in less than three years will automatically be an absolute disaster. The reality that they and their institutional mindset are the actual disaster will of course never strike them. Valuable artefacts being lost forever is only a minor concern, and it seems does not even register on their consciousness as something which should be minimised at all costs. Allowing amateurs to have any real say in decision making, or any real part in actually finding something is a 'Dear me! What a frightful thought!' scenario for the poor dears. Re the Netflix Sutton Hoo film, I too was of a similar opinion to Roger, having read the publicity for the film; but then I read an actual account of the excavations, and it seems that not only did Netflix exaggerate/fabricate a great deal about the inter-personal relationships of most of those involved, which the publicity to some extent admitted; but they also created a new element of tension between Basil Brown and the more experienced archaeologists who took charge once the significance of the site became clear, which was never actually there in real life (note to English Heritage: the 'professional' archaeologists were on site within a very short period, and recovered all that they could with the technology of the time, as quickly as possible) All the best, Mark