Mark P

Good Morning Jaager; I have never heard that the deck beams are curved elliptically; can you remember your source for this? Is it for American ships only? All I have ever seen stated is the amount of 'round-up' to be provided at the midship beam, which varied according to which deck it was. Interestingly, in the restoration Navy, the deck beams were not parallel top and bottom, but were thicker in the centre. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Vladimir; I am glad to see that you are putting what you learned with your Cutty Sark to good use in a new model. At a smaller scale, too, so it will be easier to handle. It's all taking shape nicely, keep up the good work; I will watch with great interest. I wish you much joy from the building, and even more joy looking at the completed model for many years to come. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; Can you confirm your source for the dimension of your carlings. They should be considerably larger in section than the ledges. They look far too flimsy to me. I understand that this is a hold platform, and so may be different, but please check before you make much more. Some platforms only have beams, to allow the removal of the deck planks to access the hold below. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Dave; Another guide to size is calculated from the circumference of the shroud. The diameter of the dead-eye is one and a half times the circumference of the stay or shroud. The thickness is slightly more than half the diameter. Interestingly, early rigging inventories call these 'deadman-eyes'. Which makes the origin of the name clear, albeit rather macabre. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening gentlemen; Good work Allan; congratulations on a thorough working to find a definitive answer. Though it would seem that the length of the masthead was not a hard and fast matter, even as late as 1773. See extract below, taken from a contemporary letter book. This gives the Navy Board order to regularise mast lengths in accordance with various multiples. However, it is stated that this has been done because wide differences have been found. The ideal measurement was obviously not always achieved/known/complied with, for whatever reason. Contemporary documents relating to the Royal Navy in the 17th & 18th centuries do not, unless my memory is completely failing me, ever talk of hounded length when describing the calculation of mast lengths; only of mast length. Which we can take to be, as Allan has demonstrated so well above, the overall length of all parts together. The NMM has a good number of careful scale drawings of contemporary masts from the last quarter of the 18th century, which give a lot of detail of the construction and appearance of a warship's masts. There are also a multiplicity of contemporary documents, stretching as far back at least as the reign of Elizabeth I, which give mast and yard lengths for a great variety of vessels, by rate or by individual names. It is often possible to find the sizes for a desired ship amongst these. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Phil; I am somewhat confused by the proportion given above of 0.166, as this does not seem to make any sense. For example, a 12" mast, multiplied by 0.166 = 2", which, if this is the circumference, will require a rope only 5/8" in diameter. I cannot believe that any mainstay for a 12" mast would be this size (unless it is wire?) As a check, the mainstay of late 17th century Royal Navy warships had a circumference which was close to 0.5 the diameter of the mast. So a 24" mast would have a stay of approximately 12" circumference, giving a stay of 3 3/4" diameter. This is approximately 15% of the mast diameter, not 5%. Can you clarify this in any way, as something is clearly amiss. Your earlier posts, and all your work, on schooners is all so thorough, that I can only suppose that you have had a moment's memory lapse when giving the proportional figure above; or the explanation is in error (or that I am!) All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Dave; I would see no problem with using blocks of fairly thick ply between the bulkheads at bow or stern. If you use too many, the model will become quite heavy, but thick ply will give you enough material for creating some compound curves, and avoid the risk of leaving it too thin at the edges. If you use normal timber, especially softwoods, you run the risk that it will shrink unless thoroughly seasoned before use. So if using softwood, keep that in mind, and choose the oldest stock you have. Re your troubles with the keel, all ply will warp if allowed to/forced to. As you have become aware the hard way, it is best to restrain it in the desired shape, as well as you can. But that is good practice with whatever material one is using. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Dave; Plywood is a very dimensionally stable material; at the scale sizes at which you would be likely to use it, movement would be so small as to be not worth worrying about. That said, though, the veneers of which it is made would probably absorb moisture from a very damp atmosphere, and would expand if this happened. Depends to some extent on the number of veneers and the quality of the glue used. The greater the number of veneers the better quality the ply, generally; but also the greater expense. However, if you can obtain off-cuts of decent quality, thick ply from a local joinery shop, these would probably make good filler blocks. Avoid shuttering ply: this warps like a live thing! If using sections of timber of any size, remember it shrinks across the grain; ie a plank 6 feet long x 6" x 1" will reduce across the 6" by up to a quarter of an inch if newly sawn; and across the 1" by a small amount; but the length will remain at 6 feet. The other factor is that the end-grain of softwoods will show a pattern of curved lines, depending upon where exactly it was cut from the log. These curves always try to straighten out. Fixing into end-grain is generally considered to be the weaker fastening method; and most modellers seem to avoid it. The best advice is to be sure to use wood which has lain around for as long as you can manage to leave it. All the best, Mark

Good Morning Dave; A general tip which applies to wood purchased from DIY stores, builders' merchants & non-specialist timber merchants, is to let it season for as long as possible. Most wood from these sources is recently converted from logs, and has a high moisture content. If you intend to do much in the way of filling blocks, buy the wood now and lay it by, ready to use in the future. This will avoid the risk of shrinkage after you have carefully shaped it and covered it with planking. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening gentlemen; That's a whole load of interesting information there. It would appear that I have misunderstood the method by which treenails were caulked, and that this, in this context, means that the caulking was used as a wedge. With regard to paying the seams, though, whilst the meaning of this is clearly understood in terms of the waterproofing of the seams of the deck planking with hot tar, the verb 'to pay' was also used to describe a different activity. This was the regular treatment of the hull below the waterline with hot tar, or other compounds, brushed on. This was carried out at regular intervals, maximum every three years, normally, often much more frequently than that. The whole of the lower part of the hull was so covered, and this process was called 'paying' the ship's bottom. The ship was first careened. That is forcibly laid over hard, almost onto her beam ends; which was normally done on a hard area of shingle. By this means, one complete side of the hull was made accessible. Its existing coating of tar would then be softened by burning with bundles of dry reed, set alight and held in special metal rods, rather like arquebus rests. The softened tar was then scraped off, and the new coating of fresh tar was applied. Apart from the actual careening, all of these activities were carried out by the caulkers, working, in the Royal dockyards at least, under the direction of the Master Caulker. This coating of tar would have closed off the seams between the planking below the waterline, sealing in the oakum. The tar was then covered with a layer of 'anti-fouling' made of oil, brimstone and rozin. The boundary of the tarred area was the 'black strake', which was normally the first strake above the wale; below this all was tarred. Above the black strake, as has been mentioned in other posts above, the seams in the sides of the ship, after caulking, were stopped. This was normally done with putty, and in the Royal Navy was actually carried out by the painters, as part of their works. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gentlemen; I have to agree with Bob, in that it seems counter-intuitive to caulk treenails; and I was surprised when I first came across references to it, for treenails do, as mentioned, swell when wet, ensuring a good grip. Allan's post has provided sufficient contemporary evidence for the practice of caulking the treenails (thanks Allan; saved me from digging them out; and my contracts don't go into the 19th century) Whilst it may have been different in the merchant fleet, this was probably done because warships were not always in commission. If laid up in ordinary, they were moored in the river, and in hot weather the timber would all shrink, planks and treenails both. This was a known problem, and I have seen complaints that the ship's standing officers failed in their task of keeping the ship's sides wet in such weather, allowing seams to open and treenails to become loose (they were also meant to open the hatches and ports to allow the air to circulate to prevent rot, yet they frequently failed in this task as well) The same hot weather would also make any pitch soft, allowing it to move at least somewhat with the wood. Pitch was applied to the seams using a rectangular shaped funnel, with a long narrow slot in the bottom. Using this correctly on side planking must have been somewhat of an art, involving sliding it along the seam slowly, whilst someone else poured the hot pitch in at the right rate. For treenails, though, I have no evidence for how it was done; quite possibly with a brush (dockyard orders for consumables include a huge number of brushes of various types, although most of these were for paying the bottom and sides with white stuff or black stuff, or whatever other finish was needed) Further evidence that this was done, somehow, lies in the origin of the widespread old saw 'there'll be the devil to pay'. This, if I remember correctly, evolved amongst shipwrights; where the 'devil' is the name of the lowermost seam in the ship, of the garboard strake, which must have been awkward to get at. The fuller, older version of the old saying is: 'There'll be the devil to pay and no pitch hot'. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening All; If one wished to be really pedantic about treenailing, it would be necessary to take into account the fact that in various locations where particular strength was required, it was customary to use bolts instead of treenails. This was done, for example, with the binding strakes and spirketting, and with the plank of the bottom from the wales downwards. All butts in these locations had bolts in the timber immediately before the one on which the butt lay. Bolts were not left exposed, though: they were sunk below the surface, and a diamond shaped cover-piece was inset into the plank to hide them. As the grain of this diamond was parallel to the plank, this would be almost invisible, thereby causing noticeable blank spots in the pattern of treenailing. However, the cover piece was caulked and payed, which would have led to it being rather noticeable. Frequently, treenails were also caulked, with caulkers using curved irons to drive the oakum home. This presumably meant that the caulking was also payed in these locations, to prevent the oakum rotting. So again, they would actually have been rather visible, as dark rings, though; rather than wood circles. However, I do tend to agree with Bob Cleek on this matter; very few Georgian era models have treenails in their planking, and I believe that they look much cleaner for it. Thousands of overly-noticeable treenails give the models an appearance of having some kind of disease, and distract from the aesthetically pleasing flow of well-laid planking runs. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Allan; A good idea; especially as there is a brand new book of their collection out today, or tomorrow. See Seaforth Publishing, I think. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Allan; I have looked through my pictures of models from the 17th century, and most of them show what can only be interpreted as half-lap joints. One has mitred corners. Most hatches and coamings seem to be simplified, made in the most convenient way for the modeller. Below is a clipping from the NMM's model called the 'Bonaventure', although this ID is not considered reliable. 1680s. Have you checked through any of the Kriegsteins' books on their collection? Might be a useful illustration in there. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Bill; I would be very dubious about placing too much reliance on any of the pictures you show being a true picture of the Marie Celeste, except the first one in this post, which is presumably known to be her. TV production companies, or video editors, are likely to take considerable liberties with the truth; and the last picture is obviously a generic image of a much larger ship, with three masts. The Smithsonian may have taken some trouble to give a good resemblance to her for their video, but one cannot be sure without checking. I only mention these thoughts so that you do not feel too cut up about not matching your model's appearance with any of the more dubious images posted. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Gentlemen; The word 'Harris' in this context is a not uncommon misnomer. The word is actually 'Arris', which is a common term in stone masonry and carpentry, and is in regular usage amongst craftsmen. I believe that it actually is derived from either French, or Norman-French. It means a sharp edge or any corner formed by planes meeting at up to 90 degrees or so. However, many architects, or clients, on the mistaken assumption that the craftsman they overhear talking of the 'arris' is actually dropping the letter 'H' from 'Harris', which is a widespread habit amongst many English speakers, then refer to the 'Harris' in a misplaced desire to speak 'properly'. This is the derivation of the 'Harris' as a technical term, but it is totally erroneous. As an example, the horizontal timber used in fencing, which is triangular in section, and against several of which the vertical pales are fixed, is known as an 'arris rail'. So the correct term for which Don is seeking a definition is 'arris cut'. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Darius; I agree with your comments. Whilst Frank Fox certainly has criticisms of McKay's book on this subject, he did not condemn it in its totality. What he wished to emphasise the most was that although he is cited in the introduction, thereby implying that he had a part in its contents, he did not endorse the book, and does not support much of what is shown; and most especially, his advice was given on some parts, but not adopted. As Darius and others have mentioned, the book is worth having, even if only for the drawings of the decoration. The quality of the draughtsmanship is indeed acknowledged by Frank Fox, as being practically the book's only merit. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Allan; I believe that the change occurred in the 1680s at the latest, but I will have to check on this, as I have no copy of a Navy Board order directing this to be done, unless it was part of an order dealing also with other things. The younger Van de Velde's well-known painting of Resolution in a gale shows her without waist lids, see below. All the best, Mark P

For any who might be interested, I posted a review of Richard Endsor's most recent book, 'The Master Shipwright's Secrets', in the books section; and also on Amazon. It is a very well-researched and most informative work, with some wonderful fold-out plates by the author, who is an accomplished artist. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Allan; 1715 it was; surprisingly, although saving timber was one reason for adopting this measure, the main consideration seems to have been to prevent decay, which was more prevalent in these areas. Perhaps because a square frame with a large bevel results in a much longer mating surface between the frame and the planking, thereby trapping more moisture than would a canted frame with its shorter mating surface. All the best, Mark

Good Morning Druxey; I don't possess as many disposition of frame drawings as I would wish, most regrettably, mostly dating from the 1780s. On the majority of these, while the joints in the lower futtocks are indicated by a single line, the uppermost joints, to the shorter top-timbers, are indicated by two lines, the correct distance apart for a scarph, with the lower line frequently dashed. This difference in treatment can only indicate a scarph joint as opposed to a chocked joint. The earliest of those which show this is Bombay Castle, dated Navy Office 1779. On only one frame plan are Xs drawn between these two lines, though, which would indicate to me that an X was not always shown. This has also been described in writing, but I cannot recall if this was in a modern or contemporary work. It would certainly be interesting to know how far back this method extended. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening RR; I think that the best solution to your dilemma is to try and purchase copy of James Lees' book 'The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625-1860. This describes the rigging of a variety of ship types through a long period, and goes into all the sort of detail which will answer your questions, and all the others which you haven't yet asked as well! Copies can normally be found on Amazon, or try Bookfinder, which currently has them starting at £35, up to the best part of £200. If you are in the US, they are also available there. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; To expand upon Allan's quite correct explanation, the dashed line shown in the framing plan in my earlier post is the profile of the station line of the double cant timber, when viewed from a point square to the keel. It does not represent any line shown on the body plan, and is obtained by extrapolating from the cant timber lines as drawn on the half-breadth plan. The dashed lines of the cant stations are never shown on the main draught of the vessel, and only appear on the framing plan. All the best, Mark

Good Evening Druxey; You are quite correct about the rationale behind the use of chocks, they do enable the use of shorter or less curved timber. However, by reason of the top-timbers having little curve, and, especially towards the stern, being almost straight, the use of chocks conferred little advantage from the point of saving timber, and actually involved more work, in that cutting chocks and their mating joints involves four angled cuts, whereas a scarph involves cutting only two. John Fincham, who was headmaster of the Naval Academy at Portsmouth, illustrates this very clearly in the plates which accompany one of his books (can't remember which, unfortunately!) His plate shows the practice in the time shortly before Seppings' reforms introduced the dowelling together of futtocks, but is certainly applicable to much earlier decades, for the reasons outlined above. I have also seen earlier illustrations showing the same thing, and have seen it in written descriptions. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Lieste; You are quite right regarding Steel; however, that is a good example of why his authority cannot necessarily be extrapolated backwards in time. The method he uses was introduced in 1794, I believe. Prior to that, the mast length was either based on calculations using the beam, or the keel and beam. In the 17th century, keel, beam and depth were used in the calculations. All the best, Mark P