Mark P

Good Evening Marcus; To follow on from Bob's post above, the United Provinces, as the Netherlands was then known, were probably the worst offenders in the variable foot field. Each of the administrative districts had its own foot. Must have been a bit of a nightmare for journeyman shipwrights. Regarding the rigging, the essential point is that it was done by rule of thumb, and in most countries everything started off with the length of the mainmast, with everything else based on a particular fraction of its length. The divisor applied varied from country to country and from period to period, but knowing the mast length meant that those with the correct knowledge could calculate the diameter of all other ropes. The length of the mast was, in Britain at least, based on calculations using the length of the keel and the ship's beam. On the subject of Cook and Australia, it was indeed known that there was something in the area; I have seen a French map dating from around 1715, which showed a line south of the main East Indies, marked as some kind of unknown land. But Cook was the first to prove its size and survey so much of its coastline. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; In the English Navy, cant timbers continued the pattern of the main frames, in that (for example) two filling frames were followed by a double frame (I hesitate to call a double cant timber a 'bend') The pattern of scarph joints was continued from the square frames, except in the lowest timbers, which no longer had to straddle the keel, so the lowest scarphs were no longer needed. The uppermost joint was normally a plain scarph joint, without a chock, as with the square top-timbers. The longest futtocks of the double cants were called 'half-timbers'. This may also have applied to those of the filling frames, but my memory not powerful enough to recall this for sure (need a few more MB inserting) See below an excerpt from a framing plan which shows the bows of Andromeda of 1784 The dashed line is the station line of the cant, centred on the joining faces of the double frame. Note that the station line location, as drawn at the keel, did NOT give the position of the station line at the keel, but at the height of maximum breadth. For example, in the clip below, the 'S' near the boxing is not below the bottom end of the dashed line, but is vertically below the line of station 'S' at the foremost point, which is the maximum breadth (note that this does not work any longer as the maximum breadth becomes, in theory at least, the flared out part of the top-timbers) All the best, Mark P

Such a shame we can't teach mice to row!

Good Evening Gentlemen; Not sure if anyone is still looking for this, but there are various copies advertised on the 'Bookfinder' website. The below version is not cheap, but there are others. I picked up a decent copy through that same website a while ago, for much less. The shipbuilding manuscript is also for sale on the same site. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Gentlemen; an interesting topic; I have checked my photos of ship models, and all the 74s, which are Ajax, Egmont, & Warrior, have backstay deadeyes on both fore and main masts, either as a narrower extension on the aft end of the channels, or as a separate stool; but no stool or deadeyes on the mizen channels. I also have pictures of the Thunderer/Hercules (which I strongly believe is actually Hero) which does have mizen backstays on a stool, but this was rigged in the NMM in the later 20th century, and these just might have been added then. Although looking at the as-built draughts, which again all show backstays for the fore and main masts, Ramillies, 1785; and Warrior do show a separate backstay stool for the mizen. Yet the draughts for Alfred and Cumberland do not show a mizen backstay stool. It is perhaps possible that the mizen backstays in some ships were set up with a lanyard to an eye-bolt in the topsides outboard. However, it is interesting that the model of Warrior shows her without backstay deadeyes, yet the as-built draught does show them. Draw your own conclusions! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Allan/Roger; I can confirm that none of the contracts held at either the NA or at the NMM have been digitised. The NMM ones are available as copies, but the last I heard this was an expensive service. At the NA, search under ref ADM 106/3071. This will bring up what looks like a bunch of contracts dealing with sick and wounded, but is actually largely comprised of ship contracts. Amongst these are several for 10 gun ketches of 1690-94. However, the index entry online is brief, and does not list the documents individually. There are a couple of earlier contracts for ketches from 1664 in the State Papers, but these are not generally available, as they are restricted access documents; obtaining copies of these would perhaps be possible via the NA's copying service. However, they are very brief, and do not give a lot of detail of the structure; unlike the ADM ones, which are several pages long. All the best, Mark P

Good Afternoon Brett; If you really seriously want to know the differences, and your interest lies in the 18th century, I recommend that you obtain a copy of 18th century rigs & rigging, by Karl-Heinz Marquardt. This gives in great detail the rigging of ships of many nations. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Stephen; Druxey is correct, but they flew the St George's cross also. Timothy Wilson's very useful book 'Flags at sea' gives the following for merchant ships, set down by a royal proclamation in 1674: 'The Flag and Jack White, with a Red Cross (commonly called the Saint George's Cross) passing quite through the same [that is, filling the whole flag, not in the canton] And the Ensign Red, with the like Cross in a Canton White, at the upper corner thereof next the staff'. English merchant vessels were banned from using the Union flag as flown on the King's ships from 1606. However, it would appear that many vessels ignored this ban, as it brought exemptions from various duties and requirements in some foreign ports, and helped to prevent having crews pressed; as well as, presumably, helping to discourage pirates from attacking what might be taken as a warship from a distance. That the ban was widely ignored is illustrated by various attempts to stamp out the practice, including by Samuel Pepys; seemingly without much success, as such attempts and various proclamations prohibiting it, continued into the 18th century. Various official trading organisations, such as the East India Company, also flew their own flag. all the best, Mark

Good Afternoon Allan; You and Druxey are both correct, the function of these ports was indeed to defend the ship should she be boarded. 17the century bulkheads each end of the waist were much more substantial than later ones, for this reason, and I believe that they were permanent, not removable as they later became (must check that) The ports in the doors are sometimes referred to 'murther-holes'. The same name was used for small holes in the ceiling over a castle's gate-house passage, from which the garrison could fire down on any attackers below. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Everyone; Gunwale is the timber otherwise known as the plansheer, or planksheer, which was fitted to the top of the timbers of the main frame, and capped them off. I have not seen cap-rail referred to in any Royal Navy documents, although it is certainly performing a capping function, and may well have been so called in other times or places. When gunpowder weapons were first introduced on board ships, it seems that they were mounted on the top of the ship's side, presumably somewhat like swivel guns, in a metal fork. So the name of the strengthening wale which ran along the top of the waist (and which may well have been called the cap-rail) was presumably changed to gunwale reflect this new use. An important point in the naming of this as the plansheer is that the curved line of the tops of the timbers in the waist, as seen on the sheer plan, is continued along the ship, running right to the stern and bow, and becomes a largely theoretical line which is used to shape the plan of the ship's upperworks at her narrowest point, as shown on the draught, although this is not actually her narrowest point once fore or aft of the hancings, and is only true in the waist. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Amalio; I agree with Druxey; that is a very clever way of making the same shape of baluster. Thanks for sharing it with us. A beautifully constructed model. All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Dave; As you are dealing with the lifts, the item at 'F' will almost certainly be a hook which is put into an eyebolt set in the side of the mast cap. However, in some rigging setups, the lifts also function as topgallant sheets; a resemblance which you noticed. More research needed! All the best, Mark P

Thanks for posting this Kiyoo; It is all very interesting, and I look forward to learning more about your process. I can see that I need to learn this 3D stuff (I need it for work as well, so good reason to do so!) All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Frolick; If that was just a humourous reaction to the possible double meaning, then ignore the following, but: Just to be sure, and in case this expression is not used in the States, it means to step delicately around something, verbally, which the speaker/writer does not want to mention directly. It can also be used to describe various situations where someone is not exerting themselves hard enough to achieve success. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Everyone; The word which everyone seems to be pussy-footing around so carefully is so old that its origins and early use are hard to trace, with similar words in a variety of languages. However, in medieval times it was a perfectly acceptable word, and did not have the shock-power that can now be attributed to it in some contexts. Sailors, not unnaturally, adopted it to describe something which was as close to the girl back home as they could get whilst at sea (cabin boys excepted, if they were so inclined, of course) And so 'see-you-enn-tee' -splice became an inoffensive and widespread description. I have also seen the word used to describe the place in a tree where the trunk forks into two branches, which usage would doubtless have been familiar to shipwrights selecting trees for felling. In Regency and Georgian times the word is also widespread, and not necessarily shocking, being used in satirical prints as a simple descriptor, along with its more common four letter sibling. Victorian ladies reaching for the smelling salts upon hearing a word which could be sexual in its meaning changed the accepted conditions for using the word, I suspect. So three cheers for sailors and their vocabulary. It's a see-you-enn-tee-splice, so let's call it that! All the best, Mark P Edit: I wrote the proper word, but the site's software has asterisked it out. So I will try a small change.

Good Evening George; Thanks for the explanation. Ditto I am familiar with, of course, but I thought that this must be connected with the following words and did not think of ditto. 'Wr' I now remember from other logs long ago, but had forgotten, so glad to have that knocked into my consciousness for future reference. I really enjoy reading old MSS; there is so much to discover. Re Caruana, I managed to track down a copy in Japan, and got it for $250. Very useful book, as Druxey says. On the other hand, when Caruana first published one of his volumes (I think it was vol II) it was reviewed in Model Shipwright, I believe by Robert Gardiner. He was not impressed, and gave it a very negative writeup, listing many errors and oversights. Quite an eye-opener it was. Trouble is, there is no other work to compare with it; at least, not as far as I am aware; and it does contain a lot of useful information. All the best, Mark

Good Evening George; The note from the log reads as follows, as best as I can make it out (abbreviations can be difficult to read when dealing with only a small part of a document, so I am not clear on the beginning and a few other bits) Wednesday 7th Notes ?? sent 2 long six pounders ? 12 p? Carronades. shot &c ??? Mr? (Master? Could also be Wm for William but that does not fit context) Shipwrights employed on board. Crew variously received 88 Gall of Beer.

This is an absolutely wonderful model! The weathered look of the sails is a great touch, but is only to be expected from such a careful, thoughtful, and incredibly skilled builder. Every little detail of this whole model bears witness to your dedication to producing a truly outstanding contribution to the field of ship modelling. Your methods for building in your chosen material are revelatory, and are, I am sure, an example which has brought the versatility of card to the notice of many who had no idea that such results were possible; and the same with your method of producing the decorative works. I join in with so many others who can only praise your works. Many, many congratulations!! Simply beyond words, really!! All the best, Mark P

Good Morning Everyone; I can understand the reason for making the lower planking diagonal in a model for strength, if this layer is then covered by a more normally-oriented set of planking. Re full size practice, when Robert Seppings became Surveyor of the Navy in the early 1800s, one of the reforms which he introduced was diagonal deck planking, and diagonal riders. The riders were successful, but the deck planking was dropped after a few years, if I remember correctly. See below part of a plate from John Fincham's works, showing some ways in which this was done. Diagonal ledges seems to run counter to one of his guiding principles though, which were to reduce timber consumption, as well as to add strength. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Helli; If you need to know more about flags used at sea, there is an excellent book by Timothy Wilson 'Flags at Sea', which gives a good history of them and is illustrated with many plates and drawings, some in colour. The flag shown seems to have been in use from the later part of the 19th century All the best, Mark

On the subject of tarring the bolt-ropes, this was one of the concerns which arose during the 1618 inquiry into corruption in the Navy Royal during James I's reign. It was claimed (and judging by the number of witnesses to this it was certainly true) that Sir John Trevor, one of the navy board officers, was working in cahoots with a sailmaker named Prusen to ensure a monopoly of sail-making to this one person. High quality canvas would be supposedly delivered into the dockyard stores, and then taken straight out again by the sail-making contractor; at least according to the books this is what happened. In reality, the canvas was delivered straight to the sailmaker. Likewise with the bolt-ropes. The result was that the canvas was never inspected and its value and type confirmed by the dockyard officers. Attempts to deal with this ran into an effective stonewall, as Trevor was seen by the king as trustworthy, and complaints against him were pointless, or more likely to get the complainer into trouble. Similarly, an additional complaint was the sail-maker Prusen would not let any dockyard officers into his premises to inspect the quality of the tarring applied to the bolt-ropes; how effectively it was done, and what quality of tar, rope and canvas was used. The result was that the king was paying top dollar for an inferior product, which endangered sailors' lives. However, the story does prove that bolt-ropes were tarred at least as far back as the early 17th century. The protection of the rope was obviously much more important than the chance of some tar leaching into the canvas. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; In the ships of the Royal Navy, there is no set length as such for the stern post mentioned. It was made as long as possible in order to give the maximum support to the rudder, but in order to allow the tiller to enter the ship and swing to steer the ship, the sternpost had to stop short of the underside of the tiller. Its top coincided with the helm port transom, a specially shaped timber which had a downward cast in its centre, to allow the tiller to swing. The helm port transom could not be maintained in a straight line, or it would have meant that the tops of the stern chase ports would be too low. See attached an excerpt from the NMM's draught of the Dorsetshire's inboard works, which is one of the most beautifully detailed of its kind around. Next below is a picture of the stern of the framed model of the Bellona, also in the NMM. In between the gunports you can see the downward cast section of the helm port transom, with the higher sections of it running thwartships on either side. Above the hole for the tiller, you can see the deck transom, which had to pass over the tiller. This set the maximum height for the tiller; as you will see from this, the positioning of the timbers in this area is inter-dependent. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; To the best of my knowledge, the keel was laid straight, and the hog was laid on top with an equal height for its own full length. I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise. Which is not to say that it was not done, but I am not aware of it. The heavy timbers of the various wales, with their exaggeratedly curved 'sheer' were intended to counteract the tendency of the ship's ends to droop, and I doubt that building a small amount of curve along the keel would achieve much; bearing in mind that ships were also subject to the opposite stress, with the centre of the hull sagging downwards when passing over the trough between two large waves, so that there is good reason to avoid building in a pre-formed 'sag'. Incidentally, deadwood is not the same as rising wood; at least not as it is generally accepted/used. Rising wood (hog) is located under the straight floors, stretching fore and aft from midships. Deadwood starts where the rising wood ends, and is used at the extremities, bow and stern. The deadwood is built up in layers to form a base for the half-timbers and 'V' shaped, made floors (also called hooks) However, you will come across deadwood and rising wood used interchangeably in some modern works, and even some contemporary documents, so the definition is not completely clear-cut. Also, chock covers a multitude of uses, sizes and shapes. For example, there are chocks which are completely parallel-sided; polygonal chocks to join the futtocks; and triangle-based chocks in the floor timbers and transoms, amongst others. More to think about! All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; I assume from your reference to Steel that you are looking at a ship from the Royal Navy in the later 18th century. Most tables of scantlings, or contracts, give a dimension for floor timbers 'on the keel', which is measuring upwards from the top of the keel. Depending upon the period in question, this will actually be measured upwards from the top of the hog, or rising wood, which is a length of timber laid on top of the keel to make it easier to form the 'deadrise'. This latter is the gently sloping part of the ship's bottom, starting immediately on each side of the keel, which is sometimes a straight line, but often a shallow curve, sometimes combined with a straight line. The amount of deadrise is normally specified in a contract, and is measured from the top of rabbet for the garboard plank in the keel, to the underside of the floor timber where it crosses the keel (or hog if fitted) Although models usually have floor timbers made in one horizontal piece, with the bottom tapering downwards towards the keel, in full-size practice it was normal for the floor timber to have its top and bottom parallel for most of its length, and to fit a triangular 'chock' under the floor timber on each side, which ran into the side of the rising wood. The whole subject of structure is rather complex, and has its own specific vocabulary. To make it more complicated, the method of building the structure changed regularly; for example what was applicable in 1700 will be radically different by 1750. There are a few books around which will help to understand this, but none of them really cover the subject in its fullest extent, unfortunately. There were a series of articles by David White in Model Shipwright, around issues 45 -60, which covered this subject in the fullest manner of which I am aware. Unfortunately, this was never completed in its entirety. If you really want to know the subject in depth, it will take some serious study, and require a fair bit of digging for sources. If you want to understand what is best from a modelling point of view, then the series of excellent 'Swan' practicums by David Antscherl will give a wonderful grounding in the subject. Unfortunately, their level of quality is not cheap to purchase, and this may be not possible at present for you. Volume I would do the job of understanding the hull structure for you, if you can stretch to it. They do occasionally show up here second hand. The structure shown in this is relevant to the larger part of the later 18th century. All the best, Mark P

Good Evening Don; The literal meaning of the 'bearing of the ship' is as follows, and comes from the good old days when ships were careened regularly to have their bottoms 'breamed', which is burnt, scraped and re-sealed with whatever composition was needed/available. When ships were careened, they were tilted over sideways on a hard piece of the shore. The part of the ship's hull which was in contact with the ground, and 'bore' the weight of the ship was the turn of the bilge. This part of the hull was indeed, as Jaager says, where the floor timbers ended, with an upward curve. So the sided dimension at the bearing is the fore and aft thickness of the outer ends of the floor timbers. The 'bearing' of the ship ends where the floor timbers cease to have a flat component to their central geometry, and start to become more 'V' shaped, both fore and aft. All the best, Mark P