Mark P

When I grow up, I hope to be only half as skilled as you are.  Your work is amazing.

I agree.
 
Topic locked.

I agree with Shipman to a point. Waldermar is obviously a bright guy who has an astonishing grasp of the English language. He knows the meaning of big words but has difficulty in how to use them in the manner of a native English speaker. I agree his tenacity is to be admired and if we were in a war then I would like to be next to him, as long as we are on the same side. He must know the truth of the arguments made but is sadly unable to accept them. I am happy with our findings and have no need to pursue the subject any longer. I really do appreciate the points made, have learned something, and am grateful for it. Thank you all. I do hope no one bears a grudge, I don't, I respect the other contributors and hope to join conversations in the future. Perhaps this one, but only in a genuinely friendly manner.

Oh, it is. It is! A search on eBay for "kitch" yields 5,100 results. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p3519243.m570.l1313&_nkw=Kitch&_sacat=0  eBay currently lists 1,200 paintings on black velvet. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_nkw=black+velvet+paintings&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=Kitch&_osacat=0 
 
eBay even lists 623 "antique ship models." https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_nkw=antique+ship+models&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=black+velvet+paintings&_osacat=0 
 
One of those models is listed for the "buy it now" price of $75,000! https://www.ebay.com/itm/265168202451?hash=item3dbd41aad3:g:YXEAAOSwx2hgqCyy&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoHpjbFabjApK75gjwupuZ1vr%2FtskwUWQp0bZXbtgrvmAEpG0g%2BW9oEs7ZTsF42c%2Bz0u%2FBGcaSTNRpFQm7E1V4F7AQBJfC49dpOd3J5yj6EHa5c5O%2FRSqpwjsNGVCroMG4HuP%2FyKSDOj1kAoZ1f5ZaHlvdHqo6wzUCUL1y8yAhJPhYxOWsz13nyrFMou7q%2BfmG8ex5vAG0ppYQxQpeN5hgOs%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR-7L24bHYQ
 
That said, the model Jaager and ccoyle accurately commented about isn't in the $75,000 category at all. What is asked on eBay and what is realized are often quite different figures.  The moral of the story is that any antique (by definition over 100 year old) ship model is worth whatever a willing buyer will pay to a willing seller. If you like it for whatever reason, cherish and enjoy it as a family heirloom. It's a rare home that won't have its decor improved by a ship model on display! 
 
 
 
 

Thank God I ain't a scholar. Me bottom of the class at school in Maths and English. School reports "must try harder" "more work, less chatter" a naughty boy, still am I hope. Bit knackered at the moment, done about 10 miles over the hills and through the woods to end up getting stuffed with food and filled with well-earned drink. And so to bed, as my hero would say.

There's a big difference between a scholar and a researcher, IMHO.   Scholars generally seem to be living in their own world and need to justify their beliefs and writings.  A researcher generally follows the evidence and ideas.   I say this from having worked with both a long time ago. I say "generally" as there are exceptions to everything.

Interesting, entertaining and educational!
 
In my case, Richard, my viewpoint would only be 1¼" above a plan at 1:48 scale; an even more restricted and myopic view.

I must say I have enjoyed our conversations and indeed find Waldemars contribution important and interesting. He has stimulated us all into forming our own opinions. When I write about the London I think it best not to mention the drafting process that may have created the lines. Just mention they look genuine but have irregularities that are difficult to interpret. This thread continues as some of us think they didn't use body plans in the seventeenth century. As this point in time I think they did, but I won't be putting a tin hat on and jumping in a bunker to defend the position to the last.
Unfortunately, actual plans from the period are as rare as hens teeth. However, there is plenty of evidence to show they did use body plans. The Keltridge plans, Wilton House plan and London plan, among others, all show body plans that must have been developed from rising and narrowing lines somewhere. When the Admiralty wanted the shape of the new ships recorded in 1678 they took the body plans off the ships. Not only that but Deane and the 1620 period treatise (PRO ADM7/827) both describe drawing on paper the rising and narrowing lines and the body plans. They are instructional indeed, to be used and follow actual practice, brilliantly simplified in Deane's case. Why would they have described body plans if they were not used? You could argue that no plan was necessary at all as the results of the calculated rising and narrowing lines are all you need together with a list of overall dimensions. This is all John Shish's paper(Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson MSS,A185,f325) has describing a fourth rate. But you have no idea what the ship looked like from that until its developed and drawn out on paper. Even if the side and top view were drawn then it's almost impossible to judge what the ships form looked like. It's very difficult without water lines, which are not mentioned in the treatise. Just about impossible without a body plan. The plans were approved by Kings, and King Charles was a know authority who studied the  ships draughts. Not only that but the body plans are necessary to know where the heads and heels of the frame timbers would go. You could argue body plans were only drawn in the mould loft, in spite of the treatise saying they are drawn plots, but by then it's a bit late to study the hull form.  In any case it would be the same as studying a 1/48 plan with your eye only 1 1/2 inches from it. Almost impossible. 
There we are Chaps, opinions welcome.

Good Evening All;
 
This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.
 
I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 
 
Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 
 
Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.
 
An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 
 
I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

Good Evening All;
 
This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.
 
I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 
 
Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 
 
Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.
 
An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 
 
I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

Good Evening All;
 
This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.
 
I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 
 
Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 
 
Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.
 
An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 
 
I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

Good Evening All;
 
This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.
 
I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 
 
Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 
 
Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.
 
An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 
 
I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

Good Evening All;
 
This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.
 
I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 
 
Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 
 
Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.
 
An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 
 
I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

Good Evening All;
 
This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.
 
I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 
 
Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 
 
Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.
 
An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 
 
I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

Good Evening All;
 
This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.
 
I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 
 
Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 
 
Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.
 
An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 
 
I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 

Looks to be a two pipe problem.

Dear Waldemar,
I think we were beginning to entertain readers of this forum with some amusing confrontation. Let me say, I am truly mortified if I have offended you. You are a colleague who makes very good points, you are not an opponent.  Before getting on to the London, let me say, I bought Brian's  Ship of the Line and Frank Fox's book Great Ships in 1985 to take with me when I was going abroad to work in the aerospace industry. They got me interested in making a model of Lenox and one thing led to another. They both have little mistakes, Brian's caption on page 19 does not agree with the image. I would love your opinion on this as its out of my period of interest. This may not be Brain's fault as publishers make more errors than the author. Both these wonderful books are outdated in being published in black and white and if new editions were made today they would be brought up to date. I originally said in this forum that Brian's book was a trail blazer and stand by that and hope you agree. Your Item 3 of my misdemeanors misquote me and reckon I changed from "surely" to "usually". It was Mungo Murray (what a great name) who said "usually" in 1754, I quoted him. I honestly have no intention of using what you say are "eristic tricks", mainly because I don't know what the word means.  I try to tell it as it is.
Which brings us to the most enjoyable purpose of our lively debate, the London. I think we are making progress and I agree with Martes, it seems most probable that the creator of the surviving drawing copied the original draught after the Restoration in 1660. His work on the end views (I have never seen the term "body plan" used in the 17th C) was far from perfect and he drew inconsistent lines. He then embellished his work by adding decoration without actually seeing the ship. So the general structural layout is correct but imaginative in detail. He also appears to have added his own idea of cross pillars and oversize guns etc. When analysing the sweeps of the of the floors they are found to vary in radius in an apparent method known to have been introduced c1765 and completely different from seventeenth century practice, which used a fixed radius sweep.  The varying radius sweeps may well be coincidence as other known seventeenth century sources do not describe this later method.
I hope this summary sums up our debate. I have found it valuable as being a trustee of The London Shipwreck Trust I try my best to help them. If a model maker wishes to make a model that can be shown at Southend I will help all I can. I have to confess to working on what the ship looked like for some time which will go into a book about the London. The other wreck of interest is the Gloucester, a third rate of the same type as the early NMM model referred to by Martes, which he says should be recorded. Guess where I was last week with the device shown on page 125 of Master Shipwright's Secrets. Although models are far from ideal as reference, the model is the nearest we are likely to get for the Gloucester. I hope this forum and the expertise in it will enjoy helping with this. By the way, I am interested to know why Martens calls her the Antelope? 
 

I feel compelled to note that the Bellona is a very controversial example here, herself being based on the lines of the French L'Invincible (1747) (Winfield, British warships 1714-1792), and is not the most typical representative of the native British design school (as opposed to the practice of incorporating foreign designs) of the 18th century.
 
That the plans are not ships building plans is obvious - they carry post-Restoration decoration, while Van de Velde portraits show the Commonwealth style and arms on the stern. Some details, like the form of the taffrail, are very similar. Still, for some reason they were drawn as they were, and they contain some system and probably some hints to the original, that would be somewhat wasteful to disregard outright.
 
As I mentioned earlier, it would be much easier if we had the lines of the Antelope model to analyze. But, alas, we don't, so we try to examine the possibilities.

Dear Waldemar, You are a tease who can cheerfully ignore admitting the floor sweeps of Bellona 1754 on image 2 in Brian Lavery's book are all the same radii. They clearly are the same radius and follow seventeenth century practice. What you are describing is mentioned by Brian Lavery, Ship of the Line II, Page 21, first column "Around 1765 a new line, known as the centres of the floor sweep, begins to appear on draughts". That's over a 100 years after the London was built. She surely would have been built according to the fixed radius floor sweep method, as Brian further records on page 19 "It is usual for all the floors sweeps to be of one radius, (ref25 Mungo Murray 1754)". Come on Waldermar, put a smile on your face, be friends and please agree the London must have had a fixed floor sweep radius. I am happy to admit my ignorance in that I never knew about this 1765 practice as I stick firmly in the seventeenth century and never stray out of period or country as its so very, very easy to be misled, as you have here. As for the differences between English and foreign practices, take a look at 18th Century Shipbuilding by Blaise Ollivier ed David Roberts. A bookful of differences between English, Dutch and French practice. I am also sorry for appearing to indicate the London drawings are not authentic. What I meant to say, they definitely date from the seventeenth century but as the late, great Frank Fox said, they may not be be an accurate copy of the original ships plans. I really appreciate our dialogue as I have learnt something today, even if its out of my period. Stay happy, and remember we study ship building for pleasure.

@Richard Endsor
 
Dear Mr Endsor,
 
Thank you for your new entry. Let me start by answering the question why to reproduce the shape of the ship's design lines. The most important reason is that I am curious about what ship design might have looked like in practice then. There are, however, some other reasons already explained above as well (I point out in passing, as it were, that what I show should often be perceived as a process flow rather than the final result).
 
You rightly advise using the period sources directly in the first instance. Personally, I consider this alleged plan of London 1656 authentic, as it has all the visual characteristics of the 17th century document and the context of its origin is also not in doubt. And so it will be until the results of laboratory analysis of the paper or ink contradict it. Therefore, my approach is not to date an already dated document on the basis of today's knowledge of ancient shipbuilding, but, on the contrary, to deepen today's knowledge of ancient shipbuilding on the basis of this very document.
 
* * *
 
As to the variable radius floor sweeps, you expected me to measure the drawing on page 19 of Brian Lavery's book (which I had already done anyway), but after all it is not about this particular plan, but about the text, the diagrams, and in particular the reproduction of another plan on page 24, for some reason overlooked. 
 
You also demanded, and I complied, to check „all the other contemporary plans” in terms of this issue. There are plenty of them featuring variable radius floor sweeps, if only on the RMG website, and after finding about two dozen I stopped looking further. Below is just one of those, from 1771, chosen as both the frames themselves and the centres of the floor arcs are clearly marked with letters, so there is no question of any confusion as to the value of particular radii.
 

 
* * *
 
You also advocate to avoid non-English sources for the analysis of English shipbuilding practices. This is, in my opinion, unnecessary and even harmful self-limitation. I've already experienced quite emphatically that without knowledge, and sometimes application, of these „external” sources, a full understanding of English practices and the dynamics of their development is simply impossible. This also applies to the various types of geometrical devices employed to shape the hulls' design lines. It is improbable that even the simplest of these methods were not known and used in just one part of Europe, especially as it was at the forefront of naval architecture at the time.
 
* * *
 
To be sure, I'll also add that I don't artificially "bend" the lines when I try to match them to the original contours to prove something to someone, because I primarily perform this process to satisfy my curiosity and only share the results. In the event of deviations, I always indicate this together with the reasons.
 
 

Hello London enthusiasts. I reckon we can pursue our enquiries and come to a good conclusion Most importantly, we should always go back to original source material when pursuing a theory, not use what I or Brian may have dreamt up. Firstly to answer a question about Riff's dimensions, The keel length is given in Pepys Register of ships in Magdalen College, Cambridge as 123' 6" Breadth 41' 0" and Depth in hold 16' 6" while another list NMM CLU/9 gives the keel as 123' 0" and the same dimensions for the rest. As for the radii of the floor sweep, take a look at Brian Lavery's Ship of the Line II page 19 where he says in the caption for image 2 Body Plan that the floor sweeps are reduced in diameter(sic). Then take a ruler and measure the clearly marked floor sweeps of said illustration and I make them all to be the same at 13mm. Please check for yourselves as we need to agree our understanding of a floor sweep is the same. Be careful not to measure to a diagonal line on the aft side. Check all the other contemporary plans you can find. Then consider the way moulds were made in the method describes in Shipwright's Repository. Remember Brian wrote his book in the late 1970's when the understanding of such matters was largely forgotten and he blazed the trail for us. Seventeenth century plans do have what look like diagonals but they are in fact the heads and heels of futtocks and toptimbers. The first known evidence of checking lines with water lines appears about 1680 but the method of plotting them must have been well know way before that in order to plot the contours of the transoms. Waldemar may well be right in finding the floor sweep varies, in which case Frank Fox was correct in believing the plan is not authentic. Alternatively perhaps Waldemar could use the best fit floor sweep. I suggest the plan has so many anonmoles that to create the rising and narrowing lines is almost impossible. And why would you? the rising and narrowing lines were drawn first to create the sweeps and the sweeps are there already.

@Richard Endsor
 
Mr. Endsor, first of all I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent books and, from my point of view, especially the outstanding chapters on ship design and building methods in your book 'The Master Shipwright's Secrets. How Charles II built the Restoration Navy'. Even more so, as these aspects are very rarely addressed in such a detailed and clear way.
 
I would also like to clarify that the purpose of this exercise is precisely to try to identify the original way in which this drawing of London 1656 was made, as you splendidly did with John Shish's Treatise, and that the 3D model is actually just a by-product. Anyway, this drawing of London is so badly deformed in so many different ways that simply retracing the frames outlines would miss the point, whatever the purpose. Besides, despite the difficulties, there is still a chance to determine such obscure features of the ship as e.g. the rake and radius of the stem post, and only the analysis of the original drawing method can help here.
 
* * *
 
You state quite emphatically that the floor sweeps could not have been of variable radius for almost the entire length of the days of sail, as they would have required separate templates for each frame. However, variable radius floor sweeps are covered in a quite detailed way in 'The Ship of the Line. Volume II: Design, Construction and Fittings' by Brian Lavery, with both references and examples. I will not quote this material here as it is too extensive, just add that William Sutherland 1711 uses variable radius hollowing curves, and the reconstructed lines of the Restoration yacht of Charles II, on the basis on its 3D scans, also have variable radius hollowing curves (besides other frame sweeps of variable radii), which of course required separate templates for each frame (or at most a group of just a few frames).
 
Frames shaped or even just corrected by design waterlines or diagonals (practice starting presumably in the decades around 1700), also actually required separate templates for each frame in order to accurately transfer their designed shape to the timbers. Otherwise, the effects of this correction process would have been lost.
 
However, the most important argument in this particular case is probably the drawing of London 1656 itself. The floor sweeps radii are gradually increasing in a quite noticeable way, and that reading I am absolutely sure of (as opposed to a few other things), and only my reconstruction of how they were actually drawn by the creator of the plan may be considered a modern interpretation here.
 
For confirmation, I've also attached a diagram below, where it can be seen that the 10 feet (fixed) radius arc clearly doesn't match up with the original line drawn. This is also the case with all other floor sweeps in the forward half of the hull, except that of the master frame, of course. On the other hand, in the somewhat easier to shape smoothly aft half the hull, the floor sweeps are already of expected, fixed radius.
 

 
* * *
 
Finally, I would add that in the quite possible case of the reconstruction of the hull lines of London 1656 (as opposed to this attempt at the reconstruction of the drawing method of her supposed plan), I would certainly not leave the smoothing/fairing the hull surface to the automatic mechanisms of the computer software, but I would rather manually correct the longitudinal construction guides (i.e. both lines of the floor and the breadth), conforming to the known contemporary methods, and also apply appropriate hollowing curves in order to obtain the best possible with this design method shape, or at the least – acceptable. Just as an experienced shipwright of the era would have probably done. To conclude this point, the suggestion to simply retrace somewhat spoiled original contours and spoil them up even more haphazardly using today's CAD software does not seem particularly attractive to me, as it is more akin to carpentry than real shipwrightry in its design aspect.
 
Regardless of everything, even a possible difference of opinion on certain issues, once again thank you very much for your interest in this thread and of course I invite you to post again. You are always welcome.
 
Waldemar
 
 

The only reason to have a top there at all is to spread the base of the topmast shrouds. There must be an omission on your rigging plan.
 
Regards,
Henry

The mizzen has no shrouds? Hard to believe.
Tom