Mark P

Good Evening Waldemar;
 
Thank you for the new post. Interesting to follow! 
 
To return to the subject of the dead-rise, mentioned earlier in this thread: the deadrise is specified in some early contracts as 4". 
 
More interestingly, though, the Salisbury MS of around 1620 describes the deadrise as being necessary to avoid the floors being weakened by cutting the limber holes in their underside; the limber holes instead being cut out of the chocks which were set each side of the keel to form the deadrise. Perfectly sensible when you think about it. Presumably someone soon realised that the bonus was that ships built with a deadrise were more weatherly. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Greetings to anyone interested in this topic:
 
I have recently photographed a document among the State Papers surviving from Charles I's reign, dated 1630. This is a specification for the repair of the Vanguard in dry dock.
 
One item of great interest is this: 'To Birth upp the Sterne on both sides alike, with Buttock planckes wrought out of Rounde Tymber (which I take to mean that the sharply curved planks forming the round tuck were to be sawn out of timber with a suitable curved grain) to bringe on a Transome uppon the Heades of the Buttocke plancke without Boarde to finish the same' (presumably the later tuck moulding, not the wing transom)
 
As the specification was drawn up by Phineas Pett and William Burrell, the two foremost Master Shipwrights in the kingdom, this would make it very likely that this was considered, by this date at the latest, to be normal. If Phineas Pett was involved in specifying a round tuck stern for a rebuild/repair in 1630 it can reasonably be considered unlikely that he would design the later Sovereign of the Seas with a square tuck.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

While rotating a wooden pattern, even of the most complicated shape, is extremely easy and convenient in full scale on the mould loft, the opposite is true when it comes to draw such a shape on paper by conventional methods in multiple copies, and each copy at a slightly different angle (using a paper template in scale would be not quite practical either).
 
Therefore, when design plans on paper came into use in England, the Mediterranean method of rotating/tilting the futtock mould had to be substituted by a more suitable way. There is also one telling comment by Baker himself about his fellow shipbuilders, that they did not understand the purpose of rotating the moulds. Even if this remark may be a little unfair, it quite clearly suggests that English shipwrights quickly developed or used other methods.
 
 

 
 

To give an idea of how the pre-designed frames were shaped in full scale in this method, below an illustrative diagram. No (detailed) plans drawn on paper were needed, just few simple geometric scales/devices used on the mould loft.
 

 
 

Good Evening Waldemar;
 
Thank you for the new post. Interesting to follow! 
 
To return to the subject of the dead-rise, mentioned earlier in this thread: the deadrise is specified in some early contracts as 4". 
 
More interestingly, though, the Salisbury MS of around 1620 describes the deadrise as being necessary to avoid the floors being weakened by cutting the limber holes in their underside; the limber holes instead being cut out of the chocks which were set each side of the keel to form the deadrise. Perfectly sensible when you think about it. Presumably someone soon realised that the bonus was that ships built with a deadrise were more weatherly. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Waldemar;
 
Thank you for the new post. Interesting to follow! 
 
To return to the subject of the dead-rise, mentioned earlier in this thread: the deadrise is specified in some early contracts as 4". 
 
More interestingly, though, the Salisbury MS of around 1620 describes the deadrise as being necessary to avoid the floors being weakened by cutting the limber holes in their underside; the limber holes instead being cut out of the chocks which were set each side of the keel to form the deadrise. Perfectly sensible when you think about it. Presumably someone soon realised that the bonus was that ships built with a deadrise were more weatherly. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

By a happy twist of fate, I found in my home resources a better copy of Baker's plan. This was decisive. After a few minor changes and amendments, the pure Mediterranean method clearly emerged. Taking into account inaccuracies of the original plan and to a lesser extent its later distortions, I find the resulting reconstruction of the lines satisfactory, finally revealing the method used by Baker. 
 
Two further detailed comments need to be added to the accompanying drawing. Baker deliberately did not draw the narrowing line of the floor for the stern section of the hull, because it was not necessary: he simply took the relevant coordinates for the stern quarter frame from the bow quarter frame. Of minor importance from the conceptual point of view, the radius of the breadth arc for the bow quarter frame is smaller than the rest.
 

 
 

A slightly different interpretation is also possible, closer even to the Mediterranean ways. The difference in the formation of the frame shape would be that the futtock template was moved and tilted first, and only then the toptimber mould (or the actual toptimber during skeleton assembly) was applied. This interpretation also explains well the slightly larger width of the actual ship compared to its design breadth. More clearly, this is the result of the Mediterranean method of frame forming combined with the adoption of a convenient round value for the futtock sweep radius.
 
In addition, it may be related to the anomaly already mentioned that the position of the midship frame does not coincide with the greatest width of the hull. Normally, the Mediterranean method was used in a non-graphical way, i.e. without the use of a plan, so it is likely that Baker may have tried to sort it out in this way while making his drawing.
 
It is now rather impossible to decide which of the two interpretations is correct (dimensional differences are rather negligible in this particular case). If one accepts the second, Baker's drawing would probably be the only drawing from the era that shows graphically the pure Mediterranean method. However, if one accepts the first interpretation, it could be considered to represent an intermediary between the Mediterranean method and the methods known from the slightly later other English manuscripts on shipbuilding.
 

 
 

Jaager, it is best to hold off formulating hypotheses and drawing conclusions until the reconstruction is complete, unless you are prepared for quite a surprise. Now it has to be said that this drawing, or generally the Baker's work, has little or nothing to do with the Dutch, but rather with someone else. But more about that later in this thread.
 
 

Good Evening Waldemar;
 
Nice to see someone taking a fresh interest in this fascinating work. The original is in the Pepys Library, at Magdalen College, Cambridge. It was written firstly by Baker, and then later, after his death, further pages were added by a second hand, believed to be Wells, the storekeeper at Deptford, although he was much more than this in fact. The second part uses logarithms, which only appeared around 1618, some years after Baker's death in 1613.
 
I have been lucky enough to be able to study this work in the original, although not for as long as I would have liked. It is a fascinating, beautifully illustrated book, which is actually much larger than one might expect, with over a hundred pages. 
 
There was an attempt started many years ago to produce a proper commentary on it, something which should have been done long ago. The Pepys Library allowed photographs of the work to be taken to aid in this project (normally almost impossible to do) which was to be a combined effort by two well known specialists. Unfortunately, this has never been completed, with work stalled long ago, and is unlikely to ever be re-started. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Waldemar;
 
Nice to see someone taking a fresh interest in this fascinating work. The original is in the Pepys Library, at Magdalen College, Cambridge. It was written firstly by Baker, and then later, after his death, further pages were added by a second hand, believed to be Wells, the storekeeper at Deptford, although he was much more than this in fact. The second part uses logarithms, which only appeared around 1618, some years after Baker's death in 1613.
 
I have been lucky enough to be able to study this work in the original, although not for as long as I would have liked. It is a fascinating, beautifully illustrated book, which is actually much larger than one might expect, with over a hundred pages. 
 
There was an attempt started many years ago to produce a proper commentary on it, something which should have been done long ago. The Pepys Library allowed photographs of the work to be taken to aid in this project (normally almost impossible to do) which was to be a combined effort by two well known specialists. Unfortunately, this has never been completed, with work stalled long ago, and is unlikely to ever be re-started. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Druxey, please have a look at the zoom below. My measurements show quite accurately 3 inches for the deadrise at this place.
 

 
 

This is followed by the guiding rails, extremely important for this method: those of the breadth and of the floor. These rails have been drawn in the original plan in the simplest possible way as arcs of circles.
 
The height of both ends of the floor line is quite typical for the period. In the middle this line touches the keel. Despite this, it is clear from the midship frame profile featuring a deadrise, that this is a drawing mistake or just simplification.
 
Surprisingly, the position of the midship frame does not coincide with the greatest width of the ship.
 

 
 

According to the most refined scale on the left-hand side of the drawing, the keel length (K) of the ship is 60 feet. The (design) hull breadth (B) is 24 feet.
 
All dimensions are in feet, and in parentheses are given their proportions relating to other parts of the ship, as found in the most logical or expected way.
 
The first step was to define the axial elements of the skeleton. The sketch is self-explanatory, except for the vertical of the stempost rake, which was made double to enable its drawing construction. The upper arc of the stempost is tangent to the lower arc in the point A, and passes through the point B.
 

 
 

Thank you for your input Wayne, but this is why someone should finally do it, or at least attempt to.
 
 

Take a look at some of the works by Richard Barker for some detailed analysis of Baker.  Also see the PhD thesis by Olabierra (spp?) for at least one geometric analysis of Baker.
 
 

Below is a reproduction of the oldest ship plan of English origin, taken from the manuscript Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry by Mathew Baker (British Archives). This drawing is widely reproduced and more or less extensively commented on in numerous modern publications, but so far I have not yet encountered a detailed analysis of it, especially by graphic means. 
 
The plan is attractive for at least two reasons: it is complete in the sense that it would have already enabled the construction of the ship's hull in full scale by shipwrights. Secondly, its historical potential is considerable, as it represents a method of design different from the methods known from the later English treatises and manuals such as Harriot ms, 'Newton' ms, anon. ms 1620, Bushnell and Deane ms. Apart from other considerations, this very plan is a further indication of where to look for the roots of the methods then creatively developed by English shipwrights.
 
The drawing contains quite a few inaccuracies characteristic of hand drawing. Reproducing errors of this kind as well as a simple redrawing misses the point, so in the following reconstruction I will rather look for the intention of the designer, trying to find as many regularities, proportions and interrelationships as possible.
 

 
 

Good Morning Michael;
 
These are for use in emergencies, when the chain plates or channels have been carried away by battle or storm damage, and were to enable the attachment of jury rigging for the shrouds.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Michael;
 
My previous answer referred only to the eye-bolts; the plates serve a different function. Without denying their support function, and without being certain of what I am about to say, it is likely that these solid plates were made with an eye in their upper end, to which the lower block of the tackle which ended the shifting backstays could be hooked. These backstays were rigged as additional support for the upper masts when under sail, and would be shifted as the yards were braced further away from the central position. They would only be hauled taut/rigged on the windward side of the mast at any one time. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Afternoon;
 
Thanks Jaager for posting more information. 
 
It has been suggested to me that the ship shown in the pen and wash drawing, in the first post, is a captured Dutch vessel, with the strange knuckle due to English shipwrights either altering or repairing her stern in their round tuck style, but finding this awkward, as all Dutch warships had square tuck sterns, and no wing transom. Hence the rather amateurish look to the planking, and probably the seeming clinker-built style of it also. Especially as other English ships had perfectly well formed round tuck sterns well before the Sovereign was built. 
 
This makes it unlikely that the knuckle shown in the Lely painting of the Sovereign is there for a similar reason, so why the picture shows this is still a subject for guesswork. However, that does mean that the painting is the only evidence of any kind for the Sovereign to have had a square tuck; which should be considered in balance against a number of depictions of pre-Sovereign ships with round tucks, and the draught of the actual vessel shown above. 
 
Below on the left is a Van de Velde picture of the Garland, built in 1620; shown in the Commonwealth period, but she had not been re-built, and still has her original round tuck stern. Likewise the Convertine, on the right; built in 1616 with a round tuck stern, although the drawing is later.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 

 
 
 

Good Afternoon;
 
The recent publication of John McKay's book 'Sovereign of the Seas', which purports to give an accurate representation of the ship as built in 1637, has resulted in some fairly caustic reviews appearing on Amazon. This includes one from Frank Fox, probably the foremost expert in ships and Naval history of this period, who is deeply thanked by McKay for his help with the preparation of the book. Frank Fox starts his review with the comment that although McKay asked for his advice and comments, this was then largely ignored, so he wishes to counter the impression created that he has endorsed the book, when in fact he has no wish to be associated with it, as it contains too many inaccuracies. 
 
The largest of these centres around the shape of the stern: was she a round-tuck, or a square-tuck? Frank Fox is adamant that she was built with a round tuck, and cites ample examples to prove this.
 
John Mckay's reconstruction shows her with a square tuck, with his reason for assuming this largely based on the well-known portrait of Peter Pett, the builder of the Sovereign, by Peter Lely. This can be interpreted as showing a square tuck (although the planking is quite clearly curved, and almost vertical, both as is normal for a round tuck stern; square tucks had straight, diagonal planking) However, it is undeniable that the outer portion of the stern does show a 'knuckle', or sharp angle.
 
According to one's point of view, this can be taken as proof of a square tuck (despite the curved planking) or as an error on the part of the painter, who knew nothing of ships (Peter Lely was a portrait painter, and is very unlikely to have ever gone near Chatham where the Sovereign was generally laid up or moored)
 
However, maybe an injustice has been done to Lely, and he has actually painted an accurate portrait of her (or whoever did paint it; there is no certainty that Lely actually painted the ship's stern at all, or even the portrait of Pett)
 
Compare the three pictures below. These show part of the Sovereign/Pett painting (which is held by the National Maritime Museum) and adjacent is a drawing taken from the book 'Sailing Ships of War', by Dr Frank Howard (highly recommended if you do not have it) This shows a sketch of an English third rate in around 1634 (although this identification is not certain) She certainly has the English coat of arms, and a CR monogram. Most interesting, though, is the planking around the buttocks. This could be what is portrayed in the Sovereign painting. The final picture shows part of the stern of a model of Warrior, which shows the run of the planking in a round tuck very well.
 

I have not yet seen McKay's book, although I do intend to purchase a copy, as the drawings of the decoration are, according to Frank Fox and other reviewers, very good. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

Good Evening Phil;
 
The answer to your question is probably best explained by photographs; basically, a square tuck stern has a large flat area, approximately vertical, with planking, which is separate from the hull planking, laid diagonally. A round tuck stern has the hull planking continued through a rising, curving line until it reaches the lower counter, or 'tuck' line. Note that in both designs, the tuck line is in the same place, roughly in line with the bottom of the main wale.
 
The first picture below is of a round tuck stern, the second of a square tuck.
 
A round tuck gives more effect to the rudder by allowing the water a smoother run to it; at least, that was the reasoning for it, I seem to recall. A square tuck was introduced to give stronger support for guns placed in the stern when such things first came into vogue. In English ships this was changed back to a round tuck in the 16th century, whereas Dutch (for example) retained the square tuck for much longer.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 

Good Evening Michael;
 
My previous answer referred only to the eye-bolts; the plates serve a different function. Without denying their support function, and without being certain of what I am about to say, it is likely that these solid plates were made with an eye in their upper end, to which the lower block of the tackle which ended the shifting backstays could be hooked. These backstays were rigged as additional support for the upper masts when under sail, and would be shifted as the yards were braced further away from the central position. They would only be hauled taut/rigged on the windward side of the mast at any one time. 
 
All the best,
 
Mark P

I am lucky enough to have Timberline a few miles away. They have lancewood, lime, English lime and Castello on the shelf plus plenty of others. 
I didn't have the opportunity to discuss their sources in detail but know from the past that they only deal in 'legit' wood. 
Back to lancewood, thanks Vaddoc, I find the wood database to be compulsive reading 👍. It mentioned good turning properties but in this hobby we all know there is always more to the story. 
Thanks 
Bruce 
 
 

Wood data base suggests it would be the perfect substitute for boxwood so it must be great for modelling, suitable for pretty much all uses.
Lancewood | The Wood Database (Hardwood) (wood-database.com)