JohnE

Well then, druxey noticed some inconsistencies in the transoms, Bava noticed some inconsistencies in the topsides, and I found a couple others. So I did a Chapelle. By that, I mean proving the lines in all views so as to have them 'fair' and let the offsets fall where they may.
 
So I did that and 'lo' I can drop this girl into a Boudriot book and have her go unnoticed. I fought with the topside lines (made some specific horizontals) and then plotted the results as 'special' waterlines (a la Boudriot) and worked things iteratively till ... it necessitated a bit of tweaking for certain stations at the top waterline, but hey, what's CAD for anyway.
 
The topsides are smooth and fair; no bumps or hollows. And the lines connect up with the gallery top view, within a half pouce. Pretty good. I ran everything through my NACA Matlab program and the results are striking. I don't want to use a modern curve-fit program, for obvious reasons, but it's nice to know that a yard dog's batten was sweet.
 
So, final, final, on the body plan and the half breadth. So final that I made a table of offsets. Talk about commitment, Woof. Offsets are in French pieds, expressed in decimal. Next column is the same measurement in decimeters. It's in 4 sig-figs, so going to millimeters is brainless. Plans are drawn in 1:12.
 
Oh yeah, S is the line of the sheer rail; M is the line of the main rail (hemi, demi, semi, equivalent to the English top-timber line).
 

Well then, druxey noticed some inconsistencies in the transoms, Bava noticed some inconsistencies in the topsides, and I found a couple others. So I did a Chapelle. By that, I mean proving the lines in all views so as to have them 'fair' and let the offsets fall where they may.
 
So I did that and 'lo' I can drop this girl into a Boudriot book and have her go unnoticed. I fought with the topside lines (made some specific horizontals) and then plotted the results as 'special' waterlines (a la Boudriot) and worked things iteratively till ... it necessitated a bit of tweaking for certain stations at the top waterline, but hey, what's CAD for anyway.
 
The topsides are smooth and fair; no bumps or hollows. And the lines connect up with the gallery top view, within a half pouce. Pretty good. I ran everything through my NACA Matlab program and the results are striking. I don't want to use a modern curve-fit program, for obvious reasons, but it's nice to know that a yard dog's batten was sweet.
 
So, final, final, on the body plan and the half breadth. So final that I made a table of offsets. Talk about commitment, Woof. Offsets are in French pieds, expressed in decimal. Next column is the same measurement in decimeters. It's in 4 sig-figs, so going to millimeters is brainless. Plans are drawn in 1:12.
 
Oh yeah, S is the line of the sheer rail; M is the line of the main rail (hemi, demi, semi, equivalent to the English top-timber line).
 

Well then, druxey noticed some inconsistencies in the transoms, Bava noticed some inconsistencies in the topsides, and I found a couple others. So I did a Chapelle. By that, I mean proving the lines in all views so as to have them 'fair' and let the offsets fall where they may.
 
So I did that and 'lo' I can drop this girl into a Boudriot book and have her go unnoticed. I fought with the topside lines (made some specific horizontals) and then plotted the results as 'special' waterlines (a la Boudriot) and worked things iteratively till ... it necessitated a bit of tweaking for certain stations at the top waterline, but hey, what's CAD for anyway.
 
The topsides are smooth and fair; no bumps or hollows. And the lines connect up with the gallery top view, within a half pouce. Pretty good. I ran everything through my NACA Matlab program and the results are striking. I don't want to use a modern curve-fit program, for obvious reasons, but it's nice to know that a yard dog's batten was sweet.
 
So, final, final, on the body plan and the half breadth. So final that I made a table of offsets. Talk about commitment, Woof. Offsets are in French pieds, expressed in decimal. Next column is the same measurement in decimeters. It's in 4 sig-figs, so going to millimeters is brainless. Plans are drawn in 1:12.
 
Oh yeah, S is the line of the sheer rail; M is the line of the main rail (hemi, demi, semi, equivalent to the English top-timber line).
 

Ok. Not the best idea.  Was just saying. And I can see the down side to it.
 
J

Ok. Not the best idea.  Was just saying. And I can see the down side to it.
 
J

Thanks for the help and support.    
 
Part of the fun of this build is the research. I've learned that the French had a very different life aboard a frigate than their British or American counterparts.  Examples being the sleeping arrangements, the use of the Great Cabin as we know it was different.  
 
I'm very much suspecting that at the time of her capture, Licorne had been or was still being used as a testbed.  The French were pretty good about this.  Take a good design and then pick a ship of that design and tweak it.  Her masting shows that as her masting is the same dimensions of an 18 pdr built after she was captured .  The fact that she has more in common with Belle Poule than Renommee.  Looking at the "as built" versus the "as captured" I see a trending in what was done... no port lids, the change in planking and wales.  the change to the transom appears to be an intermediate step.
 
As for the galleries... my sense is that these also were in transition also from the galleries on ships like Renommee to the time of Belle Poule.  
 
But that's what I have, a sense... and not hard facts.  Everything I've mentioned is circumstantial except for the two sets of plans.  
 
I think the roof on the galleries is correct way to go.   I won't be fully committed to that until the moment I glue it on.  And I'll continue researching up until that moment.   I know there's an answer... somewhere.
 
In the meantime, I hope that someday, my building skills get to be at least equal to my research.  

Reminded of a story. A Friday nite beercan from Rush Creek to Chandler's Landing and back. It was dusk, and flat. We had rounded and were ghosting with the kite in 'maybe' 3-4 knots. Upwind comes a Harmony 24 who just dropped her genoa. A young boy was on the bow, covered with lines and draped with the sail. It was a silent kind of evening, and over the water floats this plaintive little voice saying "Daddy .. what the sh*t do I do now?"
 
Thus it is with first time anything. I appreciate and agree with Chris' cautionary tale. However, I think that we, as a community, might extend the paradigm a bit. One doesn't tell a landsman that he is on the fore topmast. It takes time and help (yes, and training) to get anywhere in an area as complex as this can be. Some of our threads are populated by people that are the equivalent of Olympic, America's Cup, or Volvo champions. Pity the young foredeck monkey.
 
Can we make a separate space for first-time, intermediate, modellers, where they can post and ask, and we can help and comment, without their being intimidated by competing with some of our member's exquisiteness? I know this is not politically correct, and has implications for being on 'the second tier', but someone who is truly interested in the 'hobby' and wants to learn and grow, may find it useful.
 
Just saying.
 
Ciao. John

Reminded of a story. A Friday nite beercan from Rush Creek to Chandler's Landing and back. It was dusk, and flat. We had rounded and were ghosting with the kite in 'maybe' 3-4 knots. Upwind comes a Harmony 24 who just dropped her genoa. A young boy was on the bow, covered with lines and draped with the sail. It was a silent kind of evening, and over the water floats this plaintive little voice saying "Daddy .. what the sh*t do I do now?"
 
Thus it is with first time anything. I appreciate and agree with Chris' cautionary tale. However, I think that we, as a community, might extend the paradigm a bit. One doesn't tell a landsman that he is on the fore topmast. It takes time and help (yes, and training) to get anywhere in an area as complex as this can be. Some of our threads are populated by people that are the equivalent of Olympic, America's Cup, or Volvo champions. Pity the young foredeck monkey.
 
Can we make a separate space for first-time, intermediate, modellers, where they can post and ask, and we can help and comment, without their being intimidated by competing with some of our member's exquisiteness? I know this is not politically correct, and has implications for being on 'the second tier', but someone who is truly interested in the 'hobby' and wants to learn and grow, may find it useful.
 
Just saying.
 
Ciao. John

Reminded of a story. A Friday nite beercan from Rush Creek to Chandler's Landing and back. It was dusk, and flat. We had rounded and were ghosting with the kite in 'maybe' 3-4 knots. Upwind comes a Harmony 24 who just dropped her genoa. A young boy was on the bow, covered with lines and draped with the sail. It was a silent kind of evening, and over the water floats this plaintive little voice saying "Daddy .. what the sh*t do I do now?"
 
Thus it is with first time anything. I appreciate and agree with Chris' cautionary tale. However, I think that we, as a community, might extend the paradigm a bit. One doesn't tell a landsman that he is on the fore topmast. It takes time and help (yes, and training) to get anywhere in an area as complex as this can be. Some of our threads are populated by people that are the equivalent of Olympic, America's Cup, or Volvo champions. Pity the young foredeck monkey.
 
Can we make a separate space for first-time, intermediate, modellers, where they can post and ask, and we can help and comment, without their being intimidated by competing with some of our member's exquisiteness? I know this is not politically correct, and has implications for being on 'the second tier', but someone who is truly interested in the 'hobby' and wants to learn and grow, may find it useful.
 
Just saying.
 
Ciao. John

Reminded of a story. A Friday nite beercan from Rush Creek to Chandler's Landing and back. It was dusk, and flat. We had rounded and were ghosting with the kite in 'maybe' 3-4 knots. Upwind comes a Harmony 24 who just dropped her genoa. A young boy was on the bow, covered with lines and draped with the sail. It was a silent kind of evening, and over the water floats this plaintive little voice saying "Daddy .. what the sh*t do I do now?"
 
Thus it is with first time anything. I appreciate and agree with Chris' cautionary tale. However, I think that we, as a community, might extend the paradigm a bit. One doesn't tell a landsman that he is on the fore topmast. It takes time and help (yes, and training) to get anywhere in an area as complex as this can be. Some of our threads are populated by people that are the equivalent of Olympic, America's Cup, or Volvo champions. Pity the young foredeck monkey.
 
Can we make a separate space for first-time, intermediate, modellers, where they can post and ask, and we can help and comment, without their being intimidated by competing with some of our member's exquisiteness? I know this is not politically correct, and has implications for being on 'the second tier', but someone who is truly interested in the 'hobby' and wants to learn and grow, may find it useful.
 
Just saying.
 
Ciao. John

Thanks to everyone for your kind comments. I have only been in the modelling world for a couple, three, years, so some of my things might seem a bit rough around the edges. I am very appreciative of the interest and assistance I have received from people on the NRG forum. You folks are the tops.
 
Just for grins, I thought it appropriate to show the source for my take on the Renommee. Having these documents is valuable, but the really cool part is reading through them and getting to the end and, ... there it is ... signé Sané. Can't imagine a bigger thrill for an amateur historian.
 

 
ps. my photos of documents in SH321 and SH 325 with the kind permission of .le Service historique de la Défense.
 
John

I am the last guy in the world to challenge Gerard Delacroix or Gaetan Bordeleau, but I believe the Belle Poule is not quite appropriate in this specific instance.
 
A major repair/rebuild would have had to happen at least a decade and a half after launch. That takes her to ~1770, long after Caffieri's death and during Lubet's heavy handed minimalism. 1770 would put her right at the end of the first 12-pdr build program and just a few years ahead of the 1775 monster build program.
 
Given the chaos of this transitionary period, and the fact that she was a major repair/rebuild, it is hard to wrap my head around a designer draught, no matter how similar the vessel. Just look at NMM draughts of a French ship 'as captured' and the same ship after a couple months (or less) in a Brit dockyard (the differences are beyond striking).
 
Yard dogs are sensitive creatures. Once they get used to doing something one way, then, hey, that's kinda what ya gonna get for everything else. Ok, so I'm cynical. You could do a Belle-Poule, and I know it will be gorgeous and proportioned just right. But besides being cynical, I'm also a butt-head. Just saying.
 
No worries either way, Mark, my Commodorable whacks me up the side of my head as often as she thinks I need it. Which is a bit more often than I'm wanting to own up to, but likely a teensy bit less often than I really need.
 
Ciao. John

Mark, I think you are on the right track. Druxey likely found the same stuff I have.
 
Even some bottle-style quarter galleries had a cup-like bin at the tippy top, judging from drawing shadows and perspective. After Caffiere, there was radical change in gallery design and by 1780 you saw all kinds of stuff for the gallery upper-finish; flat closed roofs, angled roofs with or without carving, and roofs with ‘rails’, forming a bin for MOB gear or a cistern, or whatever. The 1787 Vial du Clairbois shows a ‘roof bin’ finish with respect to 74s. Frigates would not have been substantially different.
 

 
The 1785 Calypso had ‘rails’, Proserpine did not (just finish roof carving). Admittedly, the photos are of models of 1800 and 1804 ships, but show the idea of how the ‘rails’ extend outside the side of the hull, so you can see how it goes. Boudriot notes there was even a canvas shelter top that deployed over the top of the bin and notes the doorway (small) cut into the bulwark, way aft, for access (at least in La Flore).
 
Your NMM plans show a feature that I would consider dispositive, although there is lots of room for disagreement. The top line of Licorne’s quarter gallery finish is a curve.  This curve is displaced from the line of wale and line of rail, and has a curvature that cannot be reconciled with some older sheer line of the vessel. Other ships that had a simple, ‘railless’, roof finished by being faired to and flowing into the corresponding sheer or main rail. . Licorne’s is clearly something that curves outwardly from the hull surface in this area, as shown by other ‘bin-top’ vessels.
 
The rail slopes inward and can be an open rail (not usual), or lined with lead or canvas (typical).  The underlying physical roof structure will be a skoosh flatter – wood, lead covered. Hard to know the actual roof angle, but Vial gives the proportion of 2/3 the overall rise for a 74. Licorne is also unusual in that the after edge of the finish does not connect with the cove (horseshoe). This suggests a “dome-like” roof which was very common for the period and might well be an artifact of the bottle roof. For a rebuild, a yard dog would very likely take the path of “save what you can, and use what you save”, but this is pure speculation.
 
Enough of my blithering. I hope this helps somewhat.
 
Ciao. John

I am the last guy in the world to challenge Gerard Delacroix or Gaetan Bordeleau, but I believe the Belle Poule is not quite appropriate in this specific instance.
 
A major repair/rebuild would have had to happen at least a decade and a half after launch. That takes her to ~1770, long after Caffieri's death and during Lubet's heavy handed minimalism. 1770 would put her right at the end of the first 12-pdr build program and just a few years ahead of the 1775 monster build program.
 
Given the chaos of this transitionary period, and the fact that she was a major repair/rebuild, it is hard to wrap my head around a designer draught, no matter how similar the vessel. Just look at NMM draughts of a French ship 'as captured' and the same ship after a couple months (or less) in a Brit dockyard (the differences are beyond striking).
 
Yard dogs are sensitive creatures. Once they get used to doing something one way, then, hey, that's kinda what ya gonna get for everything else. Ok, so I'm cynical. You could do a Belle-Poule, and I know it will be gorgeous and proportioned just right. But besides being cynical, I'm also a butt-head. Just saying.
 
No worries either way, Mark, my Commodorable whacks me up the side of my head as often as she thinks I need it. Which is a bit more often than I'm wanting to own up to, but likely a teensy bit less often than I really need.
 
Ciao. John

Mark, I think you are on the right track. Druxey likely found the same stuff I have.
 
Even some bottle-style quarter galleries had a cup-like bin at the tippy top, judging from drawing shadows and perspective. After Caffiere, there was radical change in gallery design and by 1780 you saw all kinds of stuff for the gallery upper-finish; flat closed roofs, angled roofs with or without carving, and roofs with ‘rails’, forming a bin for MOB gear or a cistern, or whatever. The 1787 Vial du Clairbois shows a ‘roof bin’ finish with respect to 74s. Frigates would not have been substantially different.
 

 
The 1785 Calypso had ‘rails’, Proserpine did not (just finish roof carving). Admittedly, the photos are of models of 1800 and 1804 ships, but show the idea of how the ‘rails’ extend outside the side of the hull, so you can see how it goes. Boudriot notes there was even a canvas shelter top that deployed over the top of the bin and notes the doorway (small) cut into the bulwark, way aft, for access (at least in La Flore).
 
Your NMM plans show a feature that I would consider dispositive, although there is lots of room for disagreement. The top line of Licorne’s quarter gallery finish is a curve.  This curve is displaced from the line of wale and line of rail, and has a curvature that cannot be reconciled with some older sheer line of the vessel. Other ships that had a simple, ‘railless’, roof finished by being faired to and flowing into the corresponding sheer or main rail. . Licorne’s is clearly something that curves outwardly from the hull surface in this area, as shown by other ‘bin-top’ vessels.
 
The rail slopes inward and can be an open rail (not usual), or lined with lead or canvas (typical).  The underlying physical roof structure will be a skoosh flatter – wood, lead covered. Hard to know the actual roof angle, but Vial gives the proportion of 2/3 the overall rise for a 74. Licorne is also unusual in that the after edge of the finish does not connect with the cove (horseshoe). This suggests a “dome-like” roof which was very common for the period and might well be an artifact of the bottle roof. For a rebuild, a yard dog would very likely take the path of “save what you can, and use what you save”, but this is pure speculation.
 
Enough of my blithering. I hope this helps somewhat.
 
Ciao. John

And then, following the paradigm of reconstruction, the artist did a cove carving that was too perfect for words.
 
The ‘original’ Cornélie had a note of a busy cove carving that may not have been done in actual practice, but looked good in dockyard records. Since this ship is not of the ‘original’ Cornélie , it seemed good and right to let the artist have the freedom to play.
 
This was the result: Cornelia and Vesta offering, together, to la flamme sacrée. It is  right in line with the figurehead. Oh, gosh, an artist that “knows” ships as well as “knows” his Greek and Roman. Life doesn’t get any better.
 

 
Ciao John
 
 

Have a sneak peak of the carvings. The only known reference to the carvings of the “real” Cornélie is a few sentences in dockyard records. Not much to go on, but her figurehead was described as Cornélie, “hair bound in roman fashion and holding a vessel of the sacred flame”.
 
Cornelia Scipionis Africana, mother of the Gracchi, was the touchstone of motherhood virtue (home and hearth) in Rome; the only woman who ever got a statue in the forum. She refused the marriage proposal of Ptolemy Physcon, who offered the crown and treasures of Egypt, by bringing out her sons and saying “These are my treasures.” Who would not love a ship named for such an incredible woman.
 
The Roman goddess of motherhood (and virtue, and other stuff) was Vesta (the Greek Hestia) who was keeper of the sacred flame of home and hearth and virtue. Her statues and images show her holding a ‘vessel’ of the sacred flame. Some of these are brass cups having the flame, but most are of the ice cream-cone shaped bundle of rods with la flamme sacrée issuing from the top.
 

 
Since I can’t draw, one of our members and contributors offered to come and play. He did the perfect figurehead. Can’t begin to say how well this works.

That is a rather nice phrase, isn’t it? I have learned so much from Howard Chapelle’s and Merritt Edson’s  notes and journals about the techniques of ‘reconstruction’. To name the process for Chapelle seemed the fair thing to do (pun intended).
 
Better lines plans coming very soon. They will be accompanied by some Excel files that have the table of offsets, separately, for the underwater waterlines and the additional topsides horizontals. Excel data points are in ‘decimal’ French pieds with a next column in metric. It’s ‘decimal’ pieds because TCAD works in decimal and it’s not all that hard to go between ‘decimal’ pieds and pieds/pouces/lignes. I used some of Chapelle’s  technique suggestions and math and I will be dipped if the topsides didn’t simply drop into the Chaumont Draught paradigm.
 
Not too many changes, but I’m afraid Mademoiselle  l’estain got tweaked (I have as much trouble with that as you, Bava, but I think I have her worried).
 
Ciao John

And then, following the paradigm of reconstruction, the artist did a cove carving that was too perfect for words.
 
The ‘original’ Cornélie had a note of a busy cove carving that may not have been done in actual practice, but looked good in dockyard records. Since this ship is not of the ‘original’ Cornélie , it seemed good and right to let the artist have the freedom to play.
 
This was the result: Cornelia and Vesta offering, together, to la flamme sacrée. It is  right in line with the figurehead. Oh, gosh, an artist that “knows” ships as well as “knows” his Greek and Roman. Life doesn’t get any better.
 

 
Ciao John
 
 

And then, following the paradigm of reconstruction, the artist did a cove carving that was too perfect for words.
 
The ‘original’ Cornélie had a note of a busy cove carving that may not have been done in actual practice, but looked good in dockyard records. Since this ship is not of the ‘original’ Cornélie , it seemed good and right to let the artist have the freedom to play.
 
This was the result: Cornelia and Vesta offering, together, to la flamme sacrée. It is  right in line with the figurehead. Oh, gosh, an artist that “knows” ships as well as “knows” his Greek and Roman. Life doesn’t get any better.
 

 
Ciao John
 
 

Have a sneak peak of the carvings. The only known reference to the carvings of the “real” Cornélie is a few sentences in dockyard records. Not much to go on, but her figurehead was described as Cornélie, “hair bound in roman fashion and holding a vessel of the sacred flame”.
 
Cornelia Scipionis Africana, mother of the Gracchi, was the touchstone of motherhood virtue (home and hearth) in Rome; the only woman who ever got a statue in the forum. She refused the marriage proposal of Ptolemy Physcon, who offered the crown and treasures of Egypt, by bringing out her sons and saying “These are my treasures.” Who would not love a ship named for such an incredible woman.
 
The Roman goddess of motherhood (and virtue, and other stuff) was Vesta (the Greek Hestia) who was keeper of the sacred flame of home and hearth and virtue. Her statues and images show her holding a ‘vessel’ of the sacred flame. Some of these are brass cups having the flame, but most are of the ice cream-cone shaped bundle of rods with la flamme sacrée issuing from the top.
 

 
Since I can’t draw, one of our members and contributors offered to come and play. He did the perfect figurehead. Can’t begin to say how well this works.

I am the last guy in the world to challenge Gerard Delacroix or Gaetan Bordeleau, but I believe the Belle Poule is not quite appropriate in this specific instance.
 
A major repair/rebuild would have had to happen at least a decade and a half after launch. That takes her to ~1770, long after Caffieri's death and during Lubet's heavy handed minimalism. 1770 would put her right at the end of the first 12-pdr build program and just a few years ahead of the 1775 monster build program.
 
Given the chaos of this transitionary period, and the fact that she was a major repair/rebuild, it is hard to wrap my head around a designer draught, no matter how similar the vessel. Just look at NMM draughts of a French ship 'as captured' and the same ship after a couple months (or less) in a Brit dockyard (the differences are beyond striking).
 
Yard dogs are sensitive creatures. Once they get used to doing something one way, then, hey, that's kinda what ya gonna get for everything else. Ok, so I'm cynical. You could do a Belle-Poule, and I know it will be gorgeous and proportioned just right. But besides being cynical, I'm also a butt-head. Just saying.
 
No worries either way, Mark, my Commodorable whacks me up the side of my head as often as she thinks I need it. Which is a bit more often than I'm wanting to own up to, but likely a teensy bit less often than I really need.
 
Ciao. John

Mark, I think you are on the right track. Druxey likely found the same stuff I have.
 
Even some bottle-style quarter galleries had a cup-like bin at the tippy top, judging from drawing shadows and perspective. After Caffiere, there was radical change in gallery design and by 1780 you saw all kinds of stuff for the gallery upper-finish; flat closed roofs, angled roofs with or without carving, and roofs with ‘rails’, forming a bin for MOB gear or a cistern, or whatever. The 1787 Vial du Clairbois shows a ‘roof bin’ finish with respect to 74s. Frigates would not have been substantially different.
 

 
The 1785 Calypso had ‘rails’, Proserpine did not (just finish roof carving). Admittedly, the photos are of models of 1800 and 1804 ships, but show the idea of how the ‘rails’ extend outside the side of the hull, so you can see how it goes. Boudriot notes there was even a canvas shelter top that deployed over the top of the bin and notes the doorway (small) cut into the bulwark, way aft, for access (at least in La Flore).
 
Your NMM plans show a feature that I would consider dispositive, although there is lots of room for disagreement. The top line of Licorne’s quarter gallery finish is a curve.  This curve is displaced from the line of wale and line of rail, and has a curvature that cannot be reconciled with some older sheer line of the vessel. Other ships that had a simple, ‘railless’, roof finished by being faired to and flowing into the corresponding sheer or main rail. . Licorne’s is clearly something that curves outwardly from the hull surface in this area, as shown by other ‘bin-top’ vessels.
 
The rail slopes inward and can be an open rail (not usual), or lined with lead or canvas (typical).  The underlying physical roof structure will be a skoosh flatter – wood, lead covered. Hard to know the actual roof angle, but Vial gives the proportion of 2/3 the overall rise for a 74. Licorne is also unusual in that the after edge of the finish does not connect with the cove (horseshoe). This suggests a “dome-like” roof which was very common for the period and might well be an artifact of the bottle roof. For a rebuild, a yard dog would very likely take the path of “save what you can, and use what you save”, but this is pure speculation.
 
Enough of my blithering. I hope this helps somewhat.
 
Ciao. John

Have a sneak peak of the carvings. The only known reference to the carvings of the “real” Cornélie is a few sentences in dockyard records. Not much to go on, but her figurehead was described as Cornélie, “hair bound in roman fashion and holding a vessel of the sacred flame”.
 
Cornelia Scipionis Africana, mother of the Gracchi, was the touchstone of motherhood virtue (home and hearth) in Rome; the only woman who ever got a statue in the forum. She refused the marriage proposal of Ptolemy Physcon, who offered the crown and treasures of Egypt, by bringing out her sons and saying “These are my treasures.” Who would not love a ship named for such an incredible woman.
 
The Roman goddess of motherhood (and virtue, and other stuff) was Vesta (the Greek Hestia) who was keeper of the sacred flame of home and hearth and virtue. Her statues and images show her holding a ‘vessel’ of the sacred flame. Some of these are brass cups having the flame, but most are of the ice cream-cone shaped bundle of rods with la flamme sacrée issuing from the top.
 

 
Since I can’t draw, one of our members and contributors offered to come and play. He did the perfect figurehead. Can’t begin to say how well this works.

That is a rather nice phrase, isn’t it? I have learned so much from Howard Chapelle’s and Merritt Edson’s  notes and journals about the techniques of ‘reconstruction’. To name the process for Chapelle seemed the fair thing to do (pun intended).
 
Better lines plans coming very soon. They will be accompanied by some Excel files that have the table of offsets, separately, for the underwater waterlines and the additional topsides horizontals. Excel data points are in ‘decimal’ French pieds with a next column in metric. It’s ‘decimal’ pieds because TCAD works in decimal and it’s not all that hard to go between ‘decimal’ pieds and pieds/pouces/lignes. I used some of Chapelle’s  technique suggestions and math and I will be dipped if the topsides didn’t simply drop into the Chaumont Draught paradigm.
 
Not too many changes, but I’m afraid Mademoiselle  l’estain got tweaked (I have as much trouble with that as you, Bava, but I think I have her worried).
 
Ciao John