JohnE

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

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

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

Soon, my friend, soon. You have tweaked me right where the sharpie should go. I'll get you something a bit more righteous.
 
Ciao. John

Been a while, but a lot has been going on. A 3D modeler (Bava) noticed some inconsistencies in topside lines for orthogonal views. These had to be fixed. That’s one of the witches of working with the original 1810 offset tables; they are not self-consistent. Ok, what the hey, I figured I would have to do a Chapelle at certain points, but basic departures from the offsets? Woof !!!
 
The underwater lines conform nicely all the way from Boudriot’s 1782 Venus to the 1821 Armide, with appropriate adjustment to the principal dimensions according to the “reglement”. It’s topsides that are biting the big one.
 
Reconciling curves don’t really reconcile; perhaps they do for a couple of stations, but then they depart.  This period was one of transition, and it’s very hard to a good grip on this for a ship of “general” configuration. The whole tumble home thing was undergoing the same examination as for the British, but not quite to the same extent. Cornelie’s topside lines are way outside the Venus, and way inside the Armide.
 
They are close (but no cigar) to the Rochefort Justice, the Chaumont Sane, and the Sane Erigon. Mathematics is indicated. AAaarrrggh !!
 
Can do this. Ciao. John

Been a while, but a lot has been going on. A 3D modeler (Bava) noticed some inconsistencies in topside lines for orthogonal views. These had to be fixed. That’s one of the witches of working with the original 1810 offset tables; they are not self-consistent. Ok, what the hey, I figured I would have to do a Chapelle at certain points, but basic departures from the offsets? Woof !!!
 
The underwater lines conform nicely all the way from Boudriot’s 1782 Venus to the 1821 Armide, with appropriate adjustment to the principal dimensions according to the “reglement”. It’s topsides that are biting the big one.
 
Reconciling curves don’t really reconcile; perhaps they do for a couple of stations, but then they depart.  This period was one of transition, and it’s very hard to a good grip on this for a ship of “general” configuration. The whole tumble home thing was undergoing the same examination as for the British, but not quite to the same extent. Cornelie’s topside lines are way outside the Venus, and way inside the Armide.
 
They are close (but no cigar) to the Rochefort Justice, the Chaumont Sane, and the Sane Erigon. Mathematics is indicated. AAaarrrggh !!
 
Can do this. 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

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

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

Elle est magnifique ! Il n’y a pas de mots suffisants pour décrire la beauté. Tu es vraiment un maître artisan (sorry for the familiar). There are not words sufficient to describe the perfection of detail of your build of this beautiful vessel. You are truly a master craftsman in every respect.
 
Cordialement, 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

Elle est magnifique ! Il n’y a pas de mots suffisants pour décrire la beauté. Tu es vraiment un maître artisan (sorry for the familiar). There are not words sufficient to describe the perfection of detail of your build of this beautiful vessel. You are truly a master craftsman in every respect.
 
Cordialement, 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

first sight with all the guns

Druxey,
 
If I cover the entire gun deck then it is not worth to build the inside because nothing would be visible.
 
I did modify some parts;
 
Cathead anchor are not glued, if   glued it it is almost sure that I will break at leasrt one later.
 
I changed the chimney side to see the copper plate on the top of the stove.
 
About the gun carriages; which also are not glued  on the deck as for the same previous reason. I observed in previous builds that ropes assembly are sufficent to hold the gun  and if the assembly is  too much static, it is almost for sure that I will in the next years  when turning around the hull hit some guns, and if the assembly has some play to move  it will not break.

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