Louie da fly

Beautiful work as usual Patrick. Steven

By the way, another point with the Lomellina is that she did capsize, so perhaps wasn't all that stable. But as we don't know the exact circumstances of her loss, that may not have been the problem. She was in harbour when a tempest came down from the hills and tipped her over. Was she in ballast or did she have cargo on board? There were some indications that she was not in full sailing condition when the tempest hit - IIRC the capstan was not shipped - but we just don't know for sure. What we do have is a fair section of her underwater lines. Steven

Thank you Lashenden. I agree with you in many ways. Apart from obvious mistakes, I'm inclined to accept pictorial evidence as being correct unless proven otherwise. But there are artists and artists. Some - the ships in Carpaccio's superb Ursula Legend paintings and Botticelli's Judgment of Paris I feel I can accept (almost) wholeheartedly - but even Carpaccio's pictures contain a couple of things I find hard to accept (the blocks that tighten the shrouds, the configuration of the wales at the bow) - because they don't seem likely to work in the real world. Similarly, there are a couple of details in the Botticelli that don't ring true - there is a ladder just behind the after hatch that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, for example. But overall, excellent. On the other hand, there are some pretty abysmal contemporary pictures out there. Oversize figures - certainly there's a tradition of showing people oversized, particularly if they're important. However, though I'm prepared to ignore them in general, every now and then an artist shows people pretty much correct size. Again, it depends very much on the artist. If I understand you correctly, by the 'bow-curve profile' you mean that the bow is shown very rounded, as in this picture from the Beauchamp Pageant, but Carpaccio and Botticelli show a sharper bow, and this is backed up by what archaeology is available. The current reconstruction of Lomellina's lines gives her a bow even sharper than this, though I'm not sure I agree with them. On the other hand, perhaps you're referring to the extreme slope of the forecastle and aftercastle shown on most of the ships in the left-hand pic below. Regarding the angle of the deck, there is great variation in how it's portrayed in contemporary images. I'm completely happy to accept some degree of slope, but artists of the time were experimenting with how to portray foreshortening, and I believe some of them overdid the angle. For example, in the left-hand image below, if you look at the ship in profile view the forecastle and aftercastle are shown with a fairly gentle angle, while the ones seen from bow-on both are considerably more extreme. I believe the right-hand image (1455-61 Benedetto Bonfigli. Saint Louis de Tolouse - Miracolo del denaro. Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria) is a more believable representation. Fortunately, in the Lomellina we have a good idea of the slope of the main deck, as a good proportion of the starboard side has been preserved, including the deck clamps. Unfortunately the forecastle and aftercastle are lost, so there's a fair bit of guesswork involved with them. Though I'm not an expert on 15th century armour, I do understand what you are talking about. In fact I have made armour myself, and I have a colleague who has made himself a complete set of gothic plate which he wears in re-enactment combat. There is also a robust discussion regarding whether or not contemporary images of Byzantine lamellar armour are to be believed, as to how the stuff was put together. I'm an aficionado of the 'Yes' argument. Again, regarding hull shape, we are fortunate that enough of the Lomellina survived to give a good idea of her underwater lines, though the bow and stern are lost. Steven

I thought he was Bach. Nice work on the deck furniture, by the way! Steven

Interesting question. I was actually surprised to find true deadeyes as early as 1380 - I hadn't thought they'd been developed by that time, and contemporary illustrations (yes, I know they're not necessarily reliable) don't show them at all. I'm afraid you'll have to decide for yourself whether the Stralsund cog had them. Regarding deck planks, I doubt that the Viking method of planking was also in use further south - certainly the framing is completely different. The only planking apparently found on the Bremen cog was on the afterdeck, and its side to side, not fore and aft. The orlop(?) deck beams can also be seen, and they are oriented such that the planking would also be side to side. I don't think the through-beams can be relied upon as a gauge of the planking direction, as the attached photo shows - they don't seem to have any relation to the planking. Personal opinion, however - in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would be quite happy with the idea of the main planking running fore and aft. Steven

Hi Ferrus! I'd also refer you to the Bremen cog (c. 1380), the best preserved of all the cog wrecks. Google it for images - there are so many wonderful details in the photos, such as the windlass. I seem to recall she also had a capstan, but I can't see it in any of the photos, so perhaps I'm wrong. And here are three deadeyes from the same vessel - they're described as blocks but they're obviously deadeyes. Steven

Very nice. It messes with my mind.

You might be using the wrong kind of wood. Just because the manufacturer supplies it, doesn't mean it's right for the job. I've had great success bending wood using the technique you describe. Try experimenting with other timbers. Fruit woods seem to be particularly good because of the tight, fine grain. And, of course, boxwood. Steven

And as far as archaeology can tell us, this is the way it was actually done. 😁

The Lomellina (Genoese, sank 1516) had a capstan a little aft of the mainmast, with a knight between the two. As the May Rose's mast appears to have been directly forward of the aftercastle, it would perhaps be a little differently arranged. But Generally I'd expect it to be similar. On my Great Harry, I put the knight and capstan on the upper deck of the aftercastle - see post #308 at but that's not to say my interpretation is correct. By the way, note that unlike later capstans, the holes for the bars pass right through the capstan and are at two different levels. So there are only two bars, each of which extends out from both sides of the capstan, so there are only four positions for the crew to push at the capstan. I hope that helps. Steven

Just came across this on Facebook. Further evidence to support Woodrat's interpretation! Steven

Patrick, I'm sending you the report in a PM. (I hope you can read French!) Steven

Patrick, Did I send you Max Guerot's report on the guns of the Lomellina, with a very comprehensive examination of the types of guns in use in the first half of the 16th century? If not, I can send it to you if you like. Steven

Magnificent work, Patrick. Just a quick question - can you tell us the reason for the arches with grey-painted 'false openings' instead of being cut into the hull? Steven

I still have trouble with planking . . . Steven

It's been quite a while since I've posted. I've been busy - life does tend to get in the way. But I re-thunk the sliced 3D shape. And I thunk - the one I've done was sliced into every second frame. But the frames are 5mm apart and the dropsaw's kerf is only about 2mm wide. I could have cut a slice for each frame - they should each end up about 3mm thick - and not have to interpolate between slices to work out the shapes of the ones in between! So I did it all over again - made another 3D model and sliced it into individual frames. And it worked! Now of course I have to transfer that onto paper and mirror it to get the full frames, but all good! There are a few glitches in the shapes of the frames nearest to the stern - the curve seems to go upward at the keel instead of downward. I'll just have to fix that when I transfer it to paper. Steven

Of course. Just as in the original! Steven

Nice crisp work, especially the paintwork. Well done! Steven

I agree about reducing the height of the upper part of the forecastle. It looks better that way. And yes, red, white and yellow stripes. The colours on the Anthony Roll are a bit difficult to interpret, but certainly not green and white as shown in the modern picture. Guns and carriages look great (Henry the Staffy's a real gem!) and the ladders are spot-on. Nice work (as usual!), Patrick. Steven

https://australian.museum/learn/animals/mammals/drop-bear/

Strictly this one is a mitre saw because it can be set at an angle, but drop saw is what I call it, and I believe it's a fairly commonly used name. Steven

Thanks for all the likes, and thanks to Druxey for the comment. So here's the result so far. I glued the shaped form to a longer wooden plank, so I could feed it through the drop-saw without cutting my fingers off. I glued a sheet of paper between the form and the plank so I could break them apart after they'd been sawn into slices. And here they are in the saw - part-way through the process. And all cut. About half have been separated from the remains of the plank. (One of them had a corner split off, so I glued it back again and this photo shows them at the point where I'm waiting for the glue to dry). And here they all are, ready to be used as templates for the new frames. Steven

I've been working on the other frames. Here's one from the bow - the French refer to the V-shaped piece at the bottom, charmingly, as a fourcat. But I came to the conclusion that the shapes I'd worked out for the frames of the aftercastle and some for the bow were based on a wrong premise - I hadn't taken into account the evidence of contemporary pictures and had made them much too narrow, and quite a few of them will have to be either tossed or dramatically altered. The first pic below is the frame as made; the second is how wide it ought to be. I'm hoping I can at least salvage some of the futtocks, but I'm pretty sure the floor timbers will have to be ditched. I eventually got sick of trying to figure out the frame shapes on paper from the lines I'd drawn up - every time I worked it out it was different. So I went a different way. Based on the sterns of carracks from contemporary representations from near the Lomellina's time, I made a solid half-hull, going aft from the last frame I was happy with Took very little time - a couple hours with a hand-saw and a rasp, once I'd decided to do it. Next I'll be cutting this solid shape into slivers at 10mm ( a bit under half an inch) intervals - equivalent to every second frame - along the length of the keel, to get reliable shapes for the frames. Wish me luck! Steven

I've done both. My earlier models were 'pristine', but I have been slowly teaching myself to weather my wooden models. Some people are masters of weathering - have a look at RGL's wonderful (plastic) warships - his Dreadnought, Heian Maru etc. And somewhere on the forum there's a Russian battleship of his from the Battle of Tsushima which I can't find (unfortunately) - it's amazing! Here's a bit of my own weathering - a 12th century Mediterranean merchant ship that doesn't get a lot of TLC - the owners are more interested in immediate profits than maintenance. And yes, I have enough figures on board for a full crew. I carved them from pear wood - scale 1:75 . I've perhaps been a bit cautious about applying the weathering - better than too much. Still learning, and learning how to shade the figures so they don't look like they're model railway figures straight out of the box. Steven

Better choice, in my opinion. Santa Anna is VERY complicated. Building the Santa Maria will develop your skills at a much gentler gradient, but they will be skills you can then use on more ambitious models. And as I mentioned before, don't hesitate to ask questions. BTW, Santa Maria is a type of vessel known as a carrack, which I just happen to be very fond of - in fact I'm scratch building one myself at the moment. So if you do have questions I may be able to help. And check out Woodrat's wonderful Venetian Carrack or Cocha build as well. Steven