Louie da fly

That's right. That's what they mean by 'spiling' - planks are very far from being simple long thin rectangles. They curve, they get narrower and wider, to follow the complex 3D curves of the hull. Then there are 'stealers' (short added planks where the hull widens near the ends) and 'drop planks' where three planks become two as the hull narrows. Never have a plank come to a sharp point at the end. It would be impossible to nail it to the frame. Have a look at the planking tutorials to see how this is done. I've planked 4 models so far and I still regard myself as a newbie on planking. But practice improves your technique, and don't be afraid to pull planks off and start again if you're not satisfied. It's out of your comfort zone to start with, but bit by bit you'll get on top of it. And In the real world they didn't have a single plank run the whole length of the ship - there'd be several that made up a single 'run' of planking, joined over the top of the frames behind them (each plank overlapping half the frame) and the joins were 'offset' from one run of planks to the next so all the joins didn't line up causing weakness in the planking. Steven

Welcome, Nick! I'm awestruck by your model. Colours, like so many other details, are always 'educated guesswork' based on what (often sparse) information is available. Do the best you can, and you can be sure no-one will be in a position to tell you you're wrong. I'm in Oz but I was privileged to be in the UK in 1972 (or 73?) when Sunderland won the FA Cup from the 2nd Division. Very cool. Steven

Greetings from another Aubrey/Maturin fan. I have the whole series and currently re-reading for the umpteenth time. I love his humour and the relationship between Stephen and Jack, and of course the maritime stuff. Have fun with the dory, and make sure you start a build log. It's a great way to get help and advice, and if there's anything you don't understand or want help with, don't be afraid to ask. You WILL make mistakes - we all do - but that's part of the learning process. As you get more experience, your mistakes just get more interesting 😁 Steven

Welcome aboard. Do you have any ideas about what kind of ship you want to build? I'd strongly suggest you start a build log when you begin. It's the best way to get help and advice as you progress with your build. The members here are unfailingly helpful and friendly. And remember there are no stupid questions - feel free to ask anything you want to know. Steven

By the way, a skilled painter can 'shade' yellow paint to look quite convincingly like gold.

I am of the opinion that 'gold' would usually have been faked with yellow paint. And though there was a lot of 'gold' decoration on important naval ships in the 17th century I've never heard of it being used in the 16th - they seem to have used bright colours toward the end of the century but I think your kit manufacturer has had a rush of blood to the brain, and that they just made it up because they thought it would look 'cool'. I think you'd be far more correct to forget the gold. If you want to, use yellow paint, but as far as I'm aware gold has no historical justification for a model from this time. Steven

Ferrus, if you mean sources for mast heights, the ones I ended up using (leaving out the ones that were too far outside the average) were as follows: from Barbari's panorama of Venice c. 1500 From a Munich guide to navigation (I think) 1509 1530-1534 Carrack from Leaves from the Genealogy of the Royal Houses of Spain and Portugal - the Portuguese Genealogy From an illustration for which I only have the notation "Dubrovnki 1513" Detail from one of Carpaccio's St Ursula Legend paintings c. 1490. From an early 16th century map of Hispaniola. The "Ship of the Church, Polish 15th century. There were, as I mentioned, others which were either too much bigger or smaller than the average (from 0.67 up to 1.07) and though they may well be valid, I decided to stay within the mid-range - about 0.80 to 0.87 - as being more reliable. Steven

Dick, yes indeed. It seems to be very common in contemporary representations. I see it not only in Carpaccio but quite a few other renditions. Around the turn of the 16th century one starts to see a double arch instead of the single one (e.g. Battle of Zonchio), but I don't like that as much. I've been doing some more 'pictorial research' for the height of the mainmast (which was not found in the wreck). Taking into account 15 contemporary images, allowing for variations between individual ships, and even more for artistic license, and discarding figures too far outside the average, the ratio of the height if the mast above the gunwale and the overall length (forward end of stempost to after end of aftercastle) seems to be at about 0.85. With an overall length on this model of about 430mm, that works out to about 390 mm. Then if I add the distance between the gunwale and the upper surface of the keel, we get another 80mm, so mast height up to the top of the crosstrees would be about 470mm. I'm having to do some work in working out frame positions. The archaeological reports use at least 4 systems of location - first there was a grid with 1 metre squares running over the whole site. Then they numbered all the frames that had survived. Plus they had a 'zero' point on one of the planks near the aft end of the wreck that distances were measured from. And the original investigation took cross-sections at various points along the keel. As none of these seem to be referenced very well to each other, I'm busily trying to reconcile them all to a common system. The numbered frames are about 500mm apart (i.e. between the centre of one and the centre of the next adjacent), so I've got a fair idea of where each is in relation to the rest. Then the latest report has given a diagram (with a key showing how big a metre is) showing the locations along the keel of the cross-sections and of the Master Frame, which is frame No. 59 (see diagrams in post #26). So taking Frame 59 as my starting point, and the locations along the keel of the cross-sections, I can (I hope) work out which frames each of the cross-sections is closest to. And then try to work out the lines and fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, the bow and stern have not survived (see picture in my original post), so their shapes are largely a matter of educated guesswork. And the same applies to the upper works. I'm thinking very seriously about taking a page out of Woodrat's book and making a solid half-hull, and basing my frame shapes on that. I have a cunning plan to make this - we'll see how it works out. Note to admin - can I get this log moved from "Up to 1500 AD" to "1501-1750" please? If, as I believe, she was built in 1503, I've put it on the wrong section. Thanks. Steven

I wonder when the archaeological reports will start to appear. It'd be nice to know more about this ship. Steven

Keith, it's an Australian brand, though I'm sure there'd be equivalents elsewhere, and apparently used by automobile modellers. The one I have is SMS brand and is called "hyperchrome", and it's alcohol-based and is to be used with an airbrush, though I just used an ordinary watercolour paintbrush and it worked. The guy who put me onto it said to put down an undercoat of black matt, then another coat of black gloss before applying the chrome (which needs several coats). I didn't ask whether the undercoat was supposed to be acrylic or enamel, so I experimented - enamel is the way to go. Now you know as much about it as I do . Steven

I've left this for awhile, but it's really time I got back to it. I got held up by not knowing how I could duplicate the chrome pipe of the rails that divide passengers from storage areas. Fortunately, a member of my local modelling club put me onto a paint that actually does the trick - not just like yer usual 'silver paint' look, but actual chrome. And this was on bamboo like you get in kitchen skewers, so it's quite an achievement. And I've put in the uprights that hold up the awning, and solved (I hope) the problem of the keeping the awning piece horizontal throughout, avoiding it sliding down the uprights getting all askew. I just glued the uprights, into holes in crosspieces, so the top of each upright (they're all the same length) is flush with the top of the crosspiece. Simple solution, really, and it'll be invisible when the model is complete. Still in progress. And here it is with the awning dry fitted. Steven

Rik, that first link seems to be basically the same article as in the original post. I do like the fact that there's a video. And the ship's boat is quite a find. That and some of the deck furniture (for example the pump) give some idea of the size of the vessel itself. It's now being referred to as Okänt Skepp, but that just means "unknown ship". A good enough name for me. Not much info available on-line about her even now. The Gribshunden, which I mentioned in my first post, has quite a bit more information available. Steven

Yes - no surviving fore channels, so your guess is as good as anybody else's. I look forward to seeing what you do with this - your theoretical cardboard replica looks good. Steven

Oh, yes. And oftentimes more than one attempt (I've thrown away my fair share of carvings I was unhappy with!). Also true. You can get on with the carving while glue is drying or when you get bored with the other stuff. Looking good. Steven

Ferrus, no swivel guns were found. The Beat to Quarters Tumblr article gets several things wrong - the guns were never mentioned in the archaeological report as being cargo; in fact they were distributed through the wreck in positions that suggest they were for the ship itself. On the other hand, big cannon wheels were found in the wreck, more appropriate to land-based cannons, and as the ship was under hire to the King of France who was having himself a war in Italy, it's likely these were cargo - and perhaps that the barrels were recovered by a salvage team that tried to recover what was most valuable from the wreck soon after she went down. Regarding the matter of bonaventures, I'm still thinking about it. That a ship could have them because of her size is no guarantee that she did. The great majority of representations show a single mizzen. Steven

Unfortunately a few seconds after opening the link it went to NY Times advertising and demanding I log in and let them have access to my personal stuff. Looked interesting up to that point, though. Steven

Cyberpunk.

I originally thought this was the Gribshunden, a Danish royal ship, but apparently not. See https://sv-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Okänt_skepp_från_1500-talet_i_Östersjön?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc Interesting in its own right! I hadn't heard of this one before. I've bookmarked it. Thanks for posting. Steven

Good grief! Steven

I did consider it, and she was willing to do so, but I just wanted the damn thing finished, so I went with what I had. Steven

All true. We can argue the pros and cons and possibilities of what the drawing "really" shows forever, but that way lies madness. I'm not trying to prove a point, just to get an idea of how high to make the gunwale. Steven

Johnny, yes I agree. And yes, some have shields attached to a higher rail. If you look at the very first picture in this thread (don't look too hard, it's loaded with inaccuracies!) you can see that 'Lomellina I' has them on the forecastle and aftercastle, and I'm thinking seriously about following suit with her younger sister. The flags belong to the Lomellini family, but perhaps the shield designs are those of the men-at-arms on board. And does the ship carry those shields when not expecting to be in combat? Who knows? Steven

Ferrus, this is an issue I'm very aware of, and in fact I've been arguing the point for over 10 years. See . Regarding the museum model, I'm not taking any notice of it at all. It's wrong in so many ways - I don't like to criticise , but the guy who built it had no idea of the configuration of a carrack. I've been reading through the latest paper on the shape of Lomellina's hull (see link in post #17 above). Here's what is known from the archaeological results (with a bit of tweaking of frame shapes to allow for the fact that the shape would have been deformed by the weight of the overburden of silt). They recorded 12 cross-sections, 8 of the "surviving" frames - that reached all the way to the keel (CS 6 to CS 12 also referred to as S6 to S12), 4 of partially existing frames (CS 2 to CS 5). Here are the results. Though I'm prepared to accept their research data I do have reservations about their conclusions as to the lines of the hull. If you're interested you can see them in the paper linked in post #17 above. So I'll 'go off on my own' and see if I can't work out a set of lines I'm happier with, that fit in better with what I know of the shapes of carracks from contemporary representations, particularly those of Carpaccio and Botticelli (see pics in earlier posts). Steven

You're quite right, and I hadn't been figuring the height of the gun pedestals into the equation. Thanks. And in fact, zooming in on the Zumia picture the guns do seem to be up off the gunwale (OTOH, the first of the Beauchamp Pageant pics shows the barrels resting directly on it). And I've found another pic with 2 normal sized people up against the gunwale. "1486 Pilgrim Book by Breidenbach. Ship building in Venice" The guy on the right seems to have it coming up only to his hips, while the other has it up to his chest. The second guy seems to be painting the side of the hull, though, and I believe he might be kneeling down to do it without overbalancing. All of this inclines me to accept a lower gunwale height - possibly even less than 1.2 metres. The legal requirement for balustrades on balconies (at least here in Oz) is 1.0 metres - to stop people tipping over the edge and falling. I'd say that would be my absolute minimum height for the gunwale. Getting there . . . Steven

That looks good, particularly the 'draped fabric'. Are you planning on doing more carving on the dove? Steven