Louie da fly

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

Thanks everybody for the likes and comments. Early stage at the moment. I'm currently thinking about the height of the gunwales to the weather deck. As well as the 'theoretical' height in the cross-sectional view in my first post, there are a few contemporary pictures which I'm hoping will help. There's this image from the so-called Beauchamp Pageant (Cotton MS Julius E IV), but that's not a lot of help, as the human figures are obviously over sized (as was usual at the time). There are VERY few contemporary pictures that accurately show human figures at the correct scale. This one from the same source is not high resolution, but I believe the scale of the figures is probably about right - The picture of the Battle of Zonchio (1499) shows the gunwale as being almost shoulder height But there's a detail from Carpaccio's Ursula Legend that seems to show the gunwale coming up to about people's waists. Then there's this one from 1493 that seems to show the same. This one of Columbus' ship from the 1502 Libre de Consolat dels fets maritims Barcelona shows it about middle of the chest - Then there's this one from Zeiriksee in the Netherlands of 1506, showing it nearer the waists of the human figures. And from Jonah by Bellano Basilica of San Antonio, Padua, 1514 - chest height. As Lomellina was Genoese, I'd be inclined to follow Italian images for preference. And it needs to be borne in mind that the gunwales are just that - wales that were the base for (swivel) guns. So they should be somewhere above waist level for the gunner but below shoulder level. So, assuming an average height for this time and place of perhaps 5'6" (1.68 metres), I'd be looking at between 1.2 metres (about 4 feet) and 1.3 metres (approx 4'3"). Returning to the issue of masts, there could possibly be one or two mizzens. A votive table of 1475 of the parish of San Pedro de Zumaia in Spain, commemorating a battle between Spanish and Portuguese forces, shows the largest ship with a mizzen, and a bonaventure mizzen behind it. And a detail of a panorama of Venice of 1500 by Barbari shows a similar thing on a merchant ship. However, the great majority have only a single mizzen. Is the Lomellina big enough to warrant two? She was certainly pretty big for the time, bit I'll have to think about it. Steven

Thanks everybody for the likes and comments. It's nice to have finished the build and though I'm painfully aware of places where I didn't get it as right as I'd have liked to, I'm actually very happy with this. MikkiC, I've already started work on plans for the next one - see It'll be a while before I start making sawdust, but the design process is under way. Steven

Still figuring out the plans. I've now got a pretty good idea of the lines of the main and lower decks and the orlop, the configuration and position of the stempost (awaiting confirmation from France!), and the location of the mainmast, the halyard knight and the capstan, plus where on the keel the 12 cross-section views were taken. Still a bit up in the air, but I believe I'm on the right track. And she's starting to look rather pretty! Though there's no archaeological evidence of a foremast or mizzen - they would both have been relatively small and it's unlikely they'd have been stepped on the keel - I am completely certain a ship of this size at this time would have had both. Now I'm thinking about the height of the bulwarks above the main (weather) deck, and the height, angle and configuration of the forecastle. The Botticelli painting The Judgment of Paris contains a carrack which can be seen, unusually, from above, and it looks like it has a poop deck. Perhaps I'll give the Lomellina one as well. Steven

So this is what you've been doing all this time! I can't believe I've missed this build. Soon fixed - I'm following from now on. Beautiful work, Dick. Steven

Making very good progress. Beautiful ship. Steven

Perzackerly (that's a combination of precisely and exactly). But often the word stands alone and I have to work out the meaning by context, if I can (sigh). I think the Lomellina's bow will also be surprisingly pointed. There's this idea people have that they were tubby, but it seems not to be true, but instead influenced by contemporary artists having trouble accurately showing a ship's bow seen from forrard. And apparently this particular vessel had proportions more like a galleon than a carrack - overall length 46 metres, beam about 12.5. Slim and fast. See https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10572414.2023.2186748#d1e2365 - However, that bow shape in the latest iteration is pretty speculative - if you look at the cross sections in this document, you can see that the surviving remains are very thin and a very slight difference in angle of orientation compared to vertical could make a huge difference to the shape of the hull. I'm still investigating all of this - I'd like to make up my own mind about it all, rather than just copy what others have decided - but definitely making progress. I've now drawn the full length of the keel, got the deck heights and drawn the stempost. Not sure about the last - one of my sources seems to suggest that the stempost was found, but that's not backed up by any of the archaeological reports I have in my possession. I'm just going to have to write and ask. Steven

Perhaps fairleads? From Merriam-Webster online dictionary: fair·lead or less commonly fairleader ˈfer-ˌlē-dər 1. : a block, ring, or strip of plank with holes that serves as a guide for the running rigging or any ship's rope and keeps it from chafing 2. : a course of running ship's rope that avoids all chafing. Steven