amateur

Needle threaders can also be very usefull, especially for the from bottom to top at the pin rails. Threader down the hole, line through the threader, done. Especially at the pinrail where you have a rather large hole. Does not always work for blocks, where the hole should be the same size as the line itself, but sometimes it also works. lines not ending at a belaying pin: same story: don't tie off before having attached the whole lot. All lines and somewhere, and have to be fixed there. I found it helpfull to do first all the standing rigging, gave the lines some tension (not to much, just enough to keep them straight), fixed all the knots. The stays needed some additional tension, as in my case the braces are attached to the stays, and you don't want the braces to pull the stays in all directions. Next the running rigging was done, mast by mast, from top to bottom. As soon as the standing rigging looses its tension, you know that you are overtensioning the running rigging. (Generally the case: as soon as tensioning a line causes slack in another, just ask yourself: does this line need that much tension?) Overtensioning gives the risk of masts ans spars deforming, or knots coming loose. (Murphy there: always the one you can't reach, or redo without a lot of additional trouble) Jan

Hi Marcus, Look at this site, and more specifically the book by Witsen: Witsen Scheepsbouw On page 121 (page 234 in the digital version) he shows the tables for the rigging, related to the mast-thickness. Basically, all measures are circumferences, and related to the thickness of the mast(s). These tables are the underlying tables for what Hoving has in his books. Rescaling the tables in his books, based on the mast-thickness of his Pinas and your model gives convincing looking results. Jan

Not according to this drawing https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:HMS_Discovery_(ship,_1789)#/media/File%3ADISCOVERY_1789_RMG_J2021.jpg Jan

Hi Roger, you write: the easiest way is to build frames square to the keel. that sounds rather straightforward, but looking at the Chapman-drawing above (large ship, build on a sloping floor) I sometimes wonder: how did they set up their frames: no laser equipment, and the most simple (piece oflead to a string) not working, due to the sloping ramp..... Jan

The answer is two-fold: it is an historically interesting ship, and there exists a very good book (and drawings) on the ship. https://ancre.fr/en/monograph/55-monographie-du-fleuron-vaisseau-de-64-canons-1729.html

That is toothick, but I think the stiffness ofyour thread is what is causing you trouble. Waxing will increase that stiffness, so was will not solve your trouble. I did my ratlines with simple gutermannthread. Problem with that material is that it cant be glued with PVA. An other thing I discovered: the clove hitch can be made in two (symetical) ways. Strictly adhering to oneversion does increase the homogeneity of the final result. Jan

I never had that problem. The only problem I had, was that using a clove-hitch as firdt/last knot was a bit asking for trouble (it loosens when the loose end is cut clise to the knot. Jan

It is the William Rex, a model build iin 1698, on the Admirality wharf of Flushing, build for the Admirality as a ‘showoff’ model for their headquarters. Build and rigged by the contemporeous professionals. Current location Rijksmuseum Amsterdam https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/NG-MC-651 Jan

Henry is right, I checked the literature. the sprittop sail is larger than the fore topgalant, and smaller than the topsail. The 'blinde' was around 1700 afairly wide sail, the length of the yard being three-quarter of that of the main fore. Still, it is a considerable amount of sail. Jan

As Henry said: as long as spritsails were set, there were essentially no lines under the bowsprit, apart from the ones necessary to set the spritsail. Any other lines, as bobstays, were behind the spritsail, so no problem. I object to Henry when he sais that the spritsail and the topsail are always small: in the late 17th century they tended to be quitelarge, almost as large as the main and top on the fore mast. Jan

In case of Wasa, you can go for the Landstrom blue/gold colour scheme. That will save you hours of painting, compared to the multi-coloured reconstruction of the Vasa-museet. Although, I still don't see why you want to cut corners on this model. If you don't like the kit, don't build it, if you like it, pay proper attention to it. Actually, the Billings kit can be used to get very convincing looking Vasa's. I never saw convincing Corel or Sergal versions. The best (although also not in all wood choices) is ofcourse the agostini-version. Jan

How did you make those? Milled from a piece of brass, or build up from many small parts? Jan

But make sure that you do not need to stain the wood after covering the part in glue... Jan

Pretty worn out that ship. They should put a couple of men to work with a brush and a can of paint Did the real Z25 one ever reach that state, or is this "pure artistry"? (and artistry it is, as usual) btw I like the pic where you hold her in your (at least, I think it is yours ) hand, because that is the only one where she really shows her real size. Jan

Hi Henry, you will have to make a decision on what your goal is: quite a lot of the kits of Statenjachten are based on Hoeckels "reconstruction" of the Brandenburger Jacht. Problem is: Hoekel did his work early 20th century, in a period he had no access to written sources, no body of academic knowledge to start from, so quite a lot of what he did was pure conjecture, often not in line with contemporary models. So: absolutely not useful to getyour model 'historically correct', but useful toget an idea of what the kitmaker had as a starting point. But now you have a "problem" you have a historically correct solution, you have Hoeckels not so historically correct picture of that, you have the kitmakers not so faithfull translation of that not so historically correct picture into a kit, and you have the builders interpretation of what the kitmaker suggested. In other words, your starttingpoint is a long way off from the historical model. So: are you going to restore the model 'as model': take the drawings of Amati as example and keep to those. Are you going to improve on the model: skip the drawings, skip Hoeckel, and take a better suited source as example a contemporaneous model, a reconstruction (like the Utrecht) or a book that is better equipped, like the one by Werner Jaeger. any mix-up between those will lead to 'problems' as the one with your bowsprit, but will also arise with deck-layout, the sidewindows, the steering, the rigging..... with respect to the bowsprit: the solution shown in the book is essentially the same as used in the Utrecht, and very much in accordance to the contemporeneous models of Dutch yachts: not a pinrail, but a very heave cathead-timber, used to secure the end of the bowsprit. Knightheads and pinrails do not belong to the Dutch set-up, and are invented by a kitmaker. Jan

Bit late to join, but I will follow the remainder! Jan

That discussion pops up over and over again: was a pronounced transition always present when the bottom-first method was used. I believe I have read somewhere that Wasa was build shell-first, and there is not a visible chine there. Are chine and shell-first one-to-one connected? Even in Witsens book, part of the illustrations show a chine, and part does not. Jan

That's a pity. Is there a number on the spool. indicating colour/type? At least, the nubers on the sewing-spools more or less identify the type of thread (together with the length on the spool) I can only find the 200 meters hand-quilting, and 300 meters machine-quilting spools. (which sounds like a lot of meters, but with a four-rail railing, that will wear out pretty quickly I guess ) Jan

The original was a fold-out plate in a large folio-sized book. And even the resolution of the original wasn't too high. Reproducing that in smaller reprints and copying that again (not from the original from 1702, but from the previous reprint is just asking for readability issues..... Jan

Added two pics of the Utrecht, a full-scale sailing reconstruction of a Dutch Statenjacht: the bowsprit is resting on a wooden rest at the stern, and butts against the "catheads". There is some kind of gammoning to keep the bowsprit down in its rest. This was, at least in my quickscan of models, a common solution. Kingposts and knightheads were not used, and the bowsprit of these ships were not 'retractable' The cathead self is attached to the inner side of the stern, so the strap you see is actually fixed on top of the railing (wich is rather heavy, as the railing is formed by the upper frame parts. So, in the pic above it is not the bowsprit that is wrong, but it is the pinrail and knighheads that are out of place

I have been looking at quiliting-thread. Looks more even than gutermann-thread. The amount of variety in thread thicknesses however is rather large. Which size/weight do you use? Can't go to my local shop to get a feel for it , because quiliting is not much of a business on this side of the pond, so you have to buy online, even pre-corona. Jan

In addition: if you want to get a feel for the models, before going to buy them all: there is a number of models available as free downloads. Go to the free downloads section: https://www.papershipwright.co.uk/category/free-downloads/ and don't forget this one (that did nog make it to the free downloadpage): https://www.papershipwright.co.uk/product/hmvs-cerberus/ Jan

I only discovered this 'log' because of the pics you uploaded in the gallery. What kind of thread did you use? I tried the thread method, but before gluing it, it is too thick, and once covered in glue, it ends up a bit blotchy, uneven, and the individual strands of the thread very pronounced. Jan

I was referring to the stern: chearfull has a rather bluff bow, jolie a rather sharp one. I agree with you that the underside is rather straightforward, the interesting part is the stern, and the transition from keel to stern Jan

Does Artesania give a cross-section of the planked hull somewhere, so that we can see what their i tention was? Actually, I keepthinking that they use the same method the older Billing kits used: just plank it all over, and glue the keel to the outside of the planking, without too much (none whatsover) bothering of rabbets. The 'chucklike' rabbet as shown by Gregory will takes a bit of trial and error in this case, as in his example the planking sits at almost 90 degrees at the stern, in the case of this ship, the planking has an angle of 40 ? degrees. In that case, your rabbelstrip needs to be thicker than the planking, and getting a nice transition between planking and keel can be a bitmore tricky. With due respect to everyone: AL-kits arenot made to represent actual building practice, nor for people who want to show their technical skills. They are made to have some building fun, that ends in a rather goodlooking model. Only problem: their instructions are not always clear to their targeted customer group... Jan