amateur

Nice lines! Why do you leave so much room between the planks? Jan

J think the name is Jan Veltman. Not because I know anything of him, or seen a full signature, but Veltman (without d) is still a pretty common name, Veldmand certainly is not. Jan

@Robska: you show a steel tabernacle, made for a mast that is placed on the deck. The construction with masts with a counterweight is stepped on the keel, as you can see in the drawing in #44, this part tend to be relatively heavy in all dimensions. Jan

That traverse rail in #13 is the rail on which the lower block of the main sheet is attached. It goes over the tiller, but has noconnectionto it. and that is why I am not sure about 3referring to this part: it is above the cockpit, while it can (need?) be placed further aft: above the deck where it is not sitting in the way of people getting in or out… jan

@Waldemar By writing that there was no shi built to this drawing, I meant that this drawing is not a detailed construction drawing. Niot that it is notbased onsn actual ship/construction drawing. With respect to the book pf Lemmers: I did not at fist glance see the dofferenced between this drawing and thosein thr book. Can you enlighten me abit more by indicating whete the major differences ate? Jan

Hi, I was about to make a ‘final’ remark on the drawing from the national archive: I don’t know why the drawing is dated 1733, but my guess is that it newer. Also: it had never been used to buuld an actual ship. Doreltomins drawing certainly is contemporeneous. When in doubt, follow that one. By the way: I don’t think these construction methods are unknown. Couple of years ago there was a Dutch book titled ‘ In tekening gebracht’ authors:Lemmers/Hoving, describing these construction methods. Jan

Never seen that on Dutch ships. Would be interesting to see what type of ship that is. Do you have a link? Jan

It is also possible that the deckplan shows the deck-layout. In that case the line of the caprail falls even inside the line drawn, as the railing falls slightly inward. so: no errors, perhaps some slight imprecisions. I do not know of dutch inland craft that had a cable-run rudder. It was - as far as my knowledge goes - whipstaff or tiller. Jan

With respect to size, can you explain how you end up at 18 meter. I made a print of the drawing om a A4, the length of the scale in my print is around 4.3 centimeters, the length of the hull between perpendiculars around 19 centimeters. Dividing implies: 19/4.3*9 feet = 40feet. (Which is a nice round measure for a design drawing ). 40 feet equals 40 * 28.5 centimeters = 11 meters. That in turn is a relatively common measure for an inland sailing craft as this one presumably is. With respect to your questions: 1: belaying point. See picture below, heavy, slightly curved piece of wood, with a iron spike 2. difficult to say, but most probably a hole to feed the running part of a backstay, or of some lines to handle the gaff. Other option: iron ring used to fix the lower block of the tackle of the backdstay (or some line to the gaff). See below, Statenjacht Utrecht has both at this location: attachment of the tackle blocks, as well as the place for the running parts to feed through to the belaying points at the inside of the bulwark. 3: definitely not a whipstaff or tiller. Tillers were fixed at the top of the rudder, and sat ‘on top’ of the cabin. Tiller is not shown in this drawing. It micht be the ‘luiwagen’ for the mainsheet. However, I would have expeted it in the topview also. 4. and 5 already explained. You can see the arrangement in pne of the drawings I linked to: the mast can pivot backeards, and 5 is a hatch that can be removed to let the mast pivot backwards. The wider part up front is needed to accomodate for the counterweight. Bit difficult to see in this pic, but the sustem is a bit outdayed nowadays, so not many pics around in the net… with respect to your decklayout: I still prefer the two-cabin option over the one cabin/ open deck version. You may discover that your floor in the aft cabin sits too low: due to the form of the hull (and the thickness oh the frames), you may end up with a rather small floor in the cabin when laid to deep. Raising it will give more square feet. Second: in most drawings I know, there is a bench below the windows, in such a way that the windowsill is at ‘bench level’. I think in your layout this distance is a bit large. Jan

Which is consistent with the drawing we started with: the sternview shows the rudderpost from keel to the upper deck. I checked: all three models I posted have this setup/layout of the stern. Low res, but stull visible Jan

And another. I’m inclined to believe that this two-cabin was for one readon or the other a common layout https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=101005505 It is a pity thst these ics can’t be doenloaded at high resolution….😟 Jan

https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=100146019 model from the collection in Rotterdam, datimg around 1780. Two cabins, like many of the posh yachts from that period. I dont see how you arrive at a depth of 3 meters for the cockpit. It is smaller. You need that depth anyway, as the door of the aft cabin is at that level. The depth is the distance beteen the two dotted lined in Waldemars sketch. My guess: only half of your estimation. This one is also intresting. Drawing of around 1750 of a jacht: https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=100196711 This one shows another possibility: deck level in aft cabin lower than in the cockpit. Also here: no open space forward, but a deck that is raised till ‘standing height’ below deck. Jan

Yes, that would also be an interpretation. You can find drawings of both layouts: with and without a well, with/without forward cabin. That is why it is a pity that there are no deck-lines in the drawing. Jan

In reply to @Lieste. In larger ships the deck is at the level of the wale, but in smaller yachts and inland vessels there is hardly any bulwark around the foredeck. Hence the level of my blue line. The point were the leaboards are attached is quite often a rather heavy doubling, so there need not be a relation to the decklevel (but it can be) As said before the drawing leaves some space for interpretation. and with respect to size, the overall length of the hull is somewere around 40ft, wich is around 11 meters. The Statenjacht Utrecht measures 24 meters lenght at the waterline, which is around 85ft. This yacht is a small vessel, comparable in size to the smaller wooden yachts that are still around and have almost no bulwark, except around the cockpit. (Boeierjacht Sperwer, Enkhuizen) Jan

Need not be: deck planks are non-structual parts, the sode of the ship is. All ships I know of have some pretty sturdy frames at the location where the leenoards are attached. Only if there is a deckbeam at the ondicated location the connection is stronger. Althoug I very much doubt whether such a heavy connection is really necessary. Jan

PIcture from around 1900, so the small sailingship in the middle is a bit newer than in your drawing, but it matches your drawing almost perfectly: flat deck up front, and above the aft cabin, helm on top of the roof of the cabin, to the cockpit in front of it, and a second cabin just aft the mast, with some space between the sides of the roof and the railing.

It is definitely the connection point of the leeboard. What is uncelar is where the front of the cabin is: probably where waldemar indicates. That detremines the level of the deck in that section. The level of the front deck is also clear: more or less at the level of the small wale. The interesting part is the in between: There is a model of a 'Spiegeljacht' restored by Cor Emke, that shows a second cabin aft of the main-mast, with a roof-top aroudn the level of the railing, with a rather deep cockpit between the forward and the aft cabin. (Picture from Scheepshistorie, Vol11).. Taking that as point of reference, it might be as follows: Again, that leaeves room for interpretation: were is the helm, how deep is the cockpit between both cabins, and: does the roof of the forward cockpit run up to the sides, or is tehre some way of 'deck' around the cabin, as is the case in the model? Jan

The scale measure is the normal way of giving the scale in these kind of drawings: the vertical lines are at feet distance. The triangle divides the feet into inches: reading from bottom to top, and from right to left: the horizontal distance between the vertical and the diagonal is 1 inch, at the second horizontal it is 2 inch. As there are 11 duimen in a voet, the top row is only half as high as the other rows, and gisves both 5 duim (right leg of the triangle), and 6 duim (left leg of the triangle). the first horizontal gives 10 duim (distance between vertical and diagonaal). Plank thickness did vary a bit, regarding size of the ship, demands of the owner, availability of the wood, and position of the wood in the hull (Bottom planks typically thicker than side-boards, outside planking thicker than inside etc. Hard to give exact measures without a building contract. I would say, somewhere between 1.5 and 2 duim, but I can be way off. And that is were it touches the question on inside or outside planking of the station-lines: adding 2 duim to the outside profile, does not fit nicely at all positions of your drawing. ON the other hand, leaving them out, doesn't fit either. Deck levels: I really don't know: your guess is at good as mine..... There are various configurations within these type of ships, so, without a longitudinal cross section ,or a builders contract, you can't really tell..... Jan

Drawings exist ahowingboth outsideand inside. My guess is that here inside planks is used (the station-lines show whales and decorative parts without thickness. Also:station lines are shown at the top of the keel. N the other hand: no rabbet is shown. Problem is: these ‘condensed drawings’ are meant to give a reasonable impression of theshipto be build. Details - also including precise measurements - depend on the wood and quality of the builders. measurement I guess Amsterdamse voet, 28.4 cm, divided into 11 duim. regional variations did exist, but are relatively small, so I wouldn’t care too much. Relative dimensions tend to be more importsnt than absolute measurements. Jan

This statenjacht is considetably larger than your paviljoenjacht. But the rig on all those jacht-types are more or less the same, although most pictures I know show the paviljoenjacht with a ‘tjalk’-like rig: large mainsail wth a boom often extrnding outboard, and a curved gaff, no square sails. More interesting the question: where are the deck-levels in the drawing? Jan

nice machinery. You can almost hear the Buldog Dio would be nice, but you need quite a few people, and perhaps one additional piece of machinery: a baling press. At least in the Netherlands, once the diesel entered the scene, quite often the baling press was part of the show: quite a lot of pics in the internet show those setups: a tractor, a baling press, and a thresher. Parked somewhere at the border of a field, a flat horse drawn cart bringing in the grain, and lots of people moving, and feeding the machines. Looks very rustic, guess the farmers are glad that there is a machine doing the heave work nowadays. Jan

It’s a very long shot: Walter actually is on the membrtlist: he made one pist, on the day he registered. (April 2020) https://modelshipworld.com/profile/35985-walter-zimmerman/ you may try to PM him, perhaps he notices the email alert for the PM……. Jan

Nice model! Perhaps I should finish my v108 (still not made the masts) . Jan

Lower dead-eyes were fitted (depending country/period), by chain, shackles, iron straps. distance between deadeyes: a measure often found is 2.5 times the diameter of the deadeyes between them. Don’t know whether that is based on any historical source, but it looks ‘pleasing to the eye’. and with respect to ratlines: as said: the thinner the better. Ratlines are by far the thinnest rope on a ship. Jan

Yes, but on the spanish flag, the red stripes are only half of the width of the yellow band. Here it is painted in three equally wide bands…. Identufying the ship is completely impossible, unless it is a ship that has something to do with the main object of the painting (not uncommon in the Dutch paintings of merchants and commanders: all (or some of) their ships are present in the background) Jan