trippwj

Have you looked at the Nautical Archeology Society website or the US affiliates linked from there? Where are you attending college? Do they have a career center?

From Lincoln Paine's blog: This is a preliminary list of the 110+ books submitted for consideration for one of the eight John R. Lyman Book Awards in maritime history presented by the North American Society for Oceanic History (NASOH) for titles published in 2023. https://lincolnp.substack.com/p/john-r-lyman-book-award-submissions

The answer, as so often, is that it depends what your interests are - time period, nationality, model building reference or historical reference? Merchant or Naval? British navy floating walls of the 18/19th century - Lavery. Restoration Navy (also useful for merchant ships of the time period - 17th century) then Endsor. I can speak to the quality of both options.

The following post is from Mystic Seaport. I have no idea who Paul is... As an integral part of the MAINSHEET initiative, one of our goals was to digitize the archived printed copies of The Log of Mystic Seaport for increased and broader public access. The Log ran from 1948-2004, and was included with a museum membership. At its height, the magazine was circulated to over 25,000 members. It included articles of interest on all things maritime, including shipbuilding, history, maritime society and justice, architecture, art, and even invasive species! It is a fabulous resource to remind us of who we are and where we came from as an institution. Please take some time to peruse some of the issues, and you will find that many of our current ideas have a long history. It is also a record and celebration of many of the great thinkers and experts who have come through MSM since the middle of the last century. Paul has been working with volunteers and staff over the last two years to achieve this goal, and it has officially launched! Congratulations to Paul and his team! NEW! All issues of the Log of Mystic Seaport are now available for download. https://research.mysticseaport.org/indexes/log/

Sorry about that - I tried to share one of the better articles (some were horrible, some inaccurate etc). Regrettably, nearly impossible for lay user to know the strange behaviors of websites across all browsers and possible blockers. In other words, it worked fine for me. Basically, under calm conditions the mast snapped injuring 3 and killing one (a doctor from the local area). Incident occurred at end of 4 day cryise about 1 mile outside the breakwater. USCG along with local FD responded.

https://www.pressherald.com/2023/10/09/one-killed-3-injured-in-accident-aboard-the-schooner-grace-bailey/

Look for David The Elements and Practice of Rigging And Seamanship, 1794 which can be found online. Not sure if that is in the version offered by the NRG. Steel provides drawings showing the construction of "made" masts for different classes of ship.

I realize that I am a few years late to the party, and acknowledge that my response, as a Canon EOS 90D user (formerly a Minolta devotee) may have missed a similar reply. My Canon does allow for what Canon refers to as "focus bracketing" - same as focus stacking or focus shift shooting.

Some of you may be familiar with the on-line, open access CORIOLIS: Interdisciplinary Journal of Maritime Studies. During a visit to their website today I found the following notice: "The last issue of CORIOLIS was indeed the last issue of CORIOLIS. The journal has been a home for both seasoned and new scholars alike and the range of subject matter produced has been a treat. In the place of CORIOLIS, Mystic Seaport Museum will be producing a new peer-reviewed journal called MAINSHEET. See the description at https://www.mysticseaport.org/mainsheet/ CORIOLIS articles will be available at ijms.nmdl.org for the next year at which time the archives will transition to Mystic Seaport Museum's website. Thanks for your support over the last thirteen years." From the Mainsheet website: "In September 2023, Mystic Seaport Museum will launch an exciting new initiative, Mainsheet, a biannual peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal, available simultaneously online and in-print. The goal of Mainsheet is to fill a gap in refereed scholarship on maritime studies that has been left open by the dissolution of the American Neptune and other like-minded journals over the last 20 years. While several excellent journals still exist internationally, Mainsheet will be the only publication of its type produced by an American maritime museum. What will also set Mainsheet apart are: its multi-disciplinary perspectives; its accessibility to a broad global diverse audience on issues past, present, and future; and its freshness of design and distribution. The editorial board will represent a national and international team of invited expert scholars from various fields and partner institutions, with guest editors for special editions." The Coriolis archive can be found here: https://ijms.nmdl.org/index

To the best of my knowledge there are no copies outside of the British Library, although it is possible that researchers have been allowed to photograph it. Barker (2002) indicates that some of the text was published in the following ( I have not checked into it to see if that may be true) Albertis, Enrico Alberto d’, Le Costruzioni Navali e l’arte Della Navigazione al Tempo Di Cristoforo Colombo, 1893 <https://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/shipbuilding/Alber_Le-co_01_1893/index.meta&viewMode=auto&pn=1> There are many references to it, such as this listing: ‘The Trombetta Manuscript – The Nautical Archaeology Digital Library’ <https://shiplib.org/index.php/collections/historical-sources/treatises-on-shipbuilding/the-trombetta-manuscript/> [accessed 27 March 2023] This post discusses the manuscript briefly: https://www.doaks.org/newsletter/news-archives/2021/shipwrecks-mathematics-and-manuscripts Anderson describes it here: Anderson, R. C., ‘Italian Naval Architecture about 1445’, The Mariner’s Mirror, 11.2 (1925), 135–63 <https://doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1925.10655310> and Anderson, R. C., ‘Jal’s “Memoire No. 5” and the Manuscript “Fabbrica Di Galere”’, The Mariner’s Mirror, 31.3 (1945), 160–67 <https://doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1945.10658920> Also see Rieth, Eric, ‘First Archaeological Evidence of the Mediterranean Whole Moulding Ship Design Method: The Example of the Culip VI Wreck, Spain (XIIIth-XIVth c.)’, in Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, ed. by H Nowacki and Matteo Valleriani, Preprint 245 ([Berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2003), pp. 9–16 <https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF> A brief side note, the author is actually NOT named Trombetta - he is a "Trumpeter of Modon" Possibly named Zorzi di Nicolò or Giorgio. I recall there being a later Mariner's Mirror note that corrected Anderson, just can't put my fingers on it right now.

@T. Pevny Welcome - I have been following your publications and am pleased to see your Thesis. I first came across you via your website while you were developing your chapter on the La Belle. For what it's worth, which admittedly is not much, I agree with your interpretation of the hull. One of the challenges of attempting, from 5 centuries removed, the conceptualization and design processes used based on relatively sparse archival records along with limited archeological evidence of various degrees of completeness. In the case of Mr. Baker, we have in his manuscript many examples of midship frames using varied sets of ratios - some more "reasonable" than others. Again, I have only had access to very small portions of Baker's Fragments so my views are based on secondary sources. Someday I hope to be able to review the full manuscript but, alas, with a budget of $2.50 that ain't likely any time soon! I think that the debate on the Mary Rose will continue for some time - the lack of archival documentation from the time concerning the design practice leaves nearly all interpretation open to disparate views. No reasonable way to say which is right, wrong, more likely, or whatever. We are trying to get in the mind of shipbuilders that used a design method based on ratios and other mysterious knowledge (hence the request by Pepys to Deane and others). In addition to your study I am also working with Olaberria (2018) and the interpretation of ship design in Nowacki and Valleriani (eds, 2003) and Nowacki and Lefevre (eds, 2009) - there are some interesting studies included there. As you note, there is a difference between the approach of the "scholar" working with written materials (primary and secondary) and the approach you are using. Both have value. Both contribute to advancing our understanding. From the perspective of the model builder, understanding the approach used to develop the basic curves of a vessel where plans were not used can aid in developing a reasonable hull shape for the scale model. The actual builder from those many centuries past is probably the only person that can objectively judge the accuracy. Enough of my disjointed rambling. Thank you for engaging in this thread - I look forward to further dialogue in the future. Nowacki, H, and Matteo Valleriani, eds., Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, Preprint 245 ([Berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2003) <https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF> Nowacki, Horst, and Wolfgang Lefevre, eds., Creating Shapes in Civil and Naval Architecture: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison (Brill, 2009) <https://brill.com/view/title/16337> [accessed 4 October 2022] Olaberria, Juan Pablo, ‘Ship Design-Knowledge in Early Modern Europe: Royal Yachts and the Shared Knowledge of Ship-Designers and Common Shipwrights’ (unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, University of Southampton, 2018) <https://www.academia.edu/36363637/Ship_design-knowledge_in_early_modern_Europe_Royal_yachts_and_the_shared_knowledge_of_ship-designers_and_common_shipwrights> [accessed 1 June 2020]

Wonder how thick those plates were. At 0.25" each plate would weigh over 110# - that would certainly serve to lower the CG! Vertical edges probably not offset since lead was so malleable and could be "joined" with a mallet.

As s matter of fact I do. I have also got many others, contemporary and later. I have spent time in each for various purposes. At some point I may even put something out comparing them. In the interim I stand by my comments. We have offered evidence which you choose to either ignore or dismiss. That is your choice. Ultimately all I can do is offer alternative interpretation of information. What you opt to utilize or accept is your choice. How others interpret the information available is always an individual and personal choice.

@Waldemar The text from the 1620 treatise very specifically identifies that the narrative describes developing the lines for the 3 planes or projections. This would include: the plan view (a top-down view of the vessel) the profile view (a side-view of the ship) the body plan view (a view of the ends of the vessel) The absence of preserved ships plans from the early to mid 17th Century is not conclusive evidence that they were not used by the shipwright, but rather that they were not submitted to the cognizant naval administrators for review. It is fairly compelling evidence of their becoming a tool used during the conception and design process by the shipwright that they are identified in the 1620 treatise and, even more significant, included in Deane's "Doctrine" from 1670. In nearly every treatise from the 16th through the mid-19th Century the methods and approaches described reflect those undertaken during the previous decade (or more) and can be considered "common practice". As you and I discussed early in this thread, I did not think that the initial drawing represented a true scale body plan but rather some form of presentation drawing - art work - intended for other than construction use. The fact that it was done displaying an idealized version of a body plan is a strong indication that in 1656 body plans did exist - either that, or the artist created the view which was then embraced by shipwrights.