trippwj

Either way you have a solid kit to work from. I vote for the ship less traveled, if only to show something different Don't dismiss the kit supplied wiod too quickly. There are some who use nothing but the kit wood and turn out amazing models. Save your money for other upgrades if nedded (such as rigging line or blocks, for example).

Unfortunately, can't help with Chrome. I know in Firefox the extra characters show, and I suspect that they are there in Chrome as well but not showing. They are a couple of spaces after the text which appear to be included in the link. Try putting your cursor at the end of the address when you get the 404 error and then hitting back space until you get to the last number of the actual link and see if that helps.

So good to see you back at the table. Mind if I warch from the back - I'll try not to make a mess or anything.

Here are a couple of possibilities for you. Hutchinson, William. 1791. A Treatise Founded Upon Philosophical and Rational Principles: Towards Establishing Fixed Rules, for the Best Form ... of Merchant’s Ships ... and Also the Management of Them ... by Practical Seamanship; Thomas Billinge. http://books.google.com/books?id=b00OAAAAQAAJ Hutchinson provides a great deal of discussion concerning form and function, but not much on construction. Steel, David. 1805. The Shipwright’s Vade-Mecum: A Clear and Familiar Introduction to the Principles and Practice of Ship-Building: Including the More Complex Rules of Arithmetic Made Use of in That Art; With So Much of the Principles of Practical Geometry and Mensuration as Are Required in the Practice Thereof. London: P. Steel. http://archive.org/details/shipwrightsvade00steegoog Steel includes some information concerning merchant vessels in his various tables.

The notebook appears to have passed from father to son as an ongoing aide memoire. Both have entries, and based on the hand writing it appears that others served as the scribes at different times.

I will pass that along - it took some cat herding at times, but the editor put together a fantastic package! Will pass the thanks along. Glad you found it helpful! I have checked out the tutorial - wow! Suggested to Ro (the chief editor and phantom transcriptionist) that she investigate the Latin tutorial, but she said something about it all being Greek to her???? Indeed a challenge! Ro works for the most part with tiff images and is able somehow to adjust contrast and other image settings to make separate the obverse from the inverse.

Hmmm...Still contemplating a new project of transcribing the papers of the war department - here is a quick snapshot of some of the information available. Any interest in such a thing? VERY abbreviated list of some documents available. The raw material (note that this is a nice easy page) After transcription. 1795-3-25 TP circular to Captains_NBB19 3pgs.pdf Here is a better example of what the raw materials look like!

There are extra spaces included in each hyperlink - when you click them, you get something which looks like this (not I have cut off the www so the full URL shows as text not a URL): .gutenberg.org/ebooks/21389%C2%A0%C2%A0 Everything after the 21389 is superfluous - the work around I found was to click the link, then click in the address bar and backspace to remove the %C2%A0%C2%A0 So to get to Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's ships Adventure and Beagle, the actual link is http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38961 (NOTE - this is Volume 1 of 3 published 1838)

Not sure if they are in the Humphreys Papers (search MSW for the link to download from MSB).

Coming along nicely, Eric. In answer to your paint question, most any combination of earth tones would be good. Not likely an actual pirate would spend much on cosmetics or upkeep of cosmetics...

While I am certainly not at a definitive set of references, here are a couple which may be of some use covering 16th through early 18th century ship building (note some are contemporary, and others modern archeological or academic research). This first discusses some of the 16th century Iberian ships. Oertling, Thomas. 2001. “The Concept of the Atlantic Vessel.” In Proceedings. International Symposium on Archaeology of Medieval and Modern Ships, 233–40. http://www.patrimoniocultural.pt/media/uploads/trabalhosdearqueologia/18/ This next, while not concerning British shipbuilding, has some wonderful comparative photos and descriptions from less studied traditions. Green, Jeremy. 2001. “The Archaeological Contribute to the Knowledge of the Extra-European Shipbuilding at the Time of the Medieval and Modern Iberian-Atlantic Tradition.” In Proceedings. International Symposium on Archaeology of Medieval and Modern Ships, 63–102. http://www.patrimoniocultural.pt/media/uploads/trabalhosdearqueologia/18/ For a very detailed description of Whole Moulding, Richard Barker has several publications, including the following: Barker, Richard. 2001. “Whole-Moulding: A Preliminary Study of Early English and Other Sources.” In Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, edited by H Nowacki and Matteo Valleriani, Preprint 245, 33–65. [berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF Realizing that the Mary Rose is about 200 years earlier than the period of interest, I still offer you the following: Barker, Richard, Brad Loewen, and Christopher Dobbs. 2009. “Hull Design of the Mary Rose.” In Your Noblest Shippe. Anatomy of a Tudor Warship Archaeology of the Mary Rose, edited by Peter Marsden, 2:34–65. Portsmouth: The Mary Rose Trust. https://www.academia.edu/5460055/Hull_design_of_the_Mary_Rose Very brief, yet well researched, analysis of shell first/frame first and ship design, along with hull analysis information. Olaberria, Juan Pablo. 2013. “Hull-Shape Design in Antiquity: How Do Archaeological Ship Remains Enhance Our Understanding of Hull-Shape Design in Antiquity?” A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Arts in Maritime Archaeology by taught course., University of Southampton. https://www.academia.edu/9533850/Hull_Design_in_Antiquity._Masters_Dissertation For those seeking much more detail concerning current trends concerning the historical ship building processes: Nowacki, H, and Matteo Valleriani, eds. 2003. Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report. Preprint 245. [berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF Bellabarba, Sergio. 1996. “The Origins of the Ancient Methods of Designing Hulls: A Hypothesis.” The Mariner’s Mirror 82 (3): 259–68. doi:10.1080/00253359.1996.10656602 The Dartmouth is a very pertinent shipwreck - Martin, Colin J. M. 1978. “The Dartmouth, a British Frigate Wrecked off Mull, 1690 5. The Ship.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 7 (1): 29–58. doi:10.1111/j.1095-9270.1978.tb01044.x Which features in the reconstruction of a ship based on Sutherland's early 18th century treatise. Kenchington, Trevor John. 1993. “The Structures of English Wooden Ships: William Sutherland’s Ship, circa 1710.” The Northern Mariner 3 (1): 1–43. http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol03/tnm_3_1_1-43.pdf Whew. Those ought to keep you occupied for a bit. Each offers a glimpse into either evolution of traditional methods or the identification of methods from field analysis of contemporary wrecks. Ultimately, when assessing the value of information (items) for understanding how things were done, there are many things which can be studied. Each type of item brings with it caveats concerning the validity of the information for drawing broader conclusions. In general, written treatises from the period are relatively reliable, if not always particularly illuminating (and clearly written). Anecdotal accounts (diaries, logs, letters &.c.) are less reliable but often can aid in ferreting out details. Contemporary models, while helpful, do not always reach the level of accuracy desired to understand how some particular aspect was accomplished, and also may not always show the accurate as built vessel. Drawn ships plans are perhaps more reliable, although rarely is the detail of deck features and arrangements included. Likewise, there is the as-designed and as-built dichotomy to consider. Perhaps the best resource, when it can be found, is the remains of a given ship. With all the caveats concerning the changes in a ship over time (See the American Frigates Constitution and Constellation, as well as HMS Victory for obvious examples of well studied there to see ships which still spark amazing discourse over what was there in some prior century), a wreck analyzed and documented in situ allows a glimpse into how a ship was actually built which can surpass any of the other information sources for accuracy and detail, yet at the same time can leave so many questions due to the decay and loss of material. At any rate, please let me know if any of these prove useful. Kind Regards -

Let me check a couple of archeology reports and see what I can turn up.

For American, Howard Chapelle Search for speed under sail or History of American sailing ships. Both include interesting narrative history and multitudinous plans. He also has one focused on US Navy - The History of the American sailing navy. For British focus, David Macgregor provides wonderful coverage of primarily the merchant service. See his Fast sailing ships or his Merchant Sailing ships 1775-1815 (and other as well). Crothers does well covering American clippers and packets. Oops....you wanted but one - can't help there! Too broad a topic to address well in a single book. If pushed, I say choose Chapelle "History of American Sailing Ships".

Pshrynk works fine! Any particular ship or type and era you are interested in?

Some good suggestions. Lees, regrettably, is really only about British navy. Do not have Harland. Peterson has exceptionally understandable drawings for a single ship in each book. zu Mondfeld is a very nice basic modellers guide. Earlier ships - R. C. Anderson is very good. Marquardt has an exceptional book on 18th century rigs and rigging. Leathers provides great detail on the gaff rig. There is, as you can see, no single best book. What time frame and which vessel determine best resource to use.

Indeed, welcome back. Hopefully we kept things tidy enough while you were out (Mark brought his shop vac in to clean just last year...).

The manuscript in question appears to be at the Royal Navy Museum Portsmouth, according to the Cole citation. I have not yet been able to track it down any further. Cole, Dr Gareth. 2009. “Royal Navy Gunners in the French Revolutionary and Naploeonic Wars.” The Mariner’s Mirror 95 (3): 284–95. doi:10.1080/00253359.2009.10657104. https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10036/3762 Also see the following book by Cole where the Rivers manuscript is again mentioned somewhat prominently. Cole, Gareth. 2012. Arming the Royal Navy, 1793-1815: The Office of Ordnance and the State. London; Brookfield, Vt.: Pickering & Chatto. Of course, i should have clicked your links first - I would have realized you already had the link to the Mariner's Mirror article.

Anderson is still copyright protected with no "legal" pdf versions found. It can be purchased from Amazon and others either as a print or ereader version quite inexpensively. Also look into the original version The Rigging of Ships: in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600-1720 Could you describe the 1719 document better (or is that a time frame of interest?) I have a few that give some information around that time frame, but none specific to the 1719 Establishment (which, as I recall, just dealt with the desired principle dimensions).

Let me just interject a word of caution concerning the semantics of the time. It is important to keep in mind that for the period under discussion (1770 - 1840), the term "Sloop of War" had absolutely nothing to do with the rig the vessel carried. A "Sloop of War" was anything smaller than the smallest rated war ship (generally a 20 gun 6th rate). In the American nomenclature, the early definition was quite similar. The rig was immaterial - there were Brig Sloops of War, Schooner Sloops of War. During the period of interest, terminology concerning the rig was much less precise and varied regionally. Standardization would have to wait the development of the more bureaucratic navy during the mid 19th century.

A couple of more describing setting the studding sails. From Bushell, Charles. 1856. The Rigger’s Guide. http://archive.org/details/bub_gb_FF8BAAAAQAAJ. Pages from 1856 The_Rigger_s_Guide_and_Seaman_s_Assistant_Bushell.pdf Also, Martelli, Charles. 1838. The Naval Officer’s Guide for Preparing Ships for Sea ... Second Edition. Richard Bentley. https://books.google.com/books?id=0LJWAAAAcAAJ. Pages from 1838 The_naval_officer_s_guide_for_preparing_martelli.pdf

The attached from Lever (1853) and Biddlecombe (1848) may be of some use for you. Based on what I have seen, studding sails would be kept below deck in the sail locker and brought out when needed - much like many of the stay sails &c. which were only bent when needed. Lever, Darcy. 1853. The Young Sea Officer’s Sheet Anchor; Or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging, and to Practical Seamanship (American Edition). E. & G.W. Blunt. https://books.google.com/books?id=HmJJAAAAYAAJ. Pages from 1853 The_Young_Sea_Officer_s_Sheet_Anchor_LEVER.pdf Biddlecombe, George. 1848. The Art of Rigging. http://books.google.com/books?id=9RkEAAAAQAAJ. Pages from 1848 The_art_of_rigging_Biddlecombe.pdf Also, the following from Steel, David. 1796. The Art of Rigging. David Steel. https://books.google.com/books?id=slnnnAEACAAJ&hl=en. Pages from 1796 TheArtofRigging_Steel.pdf Plate II from 1796 TheArtofRigging_Steel.pdf

I'll see what I can find. The 30 gun is actually French, Duhamel du Monceau treatise of 1754, translated and included in Mungo Murray's treatise. I need to fix that in the table!

See info here:http://www.awiatsea.com/Privateers/R/Rattlesnake%20Massachusetts%20Ship%20[Clark].html Not sure the source used.

Here is a new attempt at a timeline of developments relative to the overall topic. Would appreciate any recommendations - is it too cluttered or hard to read? Note I still have information to add for the period after 1707. THANK YOU!!!

Looks good, Sjors. I am, however, going to show my apparent ignorance by asking what that is attached to the mast in the second photo...almost looks like an electrical device, but I am pretty sure that isn't true! Merry Christmas to you & Anja!