trippwj

I wanted to take a moment to consider the manuscript attributed to Baker. From Castro, F. 2002. Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry. Ship Treatises and Books. http://nautarch.tamu.edu/shiplab/treatisefiles/ttfragments.htm The Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry is a collection of miscellaneous notes and incomplete plans of ships started by an English shipwright named Matthew Baker (1530-1613) in the 1570s, and continued with notes from one of his apprentices, John Wells, and annotations on mathematics. Baker was born in 1530, the son of a shipwright of King Henry VIII of England. There is notice of him traveling to the Levant in January 1551, at the age of 21, probably as a ship's carpenter aboard an English merchantman. He may have visited Italian and Greek shipyards and collected Venetian and Greek designs of midship frames. A fairly cultured man with a good understanding of mathematics, he certainly had contacts and was influenced by the Italian shipwrights hired by Henry VIII in 1543. These Italians appear to have remained in the country for over forty years, earning wages thirty percent higher than their English counterparts. In 1572 Baker was appointed Master Shipwright of the kingdom. He worked with other men of knowledge, and his notes reflect the first steps of a trend to change English shipbuilding from the medieval empirical method to the modern standard of paper plans and conceptual models that could be repeated, improved and enlarged. When he died in 1613, he left the manuscript to his neighbor and protégé John Wells. Baker's notes present a compilation of precious observations, abacus, tables, and drawings, comprising more than 30 geometrically defined midship sections, from the sections of 4 galleasses designed by his father, James Baker, in the second half of the 16th century to the early 17th century midship sections that were in use when new methods to determine the rising and narrowing of the bottom of the vessels in the central portion were fully defined in England. The part added by John Wells is mostly occupied with calculations of spherical geometry, making extensive use of logarithms from 1617 on. Richard Barker (1985 - “Fragments from the Pepysian Library.” Revista Da Universidade de Coimbra XXXII: 161–78.) provides additional information concerning this manuscript. Of particular interest for this post is the following: One of the more intriguing aspects of the numerical work in Fragments is the frequent calculation of sectional areas of moulds below the depth by Baker, usually linked with the product breadth x depth, effectively giving a prismatic coefficient. Taken with Bourne’s Treasure for Travellers on mensuration of ships lines and waterplanes, from which it is perfectly clear that Bourne and his contemporaries knew how to measure displacement tonnage at any selected draught, either as a paper exercise or with the use of models, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Deane’s contribution to the principles at least of determining displacement (and thence draught at launching) has been overstated. It appears to rest entirely on Pepys’ record of what Deane told him. Even Deane is not explicit in his Doctrine about his methods in the procedures covered now by Simpson’s Rules, and begs a number of question in his treatment. Just what Baker was doing with prismatic coefficients and immersed (?) areas of sections remains a mystery, but the practice should at least be credited to his era. It is at least possible that the incentive for both Baker and Wells was the search for a satisfactory tonnage rule. Baker apparently changed his method about 1582: Wells was heavily involved in a Commission to investigate tonnage rules in 1626. Johnston, S. 1994. Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England. PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge. http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/staff/saj/thesis/ A re-creation of the figure from Page 35 pf Fragments: The diagram is a simplified version of Baker’s drawing. There are many more inked and scribed lines in the original, as well as numbers for the calculation of areas. In this example of Baker’s procedures for drawing the midship mould, breadth and depth are given as 36ft and 16ft respectively. dg = 1/5 ed. With eh = dg, draw gh. Then draw ec, cutting gh at i. Through i draw mk perpendicular to ed; ek is the floor for this half of the mould. Mark point l on gh such that hl = 2/3 gh. The first centre n is on mk and has its arc passing through k and l. Extend line ln beyond n; the second centre o is found on this extended line and its arc sweeps from l to c. To find the third centre, first mark the other half of the floor with p. The third centre q is at the intersection of oc and pn (extended). Baker then draws the upper futtock in three different ways. Bellamy, Martin. 2006. “David Balfour and Early Modern Danish Ship Design.” The Mariner’s Mirror 92 (1): 5–22. doi:10.1080/00253359.2006.10656978. Page 12: With Balfour’s contract for the Hummeren in 1623 there came another significant change in that the contract specified the draught of the completed ship. This was a notoriously difficult measurement to predict and along with a vessel’s tonnage, was surrounded by a certain element of mystery and mystique.

Very nice work, Maurys. Glad to see you have gotten those stern timbers under control.

MM is "Mariners Mirror", published by the Society for Nautical Research. Their website is snr.org.uk and you can search the MM archives from their (first published about 1911 as I recall).

Tony - You may also want to take a look at some of the writings and research by R.C. Anderson, Nance and others (see various volumes of MM during the 1920's) concerning ships models. Very interesting descriptions and analysis offered. Keeping in mind the evolution of purpose for the "Admiralty" style models, there was quite likely a parallel evolution in the craftsmanship and the nature of the tradesman doing the modelling (the earliest were used to 'sell" a design to the decision makers, while the later were a part of the materials required to be submitted, along with plans and drawings, for consideration.) The tools used quite certainly also changed over time. Considering that folks like Hahn and Underhill were able to produce amazing models, of similar character to the "Admiralty" style, using mostly simple hand tools (many home made), I would suspect that 200 years earlier, the tradesman making the model was not working with very much else. Indeed, considering that model making was not a frequent requirement, I doubt if there was a position in a government yard (commercial yards more probably to have someone) who had a primary job of building models. More likely a task assigned to apprentice ship wrights learning the trade in the loft and drafting sections.

The descriptions of how these rigs were operated would tend to support a designed curvature. The optimum location for the sail is on the leeward side of the mast so that it is pushed away from the mast, filling and using the most available sail volume. In order to accomplish this, the yard would need to be brought to the other side of the mast. One (probably most common) way this was done was to bring it to a nearly vertical position then physically wrestle the yard to the other side of the mast. The curved yard would ease this by keeping the ends away from the mast, avoiding (or at least reducing) interference with the mast itself as well as shrouds. See Campbell, I.C. 1995. The Lateen Sail in World History. Journal of World History 6, no. 1: 1–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20078617as well as Castro, F., N. Fonseca, T. Vacas, and F. Ciciliot. 2008. A Quantitative Look at Mediterranean Lateen- and Square-Rigged Ships (Part 1). International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37, no. 2: 347–359. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2008.00183.x/abstract (available at http://nautarch.tamu.edu/shiplab/00-pdf/Castro%202008%20-%20IJNA%20-%20Lateeners%201.pdf )

I have continued digging as time allows, but surprisingly little detail accessible (that is the operative word) concerning the actual manufacture of the spar. I can find a huge volume concerning the evolution and dispersal of the rig, and some tantalizing tidbits that I can not access (see, for example, Landström, B. 1961. The Ship: An Illustrated History for what is purported to be a good description of how the lateen sails were handled). I would suspect, based solely on the visual evidence of the attachments (on galliots, galleys &c.), that they were indeed sometimes of other than sheep skin. Rounded wooden "caps" would offer nearly similar protection (the purpose being to protect the aft sail from damage).

Sorry to hear about the recent misfortune, Sjors. Having seen your work, however, I have every confidence that you shall persevere and rebuild it even nicer! Looks great so far, though. All the best -

Not really getting much closer concerning the function, however the object in question is hardly unique to the galleot. Note the 2 images below where Steel shows a similar appendage on the Xebec and the Pink. Decidedly not a sheave (block, pulley &c.). No lines evident in any of the views, yet control lines are visible along the lateen yard. May want to take a look through some of the history of fore and aft rig resources out there (Chatterton, Leather, R.C. Anderson) for descriptive information.

You may want to consider downloading in PDF a slightly abridged version of Steel (note that the plates are missing from this, however they can be pulled from the link provided above). STEEL, D. 1806. The Art of Rigging ... The Second Edition, Considerably Enlarged and Improved; with Additional Tables, Expressly Adapted for Merchant-Shipping. https://books.google.com/books?id=Cq1WAAAAcAAJ. Biddlecombe also has a good resource (some claim it is a reprint of Steel, others that Steel and Biddlecombe used the same original sources. Note that Steel was a publisher, not a mariner. Biddlecombe was a mariner). Biddlecombe is also available for either download or as a Dover reprint. Biddlecombe, G. 1848. The Art of Rigging. http://books.google.com/books?id=9RkEAAAAQAAJ. Last one to look at would be Darcy Lever. Lever, D. 1819. The Young Sea Officer’s Sheet Anchor, Or, A Key to the Leading of Rigging, and to Practical Seamanship. Dover ed. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.

Thanks, Greg - I do need to save up for both of these!

Now, if he is only interested in the subject of ship models, as opposed to ship modelling, and also not a fan of the coffee table (that is, mainly photos) book, there are not a lot of options out there. For just one book, I would recommend R. Morton Nance, 2000. Classic Sailing-Ship Models in Photographs. Dover ed. Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications. This modern reproduction by Dover books is from the 1924 original by Nance, R.M. Sailingship Models, a Selection from European and American Collections. Halton and T. Smith. The 2000 reprint is available for under $1 USD on Amazon (not including shipping), or for the Kindle (and other ereaders) for $9.99 USD via Dover (or Google or Amazon &c.) Other possibilities include some of the research articles in journals such as Mariner's Mirror. See, for example, Laughton, L.G.C. 1925. The Study of Ship Models. The Mariner’s Mirror 11, no. 1: 4–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1925.10655300. Unfortunately, in the same manner as there not being one exemplary "how to" book that meets every beginners needs, there is not a signle all encompassing book concerning the history and development of ship models. The book by Nance and the collections listed in the Laughton article are, perhaps, the most comprehensive discussions of which I am aware.

Daniel - Here are a couple of relatively contemporary items for your consideration. Note the model of the Britannia appears to show the same scuttles. Looking through Longridge and Campbell, I was surprised to not see any indication of the scuttle either in the text nor on the plans by Campbell. NMM. 1719. Britannia (1719); Warship; First Rate; 100 Guns - National Maritime Museum. Model, Ship, Wood. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London. On loan from the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights. http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66184.html. Note the small opening to the port side of the ladder to the lower deck. Not so evident at the foremast, however. This may offer a glimpse at the run of the lines. J. Mynde 1754?. A Ship of War, of the First Rate, With Rigging &c at Anchor. The Section of a First Rate Ship - National Maritime Museum. Engraving. http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/152570.html.

For the solid hull Phantom, about 0.5" at most. Measure the length of the supplied lower mast dowel. Then, from the plans, measure the height of the lower mast above the deck. The difference (dowel length minus height above deck) is the amount available for your hole in the solid hull. Start slightly short of the target and dry fit to see if things look right.

Any particular time frame and nation? English and American rigging practice began to diverge drastically during the early days of the US Navy. There is information in the Humphreys Notebook for several American Naval vessels. The British navy is much more thoroughly covered, as you no doubt have discovered. There are also some Dutch, Spanish and french resources, although I am not as familiar with them. Anderson is a very good resource - his perspective was a bit broader than just Britain, and he covered earlier time periods. Best of luck!

You may want to contact Model Expo and explain the problem - they may replace the hull for you.

Sorry about that - link should work now. For nearly 700 photographs and sketches from the excavation, see https://canmore.org.uk/search/image?SIMPLE_KEYWORD=dartmouth&per_page=96&images_page=1

The Dartmouth is an interesting vessel - and does represent an example of taking a "rebuild" to an extreme! A very detailed report on the archeological survey and supporting research may be found in Martin, C.J.M. 1978. The Dartmouth, a British Frigate Wrecked off Mull, 1690 5. The Ship. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 7, no. 1 (February 1): 29–58. A downloadable version may be found here: http://orapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/wp/00/WP000741.pdf There is included a precis concerning various repairs, which notes that during a "Refit at Captain Castle’s Dock, Rotherhithe, 6 June 1678", among other repairs was an expense of 132 £ 15 s 0 d for "Fitting a new maine keele 88 ft 6 in x 13 in square" There is a rather extensive listing of the additional repairs made at that time included. Interesting, just a year later (1679) there is an expense at Portsmouth for 408 £ 17 s 9 d for the following: 2 gundeck beames on each side of the maine mast to be shifted ‘being rotten and ready to fall in hold’. Several knees of the same deck to be shifted, and new bolts to be drove in the rest. Two pairs of standards to be fitted to the lower deck. Three lower deck beames-one broken and two decayed to be replaced. Some lower deck knees to be shifted, A string to be brought on under the gun deck ports. Part of the upper deck to be shifted. Quarter deck crossbeames to be replaced. Breast hooks to be new bolted. New cathead timbers. New tillar. Part of the maine wale to be shifted. Several gundeck ports to be new. Gun wales, railes, and planck sheirs to be repaired. Joiner, carver, painter and glazier work required. To be caulked withinboard and without, and to be graved per estimate

I'm not sure I am clear on which dimension you are referring to. The keel/sternpost portion will be gently carved and sanded to a final dimension of 1/8" width (not height). If the section at the stern post is already narrower, then you may be better off to either (1) gently carve out enough (from aft toward bow) until you get to the 1/8" wide and then adding in a filler piece to make up the depth (length, fore and aft dimension) removed, or (2) checking with Model Expo to see if they can send a replacement hull as the one you have is not dimensionally correct. For one example of how the shaping and fairing of a Phantom has been handled, take a look at the build by Elijah here http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/12376-phantom-new-york-pilot-boat-by-elijah-model-shipways/?p=402720

Coming along very nicely, Jack. I am impressed with how well the rails have come out - they look smart!

Interesting observation, Joel. Question - which vessel are you referring to? I presume (always dangerous) that this is from an archeological survey? Analysis - while possible, this would entail essentially constructing a framework to support the entire weight of the vessel while preventing the movement or deformation of the structures to allow the removal and replacement of the keel and it's associated structures. The effort to accomplish this would be substantial and I would expect to be able to find some record of it being done. Follow-up question - any indication in your research where this would have been done and when? Ahh, the joys of research. Always another trail to follow!

Nice looking work, Sjors. I had to look three or four times at the gratings - that second gratings picture looks like there is a gap in one of them but no sign in the first shot. Phew!

Extracts from A Commissioner's Note Book, Annis 1691-1694 Laughton, J.K., W.G. (William G.) Perrin, C. Lloyd, and N.A.M. Rodger. 1912. The Naval Miscellany Vol. II. Publications of the Navy Records Society. [London] : Printed for the Navy Records Society. http://archive.org/details/navalmiscellany02laug. From the introduction offered in the volume: Several years ago the late Sir Leopold McClintock was so good as to lend me, for the use of the Society, a couple of small MS. books which he had picked up in a second-hand book-shop. They had no pedigree, but their origin is clear enough. They are rather thin octavos, bound in smooth red morocco, richly gilt on sides and backs, and with gilt edges, in the style commonly adopted by the Admiralty throughout the eighteenth century, and which, in itself, would suggest that they belonged to some official connected with the Admiralty were it not that the contents show beyond any practical doubt, that they must have belonged to a commissioner of the navy, in the early nineties of the seventeenth century ; very probably to the comptroller, who at that date was Sir Richard Haddock. The second part is my focus in this post - it “gives, from the most approved source, the explanation of a few terms which are of frequent occurrence in the lists of ships and comments on their efficiency all through the eighteenth century, but especially in the early part of it” So, if interested, here is the Explanation of Dockyard Terms (starts on page 146 of the reference). An Explanation of the Terms of Distinction commonly used in the Navy, of Ordinary Repairs, Extra Repairs, and Rebuilding. Abstract [Ordinary Repair is the annual caulking, tarring, rozining and paying sides and decks, masts also and yards ; palpable defects are made good. Extra Repair is more thorough ; decayed planks, &c., are renewed ; all artificers' work is seen to, and the whole carefully overhauled. Rebuilding consists of virtually pulling the ship to pieces and building into a new ship as much of the old wood as is serviceable. This is dated 16th November 1691, and described as signed by the Commissioners of the Navy. To it ' a larger explication and some other particulars from Mr. Dummer of Chatham ' is added, which here follows.] Defects in Ships, how discovered. Without separating the several parts that compose the whole one from another, defects are found either by searching all seams, rents, and treenails with a caulking iron, or by boring into the frame with an auger ; by observing the ship's chambering or reathing(1) ; the pitched seams to crack or spew out its oakum, or by the looseness of rust-eaten bolts. And as the matter is discernible by any of these means, together with a knowledge how long a ship hath been built, so the estimate of charge for repair is made ; and all beyond this visibility is conjecture, and no better to be discerned than is the condition of the vessels within a consumptive man before dissection. 1 Cambering or wreathing : curving or twisting. An Ordinary Repair is understood to be the annual trimming of the ship in harbor(2) by caulking all those parts which lie to the weather, and laying on of pitch or other mixed stuff of rozin, tallow &c., upon the same ; and once in three years at furthest, to dock them and burn off the old matter under water ; to search the seams and caulk them as occasion is and to grave them anew, which is to say to pay them all over under water with pitch or other mixed matter, with rozin &c. And in this ordinary trimming and repair we allow only of putting of small pieces, or of plank where the seams are grown too wide, or where knots or rents or a particular plank too much perished to hold oakum for tightness against the weather or other leakage. 2 i.e. of a ship in ordinary. An Extra Repair is taken to be such a defect in a ship's outward matter to the weather, that their frames cannot be preserved nor the ship fit for any service at sea by an ordinary trimming, without stripping such decayed materials of the outside planking and wales ; also the in-board works about the bulkheads and sides of the ship that lie to the weather ; therewith putting in short chocks and pieces in such part of the timbering of the frame as in this opening and stripping do appear decayed, and to repair the same all anew ; and many times to drive out all decayed iron bolts in the frame above and under water, placing upon the decks and sides an addition of standards, or riders, or both, that never was there before, for better strengthening the frame of a ship under such repair ; and sometimes the ship is sheathed under water, as the occasion calls for it ; and these works always requiring a dock, are finished with a good caulking all over and aying the ship with mixed stuff, pitch &c. for to keep the weather from preying on the materials of the body. Rebuilding is taken to be when neither the ordinary nor extra repair before mentioned will overcome, and so is an entire stripping down of all the out and in-board works, and removing so much of the timber of the frame, beams, standards, knees, &c., as shall be found decayed and rotten, which is many times done to the leaving only one-fourth part of what is in the old frame in the rebuilt ship ; and sometimes it is only taken to be the unmoulding of the frame and the stripping of the out and in-board work, from the top of the sides to 4 or 5 strakes under the lower wales, and to take out the tires of top timbers and upon futtocks, shifting or scarfing (3) the decayed beams and knees, and making the same good again by new material, completing all in-board works and to caulk all over and to grave. 3 When the ends of two pieces of timber are cut square and put together, they are said to ' butt ' to one another ; and when another piece is laid upon and fastened to both, this is called ' scarfing the timbers.' — Falconer's Diet, of the Marine. But here the term seems rather to mean cuttmg away the decayed part and restoring the thickness of the beam by a new piece laid on. Girdling . . . cannot so properly be called a repair in the matter as a supply of dimensions in breadth to the form of a ship that wants it ; and as occasion requires is from 4 to 8 and 10 inches thick on each side of the ship, in the parts that lie about the water edge in the midships; and this repair in the form of ships is done to obtain more breadth for their support under a wind, when they are found tender by leaning or lying down their sides too much to their sails.

There are often times when i start out to peruse some newfound item that interested me and, due to my apparent inability to focus on the topic at hand, I wind up chasing some squirrel around to some totally different topic, and today is a case in point. Not really sure what I started off looking for, but I ended up perusing Laughton, J.K., W.G. Perrin, and C. Lloyd. 1902. The Naval Miscellany Vol. I. Publications of the Navy Records Society,v. 20, 40, 63, 92, 125, 146, 153. London: Printed for the Navy Records Society. https://archive.org/details/navalmiscellany01laug In there, I came across a rather fascinating article - The Voyage to Cadiz, 1596 The voyage to Calis in Andalusia, faithfully Related by Sir W. Slingisbye, employed in that service It describes the fleets, the political context, and so forth. Very interesting reading. I found, as well, the engravings to be most interesting, particularly the flags for each squadron. Lastly, for those with an interest in older cartography,

Pat - I agree with Allan (above) - no "establishment" type of listing for spare spars. I suspect that each class (and, for that matter, generation) of vessel had a common-practice set of spare spars, generally as generic as possible due to space constraints (that is, a spar that could be used as a top mast or top sail yard if needed, rather than individual spare spars for each). In the case of the Endeavour, it is likely that a few more may have been included since there were no convenient ports to put in to for repairs. You may find the best information in contemporary models or in logs and port records from the period.