dafi

Thank you Gary and Mark.
 
As long as I still keep gathering the input for 1805, I kept working on the version of 1765 to 1788 (great repair) or 1797 (decommissioned).
 
Luckily I did 2 slices in the old and long forgotten days :-).
 

 
One was fitted with deadeyes and chains, but proved to have some inaccuracies, that is why I decided to keep on working on the other one.
First came the frieze. First the base with the medium color then the shadows and the highlights.
 

 
One can see that the chain board was removed. was atop the whales and not on them. The good thing on the painting technic that I use is, that repairs can be nicely done.
First the priming with the classical small pots from Humbrol/Revell.
The 2 shades of brown with the casein paint and blended with the mostly dry brush. As the knees will be on the same place, I took it easy on that part 😉
 

 
Replaced the chain boards and gave it a new color suiting the 1765 model.
 

 
As it was too easy until now, I decided to open one gun port. So back to the heavy machines do dig deep ...
 

 
... cleared the back too ...
 

 
... and faked the inside boards.
 

 
Yes I mean faked 😉 ...
 

 
Also the port with the half lids was updated.
 

 
And then some paint and the reason for the opening. The model shows an interesting color scheme for the middle deck: White insides of the ports with a red rabbet.
 


Cheers, Daniel

Thank you Gary and Mark.
 
As long as I still keep gathering the input for 1805, I kept working on the version of 1765 to 1788 (great repair) or 1797 (decommissioned).
 
Luckily I did 2 slices in the old and long forgotten days :-).
 

 
One was fitted with deadeyes and chains, but proved to have some inaccuracies, that is why I decided to keep on working on the other one.
First came the frieze. First the base with the medium color then the shadows and the highlights.
 

 
One can see that the chain board was removed. was atop the whales and not on them. The good thing on the painting technic that I use is, that repairs can be nicely done.
First the priming with the classical small pots from Humbrol/Revell.
The 2 shades of brown with the casein paint and blended with the mostly dry brush. As the knees will be on the same place, I took it easy on that part 😉
 

 
Replaced the chain boards and gave it a new color suiting the 1765 model.
 

 
As it was too easy until now, I decided to open one gun port. So back to the heavy machines do dig deep ...
 

 
... cleared the back too ...
 

 
... and faked the inside boards.
 

 
Yes I mean faked 😉 ...
 

 
Also the port with the half lids was updated.
 

 
And then some paint and the reason for the opening. The model shows an interesting color scheme for the middle deck: White insides of the ports with a red rabbet.
 


Cheers, Daniel

Thank you Gary and Mark.
 
As long as I still keep gathering the input for 1805, I kept working on the version of 1765 to 1788 (great repair) or 1797 (decommissioned).
 
Luckily I did 2 slices in the old and long forgotten days :-).
 

 
One was fitted with deadeyes and chains, but proved to have some inaccuracies, that is why I decided to keep on working on the other one.
First came the frieze. First the base with the medium color then the shadows and the highlights.
 

 
One can see that the chain board was removed. was atop the whales and not on them. The good thing on the painting technic that I use is, that repairs can be nicely done.
First the priming with the classical small pots from Humbrol/Revell.
The 2 shades of brown with the casein paint and blended with the mostly dry brush. As the knees will be on the same place, I took it easy on that part 😉
 

 
Replaced the chain boards and gave it a new color suiting the 1765 model.
 

 
As it was too easy until now, I decided to open one gun port. So back to the heavy machines do dig deep ...
 

 
... cleared the back too ...
 

 
... and faked the inside boards.
 

 
Yes I mean faked 😉 ...
 

 
Also the port with the half lids was updated.
 

 
And then some paint and the reason for the opening. The model shows an interesting color scheme for the middle deck: White insides of the ports with a red rabbet.
 


Cheers, Daniel

But me too I messed up ...
 
Goodwin states 28.04.1803 and you the the Kent 28.04.1804 ...
 
Have to put this clear for my brain still ...

I found my reference that I relied on: Goodwin Ships of Trafalgar.
He also refers to the inspection and accounting of the ordnance on the 28.04.1803, so most possibly the same source. The numbers he states are  30 32pdrs, 28 24pdrs, 30 long 12pdrs for the upper deck, 12 short 12pdrs quarter deck, 2 medium 12pdrs and 2 24pdrs carronades on the forecastle. The 6 18pdrs carronades of the poop were said to be removed.
 
XXXDAn 

If I remember well, the information about the carronade(s) either came out of "Nelsons ships" or "Ships at Trafalgar" from Goodwin. Have to double check the entries there, to see if I misunderstood or if possibly he could have misunderstood the entry you have shown.
 
Thank you for the as always well researched information!
 
And especially a big thank you for sharing it!!!
 
Cheers, DAniel

In our german forum I have a accumulated list with all the data I found in chronological order. It states that the Vic undocked on the 11.04.1803 still with 2 24-pounder carronades. So it fits well into the scheme 🙂 On the 14.05. she went to sea. I added already the new data. Thank you for those informations.
 
https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t5759f198-Fakten-zur-Victory.html#msg117794
 
XXXDAn
 
 

@Gary: many thanks! 
 
When I started my Vic some 10 Years ago, everybody was of the opinion: OH NO, not another Victory, how boring. Today I know it is one of the least known ships and it is always a real treat to throw some lights into the dark corners of this ship´s history. Today I am happy to build the Vic, as it shows par excellence, how little we really do know about the ships of this time and how much research is still necessary!
 
Cheers, Daniel

Thank you Jan and Gary. I still do not know yet, still putting all informations together to at least get a well educated guess.
 
For the side entry port there are some very interesting observations I made over the last years. 
 
First the Vic. She was most certainly build with one most possibly both sides. All contemporary plans and models show this, also the drawing of 1779, „Sailing by the White Cliffs of Dover“. All of these show the old fashioned version with two columns and the groin vault.
 
There was a major refit in 1788 and from this point on ALL plans, drawings and paintings are omitting the side entry port.
See https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79913.html and the well known paintings of Dodd and Swaine. It is also omitted in ALL post-Trafalgar drawings and paintings.
 
On the Vic the side entry port just reappears on the drawing of Edward William Cooke from 1828. But then it is situated one port more aft 🙂
 
So to me the sources upon the Vic are very robust and consistent in this sense, no port in between about 1788 and 1828. 
 
Very interesting is too, that I realised the same happening to most all first and second rates. They are missing this port from about 1760  onwards. To be seen on plans, drawings, paintings, models. Perhaps as it was the time of the american war of independence and the ships were send overseas more often ? That is the only guess I have as far as I can see know.
 
Funny enough the Vic lost the side entry port for a gun port but the number of guns was not increased on this deck. I do not have sources to see if this happened too to other three deckers.
 
The side entry port first reappeared for other vessels on the plans for the Ville de Paris 1795, Temeraire Class 1798 and Ocean Class 1805, but not completely consistent yet, but became standard again soon after.
 
But another question I do have about the use of this port. The german name for it translates with "Admiralty port" and was believed to be just for the admirals or other high rated officers. In all the sources of the time of Trafalgar and earlier I never found any hint about this sole use. Just in much later times there are some hints about this restricted use. So what was the use of this port? Also the missing information about the doors, blinds  or bulkheads is puzzling me. No signs of it and people having their hammocks nearby ...
 
Was it really there for protocol reason? Or was it for more? Or - heretically question -  did it simply provide a way to empty the potties from two lower decks? And was therefor open and no guns placed? 
 
So as usual, questions above questions.
 
All the best, Daniel

Ok, time for some heretic thoughts. 
After some great basic work from Maik.L in our german forum analyzing the Turner drawings I tried those thought digitally on my small slice.
https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t7042f1475-HMS-Victory-Spurensuche-4.html#msg155257
Important: This is not about the shade, this is only about the width of the stripes.
 
First the classical V1, as to be seen our days in Portsmouth.
 
 
 
Turner saw and drew the ship before and after Trafalgar. Those scribbles are difficult to evaluate, bat they give some interesting hints.
As there are in his drawings and paintings no signs of the black checkers after Trafalgar, that leads to V2 
 
 
 
In most of Turner´s drawings and paintings the yellow stripes appears larger than the black one that gives V3
 
 
 
Without the checker V4
 
 
 
And if the hinges were painted too, that would give V5
 
 
 
So if you want to crucify me now, you may.
 
Whistling greetings, XXXDAn
 
PS. Everybody only one cross, please.

Hi Mark,
 
No, carronades were not counted in a ships armament until after the Napoleonic wars.  So whilst a frigate may be rated as a 38 she could also carry 8/10 carronades as well, so really 46/48 guns.  So the term ‘38’ became a nominal or ‘class’ term, the boundaries became further blurred as the wars progressed and the carronade became more popular, a 38 could conceivably carry 30 cannon and and 16 carronades, but she was still a 38.
 
This led to Captains exaggerating their captures, so it was not unknown for a Captain to say his 38 (actually 46 guns overall) captured a larger opponent of say 42 guns, which was in fact a ship of lesser force say a 36 gun frigate with 6 additional carronades (or French equivalent).  This happened in British, French and US navies, the attempt was to influence the captured ships value and amount of prize money, not to mention enhancing the Captains reputation.  This led to bitter arguments over how difficult won ship actions really were, so eventually Admiralties came clean and re-classified ship ratings to reflect the actual number or overall number of guns carried.
 
Hope this is clear.
 
Gary
 
 

It does take some getting you head around, but the Kent was 17.08.1804 - Victory log books, the Ordnance returns on re-commissioning are at 28.04.1803 - so I agree with Goodwin’s date but not the detail, as you can see from the copies I sent you 👍🏻.
 
Gary

For those trying to keep track of this exchange here is a table summarising what we know - or rather showing what we are seeking to better understand!

Gary

Thanks for the explanation, Gary. 
And another question.... Were carronades counted as "guns"?  That's one of the points of contention not just on Victory, as I understand it.  But then there were 24 and 26 gun frigates that only had carronades.

But me too I messed up ...
 
Goodwin states 28.04.1803 and you the the Kent 28.04.1804 ...
 
Have to put this clear for my brain still ...

I found my reference that I relied on: Goodwin Ships of Trafalgar.
He also refers to the inspection and accounting of the ordnance on the 28.04.1803, so most possibly the same source. The numbers he states are  30 32pdrs, 28 24pdrs, 30 long 12pdrs for the upper deck, 12 short 12pdrs quarter deck, 2 medium 12pdrs and 2 24pdrs carronades on the forecastle. The 6 18pdrs carronades of the poop were said to be removed.
 
XXXDAn 

If I remember well, the information about the carronade(s) either came out of "Nelsons ships" or "Ships at Trafalgar" from Goodwin. Have to double check the entries there, to see if I misunderstood or if possibly he could have misunderstood the entry you have shown.
 
Thank you for the as always well researched information!
 
And especially a big thank you for sharing it!!!
 
Cheers, DAniel

In our german forum I have a accumulated list with all the data I found in chronological order. It states that the Vic undocked on the 11.04.1803 still with 2 24-pounder carronades. So it fits well into the scheme 🙂 On the 14.05. she went to sea. I added already the new data. Thank you for those informations.
 
https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t5759f198-Fakten-zur-Victory.html#msg117794
 
XXXDAn
 
 

@Gary: many thanks! 
 
When I started my Vic some 10 Years ago, everybody was of the opinion: OH NO, not another Victory, how boring. Today I know it is one of the least known ships and it is always a real treat to throw some lights into the dark corners of this ship´s history. Today I am happy to build the Vic, as it shows par excellence, how little we really do know about the ships of this time and how much research is still necessary!
 
Cheers, Daniel

@Gary: many thanks! 
 
When I started my Vic some 10 Years ago, everybody was of the opinion: OH NO, not another Victory, how boring. Today I know it is one of the least known ships and it is always a real treat to throw some lights into the dark corners of this ship´s history. Today I am happy to build the Vic, as it shows par excellence, how little we really do know about the ships of this time and how much research is still necessary!
 
Cheers, Daniel

Thank you Jan and Gary. I still do not know yet, still putting all informations together to at least get a well educated guess.
 
For the side entry port there are some very interesting observations I made over the last years. 
 
First the Vic. She was most certainly build with one most possibly both sides. All contemporary plans and models show this, also the drawing of 1779, „Sailing by the White Cliffs of Dover“. All of these show the old fashioned version with two columns and the groin vault.
 
There was a major refit in 1788 and from this point on ALL plans, drawings and paintings are omitting the side entry port.
See https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/79913.html and the well known paintings of Dodd and Swaine. It is also omitted in ALL post-Trafalgar drawings and paintings.
 
On the Vic the side entry port just reappears on the drawing of Edward William Cooke from 1828. But then it is situated one port more aft 🙂
 
So to me the sources upon the Vic are very robust and consistent in this sense, no port in between about 1788 and 1828. 
 
Very interesting is too, that I realised the same happening to most all first and second rates. They are missing this port from about 1760  onwards. To be seen on plans, drawings, paintings, models. Perhaps as it was the time of the american war of independence and the ships were send overseas more often ? That is the only guess I have as far as I can see know.
 
Funny enough the Vic lost the side entry port for a gun port but the number of guns was not increased on this deck. I do not have sources to see if this happened too to other three deckers.
 
The side entry port first reappeared for other vessels on the plans for the Ville de Paris 1795, Temeraire Class 1798 and Ocean Class 1805, but not completely consistent yet, but became standard again soon after.
 
But another question I do have about the use of this port. The german name for it translates with "Admiralty port" and was believed to be just for the admirals or other high rated officers. In all the sources of the time of Trafalgar and earlier I never found any hint about this sole use. Just in much later times there are some hints about this restricted use. So what was the use of this port? Also the missing information about the doors, blinds  or bulkheads is puzzling me. No signs of it and people having their hammocks nearby ...
 
Was it really there for protocol reason? Or was it for more? Or - heretically question -  did it simply provide a way to empty the potties from two lower decks? And was therefor open and no guns placed? 
 
So as usual, questions above questions.
 
All the best, Daniel

And here is part of the conundrum. We start at re-commissioning with 100 long guns, but loose 6 and gain 2 long guns on 17 August 1804, so now at 96 long guns.  So using Goodwin’s Figures as the record by Trafalgar there are 102 long guns, with 2 No. medium 12 Pounders added and 2 No. short 12 Pounders also having been added, yet no mention of the 2 No. 24 Pounders added which leaves another 2 12 Pounders to account for, never mind the 6 lost to the Kent, I assume these would have been from the quarterdeck short guns unless the upper deck was also reduced in number.
 
Goodwin’s tally of 12 Pounders looks a lot like the March 1808 tally of 12 Pounders, which could be Victory retaining most of the the upper and lower deck ordnance at that repair and only the 24’s being swapped out for 18’s.
 
However, it leaves a lot of ordnance changes between April 1803 and Trafalgar to account for, and why give up 6 No. 12 Pounders only to recover them and loose the 2 additional 24 Pounders again between August 1804 and October 1805?  That’s why I want to see the Gunners monthly returns when available to track these changes and verify what was on board by Trafalgar.
 
Then there are the carronades! Another story to uncover.
 
Gary

If I remember well, the information about the carronade(s) either came out of "Nelsons ships" or "Ships at Trafalgar" from Goodwin. Have to double check the entries there, to see if I misunderstood or if possibly he could have misunderstood the entry you have shown.
 
Thank you for the as always well researched information!
 
And especially a big thank you for sharing it!!!
 
Cheers, DAniel

Thank you all for Comments and likes, very appreciated!
 
All figures are Preiser 1:100. See in earlier posts how they were made :-)
 
Somehow Fast-Food-Tinkering does not work for me somehow.
 
I already started planking the outside with poly but could not find a pattern for the width of the planks - Frustration taking over ...
 
Then I realised that as I cutted the ports "free hand - first sight" was the problem, as the planks are following - unlike the 1765 original planking - exactely the row of the ports. So considered a second (or even more look) to get things straight and realised taht all planks have more or less same width. So I took the illustrtion programm and started to push the measures until it fitted the photographs and suddenly it all worked out. 21 cm planks it was what I needed and some correction on the ports.
 

 
Also Business as usual - removing the first trial of planks :-)
 

 
New planks were cut ...
 

 
... ports newly defined ...
 

 
... cleared with plenty of blood, sweat and tears ...
 

 
.... and cut free.
 
Just see on the inside of the ports the difference to the first fit :-O
 

 
Fixed the first goodies, soon more about that :-)
 

 
And here we go, twice the same section of hull, just a bit more than 100 years of difference.
 
XXXDAn

Ok, time for some heretic thoughts. 
After some great basic work from Maik.L in our german forum analyzing the Turner drawings I tried those thought digitally on my small slice.
https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t7042f1475-HMS-Victory-Spurensuche-4.html#msg155257
Important: This is not about the shade, this is only about the width of the stripes.
 
First the classical V1, as to be seen our days in Portsmouth.
 
 
 
Turner saw and drew the ship before and after Trafalgar. Those scribbles are difficult to evaluate, bat they give some interesting hints.
As there are in his drawings and paintings no signs of the black checkers after Trafalgar, that leads to V2 
 
 
 
In most of Turner´s drawings and paintings the yellow stripes appears larger than the black one that gives V3
 
 
 
Without the checker V4
 
 
 
And if the hinges were painted too, that would give V5
 
 
 
So if you want to crucify me now, you may.
 
Whistling greetings, XXXDAn
 
PS. Everybody only one cross, please.