Morgan

Books can be addictive, over 250 at the last count excluding periodicals and naval fiction (all mainly around the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars period) thankfully after retiring I binned all work related books so still have some room to expand - although the wife may have other ideas. The Imperieuse would make a great subject, the Spanish hullform would distinguish it from other frigates on the market, plus the historical prominence in naval literature helps with the attraction to it as a subject. Gary

Chris, Mindful of the 'viewer beware' caveat, have you seen the image below? It is a little naive, but does show 7 stern windows. This is from RMG collections PAD5498, it does capture the fact that the captains accommodation was on the quarterdeck so has some basis in fact rather than just a generic frigate. Not sure about the decoration though, it looks too ornate for the times. Also, and again you may have seen this, Robert Gardiner's book Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars gives a good account of how Pellew influenced the fit-out of the ship that varies from the drafts, such as ordnance, captains accommodation (foreshortening) and rig (64-gun ship). Gary

Having spent a lot of time, money and the Admirals patience in researching what ships actually looked like I would be hesitant to rely on late 18th / early 19th century paintings. As you say many were not actually contemporary, and often generic. Some used Admiralty models as a basis, but these were not often ‘As-built’ but merely indicative with details such as actual decoration / carvings being decided upon at a later date, unless included on the Admiralty plans. What I believe can be relied upon are Admiralty records and plans, and also contemporary artists preliminary sketches, where they still exist as these were the best eye witness accounts, but are difficult to come by. Often the paintings derived from these sketches changed the subject significantly to conform with Georgian allegorical ideals as demanded by their patrons, so indeed “viewer beware”. Gary

I would hesitate to trust Pocock he consistently painted Victory after her 1803 refit, yet with her original stern which disappeared during that refit, despite having seen the ship for himself and having sketched her re-modelled stern, he liked to ‘bling-up’ his ships. Wylie had similar faults and was painting 100 years after the event. Some of the latest research is captured here https://julianstockwin.com/2017/10/10/agamemnon-the-darch-model/ Even this though shows 8 lower windows, it has some research provenance from what should be reliable sources. Gary

I’d like to see Bellona at 1:64, I’m also up for a full Amati Victory kit rather than instalments when released - tomorrow would be fine only if ☹️ Gary

I use http://www.originalmarquetry.co.uk/, usually a good service. Also as Spyglass says try Cornwall Model Boats who also supply Pear, I had a recent order with them. I haven’t searched for the sizes you are seeking. Gary

Perhaps you could share how you go about clinker planking for those of us on the forum who have never attempted this. Gary

Interesting they aren’t on the other decks, which makes me wonder, normally upper deck under the forecastle was the location of the sick berth, so whether ventilation (rather than have the adjacent bridle or chase ports open which would be difficult in any rough weather / seas) or pissdales were they associated with the sick berth? Gary

There is also ‘Navies of the American Revolution’. Gary

I’ll keep watching, it may inspire me to dust off a half complete DoY I have sat in a box in the study. Nice work, keep going 😊 Gary

I’ve had no problem with the Limewood parts (17/18/19), as suggested by Chris I fitted them to frame 10 before fitting frame 10 to the longitudinal frame, immediately on gluing them to frame 10 I immediately installed frame 10, with parts 17/18/19 fitting nicely in to the slots on frame 9. I’m not sure that at this scale if they are made of MDF they will be any stronger. Gary

Hi BE, Enjoy Staithes, if you haven’t done so before look in to the Captain Cook museum in Staithes, also I’d recommend Panart Park Museum down the road at Whitby they have some nice Napoleonic bone warship models as well as a good whaling section. Gary

That’s great, I hope you are a quick builder - there are quite a few of us champing at the bit😉. Gary

So does this provide a guideline for the kit general release date? I take it you have been in contact with Amati. Gary

I can’t remember where but I recall reading that varnish was mixed with chimney soot to produce a black paint that was applied to the guns and metal work in order to provide a semi-gloss finish, as opposed to the navy board supplied paint which was a dull colour. Gary

Ordered the Alert on Saturday, delivered today at lunchtime, great service. Also, the external sleeve is really substantial so no damage. I also like the internal packaging which unlike other manufacturers fills the box helping to protect the material and fittings in transit. Well done Chris. So what’s this ‘new third’ kit your teasing? Gary

I’m reading all this from the Greek Islands and feel I’m missing out, the release was just as I departed the UK, but never mind just a week to go and I’ll get my order in when I return home, for now I’ll just console myself with another bottle of wine (and another, and .....) 😁. Gary

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

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

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

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

Dafi, The 24 Pounder carronade (single) was for the ships Launch according to the ordnance records, Peter Goodwin does say they there were 2 on the forecastle, but until I can access the gunners monthly returns I’m not sure when they were acquired. I've inserted a copy of the record, note the number ‘2’ in the gun number and not the number of guns. So no number 1 carronade, these are all individual entries and not groupings. Gary

Mark, One of the problems with perceptions of Victory’s appearance is the current configuration which came out of the 1920’s refit, at that time records were scattered and some simply unknown, in today’s connected electronic world much has been digitised enabling much better research. The 1920’s refit relied on the original drawings, there were also conflicts between time, cost and pre-conceptions centred on restoring the original beauty of her appearance, so we get a compromise. Interestingly a contemporary article in the Mariners Mirror discussing the research for the 1920’s refit shows they got very close to uncovering her real Trafalgar appearance with built-up bulwarks on the forecastle etc. but they couldn’t corroborate it so did not go down that route. Another source of misconception is that many 19th Century artists show Victory at Trafalgar in her pre 1801/3 refit guise, probably using the original build models with their open galleries or by copying other artists. Nichols Pocock was a prime example, he saw and sketched Victory in life after her pre-Trafalgar refit but his paintings constantly show the old open stern galleries, simply look at his Nelson’s Flagships. In part you can understand this as the original configuration is far more aesthetically pleasing than her war austere war guise. Gary

Dafi, I agree with your view on the period Victory was without entry ports, the ones fitted in the 1820’s were for when she was fitted for harbour service, and as you say one port to the rear of the as-designed location. When Victory carried 28 Nr. 24 Pounders the rear most ports were probably left vacant as this was in the Admirals quarters thereby allowing more space, the gunport would have had half-ports and sashes fitted (windows). I have always been intrigued by the fact that William James states at page 93 of Volume 4 of his ‘The Naval History of Great Britain’ states “Those of the Victory [guns]consisted, in equal divisions upon her first, second, and third decks, of 90 long 32, 24, and 12 pounders, and of 10 long 12-pounders and two 68-pounder carronades on her quaterdeck and forecastle”. It is worth noting that James was a meticulous researcher, and would have spoken extensively with officers from Trafalgar, and probably the Victory to establish his facts. His first foray into naval history was to establish respective armaments and weight of broadsides as between British and American ships to dispel allegations concerning British ships succumbing in battle to inferior American ships and rested his entire tome of work on getting his facts such as this right. Therefore, some weight should be attached to his comments. Obviously James is at odds with current received wisdom as to the number of guns Victory carried. So, I recently visited The National Archives at Kew and looked at ADM 160/154 Returns of ordnance on H.M. Ships1803-1812, and the entry for 28 April 1803 has Victory as having 30 Nr. 32 Pounders, 28 Nr. 24 Pounders, 32 Nr. Long 12 Pounders and 10 Nr. Short 12 Pounders. Additionally, I also looked at the log books held there, and there are several copies, Hardy, Quilliam, and one other, and they record that at the same time that Victory received her 68 Pounder carronades from the Kent on 17 August 1804 she also received 2 Nr. 24 Pounders. She also gave up in exchange 6 Nr. 12 Pounders! I have seen parts of this entry recorded by Goodwin and Lavery in their works but have never seen the full entry. So that is 30 No. 24 Pounders - all ports occupied. This leaves an even larger discrepancy with current and historic views. Peter Goodwin draws his data from the Gunners monthly records held at the Royal Navy Museum in Portsmouth, unfortunately their archives are currently being re-housed in a new facility and won’t be available until the spring of next year, so at present I can only account for 96 guns leading up to Trafalgar, any other exchanges were not mentioned in the ships logs. I’ll go look next year when the records are available, you can actually track individual guns from their makers marks. Interestingly, the Returns of ordnance on H.M. Ships also records that when Victory was downrated in 1807 to a second rate she received 30 Nr. 18 Pounders per side (taken on board on 5 March 1808) , so consistent with the number of ports available at 15 per side. I think we can dismiss the chase or bridle ports as being armed as this would have been unusual. Gary

Hi Dafi, V5 -I think the Nelson Chequer relates to the open gunport, not painting them a different colour - and is probably a metaphor for the ship 'showing her teeth', Turner and other contemporary artists don't show the gunport lids a separate colour, or painting the hinges. BTW - going back to an earlier subject, the entry port, I know Turner shows no such structures, and neither do other first hand witnesses Pocock & Constable. Have you also considered earlier paintings as evidence for this? There are the 2 earlier paintings by Robert Dodd and Monamy Swaine from the early 1790's - neither show entry ports, both show the ship's port side, which is where ports were fitted out of preference if only fitted on one side (Lavery). There was no significant refit in the 1790's, so probably reinforces the Turner evidence. Both paintings are held by the National Maritime Museum. Gary