Morgan

That is a huge difference, in todays money if you paid £20 for a similar amount of basic ocher paint in contrast you would be paying £960 for the same volume of blue! No wonder it was generally confined to models and not the real ships! Gary

I understand that part of the problem is the past use of laminated timbers, generally Iroko overlain with teak. The Iroko has rotted, whilst the teak hasn’t, meaning it looks good on the outside, but …… The plan now is to go original and use oak, it will still use laminates, but all oak. I’m surprised they aren’t even trying to steam bend properly sized planks, but I gather from a trial video I watched that using thinner strips means it can be laminated over a mould of the individual plank without steaming and built up in the profile shape required. Gary

Hi Lin, You’ll find she has had a facelift, well, a new coat of paint at least! There are also a few artefacts from the wreck of the Invincible to look at. I was on board a few weeks ago and due to the weather struggled to get a photo without a plastic bucket in it, I guess the upper deck needs re-caulking. Enjoy your trip. Gary

Hi Daniel, When I went through Gunner Rivers notebooks the drawing was undated, unfortunately there is no logical order to his notes, he did not fill his pages in a sequential manner, such dated material as there was was clearly out of sequence. My best guess is that it was between 1793 and 1806, there being a new notebook from 1806 - 1812, but there were still sporadic dates after 1806 in the earlier book. What needs bearing in mind is that Victory carried a mixture of Armstrong and Blomefield pattern guns, and it seems the carriages differed. Caruana dates the introduction of frontal horns and side cleats to 1795, these are clearly an add-on to standard carriages as he identified separate charges for them, so the breast pieces (front horns or stand-offs) were not integral to the main structure of the carriage. He is also of the view the side cleats were particular to the carriages for Blomefield guns to prevent tackle fouling. He reproduces the diagram from the Sea Gunners Vade Mecum as below, correcting some references, although this shows an integrated frontal horn and is contrary to his documentary evidence, although it was not originally his drawing. This all ties in with the St. George artefacts, allowing frontal horns were added-on and necessarily, in my view, a sacrificial soft wood so as not to damage the sides of the ship, but which would have rotted away more quickly than the carriage bodies. Given gun carriages lasted 10 years both Victory and St. George would have been issued with new carriages upon completion of refit. You don’t spend that much on a refit and then put aged gun carriages back in, even the Armstrong guns would have had new carriages, I think they could have been fitted with frontal horns, but probably not the side cleats. Gary

There is a large scaffold like temporary structure covering her sides with viewing platforms at deck levels on her starboard side right now, including lift access. A guide is on hand to answer questions, you can also ask the conservationists questions. There is also now a permanent walkway under the ship on the port side which is where Steve obviously got his hull bottom photos. Steves last photo shows where the old support cradle pads were removed revealing planking that will be done if the oldest on the external hull, although there are also several strakes of ‘top and bottom’ just below main whale, but are obscured by the scaffold. Gary

Hi Michael, Just catching up with you last few posts, and a couple of points. In terms of painting ladders, gratings, etc. it depends if you are going for realism or following modelling conventions I suppose. If the contract said they were to be painted then I would imagine they were indeed painted. But then what colour? In contemporary paintings they look like natural wood. So is it the case they were painted with Rosin - the varnish of the day? Modelling convention in the 18th Century and now dictates natural wood. There is also the issue of what any colouration wood look like at scale to consider. In my view Longridge is wrong on the universal painting of the bulkhead blue. The pigment was very expensive, at Trafalgar Victory’s beakhead bulkhead was black with yellow ochre detailing, you can see this in the works of Stanfield and Turner. In respect of the name on the stern it did vary from time to time, but at Trafalgar certainly Victory did not have her name on her counter. This is evident from post battle sketches by Turner and Livesay. Putting names on sterns in both paintings and models was to inform the viewer as to what ship they were looking at. Upto c.1790 I would have her name on the stern but not after that date. BTW nice progress. Gary

Adding to what Allan has said, in practice the models were made to expand the proposed draughts for a new ship or class of ships and provide a 3D representation to inform decision makers or to gather support for the proposal to show what interested parties were getting for their money. The models helped the observer to appreciate the lines and form of the ship. Models did not capture all fixtures and fittings, and neither did the draughts, unless some new facet or feature was being showcased, guns are one of those routinely omitted. In practice ships and their models were ordered in the Royal Navy by the Board of Admiralty, whereas guns were provided or loaned to the Navy by the Board of Ordnance who were separate from the Admiralty, this is because they served both the Navy and the Army with artillery pieces until 1855 when they were disbanded. Perhaps the models without guns are an example of art following life reflecting the division of ownership between ship and armament! Gary

The Caldercraft instructions are correct. When Victory was restored in the 1920’s they used gun carriages that were readily available as a pattern, however, Peter Goodwin, the ex curator of Victory identifies these as fortification carriages from whatever land based establishment they dug them up from. Consequently they are incorrect making the guns sit off centre. There has been a programme of recent to modify the carriages to correct them, which from my last visit seems not yet to be complete, there are some odd carriages particularly for the 12-Pounders. Bugler and McKay correctly capture what was there, it’s just what was there was wrong. Gary

To close off some of the questions initially raised it appears that the NMM purchased the model for themselves at auction, thus retaining it. As reported in the May 2023 edition of Topmasts, the quarterly newsletter of the Society for Nautical Research. Gary

Similar to Bruce’s thought, are they for a secondary or preventor breech rope? The Sea Gunners Vade Mercum mentions them. Gary

Dave, My understanding is that the guns were to be central to the port, both horizontally and vertically, and this was part of the Gunners duties imposed on him by ‘Orders in Council’ - Sea Service Regulations. Where this is particularly evident is where gunports are fitted with with half ports (lids), which have a round opening where they meet to allow the gun to be housed in a run-out position. Half Ports are not usually shown on models, but we’re usually fitted to the upper deck (initially these were lightweight 2-part removable shutters fitted with hooks, eyes and dogs, but later in the early 19th Century the lower half was hinged). The chain plates and rigging should not foul the gunports. The Admiralty were very concerned with gunfire setting fire to the rigging. From time to time they reminded yards and Captains that where a mixed Gun and Carronade armament was used that only long guns were to be fitted in the wake of the rigging (AO’s dated 23 March 1797, 8 April 1803) Other developments where an all Carronade armament was used to avoid the rigging was the addition of the muzzle cup to the carronade and mounting the carronade on the outside principle to move the muzzle beyond the line of the rigging. This is why you will see any given ship varying it’s quarterdeck and forecastle armament mix of guns to Carronades at various points in their career. As the muzzle cup type became predominant it allowed the Admiralty to relax the ‘in the wake of the rigging rule’ (July 1804), but this was reversed again in June 1805, presumably as the problem persisted. You may have to tweak the positioning of you chainplates to avoid the gunports, and depending on what date you are modelling the ship think about where Carronades and long guns are positioned. Gary

David, I’m afraid you are looking at a theorised entry port from Victory’s 1920’s reconstruction as per Dafi’s reference. Victory did not have an entry port between 1787 and at least 1816, this was an additional Gunport. This is demonstrated by contemporary plans and paintings. I’m afraid the 1920’s reconstruction got many things wrong which have perpetuated. My understanding is where entry ports were in place the doorway was blocked off at sea by 2 part hinged ports, the upper part lifting up like a gunport lid, and the lower part falling outward to form a landing platform. The grating is just an internal step, it allows water that visitors drag in to drain into the waterway and avoid them stepping in the inevitable localised puddle that will form. Gary

Dave, I assume this is for your Endeavour. There is no contemporary evidence to suggest that deck planks at this time on the real ships were joggled or otherwise ‘let into’ the waterway or other margin plank. If you take the original surviving deck planking of Victory (lower gun deck only), Trincomalee or Unicorn their original decks merely butt-up against the waterway. Joggling on real ships came later, and is often a model makers convention. However, this is your model and if course it is yours to model as you desire. Gary

Hi Michael, I haven’t been to the Royal Armouries for a decade or so, but it’s only an hour down the road, I should book a visit for this summer. Gary

Hi Michael, Little know fact, if you are modelling prior to 11 June 1796, the date Nelson transferred to HMS Captain, he took with him 2Nr. 68-Pounder Carronades, probably the same 2 he had fitted to Victory 8 years later. Roger Knight recounts this his ‘Pursuit of Victory: The Life and Achievement of Horatio Nelson’, page 268. It seems Nelson toted these guns around the Mediterranean in his successive ships. I have not seen anyone model this, primarily as these were unofficial ordnance that did not appear on the record. Gary

Here is an interesting article on a well researched model of the Agamemnon, in particular the decoration. https://julianstockwin.com/2017/10/10/agamemnon-the-darch-model/ Gary

Whilst Pocock was an ex-seaman and knew his naval subjects you have to be careful in placing absolute reliance on his works. He was more than happy to ‘bend’ the details of his compositions to suit his patron’s requirements (see the article by Eleanor Hughes in ‘Spreading Canvas’). There is nothing to say this happened with his painting above at post #11, but you then have the painting in post #1 which ‘stretches’ what Pocock produced exaggerating the sail size, which in itself stands as a case in point - don’t take as gospel any painting without corroboration. Gary

If I had to pick one fault, which I will, it’s why run through Dalby Forest? It’s much nicer if you walk and enjoy the scenery! BTW your Indy is coming along nicely as well 😁. Gary

Certainly the film Master and Commander shows chain pumps in use, you’ll confuse non nautical nerds if you don’t offer them 🤓 Gary

Interestingly (or not 😉) we overcame this in the Electricity Transmission sector with the guys who climb the lattice towers / pylons, they are equipped with two very large Caribiners on separate lanyards and the mantra was ‘clip on clip off’ with the alternate lanyards so you were always secure. Watching them climb was like watching a mountaineer using an ice pick in each hand only a lot faster! Fair play to anyone who climbs heights, I like to cuddle terra firms whilst watching others. Gary

That is a very cheap solution compared to the likes of Shapeways and Model Monkey

I’ve had both period and modern fittings direct from Model Monkey and have found both the quality and service to be excellent. Gary

A cheaper source for a hard copy of some of Steel’s plates, if you can obtain a copy, is ‘Rees’s Naval Architecture 1819-20’ you may be able to locate one online. This is a compendium work abstracted from Rees’s cyclopedia which was issued over the course of the first 2 decades of the 19th Century, it abstracts all the naval architectural works from a wider serialised publication. The fold out drawings are the same Steel drawings which points to Steel’s successors being the contributors to this work. It has all the Steel plans for a 74-Gun Ship of the Line, and the profiles only for a 38-Gun Frigate, an East Indiaman, and a Royal Yatch, I’d say the scale is approximately 1:96, so not as large as Steel. My copy is a 1970 reprint for which I paid £30 last year. Gary

Glad your research and enthusiasm is gaining momentum Ian. I never cease to be amazed by the detail and atmosphere contained in Frank Hurley’s works, I have a couple of his prints hanging on the walls. For ostensibly ship pictures even my wife likes them. They are truly inspirational in my view. Keep up the research and I look forward to a forthcoming build log. Gary

I’ve just refurbished one of those ‘dodgy’ stoves and installed it into a dodgy Garden Studio I just built this summer for modelling and other craft work, it kick out the heat. I can remove the top plate and boil a kettle and have done baked potatoes on top. Perhaps a Dutch Oven next for a dodgy stew! The dogs love it, and I have to fight my way through the pack to feed the stove! Gary