Kenchington

That's the one. See the previous page (Ashley's #3162 to 3164) for a better idea of how it went around a spar in full-size.

Your illustrations look like two rope-stropped blocks that share the same strop, which is made long enough to pass around the spar. I don't know whether there is a name for that arrangement. Ashley illustrated one version of it as "span blocks" for stuns'l halliards (his #3175) but it's not clear whether he meant the name for that one application or for any paired blocks surrounding a spar. All of his blocks secured to spars, whether with one block or two (and all for full-size vessels, of course), had the strop with two ends, each with an eyesplice, while a lashing held the two eyes together around the spar. At scale, you would presumably make a loop, slide it over the end of the spar. then fit the two blocks and tighten up with a seizing by each block. Darcy Lever showed something similar but with hearts, not blocks with sheaves, for bowsprit shroud collars. I dare say the other contemporary authorities showed it too.

Thanks, Palmerit! I avoid Amazon unless I know exactly what I intend to buy. They bombard me with irrelevant ads, then confuse me with the mass of dubious alternatives. The other day, I tried to get acid flux for soldering stainless steel. I was showered with listings for cheap, Chinese products that had "stainless steel" in their titles but were normal flux, not the special acidic stuff. Amazon did sell the proper thing but I had to find a manufacturer and the right product name, then go back into Amazon. Even then, the alternatives on offer were the wrong kind. I get some useful tools in the local hardware stores, though the smallest they sell are at the upper end of size for ship models. Next is the one local hoppy shop (Great Hobbies -- a Canadian chain, I think), then Lee Valley. Its local outlet is awkwardly placed for me, on the other side of Halifax Harbour. Beyond those, it's internet orders with shipping costs often more than the items I am buying. But that's the price to be paid for living in this corner of paradise!

Preaching to the choir here, but my initial step was to read right through the instructions, underlining key points. Looking at other people's build logs, I get the impression that some got rather lost amongst the wording and, in retrospect, I can understand why. The only full-size boat I ever built was a plywood kayak but I've been maintaining and studying boats for most of my life (even owned a traditional lapstrake hull at one time). With that background, even a first read-through made enough sense to put the whole build into shape in my head. I figure that will be a big help going forward. Maybe I'll be able to communicate some of it as this log unfolds. Next, I worked through every build log for this kit that has already been posted on MSW. I've always seen a lot of value in the adage: "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make them all yourself". More positively, those logs contain a lot of very good ideas from a lot of people -- most of whom were learning as they went along, strangely enough, rather than those more experienced dipping in with aid and suggestions. As I went through, I noted the good ideas, special challenges and possible solutions to them, all scribbled into spare space in the kit instructions. The end result looks something like this: img20250303_14125545.pdf I didn't even try to keep records of who had contributed each bright idea, so I'll apologize once for all but I won't be able to acknowledge you individually when I use your techniques. Nobody else could follow my notes and I won't be making a fair copy as some sort of improved instruction booklet, even if I had any right to something so presumptuous. At each step of the model construction, however, I'll merge my notes with the text offered by the kit designer. In a sense, I'll be building with the combined weight and experience of MSW at my back. And that's encouraging when taking that first leap into the unknown. I'll try to explain what I've done in this log. Then everyone will be able to see what a mess I've made of it! Now: Time to order a bunch of tools. Lee Valley does such a lovely line of miniatures, just right for shaping those pesky gains in the plank ends! Trevor

I am one of the many working my way through the Model Shipways beginner's series. There were already many and excellent build logs for the banks dory and I had nothing to add to those, until it came to scratch-building the fishing gear. I doubt that anyone will want to follow me down that path, so I did not prepare a log for that build. Now it's time for the pram and I think that, this time, I will have something to contribute. If nothing else, I can offer a sailor's perspective. I'm not the only one here who can do that, but I see that some people come to the kit without experience of small, traditionally rigged boats. That can be limiting, considering the abbreviated (not too say "deficient") instructions. It will be a little while, maybe as much as a couple of weeks, before I put craft knife to basswood. However, I have started preparations, so this is probably the right time to start a log. First, I figure that it's a good idea to have a vision of where you want to end up before starting out. I may be unique but the dory meant something to me, emotionally, and was always more than a learning and building exercise -- though it was that too. In contrast, I can't feel much affection for the pram. I can and do love small, traditional boats but I love them in full-scale, for sailing. I just don't feel much interest in them as subjects for modelling. Maybe I will one day scratch-build a miniature of my own pride-and-joy (a Drascombe Longboat, if anyone cares) but I just can't get excited about recreating another man's recreational toy. So the pram kit will be learning exercise only, for me. I'm not aiming for any embellishments, just a stand-alone display model. That's a shame in a way as 1:12 is a common dollhouse scale, and those so inclined could dress up a finished pram with any number of accessories (wine bottles keeping cool under the sternsheets, perhaps?), as well as figurines of humans and their pets. That's not for me, though. Still, there's no denying that the prototype is a pretty little thing -- much prettier than the plywood pram that was my first boat, a lifetime ago. So I aim to emphasize her prettiness in a finished model. To meet its objectives, my dory needed a good thick coat in a shade still known in this part of the world as "dory buff", but it hurt to hide all the woodwork that I had sweated over under that first coat of primer! So I aim to give the pram a clear finish, which means that she has to be built without glue stains or filler (save for a little white glue and sawdust mix, if necessary). That will add to the challenge and hence to the learning experience. Or I hope so. Enough preliminaries. Next: Preparatory steps. Trevor

Coming to this late, as I'm catching up on build logs before starting my pram. One point that I won't remember to note in my own build log, so I'll put it here for whatever help it may be to others: I don't think that's a notch for the tiller. I think it's intended for sculling the boat (with one oar) or maybe steering with an oar when sailing in shallow water. If it was for the tiller, it would either have to be in line with the axis of pintles and gudgeons or else much wider, to leave space for the swing of the tiller, side to side. That's a small point but I've seen one or two build logs where the rudder was mounted low, so that the tiller fitted in the notch. The rudder needs to be high enough for the tiller to sweep, side-to-side above the transom. Trevor

Chis, One last contribution for tonight: I think your tiller is wonderful! The kit-supplied one is a disgrace and I have been wondering how to improve on it. Your version is an inspiration. For what it may be worth to others facing the same challenge, here is another alternative (this time at full-size):

I see that said too but I can't think why. Brass should not be used in any structural role in a boat (though many a manufacturer of boats as small as the pram does cut corners with brass screws!). However, the highest quality wood boats have a lot of bronze fastenings and fittings. Brass and bronze each come in many varieties, though each of the two families tends to look quite different from the other after a bit of marine corrosion. But, if you are building a model of a boat in as-new condition, brass is a better substitute for bronze than basswood is for pine or oak. Yet we opt for practicality in our wood-type choices. Anyway, if a modern, recreational wooden boat didn't have bronze fittings and fastenings, they would be shiny stainless steel, not blackened iron. So, feel free to expose lovely brass on a model pram or paint it silvery. But I can't see any point in blackening it. Trevor

Destertanimnal asked those questions nearly a year ago but I'm running through build logs in preparation for my own pram. Since nobody else seems to have offered much of an answer in the interim and the information may be useful to others: Full-size, exposed plank edges on the exterior of a lapstrake hull would usually only be slightly rounded, enough to avoid splintering. That would look like a sharp 90 degrees at 1:12. I'd leave it with whatever softening you get from sanding the planks. Full-size, the brass "cover" is half-oval in section and supplied in 6ft lengths and various widths, to suit the application. (Half the width of the wood to be protected would be good.) It is brass, not bronze, and has to be drilled, countersunk and screwed at 4-inch intervals. Best to curve the ends over the forward and aft ends of the wood being protected, lest an exposed end of brass catch on something and the strip get ripped off. How best to represent that to scale, I have no idea. I won't attempt it on my pram. Trevor P.S: I wrote that the brass strip is "supplied". It is in the UK and the US but there doesn't seem to be a source in Canada and only one in the US might ship here. That's more than annoying when gribble have eaten away an old false keel and its replacement needs metallic protection!

That's the one! But there was no translation: Stalkart published in English. David (and my apologies for calling him John!) translated and published Jean Boudriot's marvellous French historical works. He also translated and published at least one original French text: Blaise Ollivier's 1737 espionage report. But David also did a very nice line of facsimiles of English works: Sutherland's 1711 text, Blankley's "Naval Expositor", the anonymous 1788 "Shipbuilder's Repository", Steel's 1805 "Shipwright's Vade Mecum", Stalwart's text (with its plates) and maybe others. Trevor

Coming late to this discussion amongst model builders far more skilled than I will ever be but ... Have you looked at Stalkart's 1787 "Naval Architecture" or, more likely, the 1991 facsimile reprint that John Roberts put out? By the 1780s, the (British) Navy Board's shipwrights were laying out most details on paper before cutting timber (rather than just trimming each piece until it fitted). Stalkart's text can be hard to follow and his plates do not show all of the lines that you would need. However, his text seems to explain how the various curves were draughted. You might make sense of his explanation while using it for your own drawing. Trevor

It's been a long, long time since I used an airbag and never to lift anything approaching 5 tons! So, I'll just say: Boats have been broken into matchwood when lifted with poorly placed slings. Divers have been killed when an airbag accelerated upwards and drew them with it. Others have been in trouble when the airbags broke surface, lost their air and allowed the load to plummet back to the seabed. My advice is not to hear from people with real-world experience but rather to bring someone with real-world expertise to your work-site and let them take charge. It is not a task to be toyed with. Trevor

When I do that at full size (having modified the foresail of my little boat by adding reef points, etc.), I shift the sheets and tack to the appropriate cringles -- in my case, the reef cringles or the ones at the corners of the sail, for your model the ones at the corners of the sail or those on the bonnet. I suspect (but cannot confirm) that the same was done aboard your model's prototype. The question would be: How were the lines attached to the cringles? They will certainly not have used the carabiner and spring-closed hook that I do! Did they perhaps use moused sister-hooks? Or was that a later technological development? The strops of the sheet and tack blocks may have carried large wooden toggles that could be passed through large eyes worked in the boltropes (external to the canvas of the sail). I think Lees shows something of the kind, though I may be remembering an illustration in Ashley's. Trevor

Despite being common on models, those "neat spirals" are not coils at all. They are "Flemish fakes" and they're a terrible way to abuse rope. They have a place on the foredecks of yachts, as a decorative element, and maybe elsewhere as suitably nautical rope mats. But no seaman would ever treat running rigging like that on a (full-size) vessel. Trevor

Lovely! And an inspiration for me: The pram will be my next build.

Looks like the answer is "sometimes". Crothers ("The American-Built Clipper Ship 1850-1856", published 1996, p.484) said: "the belaying points --sometimes as belaying pins, sometimes as cleats-- followed a loosely similar pattern" He meant "similar" among the various ships. Crothers had done a vast amount of research but he was not as careful as he could have been about citing evidence, so I do not know where he got his information about the use of cleats for belaying lines. Also, his use of terminology was a bit off sometimes, which does not inspire confidence in his interpretations of documentary sources. For example, he mentioned what he called "cavils" (my "kevels", which I think is the English spelling, though I ought to check), which he describes as "large, wooden cleats" used for "mooring lines" (when "mooring" involved lying to two anchors, a quite different process from "tying up" alongside!). Functionally, a cavil/kevel does serve as a giant alternative to a horned cleat but it is only a "cleat" in the sense employed by ignorant yachtsmen, who use the term for any belaying point (including cam cleats, clam cleats and any number of later do-dads). American clippers had "cleats", so called, on every yardarm, to stop the rigging sliding inboard along the yard, but those were not horned cleats and they weren't belaying points. So it is easy to get confused and I can't be certain that Crothers wasn't. Still, if you use some cleats for belaying lines on a model clipper, you could cite good authority! Without detracting from that, I'd advise keeping horned cleats for the lighter lines. Ensign halliard, for sure, but not the topsail halliards! It is almost impossible to make a horned cleat without some part of the strain coming into line with the grain, where wood is weak. Belaying pins and cavils/kevels avoid that by employing two or more pieces of wood, with their grain perpendicular. Light lines bearing light loads are OK with wood cleats and they are fine for small boats. The large ropes and heavy strains on a sailing ship demand something tougher -- including the iron cleats on mast bands seen on later ships. And, as you started this thread asking about cleats around the deck, I'd say a definite "no" to any belaying point set at the feet of the crew. Nobody wants to be down on his hands and knees when belaying a line. Nor do you want the coil of surplus line where it would be walked on, kicked around and washed about by seas breaking aboard. Come to that, wet rope is a bad thing to have on deck planks, while water on deck is a worse thing to sit natural-fibre rope in. So a line may be rove through a turning block hooked to an eyebolt in the deck, and hauled from there, but the belaying point will be roughly at waist level for the crew. [Hardly a concern for models but I have known lines faked out on decks. The only ship with deep topsails I have ever sailed aboard, "Rose" (later of "Master & Commander" fame), had such long topsail halliards that they had to be coiled from the free end towards the belaying point, which meant figure-of-eight fakes (that looked like two coils side-by-side) if tangles were to be avoided. Also, the captain of "Stad Amsterdam" liked to have his mainsheet free to run in an emergency. It was faked along the deck, fore-and-aft by the lee bulwark. Got into bit of a mess when she dipped her scuppers under but nothing serious. Would have been impossible in a deep-laden cargo carrier, with her main deck awash much of the time.] Trevor

The Danish and English/Scotish Royals were playing out a friendly rivalry with prestige ships. Kristian IV of Denmark had Tre Kroner built in 1602–04 by (Anglo-Scottish) David Balfour. In 1606, Kristian sailed to London in her, to visit his brother-in-law, James I & VI. The English monarch decided that he wanted one too and had Prince built during 1608-10. Some have said that she was a direct copy of the Danish original, though she proved far less effective -- maybe through being overloaded with too great a weight of guns. Caught up in his war against Sweden, Kristian next went one-better with Stora Sophia, launched in 1627. James had died two years before, leaving the English and Scottish thrones to his son Charles, aged 24. His brother-in-law, Louis XIII of France, was a year younger still. The latter had La Couronne built, very slowly, during 1629–36. Sovereign of the Seas was, in part, a riposte in the on-going ego contest amongst the monarchs. Kristian did not immediately respond to being upstaged by the young kings but Stora Sophia was lost on active service in 1645. Kristian then ordered a replacement – and specifically one designed to surpass his nephew’s Sovereign. She was built in Christiana (now Oslo) under the direction of an English shipwright, James Robbins, who had been recruited by the Danish king in 1641. By the time that she was finished, Kristian had died and was succeeded by Frederick III, who named his new ship after his queen: Sophia Amalia. Above the waterline, she looks to have been a close copy of SotS, aside from stylistic differences in the artwork. However, the Danish ship saw war service in the Baltic, which SotS in her 1638 configuration could never have done. (On her one cruise, that year, she had barely more than 2 feet of freeboard when her lower-deck ports were open -- leaving her very vulnerable to the fate of Vasa!) Thus, the Danish ships seem to have had fuller underwater bodies than their English contemporaries, allowing them to float higher. Perhaps the shipwrights recruited by the Danish kings were men who had escaped the hidebound rules that constrained the Petts through the decades before the Civil Wars. Whether the Danish experience then fed back to the younger Pett and hence to the (successful) design of Speaker seems to be unknown.

Not quite. In running rigging, the static end of a line (to use a non-nautical term but one that perhaps avoids potential for confusion) typically has a hard eye (meaning that there is a metal thimble in the eye) spliced in. That is fastened (by hook, shackle, clevis pin or bolt) to either the thing being pulled (if the pull is direct, as with a buntline for example), to the becket on a block (if the line forms a three-part or more-powerful tackle) or else to an eye bolt -- typically one in the deck but sometimes elsewhere. I'd agree that, at full-size rather than scale, that end of a line is "never" tied to the eyebolt (jury rigging excepted) but it's the tying not the eyebolt that is never done. I'll also agree that the working end of the line is never tied to an eyebolt. But it's never exactly tied to anything. After being rove through a turning block, if necessary to allow a good pull, the working end is belayed to a belaying point -- pin, timber head, horn cleat, kevel or whatever. The important things are that the belaying point should allow for the line to be tightened as it is belayed, while not causing undue wear on the line, and that the belay should hold securely, yet be swiftly freed when needed. The classic figure-of-eight turns around a belaying pin meet those objectives, though they rely on a delicate balance of friction: Too much and the line will get worn, while you won't be able to sweat it up, too little (as with modern Kevlar and similar rope) and the line will slip. Not something we need be concerned about with models but, at full-size, there's a detail that the textbooks rarely bother to mention: Ten men haul on a line until mate or bo's'un calls "Belay!" Then they can rest their weight on the line, holding the tension. But how to transfer the line to its pin, without the line running back through the blocks? Turns out that (with the high friction of hemp or manilla rope), one man's hands can hold the parts of the tackle together firmly enough that they won't run across one another. The next command is something like: "Come up!", which tells the men on the line to take a step forward. If the friction fails and the line slips, they can throw their weight back onto the line. If not, most drop it while the man nearest to the block swiftly belays the line. I wondered about that for years, before seeing it done. Trevor

And by how often the (far more expensive) stay had to be replaced. On my one voyage aboard "Stad Amsterdam", the sailmaker moaned about how fast the (very expensive) bronze hanks wore out. But even frequent replacement of those was a lesser expense than the wear-and-tear of the steel stays that harder hanks would have caused.

You do very well indeed for someone who was not raised on English as their birth tongue! I'm sort of bilingual too but in my case it's Common English and Nautical English. They are more different than American English is from English English, in the received versions of both. Maybe more than South Asian English is from either of the others. One of the oddities of English when dealing with technicalities is that there are fewer terms available than there are things to be named, yet the few terms are not used efficiently, with multiple alternatives being applied to the same thing in different circumstances. (Look at all the kinds of fish called "cod", yet the original Atlantic cod becomes "scrod" in New England, when served on a seafood platter.) That's especially serious in Nautical English, because of the complexities of nautical technology. My favourite is "futtock" and the entirely unrelated "futtock shroud", while a futtock can be almost indistinguishable from a "top timber" or "naval timber" in some hulls. We could add a "bend", as in a shipwright's draught or its realization in timber, versus a "bend" as in a "sheet bend" or "carrick bend". There are endless opportunities for confusion until to are well immersed in the language. As for "hank": Yes, it can mean a rather loose coil of yarn or twine -- as in a coil of the material awaiting use somewhere. (When does a "hank" in that sense become a "skein"? When it is made of wool or other loose fibre, perhaps?) I don't think that the term would be used for such a coil of any cordage large enough to be called "rope". And after rope (a material) has been put to use on shipboard (thereby becoming a "line" -- not to be confused with the hull lines!) and the surplus length of that line coiled down, calling the resulting coil a "hank" would be a very lubberly mistake. Depending on how it is arranged, it would be a "coil" or a "fake" (and not "flake" -- a common misnomer). I wonder whether the early wood-hoop staysail hanks were so named because they were preceded by hanks of yarn, served over, in the manner of selvagee strops? Ain't English queer? Queer enough to drive ESL teachers to distraction! Trevor

Having boldly declared that contemporary paintings exist, I figured I should produce some. No problem if we were talking of a Brixham smack, as they continued under sail into the 1930s. It turns out that paintings of Hewett's "Short Blue" smacks are harder to find. There are some by Edwin Hayes, apparently from late in the 19th Century, such as: That gives a broad range of colour tones to choose among! While I was at it, I came across a fine painting showing a "trunking" operation by the Short Blue fleet and supposedly dating from 1860. The anonymous artist showed the sails as undressed canvas, which would certainly be wrong for 1890 but perhaps was the way in earlier decades. The immediate interest for this thread is that the cutter receiving fish just might be "Ranger" herself:

I don't think you are doing anything wrong. Far from it! I think your rigging looks very fine indeed. But you are right that a lot of half-hitches and overhand knots look too bulky. First off: I'd recommend starting your reading with Ashley's Book of Knots. The first chapter contains more wisdom about traditional cordage than you'll find anywhere else, while the rest of the tome presents (literally) thousands of knots used on shipboard. There are many other works, some more practical, others more historical. But Ashley's will give you the fundamentals to build on. Next: A sailing ship has many, many knots (though pedants like to fuss over when and where a complex twisting of fibres should be called a "knot" and where it should be something else, such as a "bend"). However, full-scale rigging also uses a lot of splices and seizings, which are much neater than a bunch of half-hitches. Neater but very, very challenging at 1:24, let alone smaller scales! For anything from rope represented at 1:10 up to seizing twine used aboard a (full-scale) sailing dinghy, I find that tuck spices can be useful: Pass the full thickness of the free end under a single stand and repeat, instead of opening out the strands and passing them in turn. At 1:24, eyes can be formed by a crude seizing actually formed like a whipping, without the frapping turns of a proper seizing. (It could even be finished to look like a spliced eye with a serving over the splice!) I find it best to use a West Country whipping: Pass very fine thread where you want to seize an end to make an eye, centre the work at the mid-length of the thread, tie half a reef knot around the parts forming the eye and pull tight, then pass the ends of the thread around the other side of the work and tie another half of a reef knot, bring the ends back to the front, tie again ... and keep going until you are satisfied. Finish with a reef knot, dab of white glue, then cut off the ends of the thread. The great thing with the West Country, rather than a common whipping, when working at scale is that the first couple of knots stabilize the work, after which it is a whole lot easier to proceed. Beyond that, I'd say get imaginative. I've just represented the Mathew Walker knots on my dory's stern becket by tucking each strand once as though starting a back splice, then bringing those strands back over the knot so formed, pulling them together and cutting off short. Crude, ugly and bulky – but much nicer than the overhand knots recommended in Model Shipway's instructions, while being far, far easier than an actual Mathew Walker!

Dressed sails could show any of a wide variety of colours, depending on the mixture used to dress them, which varied from place to place -- and depending on how much weather they had seen since last being dressed. However, if you seek historical accuracy, you need to approximate the colour used in the prototype of your model. The Scots went for a very dark shade, so a zulu or fifie should have almost black sails. In southern England, shades much closer to modern "tanbark" Dacron sailcloth were more normal, though I think the Norfolk wherries had near-black and that may have been used in other places besides. I don't know of any colour photos of trawling smacks from before the few survivors were given Dacron outfits (or maybe I should say "Terylene", as they likely all have the ICI version of DuPont's fibre) and my own experience aboard a smack was long after she had been decked out in artificial fibre. However, there are contemporary paintings that you could find with a Google image search, which would give you a fair idea of how the originals looked. I'd certainly not go for Vanguard's wine-like version. That looks way too purple to my eye. Also, while dying the fabric: Flax sailcloth should be almost opaque even before being dressed and certainly after. I doubt that, even in bright sunlight, you'd see the shadow of one sail through the fabric of another, when looking up-sun. I'm not suggesting that a model sail should be made that opaque but don't worry about the dye reducing translucency. The sails should not be translucent! Trevor

I get a weird feeling that I am quietly following in your tracks! I'm still building the fishing gear to fit out my version of the Model Shipways dory, then it will be the pram, followed by the lobster sloop. I've already wondered about the NRG half-hull planking exercise and cast my eye over Vanguard's range of fishing craft. Something about great minds being led up the same path ... As to Ranger: I suspect that the kit is based on the draught that March took off a model loaned him by Robert M. Hewitt. March gives the 1864 construction date but the current Robert Hewett (Robert G.) has a listing of the family's vessels on his website ( https://shortbluefleet.org.uk/vessels-test-page/ ) which shows only the one Ranger: Built at Wivenhoe in 1847 and gone from the fleet sometime after 1863. I have no way to guess which is correct but March was breaking much new ground and a few mistakes along the way would not be surprising. I was in touch with Robert a few years ago and I dare say that he would be willing to explain how he came to the particular details he has listed. March provides one set of spar dimensions and the corresponding sail plan. In his text, however, he wrote of the boom of the summer rig overhanging the taffrail by 14 feet! That would make for a dramatic model, though you would need corresponding dimensions for the gaff and topmast (maybe the bowsprit and topsail yard too). They might exist. The Essex county archives hold some Hewett material, including a notebook of trawl designs from the 1890s, when they were experimenting with new-fangled otter trawling. It's unlikely but not impossible that data on the family's cutters of the mid-19th Century have survived. I'll be looking in from time to time to see your model progress but, next up, will be your pram build log! Trevor

I am not sure how "modern" you mean. Ships' boats since the turn of the millennium are often fully enclosed lifeboats or RIBs. If you are thinking of late-20th Century boats, I think the answer lies in psychology as much as practicality. Gratings on ships can be ways to permit air circulation without having dangerous gaps in the decks but they had other purposes too. They provide better grip for a man's feet than planking can and so got used where there was need for some special stance: around the binnacle on a warship's bridge or to raise the helmsman on a big sailing ship, so that a larger wheel (more leverage) could be fitted (to give two but examples). From that, gratings become associated with command and control, hence with officers, and thereby become a mark of elite status -- a role enhanced by the greater cost and more elaborate appearance. Boats could be fitted with gratings in the sternsheets, while the oarsmen had their feet on simple floorboards, for example. That notion of gratings as being more "classy" is perpetuated in the yachting world, with teak gratings over GRP cockpit soles for those so inclined. I know that the same notion was long maintained for ships' boats and probably longer for elite ship's elite boats (Admiral's barges carried aboard major warships, for example) than for run-of-the-mill boats. I'd not be surprised if models extend the fashion even longer than their prototypes. Gratings just look so nautical. Trevor