Yes, this very early trunnion carronade is most remarkable on a wreck from 1810.

I would not have thought that this type of Carronade was still actively used on a frigate around 1810.
Is it possible to add a photo from behind?

Thank you for sharing.👍

Fantastic work in plastic 👍 and another step to the next deck.

The Arbeitskreis Historischer Schiffbau published a two-part article about the French trois-ponts in the 17th century in his journal Das Logbuch in 1996.
Author: Johann Gröbner.
In part 2 the Rochfort RL original body plan is printed.

On 2/29/2020 at 5:34 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

Thank, you Mark for the kind compliment, and thank you Chris for the tip on enlarged prints.

 

Chapman, I can see what I think you are referring to in this enlargement of the bow:

There appear to be two forward facing chase guns on the forecastle deck.

 

This portrait, together with the other Vienna portrait:

... are clearly of the same ship.   Perhaps, there are forecastle guns shown along the broadside, as well.  If I enlarge this image, this is what I see:

Are there gun barrels peaking between the shrouds, from the forecastle deck?  Maybe.

 

Let’s count visible artillery:

LD: 14 + 1 un-armed chase port

MD:  14

MD:  12 - mysteriously, there appears to be one gun missing in the fore chains area, just aft of the anchor

QD: 5

FC: 2 visible in this portrait

 

Add all this up, and you have a broadside of 45 X 2 = 90 + 2 chase guns, for a total of 92.

 

If one wants to be generous and add in the six other missing FC guns, that still only brings you to 98, as opposed to Royal Louis’s 104.  Add-in the two guns missing on the main deck and you’re up to 100.

 

If you were to add-in 4 guns on the poop, you’d be at the RL’s armament, but they are clearly not visible in the portrait.

 

Neither is the known lower deck piercing for the Royal Louis of 1668:  15 + 1 unarmed chase port.

 

All of this adds up to a lot of addition of conjectural artillery, and I might add that the RL’s forecastle was never not armed.

 

And, then, there are a number of ornamental differences between this:

and this:

... the latter, of which, I believe to be the hand of either LeBrun or Girardon, as it is known that Puget was not permitted to work on the ornamental scheme for the RL.

 

Chief among these differences is the reversal of Neptune and Thetis, between the two ships, and the RL has much more going on from the stern counter, down to the waterline.

 

Also, the structure and support of the quarter deck stern balcony is markedly different between the two ships.

 

And, I always return to the signature inscribed on the Vienna drawing of the Monarque’s starboard quarter:

I believe these two ships were quite similar in appearance, but the RL was larger, more heavily armed and more ornate.

 

I also believe that Puget made these two excellent portraits of the Monarque because that was his crowning achievement, at Toulon.  The Monarque, and not the RL was his baby.

 

For anyone interested, the following link will take you to a truly excellent review of Puget’s work at Toulon, and it makes mention of the hasty grafting of the RL’s ornamental works onto the Monarque, in order to satisfy Beaufort.  It is an excellent read and a much clearer distillation of other Puget biographies that precede it:

https://www.academia.edu/41636304/La_bonne_fabrique_et_le_superbe_ornement_Pierre_Puget_s_ship_decoration
 

I know that the academic community all say that these portraits all represent the RL, but I respectfully disagree.  Nobody that I have read, to date, can definitively tie the Vienna portraits to the RL; they all simply say that it is so, while vaguely acknowledging that there are some ambiguities, there.

 

For his part, the author of Uber Den Wellen bases his analysis of the RL’s stern allegory almost entirely on the LeBrun drawing, which corresponds very closely with Hayett’s description.

 

Even the biographer I just referenced does not think there are any extant portraits of the Monarque.  I, however, think they are hiding in plain sight.

Yes I can see 2 guns and with a lot of good will or a drink maybe 3 on the forecastle.
And also guns on the poop. What I cannot say in conclusion is that it is RL or Monarque. But I tend more to RL.

What is striking about the port drawing is the low freeboard of the ship, even though the ship is only slightly heeling.

This drawing also shows a pronounced tumble home.
Similar to that of the Royal Louis from 1692 on the original plans from the Rochefort archive, which were made in 1697 for a repair. This adaptation of the body plan seems to me to be more exemplary for the RL or Monarque from 1668/70, after adjustment, than the well-known strange body plan from the work of Admiral Paris.
Unfortunately, I cannot show the plan here either for copyright reasons.

But I can give you a source if you are interested.

Hello Marc

I don't have permission to publish the picture. But you can look at the picture here and also request a better scan. Albertina Museum Wien

Edit: If this link no longer works, then this permanent link will definitely be the one Link

On 2/24/2020 at 3:48 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

 

 

 

When we get into these ambiguities of ship identification, I personally like to fall back on apparent artillery as a more reliable gauge of ship identity.  That is why I persistently argue that the following portrait (as well as the starboard quarter portrait that is actually inscribed the Grand Monarque) is actually of the Monarque, and not the Royal Louis:

There is no armed forecastle, here, and even if there was, the total armament would fall far short of RL’s 104.  There is no armed poop deck in these portraits, either.  Add to that a number of ornamental inconsistencies, and the distinction between these two ships becomes even clearer.  Anyway, please forgive my digression.

 

While the Van de Veldes And Puget are the best documentarians of what these ships really looked like, even they were likely to have introduced errors and inconsistencies into their drawings, or so it seems to me.

I mean the drawing on my copy shows 2 small Chase guns and the corresponding round ports in the bulkhead on the forecastle.

On 2/25/2020 at 10:03 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

Chapman, do you have an even clearer image of this portrait, or do you know where it resides?

 

Maybe I’m seeing things - it is extremely faint - but there appears to be an inscription along the bottom left edge:

It was common practice for the VdVeldes to inscribe the portraits with the ship name - often in their own creative Dutch spelling.

 

If you enlarge your screen, you can maybe see what I mean:  a script inscription.

Hello Marc,
unfortunately I don't have a better version. The text remains illegible. If the name of the ship was noted and legible, the secret would surely be solved. French ships from this period are definitely a headache.

In 1673 weren't many french Ponant ships with 14 + 1 ports in the lower tier.

The great drawings of the ship with the elegant flat appearance,  identified as Superbe or Orgilleux, could all show the same ship. And this mysterious two-decker the sister ship or what else ? The latter seems to suit the bulky appearance of the Calais first or second -rate ship.

Source: NMM

Here we have another unknown candidate.
Could be Superbe or Orguilleux from 1672/73.

It looks like V.d.V. Problems with perspective at the gun ports. In the front area of the lower battery, he had to correct the position of the piece gates. There is one gate too many.
As I wrote it should be 14 gates and 1 hunting gate. Then the distribution also matches the upper gun deck.

Source: NMM

In my view, the exact total number of guns for identification is secondary. First of all, the number of gun ports cut into the hull is important

It is easy to place guns on the upper decks. They can shoot over low parapets. And additional gun ports are also easier to install there. It's mostly a matter of top weight.

Hello Marc,

thank you for your answer.

In my view, the argument against Reine is that the well-known V.d.V drawings. shown by you above, should have originated in 1673. And she shows 15 gun ports + 1 chase port on the lower deck.

At the moment I think it could be the Superbe. It was one of a two ship class upgraded in 1673 to ship of the line  with 3 gun decks

There is a Van de Velde drawing that shows the bow of one of the two ships. the Superbe in 1672, after Solebay where she participated, could show that before her modification . I consider the simple figurehead, a lion, shown on the V.d.V drawing as a reference. The number of gun ports 14 +1 chase port and the overall appearance Likewise.
Indeed both ships in the class were upgraded in this way. The Superbe, however, was after Solebay 1672 the first and could have been available for this event in 1673.

Source: National Maritime Museum

Source: Wikipedia/NMM

Marc,

great that you continue to show us your incredible work on the rear facade. I admire your perseverance and skill.👍

I hope it doesn't bother if I ask, at a competent point, which French Flagship of the line could be in Calais in 1673?
The French ship seems to have brought Mary of Modena to this port city. Maybe a Ship from the Levant Fleet or Ponant, and which?

Interesting addition!👍
Are the obusiers also mentioned in the monograph?

Prost Neujahr/

Happy New Year!

The question is good, but there seems to be little material for frigates.
Boudriot's book "Ship of the line" has some information about the hammocks.
What is not clear is how far this can be done for frigates. The 1781 drawing of the frigate Galathèe , by a contemporary French artist is from interest.. The best I could find on the subject, if you assume that the hammocks in frigates, unlike in Ship of the Line, are only accommodated on the gangways.

Later french frigate models, from around 1800 onwards, showed additional hammocks on the quarterdeck and forecastle. See Flore

Hi Mark,

nice peace of work.👍

I would like to mention that it is more than an attached molding, it is a decorated Hekbalk / Wing Transom. An important construction component that is also listed with the dimensions in the Zerter*, the building regulations.

*

Quote

Zerter (in various spellings: Särter, Certer or Zärter) or cutlery in historical shipbuilding in the early modern period was a detailed written design according to which a particular ship was built.

Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerter

I would place the Latin motto above the stern gunports. I saw that in a picture of the Dutch Zeven Provincien.

It also seems less vulnerable to the sea there.

Hello Marc!

There is a new book published by Ancre  on the French first and second rates.

The Saint-Philippe and the first-rates under Louis XIII to Louis XIV

Just right for Christmas.  Unfortunately at the moment only in French

Well then... , Joyeux noel!

That's a lot of well done work.

54 minutes ago, Dubz said:

May you provide us the link? I can't find it.

 

 

 

Dirk

Search Sherborn, the document has a new Object ID!

Hi!

The NMM Plan of  the Cutter Pitt mentioned also the Flying Jib Boom. NMM plan Pitt

So there was at least one more cutter with this equipment.

There is another document about the proportion of blocks and ropes of the Sherbourne from the NMM available: J8465

On 6/29/2019 at 5:15 PM, Heinrich der Seefahrer said:

 

 

The book also bears a plenty of information about the development of the Reaissaince into early Baroque to the French Highbaroque and the more floating and light Late/Southgerman Baroque and the Rokokko. (The exhibition is until October 2019 here in Berlin

https://sdtb.de/technikmuseum/ausstellungen/architectura-navalis/

My congratulations on the completion of the monograph.

Wow, that's a really nice frigate. 

Quote

I'd like to get some opinions on whether it would be appropriate to try to make that substitution
or I'm I better off just staying with the 6-pound cannons supplied with the kit? 

I would stay with the 6 pounder.

Boudriot gives as standard armament for the Hermione
26 x 12 pounders
6 x 6 pounders

The Concorde the first ship of the class (including Hermione) had according to a contemporary Danish
plan of the ship
26 x 12 and  10 x 6 pounders. 
The plan mentioned the coopering of the Concorde 1779, so I guess the plan ist from 1779/80.

Here are a few more information I wrote in a different context.

Excuse me!
For some reason, part of the post is not shown.

he Standard 6-pounder also forms the secondary armament of the Hermione.

Hello,

that the Hermione had Obusiers on board is unknown to me, and actually only possible at the end of
their service.
The French obusier of 36 pounds, seen on the Ancre Plan, was developed in 1786 and used from 1787 
on French ships. This Obusier was developed from the howitzer of the Gribeauval system. It is not 
a kind of carronade. A "real" French Carronade came in frigates from 1804 in use.

Source: Boudriot / Ancre French Frigates
Now the question arises what information was available to the draftsman of the Ancre Plan?
On the occasion. The figurehead on the Ancre Plan is also questionable from my point of view.

Even if the AL kit of the Hermione is in need of improvement for sure. So it is also very cheap and shows the essence of the ship. I think a model maker can make a lot of the model. With a second veneer planking is gained a lot.

Sorry, I do not have digital files, only in books. Boudriot: French Frigates; Gardiner: The First Frigates etc.
But the guys of Gamelabs sure have something.