TomShipModel

Very good discussion. Thanks for posting this.

Thanks for posting the dates of those books Wefalck. I was guessing without checking my book shelf. My bad. There are other earlier references that are out there depending on the period that you are in. Lees, Masting and Rigging English Ships of War is probably to most complete reference out there, but generally covers 1st through 6th rates and not cutters. Thanks to Bob Cleek for adding the extra information of all of the reasons for serving.

Thank you for this video. It was very well done.

Serving was done to mitigate wear and chaffing. Since this is not a Naval vessel, there is a good deal of flexibility. There are texts on 17th century rigs and practice like "Young Sea Officer's sheet Anchor" by Darcy Lever as well as a book by Biddlecombe. The simple answer that I would use is that the section of the shroud that wraps around the mast head would likely to served to a point maybe two feet below the mast head. The stays would be served where they wrap around the mast head. If there is a square lower sail, the forward most shroud would be served, but not where it goes around the deadeye. That is to prevent chaffing from the sail. That the general idea. Hope that this helps, Tom

Elijah, It has been awhile since I posted here, but I just have to tell you that you are doing a great job. Your workmanship and fidelity to scale is top notch. Congratulations. Tom

The anchor looks fine in the pictures. Very nice. Tom

Very well done Toni. I note that there is a skylight on the quarter deck. You might have answered this already, earlier on, but can you tell me if the skylight was on your plans? I am doing a 6th rate as well. I'm thinking of putting on a skylight but it isn't shown on any of the plans that I have. I'm building it as it was after two rebuilds, so a skylight could have been added. I'm wondering if that was a typical practice. Tom

Very well done Mike. Extremely clean workmanship. Tom

Well done Toni. The whole presentation looks terrific. Tom

Looking Great! It's amazing how a very slight change makes such a difference. Tom

Good evening Dave, That's where I saw it. Why this is mentioned in the rigging and/or yardarm discussion is bewildering. In any case, thanks to you, I'm going to be able to set it right with a sound factual basis. Be well, Tom

Good morning, and thanks! I knew that I saw that somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Where is that passage in Lees? I went back and forth in my first edition. You can imagine how it gets when you know it's there but you can't find it. I agree, a sixth rate would definitely qualify as a small ship. So, time to stop with my completed mizzen yard, and move on to the gaff that I started but stopped. Maybe I can salvage the aft end of it. A loose fitted sail it is. Frankly, I out smarted myself. I appreciate all the help. Thanks, Tom

Good evening all, Thank you for your answers. No thinking of it logically, it makes sense to have the jeer block hanging from the mast head abaft the mast. Mark, I'd be very interested to know about the contracts. I seem to recall, although I can't place where, that the gaff did show up prior to 1790, but on small craft. A sixth rate would fill that bill, and frankly, even though I made the yard and installed all of the blocks and such, a loose footed gaff would safe me a lot of tribulations. As Dave points out, and as discussed in Harland's Seamanship in the Age of Sail, moving the mizzen yard simply to change tack was complicated and problematic. It is that the period that I am modeling is basically right at the point of different establishments. Regards to all, Tom

Good morning all, I am at the point of rigging my model of HMS Liverpool. Liverpool is a 28 gun, Coventry class, 6th rate, frigate. She was built in 1758. My model is as she would be about 1775, 1776. By that time, she had two rebuilds. Modelshipwright published Modelers Plans in one of their editions. Sadly, after doing much research, and consulting the Admiralty drafts, I found several inaccuracies. For example, it shows the pumps, capstains and such in their original position as designed. The admiralty drafts clearly show that they were relocated one deck higher, and this is noted in the book, The First Frigates. The Modelshipwright plan also has spars and rigging plans. These are in different scales (not noted) and clearly show a gaff and boom on the Mizzen. All of my sources (lee's, Steel, Lever Harland) note that the boom did not show up until 1790. It also appears that the ship still carried a mizzen yard. Would that be correct because some books show a gaff with a loose footed mizzen course? Now to the problem. Both Lees and Lever show the mizzen yard suspended by a jeer block. On the fore and Main masts, the jeer blocks hand from sling around the mast head above all of the other rigging (shrouds, stays etc). In lever, the jeer for the mizzen yard hangs from a sling around the mizzen masthead. Where does it hang and reave to the block on the mizzen yard? The crojack yard, for the period, had a truss. Below the crojack is where the mizzen lard lies against the mast. If the mizzen jeer block is slung from the mast head, and goes down the starboard side of the mast, how does it not interfere with the shrouds? In Lees, there are two pictures of the mizzen top for HMS Medway. The pictures don't show the detail very clearly, but it appears that the jeer block hangs abaft the mast. Am I interpreting that correctly? I suppose that I could make this easy and use a gaff instead of the yard, but I don't think that it is correct. All opinions welcomed. Regards, Tom

Very god point Wayne.

Thank you for the information. I am attempting sails for my 1:96 HMS Liverpool. It has been around for, literally, decades. My sails are laminated silk span (three plies). I've done the mizzen sail, but I've not put on the reef points as of yet. We'll see how it goes. Your workmanship is first rate, the result is wonderful. Tom

What did you use for reef points? Did you use wire or thread? Thanks, Tom

Very well done! Very realistically presented. The sea looks very good as do the sails.

Very well done. Very tidy workmanship! Tom

Well done Toni. Your interpretation of the plan seems to be correct. Yes, there would be a cap rail in my opinion.

Very well done Mike. Your progress has been very steady. Great job! Tom

Good morning, I haven't built Cheerful, but I have seen two of them in progress. I'm speculating is that it has to do with the bevel of the bulkheads. Since "O" is the dead flat, I don't think that it makes a difference which way you put it in because there is no bevel for that frame. Best regards to you. You are embarking on a great project. Enjoy!

Excellent work Jim. Thank you for sharing. TOm

Toni, Very nice work. As far as netting on the Forecastle, manropes would have been all that would be there as the netting would be in the way. Some lines run to timberheads from outboard and some from inboard. Either way, belaying would require wrapping around the timberhead. Netting would be a problem I would surmise. Best Regards, Tom

Hi Toni, I have seen billboards left bright understanding that they are intended to get "beat up" over time and would be periodically replaced. A scarred up painted billboard would be a bad thing I'm thinking. Tom R