Hubac's Historian

Welcome home, Eric!

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts on this matter. So, Henry, should the linstock barrel be depicted with simply a hole in its narrower diameter top, for where the linstock would be placed during battle? I see some builders detail these tubs with coopered staves engraved, barrel bands applied, the linstock stick removed, and the centers bored out to look more like liquid carrying vessels. They even attach ears to the rim, to accept a rope lanyard. What you are suggesting, I think, is that this tapered cone barrel is wider at its base precisely to be a more stable support for the lit match. In that case, the hole at the top should only be big enough for the linstock to be inserted. I suppose that for the sake of expedient clearing of the decks, it still makes sense for the lanyard to be attached. The more conventional buckets (narrow at bottom and flaring at top) are really the swab buckets for swabbing the bore between shots. Heller only provides 10 of these and they instruct you to place them in non-sensical places along the decks, rather than as equipment specific to the battle stations. Do I have this right, Henry?

Hi Guys - does anyone know what specifically these are? They are part of the battle-station equipment for each gun. I think it is a cask, and perhaps the barrel swab is the long handle?

It seems quite reasonable to me that all QG windows would be false. You have given me good reason to black-out the single window on the Quarter Deck level of my model. Observe Tanneron’s model of L’Agreable of 1697. All QG windows are shown as false: As for placement of guns within the quarter galleries, one thing seems pretty certain to me. A gun would not have been rigged in the door opening to the QG. This, for all the reasons you mention, but most especially because it must remain a clear pass-through - even in battle. If one doubts that officers had the need to use the facilities during battle, they must consider that battle raged for hours and hours at a time, and they were certainly anxiety producing affairs. The Tanneron model of Soleil Royal is a confusing representation of the structure and function of the QGs. I will preface my following comments with the disclaimer that they are merely my observations, and not expert-verified facts. Tanneron, in my opinion, has created a composite of what Soleil Royal may have looked like, both at the beginning of her career in 1670 and after the replacement SR was built in 1693. Early features include the very tall stern, the completely open quarters and three stern balconies. The overall shape of the QGs, on the other hand, suggests the style of ships built during the second major building program of the 1690’s. The primary difference would be that the bottles, by this later date, would have been completely closed-in, in order to adhere to the reglements mandating this change in approach. Tanneron shows an extra port on the main deck level, at the forward edge of the QG, where it makes structural sense to place a port within the QG. Also, though, he shows a port in the middle of the QG at the middle deck battery. This should be where the entry door to the QG is placed. Instead Tanneron shows this door opening from the center of the lower stern balcony, which is represented as open and walkable. Perhaps, Tanneron pulled this idea from the conceptual LeBrun drawing for the Royal Louis of 1668, and the finished Girardon drawing of the same. Both show an open doorway in the center of the lower stern balcony, which suggests a walkable balcony: In my view, though, there are several issues with Tanneron’s construction, at this level. My primary issue is that it seems to ignore the practical function of the QG as a functioning toilet. If the lower stern balcony wraps to the quarters, where is the seat of ease supposed to be? The other issue has to do with the fact that even at this early time in the 1670’s, a lower stern balcony would be vulnerable to heavy following seas, and could be washed away. It is my belief, that the lower stern balcony was always a bit of theatrical representation; a shallow decoration of the lower stern counter, made to look like a walkable balcony, but whose functional purpose is really to serve as a shelf for the Four Seasons figures that support the middle balcony. As you mention, though, there are early contemporary drawings that support the idea that the QG’s were occasionally armed. See the Royal Therese, below: And, also, a contemporary drawing of the port of Rochefort: The vessel above shows a gun through a panel opening, forward of center. I think, perhaps, that your idea for a split panel has some traction. That is the solution Lemineur applied to the middle deck stern chase ports of the St. Philippe of 1693: As for your email problems, perhaps the issue might resolve itself, if you created a new email account for your client correspondences. ‘Might be a glitch in your current account. Computers and their inner workings remain a mystery to me. I am like the dog that has no conception of what happens to their owner, when he walks out the front door.

Ah, yes - I remember now. That will be a good one!

Another beautiful job, Bill! So, what’s next in your dockyard?

Just brilliant beyond compare. The detailing is off the charts!

With regard to the two main issues you have raised, here, I submit the following for your consideration. When I was first considering this, presumed to be Jean Berain, design for the 1689 quarter galleries of Soleil Royal, there were aspects of the drawing that seemed like artifacts of an earlier time. If I were to interpret the drawing literally, it would result in a cramped and muddled looking structure: This profusion of five false windows in the lower gallery tier have more in common with the construction practices of the early 1670’s. The windows, themselves, are one thing, but where it really gets cramped is the area below with all of it’s pilasters and panels. The way this is drawn is unpleasingly asymmetrical to my eye. Alternatively, I reduced the number of windows on the lower tier to three and arranged them along a central axis that runs straight through the crowned upper finishing, and the grape-clustered lower finishing. The triangulation of the 3:2:1 window arrangement better supports the essentially diamond shaped quarter galleries in a more harmonious way. The pilaster and panel arrangement is also much more coherent: This light re-design has the added advantage of being much more consistent with the construction practice of these times of the latter 1680’s. With the exception of the quarter deck level (Admiral’s quarters) - the single window in the amortisement - all other quarter gallery windows would be false, with perhaps a small, hinged center window within the window, for ventilation while using the toilet. It is my belief that all of these lower tier false lights would have been removable panels, behind which there could be an additional cannon port. You see this at the main deck and middle deck levels of Tanneron’s model: photos, courtesy of Yoann Guillemenet.

I understand your impulse toward perfection, but the windows are really excellent. The mullions follow the horizontal camber of the stern, and the vertical tumblehome of the topsides. One point I am still curious about. How did you ultimately get the tagua nut carvings to re-adhere to their place settings?

Absolutely stunning work!

Are cavals the single sheave post belay points? Curious because the Heller SR is littered with them, and I have not yet determined whether they were a real thing. Do you know more about these?

Fantastic work, Matthias! Your earlier book recommendation with the loosely translated title, The Baroque Ship as an Architectural Prospect, has become my favorite resource. Thank you for the recommendation!

Hi Guys - very late to this discussion, but my 1 1/2 CENTS: I was searching for pictures of the replica ship under sail, and could not find any that showed boomkins rigged. Perhaps the crew employs other practical work-arounds, although I have no clue what they might be.

I would add, also, that I’ve coiled and flaked rope as a volunteer on South Street Seaport’s historic schooner Pioneer. Coils have to run freely, so longer loops and fewer are better than smaller, stacked coils. Mostly though, at scale, I just don’t like the appearance of perfectly round coils that instantly bring to mind the knitting needle they were formed on. The varnish tip is a good one, but I would be reticent to apply acetone to an acrylic painted, plastic model. This approach, it seems to me, is perfect for wooden modeling. ‘Something I will definitely tuck away for the future. I can tell you from my several mis-adventures of blemishing my ventre-de-biche hull that color-matching that distressed appearance is a real biche 😜

Hi Ian - Those are actually blocks that Kevin is printing with his own equipment. The smallest I found were also 2MM.