Hubac's Historian

I like this alternative version just above, but I think the scroll work to either side of the stern post entry would look better if it more closely followed the outward billowing form of its inspiration. I think it will make for a better interplay with the purple field color.

One other thought, John, which might offer additional clarity and insight into the specific questions you raise: have you read Guy Maher’s research on the development and appearance of SR? If not, and if it interests you, simply PM me your email address and I will send it along. There are so many things I like about your rendering for 1693, and I am just completely blown away by your treatment of the upper bulwark frieze and your color choices. I implore you to open a build-log, if only with sporadic updates, because your followers would be legion for this particular rendition, the coloration, of which, would likely be more palatable to SR traditionalists. More questions and commentary to follow.

Holy Christ, John - you’re gonna force me into prayer and swear! Does that last pic represent the actual status of paint and ornamental work you have achieved so far, or is that merely a photoshop proposal for now? Either way, it is stunning and completely fascinating. I will respond more fully in a bit. I spent about three hours composing the previous post, but I don’t have that kind of time, this morning.

Vic, you are both too kind to me and too modest of yourself.

Yeah, that was the other interesting period anomaly, now that you mention it - main t’gallant sails only. It makes for a very tall and rakish looking rig.

Really fascinating Waldemar. So, I am just noticing now that these early ships did not carry a mizzen topsail with cro-jack yard?

Wow, John-O! You have truly blown my mind here with a masterful job of photo-editing; somehow you have taken a barely more than 2-dimensional Berain stern drawing, in plan view, and made a fully 3-D perspective drawing. And you are pretty close to my own thinking on this subject. I hope you don’t mind that I have screen-shotted your drawing for the sake of an over/under comparison: One can see on the LR drawing that just to either side of the tafferal carving - the Arms of France - are two small arched port windows that correspond with two of the same ports at the quarters. You are quite correct, in my view, to shorten LR’s tafferal from the bottom, so that you can introduce the upper tier of 6 stern lights for SR. One gentle critique I’ll offer is that in manipulating the Berain drawing, the height of this upper balcony tier is a little too far reduced to make it practical; for a man of the times standing on this balcony, the cap rail might only reach mid-thigh. See what I mean, comparatively, in plan view: The height of the upper balcony bulwark is slightly reduced from that of the middle balcony, but not by half. If you were to nudge that upper balcony rail upwards by an additional scale thickness of caprail - a highly imprecise measure, if there ever was one - you would arrive at a scale impression that at least looks more right to the eye. This incremental increase should also be transferred to the top of that upper window tier so that it is just a little more closely aligned with the quarter port openings. Right now, my eye reads that upper tier of lights as being just a bit lower than they should be. ”But Marc,” you might be saying to yourself right now, “that reduces the tafferal height for the big carving of Apollo and his quadriga. WTF, man, don’t mess me up like that!” You probably aren’t saying that exactly, John, but I like to amuse myself 😏 Okay, so, here are my thoughts on LR’s tafferal height. By the time the VdVs are sketching the French fleet in 1673, it is reasonably likely that LR’s original sheer height of stern had been reduced, somewhat, to comply with the new Reglements of 1671. Alterations to the height of stern and previously top-heavy ornamental figures were undertaken for the ships that were to be part of the allied French/English fleet. The French did not wish to embarrass themselves in the eyes of the English, whom they were studying closely, in order to improve their own construction measures and proportions. It is the particular observations of Tourville, Etienne Hubac and Seignelay while boarding and taking principal measurements of The Royal Charles in late 1672 that ultimately results in the comparative study between the RC and SR, presented to the construction councils in December of 1672. As flagship, I think it likely that LR’s height and ornamental program would have been reduced to comply. However, La Reyne was a commissioned warship, while Soleil Royal remained a symbolic beacon, at anchor, on the Penfeld. There may not have been any immediate urgency for razee’ing her deadworks to comply with the Reglement of 1671, and it is known that her ornamental program, at the very least, took into account the failures and excesses of the Royal Louis of 1668; while SR still has large rounded figure carvings, they have been hollowed-out to reduce weight. In consideration of your drawing, I think it is reasonable to raise the reverse-curve coronation a few scale feet (perhaps by the same height of the band of astrological symbols), in order to represent this higher sheer height of the earliest constructions (1667-1670), and to give more room to Apollo’s quadriga. I suspect the overall impression of sheer height would have been quite similar or the same as that of the Monarque: I also think that the shape and projection of the lower and middle balconies would have followed more closely what you see on the Monarque, or the refit Dauphin Royal (below in blue) but that the lower balcony was probably already a mere vestigial “shelf” for the Four Seasons figures. Now, with regard to the number of stern lights that may have been present on the earliest ships, there does seem to be enough corroborating evidence among the Monarque, the RL and the Dauphin Royal to suggest seven windows between quarters. The RL of 1668, as perhaps roughly sketched by LeBrun or Girardon: A more finished version of the same: And the DR: That is conjecture, on my part, but there is some concrete reference to this possibility, in the form of the survey drawing of the original grand council chamber ceiling in May of 1688: There are what appear to be five full window openings, bracketed by two half-lights at the extremities for a total of seven. One exercise in drawing and proportion that I have not yet gotten to is to map out the stern widths at each level, which are also known and recorded from this same 1688 survey. That might provide a reasonable guide of the ship’s degree of tumblehome at the stern, and ultimately may suggest whether it was possible or even likely to continue two additional upper tiers of seven stern lights. It may be the case, though, that there is a reduction from seven on the lowest tier, with five full and two blank-panel reliefs on the middle tier, and five full on the top tier that are book-ended by ornamental pilasters. If it is possible to cary seven at each level, I like very much what Tony Devroude arrived at for the framing of his DR of 1668: (NRJ Vol. 55, No. 3, Fall 2010) As for the particular ornamental differences between the original SR allegory, suggested by LeBrun and perfected by Puget, I am fascinated by the following excerpt from: Sur la vie et les oeuvres de P. Puget , par D.-M.-J. Henry,... Author : Henry, Dominique-Marie-Joseph (1778-1850). Auteur du texte Publisher : impr. de E. Aurel (Toulon) Publication date : 1853 …The stern of the Royal Sun, whose decoration is also due to the pencil of Puget, seems to testify to the account held by this artist of the need to restrict the extent of decoration. In the design of this new vessel the upper gallery, that is to say, the one which in the other vessel culminates in the coronation, is suppressed, and the figures are less gigantic. The vault it is a duty and a real pleasure to express to this laborious writer all my gratitude for the obliging competition which he has kindly lent me by searching, in the archives of the Ministry of the Navy, the documents which could not be furnished to me by the archives of the port of Toulon, and sending me textually a copy of the various pieces of Colbert's official correspondence which I use in this work. 38 ON LIFE AND WORKS other ornament than simple moldings and a mascaron to cover the opening of the jaumière. To this seems to be reduced the apparent modification made in the profusion of ornamental riches, the composition of the painting always retaining a great and noble character. It may be, however, that the absence of ornaments in the vault was less akin to the modification demanded by the minister, than to the quality of the vessel, which being of second rank did not admit so much luxury of decoration. The area that bears the name of the vessel, covered with beautiful arabesques, is, at the Sun Royal, supported by four baths indicating the seasons that the star of the day shares in its annual race, because it must be noted, everything is allegorical in the decoration of this building whose name itself alluded to the young monarch. The succession of seasons begins with the left, where winter is represented under the appearance of an old man wrapped in a drapery covering his head and body; the other three seasons are graceful figures of women carrying on their heads a basket full of flowers or fruits that characterize them. The gallery extends from one end of the stern to the other, and its two extremities serve as the seat of two beautiful figures representing warriors of lesser proportions than those of the first vessel. These warriors, whose defensive armor differs as well as attitude, still refer to the two great regions that the sun illuminates. The east, on the starboard side, had its helmet adorned with floating ostrich feathers, while the crest of the port warrior, composed of feathers of other birds, formed a broad plume framing with great taste all the top of the head . With the hands of the two hands, which were near the ship, on the cornice of the gallery, which served as their seat, both of them held up the arm on the opposite side, so that the hand served as support. P. PUGET. 39 next to the top of the board. These sides are formed of an inverted console whose notch accommodated at the reentrant part of the flanks of the building, at the height of the second battery. A bust of a woman carrying on the head a basket of flowers for one, fruit for the other, comes out of the small winding of these consoles. The great bas-relief, left blank in the project of decoration of the first vessel, but drawn in this one which had already received its name, represents the young king under the figure of Phoebus, driving his chariot harnessed of the four mythological horses launched at a gallop, and in the ancient style, that is to say, thrown two on the right and two on the left. The coronation of this beautiful stern, of better taste than that of the other vessel, is formed by two figures of women seated with their legs extended along the very slightly arched border of this coronation, and turned on their hips so to present face all the upper body. Their costume still indicates in them the symbol of the East and the West. Nobly draped one by one, the figure of the west holds in his right hand a long scepter leaning on his shoulder, while in front of her, at her feet, a horse with a bristling, floating mane, with her head held high, her mouth open, and her nostrils wide, looks at her, neighing. To starboard, the symbol of the east carelessly holds in its hands, in front of it, a vase from which rises a plant apparently indicating that of perfumes. At the foot of this figure and symmetrically with that of the opposite side, is lying a tiger that a necklace passed around his neck seems to show as tame and submissive animal. This remarkable composition is, as we see, only an ingenious flattery by which Puget celebrated in his own way the glory of the young monarch, who at the same time dominates the East and the West, the East by the establishment created or 40 ON LIFE AND WORKS encouraged, (1) the West by the power of its weapons, and making its domination accept with love. An immense royal crown placed between the two symbolic figures, in the middle of the arch of the coronation, serves as a support for the only stern lantern. As in the other vessel, the whole surface of the painting is still noticeable by the profusion of details of the accessory ornamentation: L-stamped cartridges, crisscrossed, faces of radiant sun, fleur-de-lis medallions, strips of lambrequins between all the carvings of which is showing a fleur de lys, and this. The design of the Sun-Royal still bears, as we see, several great figures; that was splendor, brilliancy, magnificence, it flattered the vanity of the king, who was as dazzled by sumptuousness as by victory, and Colbert, whatever his conviction, was not a man to be opposed to. his master on this article: the large figures, a little modified as to size, were still tolerated despite the formal disapproval of sailors, despite their incessant claims. However, Puget, in order to remove the inconvenience of too great a weight, had decided to hollow out as much as possible these masses of wood, as we see by those of those figures which still remain. Ten years had elapsed in this sort of struggle since the great minister had engaged the great artist to diminish the proportions of these ornaments, when the Sun-Royal received the decoration which I have just described. As this sculpture work was executed in Brest and that this port lacked or (1)… ——— Among the notable differences are that the “vault,” or area above the stern chase ports and below the stern counter is relatively plain. The Four Seasons figures are all female, with the exception of Winter. There is the suggestion that the “warrior” figures of Africa and The Americas are male, and that they are seated upon the extremities of the middle balcony rail; this detail differs from Berain’s re-working of the design in 1689, in that Berain has these two figures perched above pass-through archways on the upper balcony tier. I think the warrior figures seated on the middle balcony rail is actually what is being vaguely suggested in the Gilded Ghost portrait: And more concretely confirmed by the RL and Monarque drawings, above. One notable similarity is what appears to be the quarter pieces that support the side lanterns in Berain’s drawing. Contradictorily, though, the author describes only a large central lantern for this early version of SR, which he suggests is of a lesser rank. Frankly, this seems just wrong because as the principal ship of the Ponant (Atlantic) fleet, SR would always have been a first-rank ship with three stern lanterns. The other truly fascinating difference is the “docile” tiger at the feet of the East, as opposed to Berain’s Camel. I can only project that, if this was indeed Puget’s original design, perhaps Berain did not like the A-symmetry of the West’s proud horse with head raised high, opposite the East’s docile tiger with his head lowered upon his fore-paws. Perhaps the solution, there, was to substitute a camel who also has his head raised high. I don’t know. I can only guess. Returning to your drawing John, I like your extension of the tasseled lambrequin to the quarter galleries, below the window tier. This seems a harmonious and fitting extension of the stern decor. I think that early SR, though, would have had a cul-de-feu, or lower finishing of the quarter gallery that may have been comprised of some form of the following elements, drawn by LeBrun: And I think early SR may still have had a vestigial balcony tier at the quarter deck level of the quarters, that was framed by a trompe l’oeil amortisement of foliate ornament - much as you see with the refit DR of 1680: While I have some more or less specific ideas about how to assemble all of that into a coherent narrative that supports the stern allegory, I have yet to begin sketching any of that, myself. It is fairly certain in my mind that early SR would have had a more elaborated upper bulwark frieze than the simple field of fleurs seen on La Reyne, though. And one last thought, after my 12 days in Paris and Normandy, I have come to think that it is not unreasonable that the majority of ornament on the first version of SR likely was leafed in gold. Despite the massive expense of the times associated with this extravagance in the 1660s, the Royal Palace at Versailles is covered in gold leaf and the richest paintings and tableaus imaginable. Incroyable! So, this is already a book unto itself. I will conclude here, for now. John, I really look forward to the continued development of your project - this is really great stuff, so far!

Brilliant first planking run

Aaah, okay - now I understand. This sounds like a good strategy at reconciliation.

My apologies, Jorgen, but I am not understanding your question. Generally, many POB builders fill the spaces between bulkheads (and below the lower gun deck) with pieces of balsa that they then fair to the bulkhead shapes. This has the dual advantage of always providing a firm glue surface in these complicated areas of the underwater hull, where plank must taper at the ends, but it also makes it easier to gauge a fair hull before planking begins. In the how-to section of MSW, you should be able to easily find Chuck Passaro’s fool-proof method for lining out the hull. His advice really helps clarify all of the potential pit-falls that stand in the way of a really nice result. As a matter of fact, here it is:

This is all exquisitely well-done, Mark!

This is just a brilliant continuation of your super crisp work. I’m very glad to see you at it again!

The gussets serve two purposes: For one, I was not confident in the small rabbeted glue joint because I needed to flex these parts quite a bit to get them to seat all the way home. So, these additional gussets were carefully scribed to the inside reverse curve of the forward bulwarks. They increased glue surface-area significantly, while helping to ensure that the angle of the bulwarks was consistent and what it needed to be. The second advantage of the gussets is that it provides mounting surfaces for the cambered deck beams that give my forecastle deck shape. Where the forecastle deck overhangs the main deck, I created a pair of hanging knees that would be visible just behind the only visible deck beam. I just wanted to add a touch of realism with these details. The same thing is happening at the quarter deck location. The stock Heller deck is perfectly fine on its own, but I have to make a deck from scratch because the stock deck is no longer wide enough. The trip is still going well. At Rouen for a couple of days, on the far extension of the cruise. There is a Beaches of Normandy excursion, but that is an all-day affair and Dad will not have the stamina for that. In fact, it sounds as though he’s coming down with a chest cold. This trip has presented numerous challenges at his present stage of dementia. He is very limited in what he can process and he is often argumentative and un-reasonable because he hasn’t been sleeping well. It has been great, but it is challenging!

Simply amazed by this project!

That sounds like a plan!

Your ruler test on the starboard side does, indeed, appear to be flush and straight. The problem is more evident on the port side, from an overhead view, although the eye-test from fore-shortened perspective does indicate the starboard side has the same problem. If it were me - I would remove any current plank strakes and pad the 1-2 problem bulkheads on each side. I would then use something a little stiffer/thicker than the kit plank to fair the bulkheads down to where they need to be. This seems easier to me, ultimately, than adding bulkhead material for each strake of planking. When fairing, rely more strictly on the fore-shortened fore/aft, aft/fore perspectives to gauge how close your fairing is to where it needs to be. Those are the perspective views that pick up those discrepancies on the finished model. The human eye is amazingly sensitive to dips and hollows.

It does seem to be the case that warships ready for action only tended to carry main and topsails - the t’gallants shortened or removed for action, and usually the main sail furled to avoid sparking fire in the rigging. I suppose the rationale had partly to do with a diversion of manpower (necessary) to manage the t’gallants, as well as the safety issue of more top-hamper crashing down and having to be cleared after a dismasting.

Tres bien!

May I gently suggest, before the planking begins in earnest, that you take a little more time to fair the bulkheads. It is evident, on your first plank, that there is a not insignificant mid-ships dip. If you are double-planking, you could fill depressions after the base layer, but if you are only single-planking, these depressions will be very evident, if the under-framing has not been faired.

Wow - SHJ, this is a fascinating observation and one that I hadn’t picked up on before. There is no representation of a tiny t’gallant top and corresponding doubling with the flagstaff. I’m not sure what to make of that, other than - WOW! Good eye!

As I prepare for our special dinner at Lasserre, a thought occurred to me in the shower: There is a strong possibility that I will never find the “Gilded Ghost” portrait, and even should I be so fortunate - I will still be making broad leaps of inductive reasoning and artistic license. My mother, as long as she lived, always called my daughter her “Shining Star,” and Mairead certainly is every part of that. I try to remain mindful and sensitive to the true historians and arsenal modelers of the world, and that is why I think I may rename my conjectural SR 1670 project: “L’Etoille Brillant, a Conjectural Construction of a French First-Rate, Circa 1670”. This would be in honor of both my mother and daughter and in keeping with a time-honored tradition of naming beautiful ships after beautiful women. The name would also be a loose reference to it’s inspiration, Le Soleil Royal - the most brilliant star we can understand on this earth. It’s just a thought, but I think there is some sense in that.

My visit to the INHA, National Library of France was interesting, if not as directly productive as I had hoped. One thing that I was able to request and look at in the fantastic oval reading room was Le Chevalier de Tourville, the Boudriot monograph of the proposed 1680 First-Rate L’Ambiteaux. It is an impressively documented project and a beautifully hand-drawn monograph. The plans, in 1:48, give a strong impression of just how large a model one can produce from this set. Even at 1:72, one needs a slipway to launch such a behemoth. There were a few new plates of interest in the monograph that I hadn’t seen before: Belle Viue is the same Brest sculptor and draftsman responsible for the following drawing of the highly fascinating Souverain of 1678: As an added bonus, the following is the best and clearest image I have yet seen of the RL of 1692: While I was really only skimming the monograph, in the interest of limited time (I had a 3 hour window that I stretched to 4), I will say that I was fascinated by Boudriot’s skepticism of the VdV drawings of La Reyne, with specific regard to the sheer and placement of the artillery. Perhaps this is my personal failing in that I imbue the work of the VdV’s with a degree of photo-realism only paralleled by Puget for these times. All I can say for sure is that I am no expert. My primary objective for this visit was to see whether there were any catalogued references to the “Gilded Ghost” portrait: Unfortunately, an image search produced no direct result. Upon walking amongst the stacks, I realized that I happened to be in a room divided between artists both pre and post 1845. And so, I did what I usually do when I visit the STRAND bookstore in NYC; I went in search of my coterie of famous French artists, sculptors and Dutch Master marine artists. And so, I skimmed through the six books in the stacks for Charles LeBrun, the four for Antoine Coysevox, the six for Puget. There was nothing in the stacks for Van Beecq. Regrettably, I did not think to look for Francois Girardon. Only the works on Puget made any specific pictorial reference to his work at the arsenal at Toulon; not much there that I hadn’t seen before. But, then I found the three volume Robinson set on the Van de Veldes. Again, if I had more time, I could probably have pulled more, but following are a number of fascinating portraits that help clarify things I couldn’t see clearly before. For example, this whisper of a portrait: Appears to have very much in-common with this portrait: They do not appear to be the same vessel, but perhaps the same type of Second-Rate - that of the “interrupted” third deck (an un-armed and open waist). Other corollaries: I have never seen the following two before: The boutielle, below seems out of proportion, but it is nonetheless fascinating: Here is one of the early Holland-built ships of the 1660’s: Fantastic detail! A different perspective and fascinating study of La Royal Therese: And then, of course, there were quite a number of fascinating studies of famous English ships. SR’s early rival, the Royal Charles: The London: A particularly interesting re-fit of the Royal Sovereign: And, a perhaps conjectural ship: At least I can say there may be sound artistic precedent for pulling a ship out of thin air! All interesting to me, and so the journey through Paris and maritime history continues! Dad is having a great time, despite the expected travel exhaustion of his 88 years. More to follow, and thank you for looking-in.

So far, the trip has been a great success and our Dad has been very happy to visit so many familiar places. This morning, I am sitting in the grand oval reading room of the INHA, which is a part of the National Library of France. I am continuing my quest for the “Gilded Ghost” portrait. I’ve made a request to see the 2 volume set of Les Chevaliers de Tourville monograph, which I have never seen, in person, before. It’s a bit of a dreary day, so I’m not sure what the afternoon has in-store for us. Tonight is our fancy dinner at Lasserre!

Well done on the coils, Bill!

I agree that this is a reasonable work-around, Bill. The fact that you are even going to the trouble to rig the visible guns is a tremendous upgrade and you can’t fail to achieve a nice result. First day in Paris: Not at all surprisingly, Dad is completely jet-lagged and now taking a late-afternoon nap. He did much better on the flight than we expected, though, so that’s a huuuuge plus! If I manage to see any cool ship stuff, I’ll post those pics later. All the best, M